No, they’re destined for destruction if they do. Libertarianism, big-L or small-l, has nowhere near the voter appeal you seem to think it does. See the 2012 version of the Pew Political Typology: “Libertarians” (by the broadest small-l definition; mostly not the sort who would ever think of joining or voting for the Libertarian Party in its present form) for the first time are found to be numerous enough to warrant their own separate typology grouping – but, they’re still only 9% of the general public, 10% of registered voters. And their position alienates too many other groupings. No party that treats them as its core-base is going to get anywhere in your lifetime or mine.
Firstly, those numbers are from a static period in time. Look at the campuses Paul visited. Huge crowds all across the country, including the liberal schools. What you saw was an audience looking for explanations. Maybe they heard some ideas they already supported like non-interventionism and legalizing marijuana and saw how it fit into libertarian political thought with things like property rights and sound monetary policy. Some things they might not agree on, but this leads me to my next point.
Secondly, the post-moderns are damn near libertarians. If you look at their major concerns besides environmental regulation the only people talking about those types of things are the libertarians. The Democrats are viewed as big spenders(rightfully so), so I don’t see them gaining the overwhelming support of the post-moderns. There has yet to be a postmodern standard bearer like Paul has been for libertarians. They’re going to go somewhere at some point.
Mebbeso, but in that sense of “libertarian,” there are at least 24 Types of Libertarian and their world-views are too divergent to make a coherent movement or party. Left-Wing and Gunner Joe have nothing to say to each other beyond “The status quo sux.”
Well, that’s a pretty great big fucking “besides,” isn’t it? And it ain’t the only one.
Practically speaking, the Paulites are already their own party. Most of them have nothing in common with the Republicans; they just worship Ron Paul.
Note that this “most of them” doesn’t include Paul himself. He’s just your standard party-line Republican, except that he happens to like weed.
Notable ratfucker Roger Stone, at the convention on behalf of Gary Johnson’s campaign, had this to say:
I agree that Rand Paul is not and never will be Ron Paul. Rand Paul has hitched his wagon to the Republican establishment (no matter what noises he makes). But that doesn’t mean that the people who support Ron Paul’s ideas will do the same thing. Especially in light of how they were just treated.
So, what will they do? Go over to the Libertarian Party? Start their own? Stay home on e-day and sulk? What?
As I said, some of the more traditional conservative Paulites will stay with the Republicans, Some will go Libertarian, and others will stay home. There are pros and cons to all of these options.
The only way they could start their own party is to get Paul to head up the ticket. He is the one and only to many. There isn’t a legitimate number two in the movement. Even if you got someone else who is popular in the movement and Paul endorsed the ticket, the response would be lackluster.
The libertarians are growing in numbers. Paul’s campaign was hugely successful. I wish he would run third party but I don’t even think he can get on the ballot in some states due to his participation in the primaries. It would be interesting to see how well he could do in a general election.
Personally, I’m going to vote for Gary Johnson. I doubt he’ll pull more than 7% nationwide without being in the debates, but I couldn’t vote for Romney or Obama because I have principles.
Well, they’d better find one soon! Ron Paul is 77 years old!
Well, Gary Johnson is on the ballot. He’s definitely making a move for the Ron Paul followers ( see his video at http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/ ). He actually sounds more like Ron Paul used to sound than Ron Paul sounds today.
Out of curiosity what do you mean he sounds like Ron Paul used to sound?
For those that haven’t seen it. Here is Gary Johnson’s speech to Ron Paul supporters in FL. Interestingly, if you go to his site, he is open about how Ron Paul doesn’t support him.
Ron Paul really changed his tune when he went back to the Republican party and, while I had liked his positions in the past, he became pretty much ‘just another Republican’ in a lot of ways and I would not touch the guy who ran in this cycle.
In the past, Ron Paul had no interest in social conservatism, he was primarily a fiscal conservative. He also emphasized key things like blocking the use of eminent domain to hand acreage over to developers. He USED to be vocal against regulating private citizens, not so much any more. It seems like he’s kept a few pet topics (the Fed, gold, war) but dumped everything else to become a typical Republican. (And Rand Paul is a classic Republican in my opinion.)
Social issues did come up a lot, but it’s not liked he has changed his views on abortion or marriage. idk I don’t think he comes across as a typical Republican. He was getting young people out in droves. A typical Republican could never do that. He birthed the Tea Party and influenced their fiscal positions, so maybe that’s why he sounds more like a Republican these days.
Well, then maybe I was a mis-informed voter back then. I could swear that I remember a time when the Libertarian (the party he was with) platform was against regulating individuals/citizens and more than needed. I’m sorry, but most of the social conservative issues are trying to regulate (and bloat government) beyond what is justifiable. For example, Paul put up a bill to deregulate raw milk and it appears that stuff was lip-service, because I haven’t seen him mention those issues even once on the campaign trail (maybe I missed it?).
Paul gets the young people out because he is the only candidate for FAIR Tax (aside from Johnson) and he is the only one saying get out of Afghanistan NOW and stay out of Iran (again - aside from Johnson).
There’s one inconsistency I can think of for Paul in regards to abortion, in that he vacillated between whether the right to life should be a federal issue or one left to states.
He mentioned raw milk several times in his speeches. Every time he mentioned ending the drug war he brought up raw milk. This includes his big speech at this past Sunday’s “We are the Future” rally. I’ve been following his campaign closely.
yeah he wasn’t too clear on that
Agreed. Each election cycle a sufficient number of Democrats and Republicans are disaffected enough with their own party to latch on to Paul/a Libertarian candidate. The reason why the movement never grows is because people constantly move in and out of the party/support for the party.
I agree with many of the points that the Libertarian party espouses, but their overall message is so scattershot that they will never have a large enough coalition to even break the 2 to 3 percent barrier, let alone be a major force.