The fact that it's becoming harder to ignore the Ron Paul phenomenon ($18 million and counting raised in the 4th quarter, half of it in two explosive bursts) doesn't mean that anybody actually understands what it means. People who have quietly been becoming more depressed that the Demopublican monopoly on big-government politics feel like they've found a voice, and it is their hope rather than their logic that forecasts a dramatic, overnight revolution in American politics. They are busy building upset scenarios in which the Congressman marches on to the Republican nomination, and then the presidency (ignoring the fact that, at best 7-8% of likely voters in any of the primaries seems interested).
And if Paul did win the nomination, it might prove the abrupt deathknell to their hopes. Novelist and social critic Upton Sinclair stunned the Democratic Party in 1934 by winning the California primary of a populist wave. What happened next is fully chronicled in Greg Mitchell's The Campaign of the Century, Upton Sinclair's Race for Governor of California and the Birth of Media Politics:
I think it very likely that something similar (but more 21st century high-tech) would happen to Paul, because his very existence threatens the Demopublican monopoly in a way that no one else (not even Ross Perot) has done in the past several decades.
Of course, they won't see it this way. Anyone who steps so far out of line with the delicate ballet of perks, power, and omnibus spending bills is due to be labeled the way Al Mascitti labeled Paul over at DWA:
There follows a lengthy debate on Paul and the nature of Libertarianism as well as the gold standard and (I really could not make this up) the foreskins of the participants at the Constitutional Convention.
A couple of snippets are worth quoting for flavor (but you should read the whole thing. Ron Paul in Delaware stirs up almost as many people as Mike Protack, except that Paul actually has some defenders who don't apparently purchase their internet access at Kinko's.):
And the unfortuante part in all this, especially for believers in human freedom and limited government, is that these commentators have some truth to back up their views.
Ron Paul is a phenomenon, but he will only be a transient one if Libertarians all over the country don't realize two key truths:
1) You cannot start a revolution against a bloated, dysfunctional systems from the top down. The bureaucrats, the toadies, the recipients of state largess, and the professional politics will simply drag you down with inertia and unite around candidates to throw you out of office.
The only legitimate, national, third party in recent history to come even close to denting the system and achieving permance was the Populists, and they did it from the bottom up. (And, oh, by the way, they also got killed during the 1890s with fusion; remember that.) Read Lawrence Goodwin's The Populist Moment: A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America.
2) Starting from the bottom up means, necessarily getting into the down-and-dirty, rough-and-tumble of local and state politics. Delaware Libertarians actually have to get out there--as Libertarians--and take on issues like eminent domain abuse in Wilmington, the idiotic but dangerous single-payer health care proposal, out-of-control public education spending, and transparent government. Libertarians have to earn the respect of their adversaries (however grudging) for doing their homework on these issues and making meaningful contributions to public discourse.
Why is this so critical? Because Libertarians, like conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, have their own utopian visions of how America should be. Libertarians spend as much time dreaming about the end of the drug war, a return to the gold standard, and the death of the income tax as Republicans fantasize about prayer in public schools and no abortions and Democrats covet socialized medicine and a minimum wage of $42/hour.
The difference: Republicans and Democrats have something else to talk about. I mean it. Demopublicans may have their own visions for a future America, but they make their living in the "now," fighting and achieving real, incremental steps toward their goals. Liberal Democrats spend far more time talking to today's voters about expanding the parameters of Medicaid than they do about single-payer health care, because they know something Libertarians en mass never seem to have mastered:
You have to get there from here.
Standing up to announce that you favor legalizing marijuana, abolishing the FBI, and returning to the gold standard will get you fervent supporters who send money like desperately sick people praying for miracles from Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker in the 1790s. (The PTL Club was the first cable TV show I ever watched in the late '70s; probably explains why most nights the boob tube is off at home.)
What it will not get you is an entree at the state and local level of politics. And that's where--not in Congress--the first foundational work of saving the Republic will have to be done.
That's why some Libertarian state organizations--Indiana and Michigan come immediately to mind--are gaining traction. They emphasize local and state issues, and they run candidates for the "working" offices like school board, city council, and judgeships. Two months ago the Indiana Libertarians ran 31 candidates statewide, winning one, but--more impressively--polling 10-35% in most races. The Michigan Libertarians ran five candidates for city council positions across the state, and won four of them. You don't win elections at the local level by talking about the gold standard or social security privatization, not because you need to hide those views, but because they ARE NOT RELEVANT to local politics.
What's relevant to local politics is being able to make the school system operate more effectively or fighting for sunshine laws in the legislature.
Which is where the real value of the Ron Paul Revolution needs to be captured (and since the national Libertarian Party ain't doing it, I guess it's up to us): we've got to grab the people in the Ron Paul meet-ups and the people on the internet, and get them involved in Delaware politics.
And for that, we've got to have an active, activist, participating Libertarian Party of Delaware.
And if Paul did win the nomination, it might prove the abrupt deathknell to their hopes. Novelist and social critic Upton Sinclair stunned the Democratic Party in 1934 by winning the California primary of a populist wave. What happened next is fully chronicled in Greg Mitchell's The Campaign of the Century, Upton Sinclair's Race for Governor of California and the Birth of Media Politics:
Terrified by the prospect of a Socialist reformer running the state, Republican forces responded with unprecedented measures to ensure Sinclair's defeat in the November election. They hired, for the first time anywhere, political consultants and advertising specialists to manage the campaign against him. Newspapers, radio dramas, and even movie shorts were used to discredit Sinclair. Hollywood plunged full tilt into politics for the first time. It was one of the dirtiest campaigns ever waged against a candidate, and one that would transform America's electoral process forever.
I think it very likely that something similar (but more 21st century high-tech) would happen to Paul, because his very existence threatens the Demopublican monopoly in a way that no one else (not even Ross Perot) has done in the past several decades.
Of course, they won't see it this way. Anyone who steps so far out of line with the delicate ballet of perks, power, and omnibus spending bills is due to be labeled the way Al Mascitti labeled Paul over at DWA:
Ron Paul is like a dog whistle — only crackpots can hear him. And the money will actually hurt him if he spends it, because the more people know about his positions beyond Iraq, the more they’ll dismiss him as exactly what he is — an arrogant old crank who thinks medical school made him God.
There follows a lengthy debate on Paul and the nature of Libertarianism as well as the gold standard and (I really could not make this up) the foreskins of the participants at the Constitutional Convention.
A couple of snippets are worth quoting for flavor (but you should read the whole thing. Ron Paul in Delaware stirs up almost as many people as Mike Protack, except that Paul actually has some defenders who don't apparently purchase their internet access at Kinko's.):
From Dana Garrett:
The truth is it is hard to find anyone these days who doesn’t have a moral and ethical IQ that far exceeds the moral & ethical IQs of the founders. That’s because progress nearly always proceeds forwards and rarely backwards. That’s one thing I don’t like about Paul. He is an antiquarian. He wants to move America back to an 18th century politics that not even his most argent supporters could stand for more than 6 months. That frightens me about him. It makes me think that his moral and ethical IQ isn’t sufficiently advanced beyond the founders. So since I don’t share the Edenic conception of the USA’s founding or its founders, since I know something about what some of the important ones were really like, I can easily joke and call them foreskins. It’s easy for me to do because compared to me they are primitives and (now you’ll probably find this contradictory but is isn’t) I’m grateful that they helped to bring about a set of circumstances that eventuated in making me a better person than them.
From Al Downs:
Ron Paul is more of an ideologue than a politician and his 200-proof Libertarianism may appeal to the same sort of folks who see the writings of Ayn Rand as a blueprint for a new and exciting world.
And again, from Al Mascitti:
Why not simplify...: “Libertarianism.” Fringe.
And the unfortuante part in all this, especially for believers in human freedom and limited government, is that these commentators have some truth to back up their views.
Ron Paul is a phenomenon, but he will only be a transient one if Libertarians all over the country don't realize two key truths:
1) You cannot start a revolution against a bloated, dysfunctional systems from the top down. The bureaucrats, the toadies, the recipients of state largess, and the professional politics will simply drag you down with inertia and unite around candidates to throw you out of office.
The only legitimate, national, third party in recent history to come even close to denting the system and achieving permance was the Populists, and they did it from the bottom up. (And, oh, by the way, they also got killed during the 1890s with fusion; remember that.) Read Lawrence Goodwin's The Populist Moment: A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America.
2) Starting from the bottom up means, necessarily getting into the down-and-dirty, rough-and-tumble of local and state politics. Delaware Libertarians actually have to get out there--as Libertarians--and take on issues like eminent domain abuse in Wilmington, the idiotic but dangerous single-payer health care proposal, out-of-control public education spending, and transparent government. Libertarians have to earn the respect of their adversaries (however grudging) for doing their homework on these issues and making meaningful contributions to public discourse.
Why is this so critical? Because Libertarians, like conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, have their own utopian visions of how America should be. Libertarians spend as much time dreaming about the end of the drug war, a return to the gold standard, and the death of the income tax as Republicans fantasize about prayer in public schools and no abortions and Democrats covet socialized medicine and a minimum wage of $42/hour.
The difference: Republicans and Democrats have something else to talk about. I mean it. Demopublicans may have their own visions for a future America, but they make their living in the "now," fighting and achieving real, incremental steps toward their goals. Liberal Democrats spend far more time talking to today's voters about expanding the parameters of Medicaid than they do about single-payer health care, because they know something Libertarians en mass never seem to have mastered:
You have to get there from here.
Standing up to announce that you favor legalizing marijuana, abolishing the FBI, and returning to the gold standard will get you fervent supporters who send money like desperately sick people praying for miracles from Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker in the 1790s. (The PTL Club was the first cable TV show I ever watched in the late '70s; probably explains why most nights the boob tube is off at home.)
What it will not get you is an entree at the state and local level of politics. And that's where--not in Congress--the first foundational work of saving the Republic will have to be done.
That's why some Libertarian state organizations--Indiana and Michigan come immediately to mind--are gaining traction. They emphasize local and state issues, and they run candidates for the "working" offices like school board, city council, and judgeships. Two months ago the Indiana Libertarians ran 31 candidates statewide, winning one, but--more impressively--polling 10-35% in most races. The Michigan Libertarians ran five candidates for city council positions across the state, and won four of them. You don't win elections at the local level by talking about the gold standard or social security privatization, not because you need to hide those views, but because they ARE NOT RELEVANT to local politics.
What's relevant to local politics is being able to make the school system operate more effectively or fighting for sunshine laws in the legislature.
Which is where the real value of the Ron Paul Revolution needs to be captured (and since the national Libertarian Party ain't doing it, I guess it's up to us): we've got to grab the people in the Ron Paul meet-ups and the people on the internet, and get them involved in Delaware politics.
And for that, we've got to have an active, activist, participating Libertarian Party of Delaware.
Comments
Makes me, someone who almost failed an oral report to 15 people this semester due to nervous studdering and stammering, want to run for office.
I'm pretty sure my wife would beat me if I did.
Plenty to do.... (that your wife won't beat you--too badly--for)
Rather than talking about ending the war on drugs in Delaware they should be talking about the smoking ban and eminent domain abuses locally.
I think in Delaware the most important issue Libertarians could take up today is resistance to the outrageous Single Payer government health care system takeover that already has 18 legislative sponsors!
Too true. People eventually get the government they deserve.
Steffie