Monday, April 23, 2012
Open thread: What's next for libertarians?
Ron Paul kind of sputtered in this campaign. He was great in the debates, but disappointing at
the polls. Although he had a better showing than 2008, his philosophies weren't setting the pace in the primaries. Will libertarians make a difference in this election cycle? What will happen after the election? Your take.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I think Paul is actually picking up steam at the moment. Even though he hasn’t won a single state’s poll, his activists are becoming delegates for him and it looks like he will win a number of states, possibly more than Santorum. The crowds at his speeches are large and growing -- I've seen nothing comparable in the Romney camp. While he is very unlikely to win the nomination, he's showing that libertarians have everything they need for a genuine political movement -- dedication, enthusiasm and organization. The fact that so many are willing to fight for a campaign that most would have given up on tells me that libertarians make better campaigners than I ever thought possible.
If the Libertarians really want to amount to something, they're going to have to stop being also rans in the GOP tent. They're going to have to create their own organization and political infrastructure and above all, campaign for local and state offices. No party or faction that only shows up when one guy runs for President is ever really gonna get anything done. Bluntly, Ron Paul is going nowhere.
Continuing to be blunt, that doesn't break my heart, I find alot of his ideas to be ruinous.
@frigid (a freighted name),
I agree that Libertarians need to be broader than one candidate for Prez, but I think they are. There is a coherent philosophy there.
However, I don't know how they become a power in the GOP since many of their core beliefs are anathema to the large number of social conservatives who are powerful in the GOP.
@Couves,
I'm not impressed by turn-out at college rallies since it isn't translating into votes in elections. Instead, it just looks another college blowout party opportunity. Is there really much support at elections? What are the signs that libertarian ideas are growing in popularity?
MP - Building a new political movement is a long-term process, especially when you start with young folks. Ron Paul is not getting thousands of students to attend his speeches because they want free beer -- they're attending because they want to learn more about his ideas, like ending the Federal Reserve,… as unlikely as it sounds, that's exactly what's happening. This is how real political change starts.
Even with his unimpressive vote totals, Ron Paul is arguably the only candidate who has started a movement. I’m not sure you could even say that the President has accomplished this, although time may prove otherwise. But even if we start calling people "Obama Democrats" ten years from now, just remember that we're already calling people "Ron Paul Republicans" today.
@Couves, Building a political movement from college students isn't great if you want to expand the franchise. Sure, there are always a lot of idealistic student with extra time on their hands, but then they graduate and need to get jobs and get serious. Real life is a huge antidote to many college movements.
Ron Paul has some policies that make sense, but a whole lot that are unworkable or unrealistic, ending the Fed being one of them. Ask a college-age supporter how the gold standard will work, and I bet the answer will be mush. And that's what's popular? It kinda shows that the movement isn't solid, but a lot of idealistic wishful thinking. I hope the movement matures, but I'm not seeing the signs yet.
@MP -- Yes, some of Paul’s young followers will fall away from the cause -- the rest will become core supporters going forward. Obviously the Federal Reserve is not the only issue that motivates young Paul supporters. But even on that one issue, I think it counts for something that young people are willing to think for themselves rather than listen to what other people think is “realistic.” There are a number of issues on which there is near-consensus in Washington where I would say dramatic “unrealistic” change is necessary. Actually campaigning for change (ie change that’s not an empty slogan) is how you ultimately bring it about.
Did you know that Paul supporters won a majority of Romney’s delegates in our state?
@Couves, No, I didn't know that Paul ended up with the majority of delegates in MA. But am I supposed to respect a movement that loses at the polls but wins under arcane rules? Show me a real victory, and then I'll give some congratulations.
MP - I didn't mean to suggest Paul "won" -- all of the Massachusetts delegates are legally bound to vote for Mitt Romney, who seems to have the nomination at this point anyway. But it was a pretty dramatic signal of support within the circle of MA GOP activists for Paul's ideas. This is happening in state after state. I wouldn't say that this will defeat Romney, only that it is a sign of a growing movement.
@Couves, thanks for clarifying. I should be careful what I wish for, but I'd like to see libertarians have a much larger presence in the Republican steering committees.
I agree with small government proponents that government has grown too large. But I can say that because I don't depend on Medicaid, which many libertarians would undo if they could. Shrinking government in smart and humane ways is a complex issue, and I worry that too many people don't care about the "humane" part of the issue.
Ron Paul might oppose Medicare in theory, but he does recognise the reality you're talking about. His budget, which includes dramatic cuts, does not touch Medicare. Of course we'll ultimately have to do something to reform the program...
@Couves, I said Medicaid, not Medicare. Lots of GOP seem very happy to cut Medicaid, though I'm not sure how deeply. Both Ron and Rand Paul treat Medicare as a sacred cow, to be maintained as is (for now) when huge cuts happen elsewhere. Smells like a political consideration to me.
MP - Fair enough. Just realize that Ron Paul has always said that foreign aid, defense and corporate welfare should be cut before we even consider cutting social services. Clearly, Paul would prefer all social aid to be voluntary -- but that doesn't mean he's insensitive to the dependency of the poor on government and the human suffering that could result from any precipitous cuts to social services.
Post a Comment