Badger Paul
06-09-2008, 10:14 AM
THE NEW FUSIONISM - JOINING LIBERTARIAN AND CONSTITUTIONALIST
By: Sean Scallon
Just recently I was appointed to the Board of Supervisors of my home county of Pepin, Wisconsin.
This past spring the incumbent board member for my district decided not to run again, but no one else stepped up to run for his seat in his stead.
So board membership would pass to whomever won the most write-in votes in the local election which took place in April.
There was a three-way tie with two votes each, which included yours truly. I had to go through a vetting process by my township board, whose recommendation would steer the county board in making their choice. Luckily, I passed the test and was appointed.
Ahh the joys of rotten boroughs. I'd better get quite a gift for my wife for our anniversary.
Most local offices in Wisconsin are non-partisan, designed that way on purpose to keep the state's major parties from using them as patronage. But holders of such offices can declare for whatever party they wish and I've decided to do so here and now.
I shall be the first-ever Libertarian-Constitutionalist fusion party board member. I declare myself for both the Libertarian and Constitution parties.
Sup. Sean Scallon, L/C-Arkansaw
Impossible you say? I'm supposed to pick one or the other?
Who says?
If this be America, then I should be able to do as I please when it comes to picking a political party for myself. What rule says I must be one thing and only one thing alone?
There are parts of the Libertarian Party platform I support and there are parts of the Constitution Party platform I support.
I know that there are a lot of issues that divide both these non-major parties but there are several issues that they agree on.
Both are parties that believe in a non-intervention in foreign policy. They believe in sound money and the coinage of gold and silver. They believe in decentralized government. They believe in the federal government acting strict accordance with the Constitution. They're both against the expansive power of the federal government, especially when it comes to the Patriot Act and warrantless wire-tapping of U.S. citizens.
That's a solid platform to stand on. It's the same one Ron Paul ran on and it attracted members of both parties to work for him. Heck, in my experience, I worked for the Paul campaign right out of the headquarters of the Minnesota State Libertarian Party in St. Paul and during the Minnesota State Fair I worked at the Constitution Party booth campaigning for Ron Paul.
Indeed, many Paul supporters are right now trying to decide whether or not to vote for either LP presidential candidate Bob Barr or CP presidential candidate Rev. Chuck Baldwin.
I'll make my decision for the fall campaign when I come to that fork in the road. But it will be a tough decision to make because both men can make persuasive arguments for their candidacies on the same platform that Paul ran on for the past year and a half.
It would have been easier to choose Rev. Baldwin if the Libertarians had gone mad and nominated Mary Ruwart at their recent national convention. But wiser heads prevailed and now the LP has their best chance to make an impact in a national election since 1980. And because the LP did nominate Barr and fellow disgruntled Republican Wayne Allyn Root, they've made for a more difficult choice. Of course, Rev. Baldwin has been consistent in his views for many years. Both Barr and Root were fairly conventional Republicans until they became disillusioned with their party over the past two years and decided to move to the LP. I understand it takes a leap of faith for Libertarians to believe that both men have changed their ways, but such conversions do happen and must if a party is to grow.
What would Christianity be like if the apostles rejected Paul?
Barr's nomination, assuming the radicals in the LP make good on their threat to bolt the LP or at least, eventually, fade away (a big if) does pose new possibilities in non-major party politics. Great possibilities.
The LP and CP are two different parties not just because of their stands on various issues, but because culturally, the LP is secular and the CP is sectarian. Ergo, it would be almost impossible for both decentralist parties to ever merge fully.
But that's okay. Both parties should be allowed to operate in areas in which they would be strongest on the local level. After all, I've advocated on any number of occasions that non-major parties should focus exclusively on local issues and matters to engage their ideas from the bottom up in places where such ideas will be able to sell best.
And really, their differences on the issues deal with matters that should be decided on the local level to begin with, like narcotics or gambling or prayer in school or abortion or immigration, you name it. Both parties can decide what they want to stand for on the local village board, town meeting, state legislature, or county board of supervisors.
But what about creating a new national party made up LP and CP members, disgruntled Republicans, Democrats, heck even some Greens as well (like Montana's Bob Kelleher, the conservative Green (!) who won the Republican nomination to the U.S. Senate with the help of Ron Paul supporters)?
If Canadians can have separate political parties on the local and federal level, why can't the U.S.?
This new party would run on a platform of non-interventionism, for the independent coinage of gold and silver, a strong dollar, for abolishing the Federal Reserve, for well-secured borders and a proper policy for national defense and foreign affairs. For restoring Constitutional government, reducing the size of the bureaucracy and decentralism. And it would be for true free trade instead of the managed trade of world-wide bureaucracies. Yes immigration would be a sticking point, but I think both sides could agree on proper enforcement of current immigration laws with a reduction of the welfare state and interventionist foreign policy that draws so many immigrants to the U.S. and with a more fair and balanced quota system.
It may seem far fetched, but the potential for such a party could, I stress could, come about if Barr not only does well this fall in the total number of votes he wins, but also takes the taint of radicalism away from the party that has kept like-minded Republicans and Democrats so far away from the LP as not to touch it with a ten-foot pole (the CP has also vetted out its radicals as well over the past few years). If the GOP suffers massively this fall, would not some Republican office holders be willing to join with the LP and the CP for their own survival given the current unpopularity of the Republican brand and could not these elements be joined together in a new party that would have instant credibility with such office holders in tow that people know and have voted for in the past?
If the Ron Paul campaign taught us anything, it's that it's possible for such seeming different and disparate groups can come together for common national cause and a common national platform that Paul ran on. Why not keep that unity for the future with a new national party instead being walled off in our non-major party ghettos? Everyone talks about forming a new party. They do all the time. But now the possibility truly exists among those who wish to see the U.S. reduce its empire abroad and at home and restore the values the country was founded on and restore Constitutional government to join a party that truly reflects its views instead of being unhappy members of the major parties always voting for the lesser of two evils.
Count me in as its first member.
Sean Scallon is a freelance writer and newspaper reporter who lives in Arkansaw, Wisconsin. His work has appeared in Chronicles: A magazine of American Culture. His first-ever book: Beating the Powers that Be: Independent Political Movements and Parties of the Upper Midwest and their Relevance in Third-party Politics of Today is now out on sale from Publish America. Go to the their website at www.publishamerica.com to order a copy. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.
By: Sean Scallon
Just recently I was appointed to the Board of Supervisors of my home county of Pepin, Wisconsin.
This past spring the incumbent board member for my district decided not to run again, but no one else stepped up to run for his seat in his stead.
So board membership would pass to whomever won the most write-in votes in the local election which took place in April.
There was a three-way tie with two votes each, which included yours truly. I had to go through a vetting process by my township board, whose recommendation would steer the county board in making their choice. Luckily, I passed the test and was appointed.
Ahh the joys of rotten boroughs. I'd better get quite a gift for my wife for our anniversary.
Most local offices in Wisconsin are non-partisan, designed that way on purpose to keep the state's major parties from using them as patronage. But holders of such offices can declare for whatever party they wish and I've decided to do so here and now.
I shall be the first-ever Libertarian-Constitutionalist fusion party board member. I declare myself for both the Libertarian and Constitution parties.
Sup. Sean Scallon, L/C-Arkansaw
Impossible you say? I'm supposed to pick one or the other?
Who says?
If this be America, then I should be able to do as I please when it comes to picking a political party for myself. What rule says I must be one thing and only one thing alone?
There are parts of the Libertarian Party platform I support and there are parts of the Constitution Party platform I support.
I know that there are a lot of issues that divide both these non-major parties but there are several issues that they agree on.
Both are parties that believe in a non-intervention in foreign policy. They believe in sound money and the coinage of gold and silver. They believe in decentralized government. They believe in the federal government acting strict accordance with the Constitution. They're both against the expansive power of the federal government, especially when it comes to the Patriot Act and warrantless wire-tapping of U.S. citizens.
That's a solid platform to stand on. It's the same one Ron Paul ran on and it attracted members of both parties to work for him. Heck, in my experience, I worked for the Paul campaign right out of the headquarters of the Minnesota State Libertarian Party in St. Paul and during the Minnesota State Fair I worked at the Constitution Party booth campaigning for Ron Paul.
Indeed, many Paul supporters are right now trying to decide whether or not to vote for either LP presidential candidate Bob Barr or CP presidential candidate Rev. Chuck Baldwin.
I'll make my decision for the fall campaign when I come to that fork in the road. But it will be a tough decision to make because both men can make persuasive arguments for their candidacies on the same platform that Paul ran on for the past year and a half.
It would have been easier to choose Rev. Baldwin if the Libertarians had gone mad and nominated Mary Ruwart at their recent national convention. But wiser heads prevailed and now the LP has their best chance to make an impact in a national election since 1980. And because the LP did nominate Barr and fellow disgruntled Republican Wayne Allyn Root, they've made for a more difficult choice. Of course, Rev. Baldwin has been consistent in his views for many years. Both Barr and Root were fairly conventional Republicans until they became disillusioned with their party over the past two years and decided to move to the LP. I understand it takes a leap of faith for Libertarians to believe that both men have changed their ways, but such conversions do happen and must if a party is to grow.
What would Christianity be like if the apostles rejected Paul?
Barr's nomination, assuming the radicals in the LP make good on their threat to bolt the LP or at least, eventually, fade away (a big if) does pose new possibilities in non-major party politics. Great possibilities.
The LP and CP are two different parties not just because of their stands on various issues, but because culturally, the LP is secular and the CP is sectarian. Ergo, it would be almost impossible for both decentralist parties to ever merge fully.
But that's okay. Both parties should be allowed to operate in areas in which they would be strongest on the local level. After all, I've advocated on any number of occasions that non-major parties should focus exclusively on local issues and matters to engage their ideas from the bottom up in places where such ideas will be able to sell best.
And really, their differences on the issues deal with matters that should be decided on the local level to begin with, like narcotics or gambling or prayer in school or abortion or immigration, you name it. Both parties can decide what they want to stand for on the local village board, town meeting, state legislature, or county board of supervisors.
But what about creating a new national party made up LP and CP members, disgruntled Republicans, Democrats, heck even some Greens as well (like Montana's Bob Kelleher, the conservative Green (!) who won the Republican nomination to the U.S. Senate with the help of Ron Paul supporters)?
If Canadians can have separate political parties on the local and federal level, why can't the U.S.?
This new party would run on a platform of non-interventionism, for the independent coinage of gold and silver, a strong dollar, for abolishing the Federal Reserve, for well-secured borders and a proper policy for national defense and foreign affairs. For restoring Constitutional government, reducing the size of the bureaucracy and decentralism. And it would be for true free trade instead of the managed trade of world-wide bureaucracies. Yes immigration would be a sticking point, but I think both sides could agree on proper enforcement of current immigration laws with a reduction of the welfare state and interventionist foreign policy that draws so many immigrants to the U.S. and with a more fair and balanced quota system.
It may seem far fetched, but the potential for such a party could, I stress could, come about if Barr not only does well this fall in the total number of votes he wins, but also takes the taint of radicalism away from the party that has kept like-minded Republicans and Democrats so far away from the LP as not to touch it with a ten-foot pole (the CP has also vetted out its radicals as well over the past few years). If the GOP suffers massively this fall, would not some Republican office holders be willing to join with the LP and the CP for their own survival given the current unpopularity of the Republican brand and could not these elements be joined together in a new party that would have instant credibility with such office holders in tow that people know and have voted for in the past?
If the Ron Paul campaign taught us anything, it's that it's possible for such seeming different and disparate groups can come together for common national cause and a common national platform that Paul ran on. Why not keep that unity for the future with a new national party instead being walled off in our non-major party ghettos? Everyone talks about forming a new party. They do all the time. But now the possibility truly exists among those who wish to see the U.S. reduce its empire abroad and at home and restore the values the country was founded on and restore Constitutional government to join a party that truly reflects its views instead of being unhappy members of the major parties always voting for the lesser of two evils.
Count me in as its first member.
Sean Scallon is a freelance writer and newspaper reporter who lives in Arkansaw, Wisconsin. His work has appeared in Chronicles: A magazine of American Culture. His first-ever book: Beating the Powers that Be: Independent Political Movements and Parties of the Upper Midwest and their Relevance in Third-party Politics of Today is now out on sale from Publish America. Go to the their website at www.publishamerica.com to order a copy. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.