Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Where Did It All Go Wrong?
A thrilling and dispiriting year for libertarian politics
On the afternoon of July 6, 2007, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas emerged from his taxi to what was becoming a shockingly familiar sight: Dozens of fans waving handmade or Internet-bought “Ron Paul” signs.
They had been waiting outside the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., for up to 45 minutes, ready to greet the long-shot Republican presidential candidate as he arrived for an interview with George Stephanopoulos, chief Washington correspondent for ABC News. The famous interviewer had walked into the hotel minutes earlier, smiling at the crowd, but was barely noticed. The obscure congressman was greeted with shouts, cheers, and a bunch of hand-held cameras.
I asked Paul about reports that his rival Sen. John McCain—then cratering in the polls—might take public financing. “He needs it,” Paul said, chuckling. “We don’t need it!”
Inside the hotel the politician known as “Dr. No” told Stephanopoulos his campaign had raised $2.4 million in the second quarter, quadrupling his numbers from the quarter before. “We’re on the upslope,” said Paul. “We feel good about what’s happening.”
Stephanopoulos asked just one tough question: “What’s success for you in this campaign?”
“What’s success?” Paul pondered this. “Well, to win, is one, is the goal—”
“That’s not going to happen.”
Paul was taken aback. “Do you know for—absolute? Are you willing to bet your—every cent in your pocket for that?”
“Yes.”
“You are. OK. I thought so when I ran for Congress.” The congressman laughed and moved on.
Paul’s life was changing dramatically. Within six months he would raise another $25 million for his campaign, giving him a larger war chest than McCain at the time. Within ayear he would draw thousands of supporters to a “Revolution March” in Washington, leading up to a massive “Rally for the Republic” just minutes from the site of the Republican National Convention. By the end of 2008, Ron Paul would be a bona fide national political figure: author of a No. 1 New York Times bestseller, subject of two quickie biographies, a frequent guest on cable news shows.
But 2008 would end with Stephanopoulos’ question hanging. What was success? Having failed to win the Republican nomination, did Paul’s candidacy affect the big-government direction of the GOP? Did it improve the fortunes of a more ideologically compatible political grouping, the Libertarian Party, which nominated Paul for president in 1988 and still counts him as a lifetime member?
Optimism for the Paul campaign peaked in December 2007 and faded by February 2008. Optimism for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr’s effort to pick up the Paul banner peaked in May and was in tatters by September. By November, mutual recriminations from both camps put libertarians in a familiar political position: bitterly blaming one another for their ongoing marginalization. “Paul set the liberty movement back a decade by encouraging people to stay in the GOP,” Barr Communications Director Shane Cory told me just days before the election. Paul Communications Director Jesse Benton described Barr’s campaign as “disappointing” after the election. “They got more and more desperate.”
Paul launched his presidential bid on January 11, 2007. In the first three months of the year, he raised only $640,000 and hired a skeletal staff. The momentum shift came on May 15, 2007, when Paul butted heads with Rudy Giuliani in the second GOP presidential debate. Pressed on whether he thought the United States could still follow a “humble foreign policy” after 9/11, Paul tried to explain the theory of blowback. “Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us?” he asked. “They attack us because we’ve been over there.” A sputtering Giuliani demanded that Paul “withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.” The South Carolina crowd roared. Paul refused to back down, and was heavily booed.
“A lot of people thought that would be our death knell,” Benton recalls. Back in D.C., a Giuliani-supporting peer (Paul won’t say who) thanked the Texas congressman for “helping my guy out.” But Paul benefited more than Giuliani, receiving a surge of donations and media profiles. “It really rocketed our campaign forward,” says Benton. Of the $2.4 million three-month fund raising haul that Paul told Stephanopoulos about, nearly all of it came in the weeks after the debate.
The Newsletters|1.7.09 @ 3:17PM|#
Notice how I'm not even relevant to the story you cosmotarian
fucks!
Nobody fucking cared about the newsletters except you so you could
rationalize supporting the "Messiah".
|1.7.09 @ 3:18PM|#
Libertarian Party, what a clusterfuck of irrelevant incompetance. It is such a shame because libertarian ideas are popular enough to receive national attention, while the party that espouses them flounders in obscurity.
LurkerBold|1.7.09 @ 3:20PM|#
Glad one of the not-so-rightwingers is finally getting some space here again.
|1.7.09 @ 3:27PM|#
At least Barr was honest with the conservaties when he told them
Paul was the "gold standard" of what it means to be a conservative.
Barr and Paul were both conservatives. Paul was a paleoconservative
(not a libertarian) and Barr was more traditional conservative and
less paleo than Paul (he supported interventionism in South America
for instance.
It is also clear and was at the time that Paul never intended to
run a full on race. He was accumulating money. Anyone who looked at
his FEC reports on campaign spending could see that Paul was
amassing funds but not really serious about spending them on a
campaign. I was noting to friends at the time that Paul was using
the campaign to fund raise for some other project and just not
being honest about it. The presidential campaign was a fund raiser
for something else but I said, at the time, that we didn't know
what the something else was. Now we do.
|1.7.09 @ 3:30PM|#
By the way, it would be nice if Wiegel could possibly write something without making it clear he is now a shill for Root, the way he was for Barr. I know Wiegel has a bias -- that was clear in his reports from Denber -- but surely he doesn't have to have Root in article after article. I can't think of a worse man to represent the libertarian movement than Root.
|1.7.09 @ 3:32PM|#
Ron Paul did nothing for the Constitution Party because the
philosophy of the Constitution Party (vaguely theocratic) is
antithetical to the philosophy of most Ron Paul supporters.
In any case, I really loathe Bob Barr/the LP. This loathing would
temper if they'd at least change their name to the Sort of
Libertarian Party, or something else a bit more honest.
Dormouse|1.7.09 @ 3:33PM|#
I can't think of a worse man to represent the libertarian
movement than Root.
Hmm...you might be right. First person to think of someone worse
than Root wins.
Egosumabbas|1.7.09 @ 3:37PM|#
Here we go again.
*grabs bag of popcorn*
*reminded
again of this painting*
Egosumabbas|1.7.09 @ 3:37PM|#
"Hmm...you might be right. First person to think of someone
worse than Root wins."
Mary Ruwart?
Orange Line Special|1.7.09 @ 3:38PM|#
The problem with the (other) libs was, of course, those
involved. They were even more cultlike than BHO fans. At least the
latter were aware of the outside world. RP fans created their own
special universe, refusing to acknowledge the wider environment and
gathering in their compounds waiting for the (other) Messiah.
If RP fans had had brains and had been in touch with reality, they
would have realized that you have to attack your opponents, and do
so in a salient way.
They had months within which they could have publicly embarrassed
McCain over this issue. Asking him
real questions about that and uploading his response to video
sharing sites probably would have ended his candidacy.
RP fans simply did not have the intelligence nor the balls to do
that, but instead choose childlike things that made them look bad,
like blimps or costumed parades.
Back in October 2007, I uploaded a video
showing them how to win; that went on to only get 25 Diggs and
only a couple thousand views.
Meanwhile, their braindead leaders continued to engage in stupid
stunts that only burnished their in-group credentials and
made them look worse
to everyone else.
Not only that, but the supposed libertarians at this site somehow
think holding
politicians accountable by asking them tough questions is some
kind of joke and worked to dissuade anyone from doing it.
The libertarians could have had much more success in 2008, but only
if they were completely different people: those with brains and
balls.
Egosumabbas|1.7.09 @ 3:38PM|#
No wait, I got it wrong again. Philles.
Ah hold on... Gravel! Yep, that's my final answer.
|1.7.09 @ 3:43PM|#
Hmm...you might be right. First person to think of someone worse than Root wins.
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Xeones|1.7.09 @ 3:45PM|#
Not only that, but the supposed libertarians at this site
somehow think holding politicians accountable by asking them tough
questions is some kind of joke and worked to dissuade anyone from
doing it.
Not "anyone;" mostly just you.
The libertariansLoneWacko could have had
much more success in 2008, but only if theyhe
were [a] completely different
peopleperson: thoseone
with brains and balls [and without that ludicrous,
overweening SelfImportance, not to mention FaultySyntax].
Fixed it for ya.
BDB|1.7.09 @ 3:47PM|#
Now he could have just stopped at "Ron Paul fans were out of touch with reality and created their own special cult-like reality" instead of going into five paragraphs where he shamelessly pimps his blog through self-linking, but still. I guess it's a step on the road to recovery for him,.
Egosumabbas|1.7.09 @ 3:58PM|#
@SugarFree
Given the virulent rhetoric that the liberty movement flings
towards its own members, I have yet to find a metaphor more
appropriate. Picture is a thousand words and all that.
cunnivore|1.7.09 @ 4:05PM|#
I thought "Weigal" was shilling for the Labour party on the pages of the Economist these days...
|1.7.09 @ 4:19PM|#
Optimism for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr's effort to pick up the Paul banner peaked in May and was in tatters by
Septembera little later in May.
Ministry of Truth
The Angry Optimist|1.7.09 @ 4:20PM|#
Just because you are not optimistic about anybody except "V", Warren, does not make it true for everybody.
|1.7.09 @ 4:21PM|#
What went wrong with libertarian politics in 2008? Hell, the same that goes wrong every election cycle... libertarians.
The Newsletters|1.7.09 @ 4:22PM|#
Hmm...you might be right. First person to think of someone
worse than Root wins.
Badnarik
I know, I'm not first so I don't win:(
The Angry Optimist|1.7.09 @ 4:23PM|#
Frankly, nothing really went wrong. We ran a Libertarian who garnered the same percentage of the vote we get every year.
Hacha Cha|1.7.09 @ 4:29PM|#
Ron was a fool not to accept the libertarian nomination or to at least join Barr as the VP. even an endorsement of only Barr would have been better than what happened. in the end I don't think he accomplished much, other than bringing some libertarian ideas into the mainstream. he got all of this attention and then at the end made it seem like a vote for any third party would be good enough, and even kind of endorsed Baldwin. really bad decisions on his part.
Egosumabbas|1.7.09 @ 4:37PM|#
I think the best shot at president we'll ever get at winning
electoral votes with the LP is to get a self-made from-the-bottom
entrepreneur with deep pockets.
Root is the closest we came to that, though I think he may have
been too... energetic... for a lot of libertarians to handle.
creech|1.7.09 @ 4:40PM|#
OLS has made a great point. Libertarians need some sort of
"opposition research" operation to ask questions, document answers,
and use them against politicians in later (maybe even years later)
campaigns. The public has to be constantly reminded about the past
votes, views, and stances of politicians running for new positions
today.
If the LP has any role at all it should be as the kid crying "the
emperor has no clothes."
Kolohe|1.7.09 @ 4:45PM|#
Ministry of Truth
The convention was Memorial Day weekend, and was Barr's high water
mark. Every other political party rallies around their nominee -
and when they don't they almost inevitably lose (Douglas, Taft,
Humphrey, Bush 1 - Reagan is just about the sole exception). Not
saying that Barr's failures are entirely Barr's. It took, however,
at least two months to see that he would neither be able to do a
bank shot on Paul's success (not helped by the reindeer games
mentioned by Weigel), nor use what name recognition he had to build
a more mainstream broader based support.
And I'll say this again. The biggest failure of the Paul movement
is the median Ron Paul supporter not showing up to vote for the guy
when it counted.
Jerry|1.7.09 @ 4:51PM|#
Nothing went wrong, the 2008 election showed that politics is not the way to bring about freedom Trying to evade taxes still is.
|1.7.09 @ 4:57PM|#
Kolohe,
I voted for Paul in the primaries and Barr in the general. By super
Tuesday I had already withdrawn my financial support and my hopes
for Paul. Even so, Paul 10x > Barr 100x > Root.
Egosumabbas writes:
Root is the closest we came to that, though I think he may have
been too... energetic... for a lot of libertarians to
handle.
If by "energetic" you mean, has diarrhea of the mouth, the
personality of a used car salesman, and no understanding of
libertarian principles, then yes
Egosumabbas|1.7.09 @ 5:05PM|#
@Warren:
As far as I know, he had the backing of the Chicago LP. He had the
required energy to not come across as dead on camera, and honestly
I think we need somebody to agressively "sell" libertarianism. I
know most people on here don't mind reading dry economics and
philosophical texts, but thats like... 2% of the population?
The Angry Optimist|1.7.09 @ 5:06PM|#
*sigh* The biggest mistake the Libertarian Party ever made was
calling itself Libertarian. This just opened the party up to a
bunch of purges, litmus-tests and irrelevancy.
Maybe Barr isn't a "True-Blood Libertarian" by the standards the
Libertarian Inquisition has set, but he'd make a fucking great
addition to the Freedom Party.
Kolohe|1.7.09 @ 5:06PM|#
"Not saying that Barr's failures are not
entirely Barr's." -> i.e. Barr's failures are entirely
Barr's.
And I agree that Root rubs me entirely the wrong way. It seems to
me a necessary condition to have a 'cult of personality' as part of
a successful political movement. But that's not all you can rely
on. And definitely not Root's personality.
Gene Berkman|1.7.09 @ 5:23PM|#
It should be clear by now that the Libertarian Party cannot be
competitive in a race for President. It should also be clear that a
limited government, antiwar candidate cannot win a Republican
nomination for President.
But Ron Paul has been elected to Congress, and LP candidates in a
number of districts ran up impressive vote totals. An LP candidate
for Congress in Ohio received 56,000 votes, and another in Texas
received 46,000 votes.
We need to build the Libertarian Movement from the bottom up, and
work to elect antiwar/antistate candidates to Congress, to be the
opposition no matter who wins the White House.
|1.7.09 @ 5:41PM|#
The "great libertarian momentum of 2008" never actually
existed.
Ron Paul got the attention he got because he was the most loudly,
unabashedly anti-war guy who made it as far as the debates.
That's what got people excited, people who'd never heard
of Hayek or the non-aggression principle, who didn't give a damn
about the gold standard, and who'd probably never read H&R or
picked up a copy of Reason.
None of the fiscal issues that gave the pinkos tight pants mattered
to the bulk of Paul supporters. Most of those people would have
voted Green if there'd been an equally earnest and charismatic
Green candidate (and if a Green could get the press coverage of a
dissident Red Congressman).
I don't know what the paleos and the pinkos thought would
happen with the Ron Paul campaign. That he'd get the nomination of
a Team Red that hates everything he stands for? That Obama would
give a speech at the Blue convention exhorting delegates to draft
Paul for their team? That squillions of Americans would
write in his name and he'd be forced to accept a January
coronation?
No. Paul said he was running for the Red nomination, a goal that he
and any adult supporter of his knew would never happen. Neither
David Weigel, Reason, the Great Cosmotarian Conspiracy,
racist newsletters, or his being pathetically beholden to whoever
wrote those newsletters caused his doomed campaign to fail.
As for Barr, he was the damned LP candidate for president
- if any longtime US citizen is seriously asking why he was a
footnote in the 2008 election, I'm mildly horrified.
|1.7.09 @ 5:49PM|#
We need to build the Libertarian Movement from the bottom up, and work to elect antiwar/antistate candidates to Congress, to be the opposition no matter who wins the White House.
And create another irrelevant party..
Egosumabbas|1.7.09 @ 5:53PM|#
"No, we need to stop calling the party Libertarian.
SRSLY."
Well, it was supposed to be the Liberal party, except the meaning
was completely warped by the left. For whatever reason we decided
to steal a name from the left as revenge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialist
The LP in any case needs to be a reformist party. Having an
anarchist political party is a bit silly. If you're a principled
individualist anarchist your only option really is counter-economics.
Good luck trying to rebrand the LP as the Freedom Party. Is that
even possible under the current bylaws?
Shii|1.7.09 @ 5:55PM|#
2008 taught us an important lesson: Fuck politics. Let's blow up some trains.
|1.7.09 @ 6:01PM|#
Well, one thing we can glean from the past ten years is that blowing things up gets you a lot more attention than any libertarian presidential candidate has ever gotten.
Sam Grove|1.7.09 @ 6:19PM|#
For one thing, the RP campaign ran a typical political campaign.
It was as though RP's campaign manager didn't get the rEVOLution at
all.
The commercials were a big turnoff to many as was the pandering to
RTLers.
|1.7.09 @ 6:20PM|#
Ron Paul got a great deal accomplished for a single election
cycle. Besides demonstrating that not all Republicans have
forgotten the constitution, he put a lot of issues back on the
table that had been given up for lost almost a century ago.
Thanks to Ron, tens of thousands of people now understand that
inflation does far more damage than just robbing us of purchasing
power. They know what the Fed is, who owns it, and why it inflates
the currency. They no longer take it for granted that the USA
should have troops in 130 countries around the world. They
understand that the bailouts can't help the economy recover.
-jcr
DannyK|1.7.09 @ 7:01PM|#
The Ron Paul campaign demonstrated the essential dynamic between libertarians and the Republican Party: they'll be glad to take your votes and money but they'll keep you far, far from the centers of power. Note how hard the party worked to keep Paul off stage, out of the limelight and out of the debates. And nobody in power said anything.
|1.7.09 @ 7:25PM|#
JCR demonstrates, and further illustrates what was noted by
Weigel, which is that the LP had no intention of doing anything
serious until it found out whether Ron Paul would be accepted by
the Republicans. They waited and waited and messed around and
finally fielded Barr/Root.
The LP is less than a "political party" yet more than a "coffee
klatsch". To quote from the article: "He wasn't putting all his
effort into it." That sums it up.
Wishing it were different, but doubting it could be, given the
nature of most libertarians.
(A bit like trying to form the "Individualist Party".)
|1.7.09 @ 7:32PM|#
I'm sorry, but the Paul campaign ran a crappy campaign itself.
They had how much money poured into their camp and tons of support
in NH, a state they could have done well in, and there was no
coordination at all.
After he lost in that state, he shoulda dropped his republican bid
and gone third party. He could have been a force, but he screwed
that up. I guess he is pretty old, but alas, I was
dissapointed.
Scott Swanson|1.7.09 @ 7:55PM|#
Libertarian politics went wrong when too many of its supporters went into something similar to the democratic party's Bush derangement syndrome in order to shut down nearly any discussion or comments other than how wonderful Obama is.
|1.7.09 @ 8:10PM|#
A good write-up, but I have only one thing to ad about Paul's campaign: its ads. That it put out such pitiful ads with the money they had is unforgivable. What few ads they did run focused on the issues- abortion, immigration, the budget- where to the average listener Paul just sounded like a plain vanilla conservative Republican. They should have been running ads on the war, civil liberties, and other issues which would have appealed to the non-Republican voters that were key to any plausible NH strategy and which eventually gave that state to McCain. Anti-war voters (something like ~30% of NH GOP primary voters iirc) went to, of all people, McCain, for the simple reason that the tone of his message was "I've been the only one criticizing the management of the war". That McCain was more of a hawk than Bush was irrelevant- to the average, marginally-informed voter, McCain was the only guy criticizing Bush on the war. The only people who *ever* got a coherent picture of what Ron Paul was about were those who got it online- and only about 20% of Americans monitor politics online. Aside from the fleeting glories of the debates, which are valuable to the candidates more for how they affect media coverage than as a direct outreach to voters, no one whose only exposure was mainstream media and ads (most people) ever even heard that there was this guy running as a radically anti-Bush Republican. Yeah, they might have seen the signs plastered everywhere and maybe even an unsightly mob of supporters or two, but that didn't tell them anything of consequence.
|1.7.09 @ 8:13PM|#
Forget the libertarian party because there is none, and if you
think there is, it's irrelevant. Ron Paul lost NH because of
massive voter fraud.
He was the ONLY candidate to have 400 people outside the first
debate, but CNN of course only showed the 50 or so for each of the
other candidates and not ONE RP supporter. So the perception when
he lost was that he had no support.
At least Stephanopolous was honest is telling him he knows that
presidents are annointed then promoted in the press and certain
candidates will not be allowed to win.
Also a lot of people in NH just refused to run a normal campaign
and volunteer to do the normal things one must do to get the word
out. They preferred to make handmade signs and party amongst
themselves and make those stupid revolution banners instead of
getting the word out to the voters of the real world. It was very
frustrating for the people trying to do the event circuit for the
campaign when they couldn't even get two people to help them.
Lester Hunt|1.7.09 @ 8:14PM|#
Why doesn't this article mention attacks on Ron Paul by Reasonoids and Catoites?
|1.7.09 @ 8:25PM|#
A good write-up, but I have only one thing to ad about Paul's campaign: its ads. That it put out such pitiful ads with the money they had is unforgivable. What few ads they did run focused on the issues- abortion, immigration, the budget- where to the average listener Paul just sounded like a plain vanilla conservative Republican. They should have been running ads on the war, civil liberties, and other issues which would have appealed to the non-Republican voters that were key to any plausible NH strategy and which eventually gave that state to McCain.
Sadly, the campaign, like the people who whine about the disloyal
and most counter-revolutionary actions of Reason, really
believed that all their support came from a vast groundswell of
gold-buggery.
|1.7.09 @ 8:42PM|#
>They preferred to make handmade signs and party amongst
themselves and make those stupid revolution banners instead of
getting the word out to the voters of the real world.
I'm sorry, but the official campaign sucked in that respect. They
made it a pain to get GOTV/info packets, in that they made everyone
drive to concord daily to get it. Seems like there should have been
a digital solution since everyone was so in tune with the
internet.
B|1.7.09 @ 9:23PM|#
Libertarians and the Libertarian Party are damaged every time
they give a national forum to pieces of shit like Jesse Ventura.
Ventura was a fucking disaster in Minnesota, but that is not the
real reason he shouldn't have been allowed on stage. Every time he
spouted his "9/11 was an inside job" bullshit, libertarians lost
the respect of more of the electorate, whether he was on the ballot
himself or not. You don't give a prominent speaking role at a
convention to a man who thinks the WTC was brought down by
controlled demolitions. He may as well of gotten up there and
talked about the Jews and international banking or the Illuminati.
I don't recall anyone prominent rebuking that motherfucker, and
they certainly didn't stop inviting him to their national
functions. And Paul appearing multiple times on the radio show of a
man who out-and-out claimed 9-11 was perpetrated by George Bush,
with no rebuttal or even feigned outrage from Paul did not help.
This combined with his already weak denials that the US was
responsible for 9/11 did an incredible amount of damage. And don't
even get me started on those fucking newsletters that read like
they were plagiarized from the Grand Wizard of the KKK.
The Libertarian party will never get anywhere as long as it allows
itself to be associated with such fucking nutters. Do you think
Barack Obama would have won the election if he didn't distance
himself from Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pflegler? Would he have
won if Rosie O'Donnell was allowed to spout her bullshit at the
Democratic National Convention, or if Obama was actively seen
courting voters who wear Che shirts and hold up signs with the face
of Mumia Abu Jamal or, worse yet, banners calling for the
destruction of Israel? Successful candidates separate themselves
from those piece of shit nutcases. The Libertarian Party seems to
believe it is good strategy to embrace those kinds of turds.
"Eleven days before the South Carolina debate, minor celebrity
oddsmaker Wayne Allyn Root had announced a bid for the party's
nomination, entering a field that included medical marijuana
activist Steve Kubby, Massachusetts party chair George Phillies,
and software entrepreneur Michael Jingozian"
But really, the above quote says it all. Fringe is a fucking
understatement when describing those candidates. And seriously, an
endorsement from Mike Gravel does no one any good.
"Why doesn't this article mention attacks on Ron Paul by Reasonoids
and Catoites."
And lastly, the "we can't have any dissent at all" attitude as
epitomized by the above quote is incredibly hypocritical given the
platitudes spouted by so many libertarians. I know it doesn't
really explain the party's defeat, but I see shit like the quote
above on this site all the time.
B|1.7.09 @ 9:36PM|#
Forget the libertarian party because there is none, and if you
think there is, it's irrelevant. Ron Paul lost NH because of
massive voter fraud.
He was the ONLY candidate to have 400 people outside the first
debate, but CNN of course only showed the 50 or so for each of the
other candidates and not ONE RP supporter. So the perception when
he lost was that he had no support."
There is absolutely no evidence at all of voter fraud in New
Hampshire. And the 400 people outside of a debate is evidence of
absolutely nothing, other than the fact he had 400 supporters.
Using this as evidence of huge nationwide support for Paul reminds
me of the people who insist Paul's winning of internet polls on
various blogs was evidence of a huge groundswell of support for
Paul. The last time I checked, the primaries were won by actual
votes, not the size of a crowd of zealots.
B|1.7.09 @ 9:37PM|#
In the above post, I forgot to include a quotation mark at the beginning of the post. The first paragraph is not my own.
Kelso\'s Nuts|1.7.09 @ 11:05PM|#
I live in Panama, so I obviously have no vote in the US. I was
neither privvy to nor interested in Libertarian or
Constitutionalist nor Green Party infighting.
I watched all the debates on TV here and then again on Youtube and
it seemed to me that the only candidates who spoke the truth and
had some idea of how to extricate the States from their problems
were Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. For some reason, thought Paul
and Kucinich themselves are quite good friends, neither of their
supporters could agree to disagree on lesser stuff and focus on
peace and a strong economy based upon the type of fiscal
"conservatism" both agree on.
Barack Obama has never made a secret of being a Theocratic
Authoritarian with the same views and policies as George W. Bush
had. He was merely not as reckless as McCain.
If there's a way forward for you folks to rejoin the rest of the
capitalist, self-governing world, instead of your bizarre Axis with
China, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Kuwait, it will have to come
through a libertarian/progressive fusion in which the stuff both
sides agree on: PEACE, the CONSTITUTION, CAPITALISM,
SELF-GOVERNMENT, and most important, PERSONAL FREEDOM are
emphasized and you do a little mixing and matching with the
rest.
That is how Europe does it. That is how South America and Oceania
do it.
Kelso\'s Nuts|1.8.09 @ 12:22AM|#
I guess you could include Colombia, Israel and Peru in the
USA-SA-PRC-DRN-KOK axis, except that believe it or not, those three
countries respect civil liberties, civil rights, and national
sovereignty (except for ISR) than the US does.
Si. Soy panameno judio asi que puedo decir cualquier tema sobre
Israel que quisiera yo segun las leyes suyas de la "political
correctness," si o pa' que? Jajaja!
|1.8.09 @ 3:01AM|#
I wrote a post
mortem of the Ron Paul campaign shortly after super tuesday. In
a nutshell: Lack of central leadership, unresponsive campaign,
acting like a cult, libertarian naivete, and ignoring Republican
voters.
Do I still agree with my assessment? It's almost a year later, and
yes I still agree with it. The campaign took our money but didn't
spend it. We got a "Campaign For Liberty" instead, but that's
nothing more than a network of meetups that are still arguing over
conspiracies. The naivete is still there, the wishful thinking that
if the signs were just waved a bit higher and the screaming a bit
louder, then Paul could have won.
|1.8.09 @ 3:57AM|#
ignoring Republican voters.
Can't a agree with you on that one. The Paul campaign did a fair
bit of pandering to the anti-immigration crowd.
-jcr
|1.8.09 @ 5:41AM|#
To totally ignore the issue of unrelenting mainstream media negative bias toward the Paul campaign, as well numerous verified incidents of voter fraud, call into question the veracity or at least the intent of this article.
|1.8.09 @ 9:42AM|#
PEACE, the CONSTITUTION, CAPITALISM, SELF-GOVERNMENT, and
most important, PERSONAL FREEDOM are emphasized and you do a little
mixing and matching with the rest.
That is how Europe does it. That is how South America and Oceania
do it.
Really, this must be a joke.
Eric Dondero|1.8.09 @ 10:03AM|#
This has got to be the most absurd article ever written on the
Libertarian movement's 2008 election experience.
Weigel blames Barr's less-than-stellar porformance on Ron Paulists
not latching on to the LP. And makes not a single mention of Sarah
Palin.
My gosh! Barr was polling 5 to 6% in Zogby days before Palin was
picked in late August. He was well on his way to a near-Ross Perot
type campaign for the Fall.
And then McCain stunned everyone, by picking one of the three most
libertarian Governors in the entire US. (Otter and Sanford).
Headline columns in the Denver Post hailed Sarah Palin as the
"Libertarian pick." Howie Carr on Boston radio was prenouncing that
this was the first time in History that a major party ticket chose
a Libertarian. Barr's numbers immediately tanked.
And Weigel doesn't even mention that in his entire 20+ paragraph
story?
What a weasel he is, and what a partisan hack.
|1.8.09 @ 10:08AM|#
Although I have contributed to and voted for Libertarian Party
candidates for decades, I would pose the following question -
should the LP be dissolved (even if for the next 2 years) as a
"failed experiment" in the same way that General Motors has been
failing for decades but hangs on - { for no particular reason as
far as I can see since it will bleed money making crappy cars }.
Small l "libertarians" talk about the judgement of the market but
where is there any judgement of the effectiveness of a party that
nominates exceedingly marginal characters {who beat out blind John
Birchers, etc.} for office and cannot even raise .1% of the money
of an Obama, etc. Reading LP news is depressing to me while I see
the US Government sliding towards bankrputcy, etc.
Maybe it is time to end the charade and dissolve the LP - a mercy
killing of sorts.
Geotpf|1.8.09 @ 11:46AM|#
Paul and Barr failed simply because the vast majority of voters
in the United States don't agree with pure libertarianism. Period.
Granted, the general incompetence of both of their campaigns
certainly didn't help.
The choices are to moderate your positions or fail at the ballot
box. Barr, Paul, and the LP in general choose the second.
Jeff|1.8.09 @ 11:51AM|#
2008 was a building year. I and a number of my friends never
cared about politics until we heard about Ron Paul. The idea of a
constitutional government appeals to the younger generations who
are being saddled with the debt of their parents. Many people I
know, for the first time in their lives, had the stray thought that
maybe the government can't solve everything. A number of them were
swept up by Obama's charisma and empty promises. They voted for
Obama but told me they just "wanted to see if it could really
work."
Like the person who gets scammed on a deal that's too good to be
true, they'll be more careful next time when all Obama's promises
do nothing but extend the recession. Our focus should not be on
what went wrong last year but on documenting every single misstep
the democrats make and incessantly pushing it on the media for the
next race.
The key is to discredit the government so much that voters are
interested in new candidates who promise a government that stays
out of their lives.
Geotpf|1.8.09 @ 12:00PM|#
Eric Dondero-Palin is no libertarian.
Here's her Nolan Chart (bottom of the page):
http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_Palin.htm
She's a Populist-Leaning Conservative. She doesn't even
lean Libertarian-she leans the other way (Populist) on
economic issues.
In fact, Mike Huckabee(!) is more Libertarian than she is:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm
For comparison, here's Paul's chart, in which he's firmly in the
Libertarian category:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
dhex|1.8.09 @ 12:25PM|#
"And makes not a single mention of Sarah Palin."
why would it? sarah palin is about as libertarian as any other
socialist-republican type.
or is it "anything donderoooooooooo wants to fuck is
libertarian"?
in which case it's good news for the textile freedom industry, as
tube socks are hells of libertarian.
Zoom|1.8.09 @ 12:33PM|#
There's just too much extremism in the Libertarian Party. We need to start with some sort of centrist party, make some gains, and move toward a more libertarian position from there. The GOP is a pack of religious shitheads, and the Dems are perfectly represented by the brainfucked, innumerate retards of the California state legislature. There is NO ONE serving the middle right now, so that seems the most fertile ground to sow. I meet so many people who are moderate in their views and open to libertarian ideas.
|1.8.09 @ 3:01PM|#
It really seems awful harsh of the author to not note that due to Dr. Paul, giant strides have been made in spreading the ideas of libertarianism. So what if the LP didn't get every single Paulite vote! I hate to remind them, but some folks, like myself, didn't even HAVE THE OPTION TO VOTE FOR THE LIBERTARIAN TICKET (I'm in Oklahoma, and chose to abstain from voting for a presidential candidate). Also, I was sorely disappointing that the Barr campaign had to get so up in arms that Paul would not throw his support to a single candidate. Paul ran under the banner of fusionism as did Barry Goldwater, and many of his supporters (mostly those from the far left and far right of the 2D political field) would have been turned off of the liberty movement had Paul thrown all of his chips into the single basket of the Libertarian Party candidate. The point is, he got many Americans really thinking and realizing that there is more to the political landscape than republicrats.
B|1.8.09 @ 9:23PM|#
" guess you could include Colombia, Israel and Peru in the
USA-SA-PRC-DRN-KOK axis, except that believe it or not, those three
countries respect civil liberties, civil rights, and national
sovereignty (except for ISR) than the US does."
Believe it or not? Ok, I don't believe it. Columbia? Hahahahaha
give me a fucking break. The "sky is falling" wing of the
libertarian party has finally gone of the deep end if they truly
believe this bullshit.
B|1.8.09 @ 9:29PM|#
"Barack Obama has never made a secret of being a Theocratic
Authoritarian..."
Sorry, but this is just fucking retarded. I hate Barack Obama, but
I don't even begin to believe the man is some sort of theocratic
authoritarian. Iran is a theocracy, and its ruler is a theocrat.
Neither Bush nor Obama are or were anywhere near that and never
will be.
|1.8.09 @ 10:23PM|#
Next time we know that we need to only have one libertarian across all parties. Whether that is constitution, libertarian or republican. We just need to take the best libertarian out of the bunch and the others should drop out. It's the only way we'll win.
jwpegler|1.8.09 @ 10:36PM|#
Great article. Thanks for writing it. The LP peeked in 1980. Subsequent LP presidential candidates have struggled to get even half the votes that Ed Clark won 28 years ago. The LP is not the answer. Over the last 8 years, the GOP has proven that it is not the answer either. Perhaps it's time to stop focusing on electoral politics altogether. Instead, there are more direct measures that can be undertaken to fight the growing tyranny in D.C. including various types of civil disobedience.
Eric Dondero|1.8.09 @ 11:00PM|#
Funny how people who are not libertarians, feel they can judge
other people on their libertarianism.
Question for the two un-named/faux on-line named posters
above:
What makes you think you all are libertarians?
Palin gets slammed all over the media for being a "libertarian."
She gets attacked in the GOP primary for Governor in 2006 for being
a "closet libertarian."
And you have the audacity to slam her for "not really being a
libertarian"?
Who the fuck are you to pass judgement? How about presenting some
of your libertarian credentials on this Forum. And while you're at
it, how about USING A FUCKING REAL NAME INSTEAD OF HIDING BEHIND
SOME PUSSY-ASS FAKE ON-LINE MONIKER.
Sean Scallon|1.8.09 @ 11:49PM|#
I have criticized David Weigel in the past for his Ron Paul
coverage. Now I shall praise him, because this was a very well
written article.
Paul ultimately proved that you can unite a sizeable group
disperate libertarian, leftist and true conservative voters around
an anti-interventionist platform both at home and abroard and make
an impact in the major party system through the primary
process.
But what's also clear is that coalition cannot sustain itself
through non-major party politics on a national level. It's simply
too diverse and their are simply too many parties are around to
pick off voters from that coalition and lead them into political
ghettos nationally.
If yout think about it, Paul had as many votes on the GOP
convention floor as Barry Goldwater did in 1960. There's no reason
why, through hard work and hard activism, that Paul's movement
can't play a major role in national GOP politics in 2012.
If non-major parties wish to survive and have an impact they need
to focus their attention locally and if they want to play ball in
the big leagues they have to back like minded candidates like Ron
Paul. Or become so effective on the local level that the major
party politicians seek them out. That's the way it should work. LP
and CP activists worked together to help Dr. Paul during the
primaries. That is a remarkable achievement and it got the Paul
campaign off the ground.
The Paul movement faces an obvious crossroads as to where it goes
in the future. No doubt the movement will stay united if Paul runs
again. But any future bid for the White House must be better
organized, planned, and Dr. Paul must make the early effort in Iowa
and in New Hampshire and South Carolina that's essential to winning
the nomination. No more staying in Washington D.C. to vote on
resolutions about National Artichoke Day while his opponents are
out campaigning. The grassroots will settle for nothing less.
If he is not willing to make that committment, then he needs to
pass the torch, visibly to potential candidates like a Gary Johnson
or a Mark Sanford so the Paulians can rally around them instead of
leaving fate to the wind and have our natural differences divde us
between different candidates.
As with most things life, whether Ron Paul's movement was a success
or not, well, it's too early to tell.
Craig|1.9.09 @ 12:57AM|#
It should be clear by now that the Libertarian Party cannot
be competitive in a race for President.
Sad but true.
It should also be clear that a limited government, antiwar
candidate cannot win a Republican nomination for
President.
Not necessarily. If the Ron Paul moneybombs had come a few months
earlier, and the Paul campaign had been a little more
opportunistic, and the war in Iraq had deteriorated instead of
leveling off, and if the economy had tanked a few months earlier,
Ron Paul might have done much better.
People forget that he finished in double digits in over a dozen
states. They forget that he barely campaigned in New Hampshire.
They forget that an amateurish mixup with the caucus database in
Iowa may have cost him 3rd place and a big surge in momentum. They
forget that Obama ran a primetime nationwide infomercial for far
less money than Paul blew on glossy mailings that ended up in the
trash in NH and SC.
Craig|1.9.09 @ 12:58AM|#
Even so, Ron Paul has improved tremendously as a voice for liberty in the past two years, and is to be greatly commended for his efforts.
|1.9.09 @ 5:37AM|#
@ Eric Dondero 11:00pm:
Provide some libertarian credentials? I'm sorry, but did I not get
a membership card in the mail?
WHO IN THE FLYING FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO QUESTION THE
POLITICAL BELIEFS OR STATEMENTS ON THE INTERNET? Oh, I'm sorry!
You're a fucking internet blogger. Self-righteous pricks that make
such asinine statements like you did in your post are what drive
folks away from the the Libertarian Party. You're call for
"credentials" reminds me of the high school arguments between
emofags (no insult intended, it's just the colloquial term we used)
of who is more emo. Eat a dick.
|1.9.09 @ 5:39AM|#
I apologize about the typo. I meant to say
WHO IN THE FLYING FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO QUESTION THE
STATEMENTS OF POLITICAL BELIEFS OF OTHERS ON THE INTERNET.
My typing tends to suffer while I RAAAAAAAGE against self-righteous
douche bags.
|1.9.09 @ 5:42AM|#
Geopt, my statements above apply to you as well, but at least you were polite in your assertions of non-libertarianism.
Al Barger|1.10.09 @ 12:53PM|#
Mr Weigel speculates on "where libertarian politics went wrong"
in 2008, but misses the real #1 main place they went wrong: That
the whole movement rallied behind a no-good dirtbag like Ron Paul.
I don't care how long he's been in Congress, he's an evil nutjob,
and racist homophobe. And I say that as something of a rightwing
nutjob myself, who has little patience for such things.
I voted, indeed campaigned for Paul in 1988 - but that was because
I didn't know about him like we all do now. Those goddam
newsletters, years and years of them, should disqualify him from
being accepted in any kind of polite society. And I would surely
never vote for anyone who suggested in writing that homosexuals
don't really mind having AIDS, cause they like the attention. And
that's not even the beginning. Then he lied about not knowing
anything about these decades worth of accumulated wickedness with
his name on them.
Then there's the perhaps even more disqualifying fact that he just
LOVES evil conspiracy theories. Loves them. That's a HUGE turnoff
to any half sensible and benificient human being. For crying in a
bucket, the man absolutely formally endorsed the JOHN BIRCH
SOCIETY.
And all that's before you get to his absolutely unacceptable
foreign policy nonsense. Not that we might not benefit from
re-examining and cutting back our foreign troop presence in many
cases, but he's truly anti-American in his foreign policy - no
matter what protestations he makes to the contrary.
Particularly, that famous exchange with Giuliani pretty well killed
whatever chances the movement had at making any inroads this year -
or probably for a good many. Screw him and his supposed "blowback."
Yeah, it excited .1% of jackasses to enthusiastically support him
and shovel him their cash - but absolutely turned off at least 90%
of any kind of conservatives or Republicans or moderates.
As far as individuals go, Ron Paul's 2008 has been the absolute
worst thing to happen to the modern libertarian movement. His
wicked racism, conspiracy mongering, blame-America-first foreign
policy have gone a long way toward discrediting the whole damned
movement.
See the extended notes at my URL
Fred|1.11.09 @ 9:54AM|#
Also remember Bob Barr has a past (Drug war-Anti Gay) that many
Libertarians were not willing to forgive. If you normalize for
ballot access, Barr bettered 04's numbers by 25% Not too
shabby.
Fred
fourpointreport@blogspot.com
|1.12.09 @ 12:52PM|#
I would respectfully request that Libertarian Free Market
Economic conservatives look at the Ron Paul for President Campaign
'08 and understand what is and isn't possible in American
politics.
Most American - I would say 98% + are not in to this 24/7/365
Libertarian cult. 98% do no live, breath and sleep Libertarian Free
market economics.
This is not to say that candidates who support Libertarian ideas
can not do well, even challenge to win important elections. Ron
Paul once won elections - including being elected to Congress from
Texas. Jessie Ventura won the Governorship of Minnesota.
But, in the US Presidential campaigns, full time economic
libertarian conservatives like Ron Paul, Phil Graham, Steve Forbes
have done very, very poorly.
Despite Ron Paul's enthusiastic supporters and the large amount of
$ campaign contributions, Ron Paul won - what 23 delegates. The
Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr didn't win 1%.
Let's come down to earth and get back in to reality - support
candidates who are competitive and who can bring in Libertarian,
less government, more personal freedom policies by running
campaigns on personal trust, voter identification that "he's like
me", or just run competitive candidates.
Ron Paul for President 2008 was never a serious competitive
campaign.
Ron Paul has as much chance challenging for the Heavy Weight boxing
championship, racing 3 year old Thoroughbred horses in the Kentucky
Derby as he did to challenge to win the GOP Presidential
election.
Most Americans like some government - Americans in Colorado Springs
CO like government $ for the US Air Force. Americans in San Diego
like government support for the US Navy/US Marines. Americans in
Florida will brutally destroy any candidate that talks too much
about privatizing/ending social security.
Libertarians are usually bright folks, let's see you bright folks
do a better job of picking Presidential candidates.
Next time - support an ex Football Quarterback who seniors remember
and identify with, trust, one that doesn't frighten Religious
Protestant Evangelicals who don't like the Church of Latter Day
Saints.
How about picking Roger Stauback from Texas? Run and win the
campaign with a strong, admired public figure and run campaigns to
win the ways Nixon and Reagan, Lee Atwater did, using populist
issues like crime, wedge issues that work, win the election, try to
win 48 our 50 states like Nixon and Reagan and then work in
Libertarian free market economic ideas after you/we win the
elections. It isn't enough to hold true believer Libertarian ideas,
you have to sell the ideas, program to the public.
Learn to cut out government for some other hated group, don't scare
the public that beloved grandparents are going to be put out in the
street forced to eat dog food or get jobs in sweatshops run by
Chinese Triads.
And most of all Libertarians - please try to be competitive, fight
to win something. Getting 22 delegates or less than 1% of popular
votes, that's not winning, that's falling into a cult of
losing.
Isn't WINNING better than always losing.
|1.12.09 @ 8:32PM|#
This is just another cheap hit piece trying to peg Ron Paul's
politics as Libertarian.
THEY ARE NOT.
'l'ibertarian, yes.
Libertarian, no.
They are libertarian and thoroughly REPUBLICAN as they have always
been and as they always will be.
Ron Paul has always been a Republican except for a BRIEF 6 month
stint as a big 'L' at the big-L's request.
Whether you like it or not, he's as Republican as Republican can
be. And I'm proud to be a patriot-conservative Ron Paul
REPUBLICAN.
Reason and other publications are just going to have to deal with
this fact or else their analysis will always be skewed and they
will always fail to understand the phenomenon.
|1.13.09 @ 7:36AM|#
Lot's of armchair quarterbacking as usual.
I never thought RPs campaign was anything more then a way to
highlight certain issues.
I never thought he would win anything, period.
Why is that? Because I listened to RP. He stated he wouldn't win,
and it was about getting the message out. He said it many
times.
You think you can do better, and bring more excitement then Ron
Paul, run for office.
It's simple, fill out some paperwork, grab your nuts and have the
courage of your convictions. If you had an unbeatable strategy and
now how to get a 3rd party rep in there, or a non mainstream
candidate, then why not yourself?
For every 1 person that tries to make any kind of difference, there
is 1000 people sitting on their butts telling them they are doing
it wrong.
Leave a Comment
More Articles by David Weigel
- Czar Wars, David Weigel, January 27, 2009
- How Big Is Small?, David Weigel, January 27, 2009
- Kentucky Reign, David Weigel, January 1, 2009
Related Articles (Libertarian History/Philosophy, Ron Paul, Bob Barr)
- Bernanke’s Philosopher, Penn Bullock, November 17, 2009
- Will Everyone Please Stop Freaking Out Over Ayn Rand?!?, Peter Bagge, November 10, 2009
- She’s Back!, Brian Doherty, November 9, 2009
- What's Wrong With Ayn Rand?, Shikha Dalmia, November 6, 2009
- Fed Up, Brian Doherty, October 27, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245