Paulistas Aren’t Lying Down in 2012
July 13, 2009 by Cato
Filed under Conservatism, Libertarianism, National Politics, Video
Devotees of Republitarian congressman Ron Paul aren’t planning on sitting out the 2012 election without running a candidate. Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson appears to be that candidate:
While highly unlikely that Paul (or another libertarian) can win, the GOP needs learn to court these voters. In 2008, the Paulistas were young and ACTIVE. No boots on ground, NO WIN! That means addressing some of the key issues held dear by the Paulistas. Sure, we may not agree with them all. We may believe that some are a bit impractical even if we do agree in principle. Perhaps we can work together by agreeing on a Burkean line. We have to deal with reality, and change must be gradual rather than radical.
Dismissing this growing body of activists – go to a Tea Party or AFP meeting – means tough sledding.
Sphere: Related Content
Many of us prefer the moniker, PAULISTINIANS.
The lesson learned by the Paulistinians during the 2007-2008 nomination process, is that the Republican Party is no place for people who love LIBERTY, FREEDOM and for those who are advocates of Constitution-based government.
America needs a new party to emerge and replace the corrupt, backward Republicans. Paulistinians were treated with nothing but contempt by the Republican leadership during 2008. It would be foolish to lend support to the Republicans ever again.
Let the Republicans continue to fade and go the way of the Whigs. Help build a new party; not another “third party, but a replacement for the Republican Party.
My apologies Tyler. I’ll try to remember in the future.
You are quite correct that you were treated poorly. It reminds me of the way many of us (Reaganites) were treated in 1976, and even a portion of 1980. However, I do believe that you are wrong to abandon the GOP.
A third party simply cannot win elections in the current environment. Obviously the Democrats are not an option. What you can do is have an impact on the nominating process and general election, particularly in certain localities and certain states. This translates into forcing the other factions in the GOP to give you the respect that you deserve and listen (and act) on your concerns.
If you choose to take an “all or nothing” purist approach to this then you will not be able to win and will simply hand elections over to Democrats. One of the reasons that I consider myself a Burkean conservative rather than a libertarian is because I acknowledge the political realities. I can work to change them, but I’ll never do so by being an ideologue.
Take care.
You are quite right that a third party is not effective, that is why many have concluded that the Republican Party must be replaced. Many of us have tried for decades to work within the Party to nominate freedom loving, libertarian minded Republicans, but, as we witnessed in the last campaign, the Republican leadership has no interest in the Constitution, liberty or serving as an advocate for the citizens.
The fish rots from the head on down. The Republican fish is rotten from its head to its tail and must be buried to end its putrid stench from further offending the People.
The Republicans emerged during a time of national turmoil after the Whig Party had lost touch with the changes that were happening in the United States of that time. Now, we have the Republican Party with its credibility in ruins after the many unconstitutional actions during the Bush regime.
The GOP has lost the trust of the American People. While there remains some good folks affiliated with the Republican rank and file, the leadership is entirely beholden to the giant multinational corporations.
When a political party abandons, or in the case of the Republicans, turns against the citizens, the People must build a new political party that is dedicated to being our champion of the Constitution and that will reliably be a voice of our citizens.
With God’s blessing, the citizens shall arise and unite to save our republic.
I don’t argue with anything you say. If I disagree it is only on methodology (and some of our policy differences). Unfortunately, I don’t believe that it is probable that the GOP can be “replaced”. Therefore, your best bet is to take over the party apparatus in individual states and localities.
As I stated before, if you are looking for a purist result then you have a long, bitter road to travel. However, if you are willing to work with other groups that have similar (if not equal) beliefs then you can succeed. There are still plenty of us old Reaganites around who are more in agreement with you than in what passes for “leadership” in the GOP today.
I recommend that you read Reclaiming Conservatism by Mickey Edwards. Edwards was one of our leaders during the ’70’s and ’80’s. He’s definitely of a more libertarian bent (ie Goldwater). I just don’t see people like you, and people like me, being successful unless we can come together and agree to disagree on a few things.
As a libertarian Republican and one who voted for Ron Paul in the primary, let me add my two cents.
One, those in the GOP hierarchy don’t really control the party. They don’t choose nominees. Voters in primaries do. In fact, these primary voters also choose the Central Committee members which then choose the leadership of the state party. If you want to change the party, it’s vital that you vote in the primaries. Get active, get organized, and get to work. If you don’t like the direction of the GOP, the only way to change it is to be involved in the primary process.
Two, many of Paul’s supporters only hurt themselves in the last election. They embraced candidates like Joe Arminio, who, while a nice guy, is an incredibly poor candidate with some very strange and misguided ideas. You have to embrace decent candidates who can give a coherent speech and not come off looking like lunatics if you want to win people over. Furthermore, many Paul supporters don’t have a lot of finesse. Politics is a game of winning people to your side. You do that both through your ideas as well as through other intangible things, like projecting an attractive image. The Paul supporters didn’t play nice with others in a lot of instances and were treated badly as a result. What I’m saying is that a lot of the issues faced by the Paul supporters weren’t necessarily a rejection of the message but a rejection of the messengers.
If you want to influence the direction of a party, you aren’t going to make much headway by telling its members that it’s “corrupt and backward.” You aren’t going to make any headway with guys like Joe Arminio as a candidate. Look in the mirror as to why Paul failed so miserably last year. I’m about as libertarian as they get and if you’re alienating folks like me, then you need to change some things.
While you are correct as to Maryland, this does not apply in many other states. Tyler, as an example, lives in Virginia and primaries have no impact on how the state party is governed. In fact, one of the factors that will keep the GOP a heavy minority in the not-so-Free State is that fact.
Example -
Just over a month ago over 10,000 party activists came together in Richmond to nominate Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling, and Ken Cuccinelli, along with Pat Mullins as the new RPV chair. Many of those people will be out knocking on doors and making phone calls between now and November.
In Maryland, you couldn’t get 5,000 real GOP activists together on a bet. Why? Because the people that run the party are from areas of the state that either don’t elect Republicans, or if they do, moderate to liberal ones. In my work with party members around the Eastern Shore, this is a very common complaint.
You are correct that Paulistinians (I hope I got it right this time Tyler) are not going to win by putting up candidates like Joe Arminio. They are not going to win converts and allies within the GOP by calling people names. However, with the increasing prominence of grassroots groups like AFP and non-auxiliary GOP groups like the new Eastern Shore Republican Alliance, state parties like MDGOP will have a choice – become totally irrelevant or get their act together.
In better organized states, libertarian minded Republicans do have a chance of to move quicker. Just as importantly, those GOP members who are not of a libertarian bent need to quit ridiculing those who are. I’ll admit that I’ve been guilty in the past, but am trying to learn from my mistakes.
I offer my apologies to Tyler for assuming he was a Marylander. I know Virginians see this as a grave insult.
I stand by my general point, though. If enough libertarian Republicans were active in the party it would translate to changes in the party leadership. In Maryland that activity takes place in party primaries. In Virginia, as you point out, there are other ways those who love liberty to influence the party’s direction.
In Maryland, you are right that the party apparatus is controlled by folks from Montgomery, PG, and Anne Arundel County. However, if libertarians were active in those areas then they would have a say on the state party. And while I may differ with others, I don’t really see the state party apparatus as being that important. Candidates are selected in primaries. Candidates generally raise funds on their own. Local organizations like Republican clubs can do a lot of grassroots work (and I know we need to do it better here, so I take my share of the blame for failings on that end).
The state party is important to a certain extent but in talking to many people disaffected by the party it seems they overstate its importance. The impression I get from them is that they see a bunch of party bosses dictating to candidates and party workers what the party stands for and what the officeholders will do. It seems a convenient excuse to complain about the GOP without actually having to put any effort into changing it: “Oh, the party bosses just run thing anyway, so I’ll sit here and b*tch.”
All I’m saying that if you’re a libertarian and want to change things, get involved in the party on a grassroots level. That’s what I did. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone much more libertarian than I am (outside of some Randians or Rothbardians, that is). I certainly don’t ridicule anyone for being a libertarian. But I don’t want to be associated with “libertarians” who have the attitude that “if you disagree with me then you are corrupt or ignorant,” who spout conspiracy theories, or who aren’t interested in building bridges to other potential Republican voters.
And, of course, you are right that the GOP establishment needs to take into account these grassroots groups springing up. Members of both the establishment and the grassroots groups need to learn to listen to each other. If not we’re going to be stuck with the current liberal leadership for the so-called “Free State.”
You are correct in almost everything you say, including the fact that your “small l” libertarian credentials are above reproach. While what you are saying is correct, you miss a very important point. In order to win consistently requires a large number of boots on ground. While not a requirement, it has been my experience that a robust state and district party apparatus helps greatly in this. This was my point about getting 10,000 activists to come to a state convention.
While philosophy, and individual candidates, are factors in attracting activists, so is the knowledge that one “has a seat at the table”. This is an important point personally because, just as you and Tyler are more philosophically simpatico than Tyler and I, I am reminded of my greatest mentor growing up in politics, a lady named Pam Clark. Pam and I were not always in agreement on candidates or philosophy. While conservative, she was a bit more “moderate” than I am. However, Pam taught me early on that one must respect those that you don’t always agree with and to actively work with those folk if you want to win. You must also be willing to do the work that you expect others to do. This was also a lesson we all should have learned from the great Ronald Reagan.
There simply aren’t enough activists to do the work necessary to win if you relegate yourself to only dealing with those that you are in 90%+ agreement with on issues or from you own little patch. This is my argument with the MDGOP and the way it is structured. This is why I advocate a state party structured around the Congressional District. As Virginia was moving towards a Republican majority, success would not have been possible if we did not work actively with people outside of our individual units. You seldom see that here. This is one reason for groups like the ESRA as well as grassroots groups focused solely around issues. They provide a pool of interested individuals from whom to draw on when it comes time to knock on doors and make phone calls.
As an example, if the Wicomico County Republican Club possessed 20 – 30 members who were willing to go out and knock on 100 doors (each) on a weekend for 10 weeks every election cycle AND were also willing to make 100 phone calls a week for 10 weeks, at least 5 (and probably 6 or even 7) of the seven members of the Wicomico County Council would be real Republicans. We would be able to recruit quality candidates for the other county offices and be able to win those. If we had the same in Worcester County, we would be almost guaranteed to have a GOP Senator in 38 after Lowell Stoltzfus chooses to retire and one or two Republican Delegates in 38-B. In each one of those counties there would be some activists who are not only willing to work hard in their backyard, but to help in other areas of the state as well.
If every county had a proportional number of activists the results would be even more stunning. While I have no illusions of “running the table” with Congressional seats or in the General Assembly, the days of a one party state would be gone forever. We could easily have 4 of the 8 Congressional seats and more down the road. However, having a state party that is actually interested about winning elections rather than retaining personal power (which amounts to nothing given the current state of the Maryland GOP) helps to grow a party locally, district-wide and state-wide).
I agree with you on pretty much all your points. If we had the folks interested, then we’d be in a lot better shape. I think this points to the fact that there aren’t enough small government folks in Maryland to actually change our state’s politics and those small government folks who are out there don’t really want to work for change. We’d do a lot better in our area if we could mobilize the small government folks and, as you indicate, it would prove the difference in some of our area’s close races. People don’t seem to want to step up, though.
I’d love it if the whole TEA Party movement produced a bunch of candidates who ran in the GOP primary next year or a bunch of volunteers who turned out for small government candidates. I’d love it, but I’ll be surprised if it happens. I hope to be proven wrong and I’d welcome any ideas on how to increase involvement.
You’ve been to AFP meetings. In a short period of time they have managed to attract a lot of people (over 600 names and as many people attending meetings as the WCRC gets). They’re out there. AFP is starting up chapters all over Maryland and will probably have every area covered by year’s end.
However, to keep limited (or small) government conservatives like these engaged will mean that the GOP will have to overcome their distrust and skepticism.
Marc: I wrote articles very similar posts such as yours in the years prior to 2008. “Work within the system, within the Party at your local level,” I would always say. I even took up corresponding with all sorts of fringe groups, in an effort to get them to join the GOP and help reform the Party from within. I eventually saw such egregious corruption at the top of the Party that I reached the conclusion that, when a Party turns against the people, then it must be replaced.
BTW, I used to live in Maryland (where I ran the Naval Reserve Center at Fort McHenry), Back then, in my spare time, i was a volunteer coordinator for Bob Erlich’s campaign. Many Virginians, like me have worked and lived in Maryland and I think most folks here have warm feelings towards our Maryland compatriots, except perhaps during football and basketball games.
As for Americans for Prosperity, if you examine where the leadership is located and the source of their funding, you will no doubt conclude that it is not a grassroots group, but another lobbying effort by the usual political operatives.