IT WAS going to be a revolution: a Ron Paul revolution of libertarianism and constitutionalism. The Texas Representative running for President raised massive amounts of money in the neighborhood of $28,000,000 and had a groundswell of grassroot support. Last fall with these impressive fundraising numbers, many people were wondering just how far the revolution would go.
Then came the primary season and Paul underperformed in state after state. And recently he suspended his campaign to focus on a primary challenge for his Congressional seat. So far, Paul has earned 16 pledged delegates which translate to roughly $1,750,000 for each delegate.?
Some Paul supporters may argue that the two parties have corrupted the system and aim only to keep the status quo in power and keep all other political views out. The fact is that the current electoral laws create a two party system which facilitates the emergence of more moderate views within the political parties. This is not a conspiracy by those in power, rather it is a productive aparatus for weeding out fringe candidates. ?
Fringe candidates who run for president often waste their time, energy and the voters' money on elections they cannot win. When these candidates run next to more moderate presidential hopefuls, their beliefs look extreme and people perceive that they are too radical to govern. In order for his movement to stay viable, Paul and his supporters should recognize this reality of American electoral politics and realize that his presidential run may actually hurt their cause. Instead, they should focus their energies on more productive ways of changing the system by seeking lower offices and influencing policy through organizations such as think tanks.
The vast majority of Republican primary voters will never vote to nominate Paul because they want to win the election in November and it is impossible for such a fringe candidate to win. The Republican Party is instead going to nominate John McCain who is the most moderate candidate and who has the best chance to win. Some may claim that Paul has shifted the debate within the Republican party and so his candidacy mattered, but the reality is that the Republican party is no closer to adopting his libertarian ideas and may actually be more recalcitrant toward them. For example, on the critical issue of Iraq, the Republican party is going to nominate a candidate with the exact opposite view of Paul on the issue.
The American electoral system does not lend itself to many parties with vastly different beliefs. It creates a system in which only two moderate parties can exist, because you need a majority of electoral votes without needing a majority in individual states. For example in the general election, if someone supports libertarian views and lives in Ohio, they could vote for the Libertarian party. However, a vote for the Libertarian party is one less vote for the Republican party. This gives the Democrats a better a chance to get the most votes and win the state's all-important electoral votes. A rational libertarian voter who likes the Republicans more than the Democrats will not want to waste their vote on a party that has no chance of gaining power.
This may seem like a pretty bad system because it is not representative of the views of the entire population. However, it does have its advantages, such as keeping radical views out of power and keeping the two major parties moderate so that they can win elections.?
Paul obviously has a strong base of support even though it is not large enough to win a Presidential election. The millions of dollars that Paul raised and spent during the course of the campaign could have been put into better use in places.
For example, Paul and his supporters could focus on getting more libertarians elected in lower offices. Paul himself is a United States Representative and electing more libertarians at the local, state and federal level would certainly have a positive impact. Paul's movement could also use policy think-tanks to do scholarly work on substantive proposals and then use lobbyists to get those proposals enacted into law. These things would be a much productive use of time and energy as opposed to just running for president and losing.
Paul himself never had a chance of being elected President and he never even had a chance to win the nomination because of American electoral laws and his supporters should realize this obvious fact. The danger for Paul is that his base of support may become disillusioned by their loss and his movement could begin to fade away. To avoid this outcome, they should shift their focus from trying to win elections to trying to shift policy in other more productive ways.
Sam Shirazi is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at sshirazi@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KAVITHA: U.Va. must strengthen efforts to combat opioid overdose in the community
By Gayathri Kavitha | 19 hours agoAddiction crises should be understood as communal, rather than individual.
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | December 16, 2024It is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
