RSS 2.0 FeedIs Ron Paul Howard Dean Redux, Or Ross Perot Reborn ?
by Doug MataconisThere’s been much discussion of late analogizing the rise of the Ron Paul phenomenon in the run-up to the 2008 to Howard Dean’s nearly successful run for the Democratic nomination in 2004.
At least one liberal blogger, though, argues that the analogy is not well-placed:
Paul’s ability to raise money online is one superficial similarity with Dean, but that’s pretty much where the similarity ends. Despite attempts by conservatives to paint Dean as some sort of fringe leftist, the fact is that Howard Dean was a thoroughly mainstream candidate with a long record of moderate policy positions. He raised WAY more money than Paul has and came very close to winning his party’s nomination (he was even endorsed by his party’s previous nominee, Al Gore). He then went on to become the head of the Democratic National Committee, primarily because of his popularity among the Democratic rank-and-file.
Ron Paul truly is a fringe candidate, a guy whose writings (as Kevin Drum recently put it) have a “Unabomber-esque” quality to them. Perhaps that’s a bit harsh, but it’s certainly true that Paul endorses a number of positions that have very little mainstream support (returning to the gold standard, abolishing the Federal Reserve, getting rid of most federal agencies, etc.). Moreover, many of Paul’s positions on key issues of the day are diametrically opposed to those held by most of the Republican base, which explains why Paul was overwhelmingly named the “Least Favorite Person on the Right” by this recent survey of right-wing bloggers.
While equating Ron Paul’s ideas or even his writings to the Unabomber is ironic given the fact that the Unabomber’s Manifesto reads more like a first draft of Earth In The Balance
The author goes on to make this point:
[U]nlike Dean, I think it is pretty unlikely that Paul will endorse the eventual Republican nominee. In fact, I suspect Republican party officials are a little worried about Paul’s plans for the general election. Though Paul has so far disclaimed any intention of running as a third party candidate, I think he would have little trouble securing the nomination of various third parties (like the Constitution Party) that will have a spot on the ballot in most states. If Paul can raise his profile enough to secure himself a place in general election debates (as Ross Perot did in 1992), he may well be tempted to accept a third party nomination.
Paul is much more like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader than Howard Dean. His support comes from people who are fed up with the two major parties and don’t feel represented by either of them. Those who want to see a Republican in the White House come 2009 should be very careful how they treat Ron Paul and his supporters. He has the potential to become a very effective spoiler in the general election.
Ironically, Congressman Paul addressed at least part of this point at last night’s debate when he refused to say that he would endorse the nominee of the Republican Party in 2008 if it was someone other than himself. At the very least, this is unlikely to endear either the Congressman or the campaign to rank-and-file Republicans to whom party loyalty, even when it means supporting candidates you don’t entirely agree with. But, then again, the Paul campaign quite clearly isn’t drawing it’s support from rank-and-file Republicans to begin with, so Paul’s statement of non-support is unlikely to hurt him significantly.
At the same time, though, it seems that this boomlet of an idea about a Ron Paul third-party candidacy is something that has sprung up among certain left-wing bloggers over the past couple weeks. Their hope, apparently, is that Ron Paul on the ballot in November 2008 would draw votes away from whoever the Republican nominee might be in the same way that Ross Perot did to George H.W. Bush in 1992, and Ralph Nader did to Al Gore in 2000. Ironically, given Paul’s anti-war views, he’d be more likely to draw votes away from the Democratic nominee.
The question, though, is what a third-party candidacy would amount to outside of helping to determine the outcome of an election. Judging from what happened to the Reform Party and the limited to nonexistent success of the Greens, Libertarians, Constitution Party and countless others, it’s pretty clear that it wouldn’t amount to much of anything in the end.
The secret to success isn’t to reject the two-party system, it’s to work within it, accept that it isn’t perfect, and take things over. It takes time, but it works.
I think the author makes a very good point that with his anti war ideas Paul would probably draw away many Democratic votes as well.
I do object to him being seen as a spoiler for the republican party though. In my mind the Republican party has ruined it for themselves. I’m a registered Republican and if RP is not the nominee I will be voting 3rd party next year.
Comment by David McLeod — October 10, 2007 @ 1:37 pmi view the title of this article, although not its entire substance, as a false dichotomy. basically the title corrals the reader into drawing a limited set of parallels into the future of Ron Paul’s candidacy.
the point about rank-and-file GOP votership and their undeniable concrete wall of separation from Ron Paul is well taken. however, the outcome of a real schism of the GOP should not be counted out and that should be noted. yes, there is still time and capability of voter fallout with the GOP regardless of Paul’s nomination or 3rd party run. in fact, i would say it is a likelihood.
finally, i would like to say that Ron Paul takes with him a potential goldmine of fresh GOP membership and deadly serious fund raising prowess/organization. GOP strategists have no doubt weighed this and weighed the increasingly dead-end Straussian politik. many would even venture to say that the stock futures of GOP-corp are plummeting at an accelerating pace with each day.
D.M., i really think your eye is too jaundiced at times. no offense.
Comment by oilnwater — October 10, 2007 @ 2:00 pmI’d agree with David. Ron Paul would draw voters from both parties.
And while I’m not sure if I’ll stay registered as a Republican if Ron Paul doesn’t win, I certainly won’t be voting for any of the other Republican candidates in this presidential election. They’re all big government conservatives and their overall platform is no better than the Dems’. Hell, I’d rather have Hillary in office than any of them…I’m betting that her truly detestable personality will do more for opponents of creeping government than any of the other Republicans ever could.
Comment by UCrawford — October 10, 2007 @ 2:03 pmUCrawford,
Maybe, but in the end all a third party candidacy can do is be a spoiler in the General Election.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 10, 2007 @ 2:28 pmI believe:
Many of Ron Paul’s supporters will vote third party next year if Ron Paul is not the Republican nominee.
The Democrats would love for that to happen, that’s why the liberal press is implanting those thoughts early on — to try to make sure that he misses the republican ticket and spoils the election for the Republicans.
The right wing press is trying to supress Paul to the point of obscurity because they have bought the liberal press’s opinion of “Ron Paul can’t win the nomination” agenda and will cause 3rd party ruination hook, line and sinker; and they want to keep the number of “spoiled votes” to a minimum.
Comment by William — October 10, 2007 @ 2:29 pm‘but in the end all a third party candidacy can do is be a spoiler in the General Election.’
Really ? It can’t be the model of hope or an outlet of frustration ? It can’t be a loud voice of protest that drives a particular issue or groups of issues ?
It can’t be something earned and fought for by its erstwhile participants and adherents ? It can’t be a ballast to a status quo of constant war or ever increasing welfare state ?
Maybe we can’t all be ‘winners’ in the popular sense of Ameri-Arcana, but I’d rather stand out in the rain with fists clenched and raised then at home on the couch with a bag of chips and a light beer listening to Chris Matthews blather about the Mayor of America or the new First Spouse.
There’s a real good reason half the population doesn’t even bother . . .
Comment by Eric Sundwall — October 10, 2007 @ 2:44 pmeric…. werd up.
Comment by oilnwater — October 10, 2007 @ 2:49 pmRon Paul has a good chance of winning the nomination.
Here in the South. He is getting huge.
As dumb as Fred looked yesterday, all of those Fred heads will be jumping ship soon.
And people in the South are getting tired of sending our sons out to foreign lands to die for some New York socialists, in which you support.
Wall Street is murdering us and selling out the nation. But, you, the pundits don’t have any remorse.
Comment by Willis Williams — October 10, 2007 @ 2:50 pmI think the real question is, are Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney going to run as third party candidates?
Comment by brody — October 10, 2007 @ 3:27 pmA comparison between Howard Dean or Ross Perot pails in comparisons to Ron Paul’s support at rallies. Ron’s support is pulling larger crowds then any campaign. Ron Paul had a function in NH and so did Obama and Ron Paul had more at his function then Obama. Ron Paul’s campaign draws greater comparisons to the excitement of Martin Luther King then Dean or Perot.
Comment by Darel99 — October 10, 2007 @ 4:10 pmIf the GOP fails to realize its mistakes and try and atone for them by nominating Ron Paul for POTUS then they do not deserve Ron Paul or his huge and growing army of grass roots support.
There is no other Presidential candidate that has his grass roots on the ground volunteers in the GOP. Would the GOP be ignorant enough or arrogant enough to think that they can not use Ron Paul’s army of nearly 53,000 (as of today) on the ground volunteers in their fight for the Presidency in 2008?
The closest thing the Dems have is Barack Obama with just slightly over 6000 volunteers. The rest of the GOP combined has only a fraction of that kind of support.
I guess the idea is that money can and does buy the Presidency and they could give a damn how the people feel and the 2 parties will only chose the one among the candidates who is the most sold out to the hilt for their party leadership.
I for one am tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils so I will vote for Ron Paul instead. This prairie fire is not going out no matter how many buckets of water you try and throw on it.
Comment by libertyman — October 10, 2007 @ 4:25 pmMaybe there is more at stake here than seating assignments in Washington for the next 4 years.
Maybe this is about a fledgling ideology striking a chord in a public bitterly disaffected with the representation provided by the two major parties.
Ron Paul’s campaign is an investment in a different way of thinking about the relationship between government and governed. Keeping the message in front of the American people for as long as possible may be the best this campaign can achieve.
Change will not come overnight for those who agree with Ron Paul; win or lose. But this is a vision worth waiting for, and those who see little difference between mainstream Republicans and Democrats can afford to be patient.
Comment by Grant — October 10, 2007 @ 4:39 pmmy RP support notwithstanding, i firmly believe that the GOP is fully prepared to lose this POTUS cycle… badly. they have no intention of nominating Paul whatsoever, no…matter…what.
and by that i mean the GOP will do any back door agreement or whatever if they really feel Paul might actually be caucused in.
frankly, i don’t even see Paul being caucused in. but i couldn’t care less. i still canvass, i’ve still donated, and i don’t give a damn b/c i’m not stopping until it’s over.
the GOP leadership is probably pragmatic in knowing that they will be absolutely slaughtered this cycle, possibly for the next POTUS too. however the legislative and state governership bodies will be definitely be influenced by the Paul campaign (i.e. Paul-esqe platforms)
Comment by oilnwater — October 10, 2007 @ 4:52 pmRon Paul will win the GOP nomination and then the Eastern est. GOP will run a 3rd party around him to ensure there girl Billary get’s elected.
Comment by Joe — October 10, 2007 @ 7:40 pmWorking within the two-party system has its advantages. A movement with 5% support in the general population could nominate a candidate in the primaries, where turnout is around 20% — 10% in each party. This assumes 100% turnout for the movement candidate. If Ron Paul achieves this, he could win without ever topping 10% in the polls.
A third party with 5% support has no chance. Since most members realize that, they don’t even hit 5% in the general election.
However, if Giuliani and Clinton are the nominees, I think Ron Paul has a moral imperative to run, to try to save the country. Given his overwhelming advantage in plain-spokenness, integrity, consistency, and character, he might have a chance, even if he is viewed as radical.
But how far outside the mainstream is Ron Paul, really? He’s the only candidate who is against the war and for smaller government and against illegal immigration — arguably the three biggest issues in the election, and he’s got the market cornered where they overlap!
Ron Paul also has a viral marketing, grassroots campaign that has a lot more potential to move up. The real question is whether it can hit critical mass by February 5th, but I think another nine months after that and it could be in the 25-35% range.
Comment by Craig — October 10, 2007 @ 7:58 pmDoug,
Ron Paul has already stated that he is not interested in a minor party or indepedent bid for the presidency in 2008. He reiterated that stance on Tucker Carlson’s show on MSNBC today.
The idea of Ron Paul running in the 2008 general election as a minor party or independent candidate has no basis in reality. Just take the man at his word.
Comment by Ken H — October 10, 2007 @ 10:36 pmRon Paul himself would agree that the campaign is not about him personally; it’s about the message of freedom, individual liberty, and hope for America. Ron Paul is simply the catalyst that re-invigorated a quiescent, dormant movement; we’re not going away regardless of who the eventual Rebublican nominee is. The so-called mainstream GOP needs to wake up and recognize this new reality, or risk the Republican Party itself bifurcating. Does nobody remember the Whigs and the origin of the GOP? It can happen again, folks.
Comment by logicprobe — October 12, 2007 @ 11:23 am[Paul] refused to say that he would endorse the nominee of the Republican Party in 2008 if it was someone other than himself.
Paul said nothing of the sort. Actually, he said he wouldn’t endorse the nominee “unless they’re willing to end the war and bring our troops home. And not unless they’re willing to look at the excess spending.”
Comment by Josh Purinton — October 12, 2007 @ 4:35 pmJosh,
Same thing, really, don’t you agree ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 12, 2007 @ 4:36 pm[...] Original post by Doug Mataconis [...]
Pingback by Is Ron Paul Howard Dean Redux, Or Ross Perot Reborn ? | Political news - democrats republicans socialists greens liberals conservatives — October 19, 2007 @ 10:43 pm