I Suspect Ron Paul's Support Is Non-Transferrable

Monday, November 26, 2007

RON PAUL

Pat Robertson’s 1988 campaign signaled that Christian Conservatives had arrived in the GOP. Ron Paul is doing the same for libertarians. This is not a counterweight to the religious right per se, since Paul is identified as pro-life, but it does potentially open up a new army of activists on the right not primarily motivated by social/moral issues.

I disagree, and I disagree with the triumphalism of the Nick Gillespie-Matt Welch op-ed that spurred the Ruffini’s post. But I’ll put it to the never-lacking-for-words Ron Paul-backing Campaign Spot readers out there… I think that if and when Ron Paul ceases his presidential bid, his supporters will go in a thousand different directions, including many saying "to hell with politics." They're not inclined towards compromise, and they're not going to be harnessed by half-a-loaf or even eighty-percent-of-the-loaf candidates. In other words, Ron Paul’s support is non-transferrable.

Ruffini asks, “Assuming Paul loses, where does small-l libertarianism go from here?” (First, he guarantees himself a million e-mails when he suggests that Paul may not win.) I think they become about as cohesive and effective as Howard Dean’s grassroots backers did after 2004. Maybe they find a lower-race candidate who stirs their blood, as Ned Lamont did for Dean’s supporters in 2006. Maybe some political consulting firms focusing on grassroots and Internet advertising emerge out of this. But Dean’s backers are an afterthought to the dynamics of the 2008 Democratic race, as no serious successor to Dean’s mantle emerged. I don’t see any younger, up-and-coming Ron Paul figure ready to emerge for 2012.

For starters, the Ron Paul crowd will never throw their weight behind another GOP presidential candidate this cycle, even to reject the least libertarian candidate, as they see the field in binary terms: Ronpaulian perfection and statist sellout warmonger scum. There’s no guy in the field who they see as almost as good as Ron Paul, with a better shot at winning the nomination.

And while Ron Paul’s fans are full of energy, drive, and willing to open their wallets, they do not – so far - seem eager to do the “blocking and tackling” basic political activities to become a force at all levels of the government, local offices, state offices, Senate and House races, etc. (They’re libertarians; in the end they would rather not deal with the government.) The thought of putting enormous effort to nominate a libertarian-leaning Republican in a Senate primary won’t energize or enthuse a large enough segment of the Paul base, which is, let’s recall, so far demonstrated to be about eight percent of the Republican primary electorate in some states.

Contrast this to the Christian conservatives – they were eager to get their candidates running at all levels of government with a fairly coherent platform – anti-abortion, anti-pornography, anti-gay-marriage, school prayer, no condoms in schools, etc.

I could live quite happily with a more libertarian GOP, and more libertarian government overall. But when Gillespie and say, “it's clear that a new and potentially transformative force is growing in American politics. That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him,” I think they’ve got it backwards, and that most figures who try to tap into the “Ron Paul rEVOLution” in future campaigns will find his followers find most of his aspiring successors pale imitations of the real thing.

11/26 04:46 PM Share