I was watching TV coverage of the Republican National Convention, and a Ron Paul supporter was being interviewed, and the journalist said the idea of Paul’s wing of the GOP bolting and starting their own party was “all over the blogosphere” (first I’d heard of it), and the Paulite seemed enthusiastic.
Now, I always thought of Ron Paul as a libertarian – he ran for POTUS as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988 – and the Libertarian Party already exists. Why start a new one?!
But, thing is, this guy was talking about the real divide being between “creditors and debtors,” and was decrying the power of the “international bankers” who control both parties, etc. That kind of RW-economic-populist rhetoric sounds less libertarian than paleoconservative – anti-Washington and anti-Wall-Street.
But, the America First Party already exists, too. So does the Constitution Party. Both are paleocon, though the CP’s emphasis is much more on religious-social conservatism.
Ummmm…one that they are in charge of? Any similarity to any existing party is in your mind. Total coincidence, nothing to see here, these aren’t the droids you’re looking for…
Never heard of Paulites forming their own party. Paul himself has never mentioned it. It’s foolish. The movement would be better served working within the Republican party. The Libertarian party will always be viewed as a “spoiler party” and to create a Paulian party without Paul himself would be a total flop.
IMO paleo conservative and libertarian aren’t mutually exclusive. One area of agreement would be against crony capitalists in the banking sector. Both groups are against the wall street bailouts
Im not all that in tune with the blogosphere but the Daily Paul has no mention of it and that’s one of the most heavily traffic Paul forums.
I believe it has to do with the machinations in place to have some state’s delegations be forced to vote for Mr. Romney rather than Mr. Paul. Else, they are ejected from the convention.
I could be wrong and I certainly hope that I am, but it seems that what is in the air.
If so, this is a bad step for the GOP. A very bad step, indeed.
The Republican party just bitch slapped Ron Paul delegates into the outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth and you think you can still work with them?
What are the other options? There is no leader of the liberty movement without Paul. The more pragmatic of the Paul supporters will fall in line behind Rand Paul and a few others. The more ideological will go Libertarian or stay home, and the disaffecteds will smoke some weed and watch Alex Jones YouTube videos.
Even if you got Paul himself to head a third party ticket TR style, it’s only going to give you at the very MOST 25% of the popular vote. Then you just pissed off the entire GOP and they lock you out. What happens next election cycle? You have no power at that point.
I suspect this is Paul’s last dance. He’s retiring from the House, and he’ll be in his eighties by the time the next Presidential election rolls around. I’m skeptical he’ll make another run for public office.
His son doesn’t seem to have the same pull, and a lot of the factors that gave rise to Paul’s movement in the first place (GOP dissatisfaction with the Bush-era, the financial crisis, the Iraq war) are fading from memory. I’m not really seeing a new standard barer arising. I imagine his following will either wander off to the Libertarians or be subsumed into the wider GOP in future cycles.
Given Ron Paul’s voting record, I doubt this would be a problem. I’m particularly thinking of his opposition to gay marriage as abortions as well as his support for state directed prayer.
I may be wrong, but from the tone of your post (and others) is it now being taken that someone who is “against crony capitalists in the banking sector” and “against the wall street bailouts” is essentially on the wrong side of political history. I.e. a person of such political persuasion will not get anywhere with it exactly because of it?
Man, you folks have been so used. You have no power at * this * point. The Republicans have used Paul to attract the disaffected youth vote (mostly those who want to legalize weed, I think) and have savagely marginalized everything you believe in. They won’t even allow your guy to speak at the convention. The only intersection between the current Republican body and Rand Paul’s beliefs is that they share the same neolithic social values.
Well, there’s also the whole “get out of foreign wars” which is attractive to those of draft-able age, but if you want to stay out combat, the Republican party hasn’t really demonstrated lately that they’re the guys you want to be voting for.
If the libertarians could draw off 25 percent of the popular vote it wouldn’t piss off the GOP, it would DESTROY the GOP in the sense that they’d lose massively to the Democrats in most elections. The GOP would come begging and grovelliing to the libertarians with such abject humility that it would undoubtedly make the libertarians a little sick. It would be a TOTAL win for the libertarians. AND the Democrats, and aye, there’s the rub. But I am beginning to thing that both libertarians and progressives are going to have to break with the Republicans and Democrats in order to be heard by either party.
They haven’t used anyone yet. Paul has used the Republicans to a large extent. He would never have built the movement like he has without using the Republicans for exposure. New Republicans who joined because of Paul’s message likely have no allegiance to the party and probably won’t vote for Romney.
The GOP is destined for destruction if they don’t adapt a more libertarian position either way. The current Republicans have many internal inconsistencies.
Gary Johnson is an interesting candidate because he’s not as bound by ideology as Paul. He’s more of a “common sense libertarian” than anything. He pitches libertarianism as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. His problem he lacks name recognition. Oh and more money couldn’t hurt either.
