Printo
10-22-2008, 05:43 PM
Small Tent
Daniel Larson
October 20, 2008
p. 27
In a move that has fragmented his nascent libertarian
populist movement, Ron Paul endorsed Constitution
Party nominee Chuck Baldwin. The decision is a deliberate snub to the Libertarian candidate,
Bob Barr.
Preferring to avoid a choice between
two claimants to his legacy, Paul at first
attempted a blanket endorsement of all
of the major third-party candidates,
which provoked a protest from Barr.
Paul’s subsequent endorsement of the
Constitution Party candidate has hardened
the rift between Paul loyalists,
whom Baldwin represents, and Barr supporters,
who see their candidate as the
best chance to increase the Libertarians’
share of the vote in a year when conditions
favor a third-party challenge on the
Right. The endorsement saga reminded
everyone of how many mutually antagonistic
factions came together behind Ron
Paul in the primaries and how unsustainable
this movement was.
The crack-up began Sept. 10, when
Paul held a press conference to unveil
his multi-endorsement of Chuck Baldwin,
Cynthia McKinney of the Green
Party, and independent Ralph Nader.
Many of Paul’s supporters were dismayed
that their hero could support
such radically different candidates, but
the confusing endorsement was an
accurate reflection of the ideological
hodgepodge of Paul’s admirers during
the primaries. Barr had been invited, but
declined to participate, quickly organizing
a press conference of his own at
which he ridiculed Paul’s decision as a
failure of leadership. Many Paul supporters
had been unenthusiastic about
Barr all along, a fact reflected in the miserable
results of his fundraising efforts,
in stark contrast to the Ron Paul “money bombs” of last winter. Now most of
them will lend Barr no help at all.
The former Georgia congressman
clinched the Libertarian nomination in
May at least partly on the grounds that he
had enough name recognition and ideological
credibility to increase the Libertarian
vote. Disaffected conservatives found
both McCain and Obama unacceptable
and were looking for someone to advance
Paul’s message. As a pro-life immigration
restrictionist, Barr offered the LP the possibility
of winning over populist conservative
voters, while his newfound civil libertarian
and antiwar views would secure
the party’s base. Paul’s popular but ultimately
unsuccessful primary candidacy
for the Republican Party offered many
clues for how this might work, but Barr
desperately needed Paul to signal to his
supporters that they should rally around
the Libertarian candidate.
The Baldwin endorsement scuttled
that hope. Dissident conservatives, who
may once have been drawn to Barr, now
have less reason to back a Libertarian
platform with which they disagree and a
candidate who until recently was indistinguishable
from conventional Republicans.
The Constitution Party has been
an explicitly conservative third party for
two decades: it is proudly pro-life, prosovereignty,
and restrictionist in a way
that Barr as the Libertarian nominee
could never be. It is the natural home for
traditional conservatives who cannot
support McCain. Paul’s seal of approval
has made it that much easier for social
conservatives and constitutionalists to
vote for Baldwin.
Moreover, Barr’s increasingly petulant
responses to the endorsement have
alienated conservatives who were sympathetic
to his candidacy. At a Reason
event held in conjunction with the first
presidential debate, Barr was asked
about Paul’s Baldwin endorsement. He
replied by attacking Paul and dismissing
Baldwin as a “theocratic candidate.”
Evidently not embarrassed by his own
thin record as a civil libertarian and
opponent of the war in Iraq, Barr
claimed that Paul “used to espouse” a
libertarian agenda and had somehow
ceased to do so with his endorsement of
the Constitution Party’s candidate.
Most disappointing for Paul’s supporters
has been the unraveling of the movement
in the immediate aftermath of the
successful Rally for the Republic counterconvention
in St. Paul. While many conservative
Paul backers are more likely to
agree with the priorities of the Constitution
Party, the promise of the movement
depended upon holding on to its libertarian
and conservative factions. Unfortunately,
as often seems to happen in
protest movements, the policy-driven
Ron Paul Revolution has broken apart
because of clashing personalities.
As all of this unfolded, the financial
crisis revealed the prescience and
importance of Paul’s warnings about the
Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary
policy. This issue, which Paul stressed
repeatedly during his primary campaign
—much to the eye-rolling amusement of
supposedly serious journalists and pundits—
has proved far more relevant in
this election cycle than anyone could
have guessed. It is particularly unfortunate
for the country that there will not
be a unified, coherent movement to give
voice to this critique at a time when we
need it most.
Kinda sad that they're calling the Revolution dead. :( Can we prove them wrong?
Daniel Larson
October 20, 2008
p. 27
In a move that has fragmented his nascent libertarian
populist movement, Ron Paul endorsed Constitution
Party nominee Chuck Baldwin. The decision is a deliberate snub to the Libertarian candidate,
Bob Barr.
Preferring to avoid a choice between
two claimants to his legacy, Paul at first
attempted a blanket endorsement of all
of the major third-party candidates,
which provoked a protest from Barr.
Paul’s subsequent endorsement of the
Constitution Party candidate has hardened
the rift between Paul loyalists,
whom Baldwin represents, and Barr supporters,
who see their candidate as the
best chance to increase the Libertarians’
share of the vote in a year when conditions
favor a third-party challenge on the
Right. The endorsement saga reminded
everyone of how many mutually antagonistic
factions came together behind Ron
Paul in the primaries and how unsustainable
this movement was.
The crack-up began Sept. 10, when
Paul held a press conference to unveil
his multi-endorsement of Chuck Baldwin,
Cynthia McKinney of the Green
Party, and independent Ralph Nader.
Many of Paul’s supporters were dismayed
that their hero could support
such radically different candidates, but
the confusing endorsement was an
accurate reflection of the ideological
hodgepodge of Paul’s admirers during
the primaries. Barr had been invited, but
declined to participate, quickly organizing
a press conference of his own at
which he ridiculed Paul’s decision as a
failure of leadership. Many Paul supporters
had been unenthusiastic about
Barr all along, a fact reflected in the miserable
results of his fundraising efforts,
in stark contrast to the Ron Paul “money bombs” of last winter. Now most of
them will lend Barr no help at all.
The former Georgia congressman
clinched the Libertarian nomination in
May at least partly on the grounds that he
had enough name recognition and ideological
credibility to increase the Libertarian
vote. Disaffected conservatives found
both McCain and Obama unacceptable
and were looking for someone to advance
Paul’s message. As a pro-life immigration
restrictionist, Barr offered the LP the possibility
of winning over populist conservative
voters, while his newfound civil libertarian
and antiwar views would secure
the party’s base. Paul’s popular but ultimately
unsuccessful primary candidacy
for the Republican Party offered many
clues for how this might work, but Barr
desperately needed Paul to signal to his
supporters that they should rally around
the Libertarian candidate.
The Baldwin endorsement scuttled
that hope. Dissident conservatives, who
may once have been drawn to Barr, now
have less reason to back a Libertarian
platform with which they disagree and a
candidate who until recently was indistinguishable
from conventional Republicans.
The Constitution Party has been
an explicitly conservative third party for
two decades: it is proudly pro-life, prosovereignty,
and restrictionist in a way
that Barr as the Libertarian nominee
could never be. It is the natural home for
traditional conservatives who cannot
support McCain. Paul’s seal of approval
has made it that much easier for social
conservatives and constitutionalists to
vote for Baldwin.
Moreover, Barr’s increasingly petulant
responses to the endorsement have
alienated conservatives who were sympathetic
to his candidacy. At a Reason
event held in conjunction with the first
presidential debate, Barr was asked
about Paul’s Baldwin endorsement. He
replied by attacking Paul and dismissing
Baldwin as a “theocratic candidate.”
Evidently not embarrassed by his own
thin record as a civil libertarian and
opponent of the war in Iraq, Barr
claimed that Paul “used to espouse” a
libertarian agenda and had somehow
ceased to do so with his endorsement of
the Constitution Party’s candidate.
Most disappointing for Paul’s supporters
has been the unraveling of the movement
in the immediate aftermath of the
successful Rally for the Republic counterconvention
in St. Paul. While many conservative
Paul backers are more likely to
agree with the priorities of the Constitution
Party, the promise of the movement
depended upon holding on to its libertarian
and conservative factions. Unfortunately,
as often seems to happen in
protest movements, the policy-driven
Ron Paul Revolution has broken apart
because of clashing personalities.
As all of this unfolded, the financial
crisis revealed the prescience and
importance of Paul’s warnings about the
Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary
policy. This issue, which Paul stressed
repeatedly during his primary campaign
—much to the eye-rolling amusement of
supposedly serious journalists and pundits—
has proved far more relevant in
this election cycle than anyone could
have guessed. It is particularly unfortunate
for the country that there will not
be a unified, coherent movement to give
voice to this critique at a time when we
need it most.
Kinda sad that they're calling the Revolution dead. :( Can we prove them wrong?