Birchers Increasing Ties With Conservative Movement

December 16, 2009 — Ron Chusid

The conservative movement has moved so far to the extreme right that the Birchers are no longer too extreme for them. With conspiracy theories becoming typical of conservative thought, they are quickly moving into the mainstream of the movement.

Years ago leading conservatives such as William F. Buckley, Jr. worked to exclude far right wing extremists such as those in the John Birch Society from the conservative movement. A couple of years ago I noted how the Birchers were becoming more acceptable among conservatives, noting Ron Paul’s support for the organization and Glenn Beck publicly saying how the Birchers were “starting to make more and more sense” to him.  Sarah Palin has even posed with a copy of The New American, the publication of The John Birch Society, prominent on her desk.

The connections between the John Birch Society and the conservative movement are becoming even stronger with the group now announcing that they are cosponsoring the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2010, to be held in Washington DC, Feb. 18-20.

Posted in Republicans, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin. 3 Comments »

Paul Undecided On 2012 Run

November 15, 2009 — Ron Chusid

While there was little which was truly pro-freedom in Ron Paul’s platform of mixing Republican social conservatism and states’ rights ideas with libertarian bumper sticker lines, the Paul campaign was one of the more interesting aspects of the 2008 elections. The Hill reports that Paul says it is “too early” to decide as to whether he is running for president in 2012. For now he is concentrating on his reelection campaign.

While Paul generated a lot of interest, he was not able to receive a meaningful number of votes. It is questionable if he could match his 2008 levels of support without the Iraq war as a major issue. Paul did manage to build a grass roots movement capable of making some noise, but was not able to obtain any meaningful degree of national support.

Unfortunately the libertarian elements of his movement were ultimately drowned out by the racists, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis who also flocked to the Paul movement, often better understanding Paul’s views than his younger supporters. Ultimately Paul’s close relationship with extremist groups and the promotion of racism in his newsletter led many libertarians to disassociate themselves with Paul. Without either the Iraq war or support from libertarians it is questionable if Paul could recreate the excitement of the 2008 campaign.

Posted in Libertarianism, Ron Paul. 2 Comments »

Embracing One’s Meandering Cat

November 6, 2009 — Ron Chusid

I initially wasn’t going to bother responding to David Brooks‘ column today–until I read Pete Abel’s response. Brooks, perhaps thinking being a New York Times columnist gives him the authority,  presumes to understand the thoughts of all independents.  In the end he uses what he claims to be the views of independents to justify calling on the Democratic Party to do what he believes should be done.

One problem with the column is in discussing independents as a cohesive block of voters. I’ve already discussed the vast differences between independents in previous posts, such as here. There is no single position held by independents.

Abel cites a line from the column before proceeding to debunk Brooks’ premise. The line of interest, and the primary reason why I’m actually writing this post, is “Independents are herds of cats who find out what they think through a meandering process of discovery.” This leads to Pete Abel’s conclusion:

I shouldn’t tell Brooks how to write his column. Hell, he’s paid to write it, and I’m writing for nothing. Still … in floating test arguments for conservatives, Brooks’ seems to forget his meandering-cats metaphor and the import of that metaphor, namely: If in 12- to 18-months’ time, the cats can skew conservative, it’s entirely possible they’ll skew liberal in another 12- to 18-months, especially if the economy continues to heal and the masses get accustomed to new, more egalitarian health care rules.

See, that’s the problem with cats and independents, including this one. We’re sometimes forgetful, and very easily distracted.

Pete embraces Brooks’ characterization as a wandering cat while using it to show where Brooks is wrong. The more I think about it, the more I also like the description of  “a meandering process of discovery.” Of course stress the fact that for many of us there was a process, and there is discovery. If looked at in the right way, meandering is not necessarily bad. This is far preferable to the ideologues, both on the left and right, who are always certain that all the answers are contained in their ideology.

I certainly have meandered over the decades. During my meandering, I’ve looked at the conservative movement and the Republican Party. I read magazines such as National Review and Human Events. Even decades ago, well before Fox,  I saw many of the features of the conservative movement which we see today. Their use of the rhetoric supporting freedom was not matched by their policy positions. The conservative magazines created an imaginary world which contradicted what I read from more objective sources. Just as is the case now, conservatives would “explain” this by complaining of a biased press which was hiding the truth.

If Republicans supported freedom in their rhetoric alone, libertarians were more consistent here.  Philosophically I come closest to libertarianism in the respect that I remain strongly committed to civil liberties. I would like libertarianism to be correct that everything else is also better when the government stays out. Unfortunately for holding such philosophical beliefs, I found that this is often not true. I also meandered away from the libertarian movement as I saw how easily libertarians were able to cherry pick facts to support their economic beliefs while ignoring any contrary evidence.

Practicing medicine and running a business made it clear that all the libertarian and conservative beliefs about health care which supported their opposition to “socialized medicine” were simply not grounded in reality. Libertarianism is unable to respond to the big problems which do require government action, such as the health care crisis and climate change. In response to such problems, libertarians and conservatives hide from reality and pretend the problems do not even exist.

Unfortunately I also found that libertarianism was often contaminated by its relationship to the conservative movement with libertarian beliefs often being twisted to lead to a decrease in personal freedom. This was especially apparent with Ron Paul’s presidential run. Many self-described libertarians justified his social conservatism, along with his view of states’ rights which would permit tyranny as long as done under the auspices of a state as opposed to the federal government.  At least Paul was consistent in his opposition to the Iraq War, with people calling themselves libertarian even finding ways to justify the war and the Patriot Act.

Well before the 2008 election I had meandered closer to the Democrats. If I would have ever considered voting Republican, the Bush years made that impossible. At least the Democrats offered an alternative to neoconservative foreign policy and to the social views of the religious right. Meandering to hang out with the Democrats, I also found that their views were far different from how they were characterized by the right. That is primarily because of their views being mischaracterized, but to some degree as Democrats had also meandered a bit over the years.

I might not agree with Democrats on all matters but at least, in contrast to Republicans, their views tend to be reality based, especially if you exclude the extremes on the fringes. In the case of Republicans, the extremists have taken control. Even when I disagree with a Democrat or someone on the left, it often comes down to a difference of opinion based upon the actual facts, as opposed to the fantasy-based arguments which have become even more common from conservatives.

I’ve meandered quite a bit in this post, (far more than I initially intended) but I guess this is appropriate considering the title. Getting back to Brooks, Pete has it right. Independents are scared right now, but can easily meander back to the Democrats if they see signs that we are on the right track next year. Republicans might have picked up a couple of wins this week, but they mean very little when looking back at previous off-year elections. Independents might meander, and a few will meander back to the Republicans, but many of us will not. Back in 1992 I initially thought it might be a good thing to have a Republican Congress to counter Bill and Hillary Clinton. After seeing what they did, I won’t make that mistake again. On this point at least, I hope Pete is wrong about independents being forgetful.

Posted in Blogosphere, Democrats, George Bush, Independents, Libertarianism, Op-eds, Republicans, Ron Paul. 3 Comments »

Belief in Creationism Appears To Be New Litmus Test For Republicans

October 12, 2009 — Ron Chusid

In the 2008 election, the Republicans chose a young-earth creationist as their vice-presidential candidate. Secular Right finds that being a creationist is turning into a litmus test for potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates (Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan):

I’m on the record as saying that predictions for 2012 are very premature. But, it looks like 3 of the front-runners for the G.O.P. nomination are rather frank Creationists (Palin, Huckabee and Pawlenty). I’m skeptical about any of these as likely candidates (i.e., if you had to make a bet you’re going to be surprised), but if you keep adding individuals to the list it seems likely that we’re looking at a serious probability that the G.O.P. nominee in 2012 will be a Creationist.

Creationism doesn’t really have the same valence as abortion as a “culture war” issue, but, it is useful in being a distinctive marker for social conservative candidates. Mitt Romney is now notionally as pro-life as the social conservatives, but it seems unlikely that he’ll flip his position on evolution since he expressed himself so explicitly in the 2008 debates.

Creationism is far more than a marker for social conservative candidates. It is a marker for those who either will say anything to appease the religious right, which already makes one an unacceptable choice for president, or one who is ignorant of modern science and has difficulty with logical thought. Anyone who believes in creationism in the twenty-first century is unfit to not only be president but to hold any position of authority.

It is also even worse than having three of the top candidates being creationists. Framing Science quoted Tim Pawlenty as expressing belief in creationism last year. Bobby Jindal has backed the teaching of creationism in the public schools, with Framing Science having also noted an expression of support for creationism by Jindal last year.

Presumably Secular Right is only considering potential 2012 candidates who have some real chance of winning in their count. If we consider potential candidates who have no chance of actually winning, then Ron Paul would count as yet a fifth potential creationist candidate for the Republican nomination. I’m also not so certain that, considering his record for flip-flopping, that we can rule out Mitt Romney.

Posted in Blogosphere, Bobby Jindal, Evolution, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Religion, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin. 1 Comment »

Trolls As A Campaign Tactic

March 31, 2009 — Ron Chusid

Once again the right wing has found a way to cry that they are victims as Breitbart also applies a common right wing tactic of accusing liberals of doing things which the right has actually done. His paranoid rants include:

Much of Mr. Obama’s vaunted online strategy involved utilizing “Internet trolls” to invade enemy lines under false names and trying to derail discussion. In the real world, that’s called “vandalism.” But in a political movement that embraces “graffiti” as avant-garde art , that’s business as usual. It relishes the ability to destroy other people’s property in pursuit of electoral victory.

Trolls are a fact of life on blogs. I receive multiple comments from right wing hardly means that this is a strategy of any campaign (other than John McCain’s.) Anyone concerned that this will destroy their “property” simply has to use the blog’s moderation functions. Most blogs of any size on either the left or right have found it necessary to do so.

While most trolls are acting on their own, using blog comments was actually a strategy of the McCain campaign which Jonathan Martin wrote about last May:

John McCain’s campaign is using their campaign website to encourage supporters to post supportive comments on political blogs, including the most well-known liberal site in the blogosphere.   And to make things easier, they’re including talking points with which sympathizers can use to get out the McCain message.

“Select from the numerous web, blog and news sites listed here, go there, and make your opinions supporting John McCain known,” instructs the page.

McCain supporters are asked to send the details of their comment to the campaign, which in turn will verify it and then reward the supporter with “points” (assumedly to accumulate for McCain swag).

Wired wrote about it in June:

It seems that his campaign team is trying to extend that approach online. The McCain campaign in late May launched a new blogger outreach section on its website that encourages supporters to lobby for their candidate across 94 blogs that range in political bent from far left to far right.

The campaign arms the blog-raiders with one of McCain’s speeches on the need to transcend partisan politics to deal with the problems that the nation faces…

David All, a Republican Web 2.0 consultant, and co-founder of Slatecard, an online political action committee, defended the strategy. He calls it “smart” and “unique.”

“He’s got the most comprehensive blogger outreach strategy, and this is just an evolution of that,” he argues.

In recent years every campaign has had supporters who troll other blogs–and they generally do it without pay or official connections to the campaign. In 2008 this was seen predominantly from Ron Paul supporters with Hillary Clinton’s supporters coming in a distant second. Howard Dean had his share of supporters trolling other blogs in 2004 to the point where the campaign found this to be an embarrassment and urged supporters to cut it out. Sarah Palin has her share of rabid internet supporters, but, true to their candidate, they tend to be the least intelligent and many have difficulty even stringing together coherent troll comments. While Obama made extensive use of the internet to organize supporters, his campaign generally seemed to have far less interest in the blogosphere outside of their own campaign blog than most other recent campaigns.

Posted in Barack Obama, Blogosphere, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin. 11 Comments »

Ron Paul Predicts 15 Year Depression, Implosion of the Dollar

March 24, 2009 — Ron Chusid

Ron Paul has some predictions on the current economic downturn. Let’s hope that his predictions don’t come true. The Financial Times reports:

“People will start to abandon the dollar as current and past economic policies create a steep rise in interest rates,” Mr Paul says.

“If you are in Treasuries, you will need to be watchful and nimble to time your escape.”

Unfortunately, cashing out will not protect the value of investments, he insists, because “fiat” currencies will all decline over the coming years as measures to try to haul the world economy out of recession fail. “The current stimulus measures are making things a lot worse,” says Mr Paul.

“The US government just won’t allow the correction the economy needs.” He cites the mini-depression of 1921, which lasted just a year largely because insolvent companies were allowed to fail. “No one remembers that one. They’ll remember this one, because it will last 15 years.”

At some stage – Mr Paul estimates it will be between one and four years – the dollar will implode. “The dollar as a reserve standard is done,” he says. He sees little hope for other currencies where central banks have also created too much liquidity dating right back to the early 1970s.

“Europe and the US will both have to fundamentally change their money systems,” he adds.

And don’t even mention shares to Mr Paul: “The last place you want to be is in the stock market,” he says. “It may not bottom out for 10 years – just look at Japan.”

Posted in Economy, Ron Paul. 14 Comments »

Lumping Liberals and Libertarians

March 4, 2009 — Ron Chusid

Will Wilkinson remains on the right track in looking for similarities between (some) liberals and (some) libertarians, while continuing to face objections. He debunks one common objection:

The Lump of Liberalism Fallacy

That’s what I’m going to call the error I sense lurking beneath a lot of resistance to moderate libertarianism. The fallacy is based on an implicit denial of the fluidity of ideology and political identity. The bounds of “right” and “left” have shifted immensely over the past two generations. Yet political conversation at any time tends to proceed as if the ideological inclinations and cultural assumptions of the “left” and “right” are natural, essential, and fixed. So, just to pick an example out of the air, the argument that the considerable intellectual, cultural, and psychological overlap between moderate classical liberals and market-friendly modern liberals ought to be given more coherence as a political philosophy and political identity is invariably met with the claim that this is compltely pointless because these groups have traditionally been part of different partisan coalitions, and these coalitions are essentially this or that way. So in order to make something liberaltarianism a going concern, you’ve basically got to find enough libertarians and natural Democrats both willing to sell out everything they believe in and good luck with that. It’s basically the same reasoning that says it is impossible to introduce to market a successful new brand of cereal because all the preexisting cereals brands already have 100 percent of the market share. But there’s something pretty obviously wrong with that way of thinking. I’m a big fan of Kashi U.

I’ve noted many times that there has been a major change in the definitions of left versus right in this country, especially when trying to apply a simplistic single definition for each group. These trends have been going on for a while and greatly accelerated during the Bush years.

Conservative increasingly came to be defined in terms of social conservatism and support for the neoconservative foreign policy (along with its associated restrictions on civil liberties). Those identified as liberals have increasingly been those of us who oppose the war, oppose the restrictions on civil liberties, and oppose the social policies of the religious right. All of these are areas in common with many libertarians.

Economic views, especially before the recent economic crash, have had far less significance in dividing liberals from conservatives. Considering the Republican support for corporate welfare and collusion between big business and government when Republicans were in power, liberals often were stronger supporters of free market principles than Republicans. In light of these trends, it makes perfect sense for Wilkinson to see a greater affinity between libertarians and liberals as opposed to conservatives.

Of course this gets more complicated when looking at the reality of vastly different groups often falling under these same  labels. Besides the social conservatives, there are still some conservatives who are more concerned with limiting government and preserving civil liberties. Unfortunately they now have minimal influence in the Republican Party, making the party a poor ally for libertarians. (A totally separate argument is whether libertarians should work to try to make the Republican Party more libertarian).

Liberals vary in terms of terms of their concentration more on civil liberties/social issues versus more traditional economic liberals, as I discussed here. Wilkinson is correct in his separation of liberals based upon whether they are more or less market-friendly.

There is also a wide variety of people who fall under the libertarian label. Ron Paul has some views in common with liberals, such as his opposition to the war, but ultimately he holds a number of conservative views which are contrary to promoting freedom. There are many libertarians who fit the stereotype of merely being “Republicans who have smoked marijuana.” The most extreme Libertarian Republicans even back the war along with massive restrictions upon civil liberties in support of the “war on terror.” These are clearly not the libertarians Wilkinson has in mind in forming any sort of common ground with market-friendly liberals.

We often have groups of people adopt common opinions which do not necessarily have to go together. This often occurs due to who they wind up associating with as opposed to any inherent need for these positions to be lumped together. There is no inherent reason for social conservatives to also adopt fiscal conservative policies. We are even seeing some breakdown in this, with conservatives such as Mike Huckabee often frustrating fiscal conservatives as much as Democrats do.

Similarly there is no reason that those who are liberals based upon opposition to the war, restrictions on civil liberties, and the social polices of the religious right must hold any specific economic views. This provides a logical opening for libertarians such as Wilkinson to seek communication with liberals who are not hostile to free market ideas.

The reverse might also be true. While hard core believers in pure laissez-faire capitalism may be unwavering in their view, generally based more on a quasi-religious ideology than actual evidence, I wonder how many other libertarians have adopted this view based upon a more general support of freedom and lack of seeing other alternatives. To some libertarians Republican views on social issues, civil liberties, and foreign policy make them an unacceptable choice.

Traditional Democratic views on economic policy excluded them for many libertarians, especially as propagandists on the right has often been successful in making Democratic policies appear even more anti-market than they actually are. Some libertarians are more concerned with economic policy, with many gravitating towards the Republicans, even if based more on rhetoric than actual policy. Many of them have winding up becoming overly tolerant of other Republican views after associating with them.

Libertarians whose fundamental concerns were over civil liberties and social issues may have adopted the more extreme economic views of libertarians from associating with them. Some might have been more accepting of a liberalism which concentrated on civil liberties and social issues and is generally market-friendly, even if not supporting total lack of government activity in the economy.

Wilkinson is essentially correct in his post. If we look at the old stereotypes of liberals and libertarians as fixed lumps the two will have a hard time coexisting. If we look at the wide variety of views held by individuals falling under these labels then there are some libertarians and some liberals who do have a lot more in common.

Related Posts:

Libertarians and the Republican Party
A Libertarian Joins The War of Words Against the Republican Party
Moving In A More Liberal and Libertarian Direction
Liberaltarians: Liberals and Libertarians Uniting
Will Wilkinson on Liberaltarianism

Posted in Blogosphere, Civil Liberties, Economy, Libertarianism, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Social Issues. 6 Comments »

Can Conservatives Unite and Recover?

January 2, 2009 — Ron Chusid

Conservatives are understandably responding to their rejection in the past two elections by questioning what to do next. Peter Berkowitz argues that the path out of the political wilderness is for conservatives to unite around the concept of supporting the Constitution. In  principle this would be an admirable start, but it would necessitate a complete rejection of what the Republicans have done in recent years. It is the Republicans’ poor record on civil liberties, attempts to dismantle the restrictions on Executive Power established by the Founding Fathers, and a total disregard for a part of our heritage as crucial as separation of church and state, which have led to the rejection of the Republican Party.

Even many conservatives realize that the Republicans will have a hard time passing themselves off as a party which respects the Constitution. This rebuttal comes from The American Spectator:

I agree that conservatives should be united around the Constitution and I look forward to the longer version of Berkowitz’s article that will appear in Policy Review, but I’m afraid this op-ed piece does more to show that conservatives are not in fact united in support of a constitutionalist platform. Aside from the president’s judicial appointments, the Bush years will not exactly go down in history as the high water mark of constitutionalism in American politics.

The real problem for the Republicans can be seen as Berkowitz outlines the conflicting views of the social conservatives and the more libertarian-minded Republicans:

Some social conservatives point to the ballot initiatives this year in Arizona, California and Florida that rejected same-sex marriage as evidence that the country is and remains socially conservative, and that any deviation from the social conservative agenda is politically suicidal. They overlook that whereas in California’s 2000 ballot initiative 61% of voters rejected same-sex marriage, in 2008 only 52% of voters in the nation’s most populous state opposed the proposition. Indeed, most trend lines suggest that the public is steadily growing more accepting of same-sex marriage, with national polls indicating that opposition to it, also among conservatives, is weakest among young voters.

Meanwhile, more than a few libertarian-leaning conservatives are disgusted by Republican profligacy. They remain uncomfortable with or downright opposed to the Bush administration’s support in 2004 for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and its continuation of the Clinton administration’s moratorium on government funding of embryonic stem-cell research.

In addition, many are still angry about the Republican-led intervention by the federal government in the 2005 controversy over whether Terri Schiavo’s husband could lawfully remove the feeding tubes that were keeping his comatose wife alive. These libertarian conservatives entertain dreams of a coalition that jettisons social conservatives and joins forces with moderates and independents of libertarian persuasion.

But the purists in both camps ignore simple electoral math. Slice and dice citizens’ opinions and voting patterns in the 50 states as you like, neither social conservatives nor libertarian conservatives can get to 50% plus one without the aid of the other.

Berkowitz believes that the social conservatives and libertarians, along with the hawks, can form “a coalition of principle” rather than one of convenience. I disagree, seeing the Republicans as having a coalition of convenience with viewpoints which could not coexist indefinitely.

The views of both the social conservatives and the national security hawks in the Republican Party conflicted with the views of true libertarians (as opposed to the views of many conservatives who call themselves libertarians without supporting libertarian views). The true libertarians have been drifting away from the Republicans and increasingly voting Democratic.

This breakdown of the Republican coalition was foreshadowed by Barry Goldwater, who objected to the influence of the religious right in the GOP and considered himself a liberal in his later years. Social conservatism is virtually the opposite of libertarianism (despite those who concentrate on “economic liberty” while ignoring the big picture).

The real difference between social conservatives and those of us who object to their views is often not one of life style or actual actions. Many of us social liberals actually live quite conservative life styles (and many social conservatives do not live the life style they advocate). The real difference is whether one supports the power of government to impose their life style on others. The belief in the use of the power of the state to impose one’s life style choices on others makes social conservatism totally incompatible with  libertarianism. Of course with our imprecise political language we get contradictions like conservatives such as Ron Paul being called libertarian.

Besides the religious right, the other primary threat to both liberty and Constitutional law in recent years has come from those who support the “war on terror,” mistakenly believing that these policies enhance rather than undermine our national security. These have been the people who would most quickly ignore the Constitution in the name of national security. This, along with social conservatism, are the primary reasons most young and more educated voters have rejected the Republicans in the last two election cycles.

The dilemma that the Republicans face is that in order to be taken seriously again they must jettison the ideas of the religious right and the neoconservatives. Berkowitz is correct that at present there is no clear electoral majority for the minority of Republicans who would remain. However to remain with this mindset is to likely doom the Republicans, and the conservative movement, to increasingly become a southern regional phenomenon which is ridiculed by the rest of the country.

Attempts to preserve the current Republican coalition might bring about brief moments of electoral success but it is a losing proposition in the long term. Repudiating the religious right and the neoconservatives will guarantee that the Republican Party remains in the wilderness for the next several years, but there will be hope of coming out of it as a meaningful party. There is hope for a serious conservative movement to thrive, but not one dominated by the views of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Sarah Palin.

Making any predictions about the long term is risky in politics, including predictions that the more reasonable portions of the Republican Party cannot succeed in the future without the extremists. Imagine any predictions about the future when George Bush took office in 2001. Factors which led to both temporary electoral success for the GOP and later doom such as 9/11 and Katrina could not even have been taken into consideration.

The Democrats are dominant now, but this is largely due to unity because of widespread opposition to past Republican actions. The wide variety of people now supporting the Democratic Party will find it was easier to agree in opposing the Republicans than to agree on policy matters while in power. New issues will emerge and there will be prospects for a reasonable opposition party to grow and perhaps take power in the future. To do so will mean more than uniting around empty rhetoric of supporting the Constitution. It will also require understanding of why the Republicans were repudiated as opposed to repeating the same mistakes, or arguing they lost because the were not conservative enough.

Posted in Barry Goldwater, George Bush, Libertarianism, National Security, Op-eds, Politics, Ron Paul, Separation of Church and State, Social Issues. 7 Comments »

Third Party Presidential Candidate Results

November 6, 2008 — Ron Chusid

While thrid party candidates have won some local offices, they did not have a meaningful effect on the presidential race. Straight Talk has summarized the results of the major third party candidates:

In 2004, Independent Candidate, Ralph Nader earned .38% of the total vote with 463,655 votes and in 2008 so far, Ralph Nader has earned 656,670 votes which equals to.53% of the total vote thus far.

In 2004, Libertarian Party Candidate, Michael Badnarik earned .32% of the total vote with 397,265 votes and in 2008 so far, Libertarian Candidate Bob Barr earned 488,873 votes which equals to .40% of the total vote thus far

In 2004, Constitution Party candidate, Michael Peroutka earned .12% of the total vote with 143,630 votes and in 2008 so far, Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin earned 174,634 votes which equals to .14% of the total vote thus far.

In 2004, Green Party candidate David Cobb earned .10% of the total vote with 119,859 votes and in 2008 so far, Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney earned 142,785 votes which equals to roughly .12% of the total vote thus far.

These results are with 98 percent of the vote in so the popular vote totals might get a little higher for some but the percentages are unlikely to change significantly. Overall the third party candidates only received about one percent of the vote. As might be expected with a higher turn out, all four received more votes than their party four years go. They also have increased their percentage of the vote, but not by enough to be meaningful.

Many Libertarians were disappointed that the Libertarian Party nominated what they considered a conservative Republican ticket with Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root. Many voted for the nomination of Barr believing that, being better known, he might be able to receive a significantly higher vote total than previous nominees. It didn’t turn out this way as seen by a review of all the results for all of the Libertarian Party presidential candidates:

LIBERTARIAN PARTY

2008 (Barr) 0.4% (45 states)
2004 (Badnarik) 0.3% (48 states plus DC)
2000 (Browne) 0.4% (49 states plus DC, plus Smith in Arizona)
1996 (Browne) 0.5% (50 states plus DC)
1992 (Marrou) 0.3% (50 states plus DC)
1988 (Paul) 0.5% (46 states plus DC)
1984 (Bergland) 0.3% (39 states)
1980 (Clark) 1.1% (50 states plus DC)
1976 (MacBride) 0.2% (32 states)
1972 (Hospers) statistically insignificant (2 states)

Posted in Bob Barr, Independents, Libertarianism, Politics, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul. 4 Comments »

Landslide Extends to Hart’s Location

November 4, 2008 — Ron Chusid

Following the landslide victory in Dixville Notch, Barack Obama has repeated with a landslide victory in the second town to announce their vote. In Hart’s Location, Obama won 17 votes, John McCain won 10 votes, and Ron Paul received two write-in votes. Since Hart’s Location reinstated the practice of voting shortly after midnight the Republicans have won every election before tonight. Bob Dole beat Bill Clintin in 1996 and George Bush beat Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004. Yet another red area tips blue.

Posted in Al Gore, Barack Obama, Breaking News, George Bush, John Kerry, John McCain, Politics, Ron Paul. No Comments »

Further Advances in The Red States and the Ron Paul Effect

October 24, 2008 — Ron Chusid

Chuck Todd was just on NBC News explaining how Barack Obama has increased the playing field to the degree that he could still pick up 270 electoral votes even if he were to lose Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Of course many polls show Obama leading in all three, including by double digits in Pennsylvania. Obama even has a chance in states where he would previously have been considered a long shot such as Montana, Indiana, and Georgia.

Reason has some interesting numbers from this poll from Montana State University-Billings:

Barack Obama  44.4%
John McCain  40.2%
Ron Paul  4.2%
Ralph Nader  .7%
Bob Barr  1%
Undecided  9.5%

Obama leads by exactly the same margin of vote as is received by Ron Paul. Of course if the vote were to turn out this way we could not necessarily say that it was votes for Ron Paul which gave the state to Obama over McCain. Some people voting for Paul are motivated by opposition to the war and might vote for Obama or stay home if Paul was not on the ballot, and some might vote for Barr.

I recently noted that if black turn out is high enough Obama can win in Georgia. While most polls still show McCain winning in George, an Insider Advantage poll today shows Obama leading by one point.

There have already been a handful of polls showing Obama leading in Indiana. SurveyUSA adds another today with Obama leading 49% to 45%. Yesterday’s Big Ten poll showed an even greater lead.

Posted in Barack Obama, Bob Barr, John McCain, Politics, Polls, Ron Paul. 1 Comment »

Ron Paul Endorses Candidate of Theocratic Constitution Party

September 23, 2008 — Ron Chusid

During the primary campaigns I often described Ron Paul as being far more a conservative than a libertarian. While the topic was addressed multiple times, this post (also posted at The Carpetbagger Report) summarized many of the earlier posts and even speculated on a relationship between Ron Paul and the Constitution Party. Ron Paul has now endorsed Chuck Baldwin, the candidate of the Constitution Party as opposed to Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate. Paul’s statement is available here.

Bob Barr differs significantly from Ron Paul, especially in not expressing the racism in Paul’s earlier writings, his repudiation of the support of racists and other extremists which Paul actively solicited, and in not engaging in the nutty conspiracy theories which Paul and Baldwin believe in. While Paul’s decision was based partially on Barr’s refusal to attend his recent third party press conference, It came as no surprise to me to see Paul endorse the Constitution Party based upon the similarity in their views. Check out Chuck Baldwin in this video and you will see how much he is like Ron Paul as he seeks the “truth” about 9/11:

Hopefully this endorsement exposes once and for all that Paul, while appropriating the language of liberty, is a far right wing extremist, not a libertarian, whose agenda would ultimately decrease freedom. While some libertarians have been duped into backing him by his rhetoric, the Paul movement ultimately became one dominated by racists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, and other far right extremists who have no understanding of or support for individual liberty. They wish to reduce the authority of the federal government and the Bill of Rights not to promote liberty but to allow each state to establish their own authoritarian and theocratic rules.

The party which Paul now endorses describes itself as being devoted to restoring “our law to its Biblical foundations” right on the front page of its web site. Reason has further information on Baldwin and the Constitution Party. They advise reading out his columns:

You can read opinions like this:

If America wishes to remain a free and independent republic, if this nation truly desires future peace and prosperity, and if we genuinely aspire to remain a blessed and protected land, we must quickly throw off this foolish infatuation with multiculturalism, which is nothing more than an attempt to de- Christianize our country, and humbly return to the God of our fathers!

And this:

Call it what you want – “New World Order,” “International Order,” “International Community,” “World Law.” It all means the end of U.S. sovereignty and independence. Americans need to be aware that power hungry politicians from both parties along with money hungry executives from multinational corporations pose a much greater threat to our liberties than any foreign terrorist does.

And this, from 9/14/01:

For nearly a half-century, we have forsaken the moral principles of Heaven. We have legally murdered too many unborn babies. We have too readily accepted aberrant, sexual behavior. We kicked Heaven out of our schools, out of our homes, and out of our hearts. As a result, God is giving us a little taste of Hell.

Ron Paul has managed to destroy the legacy of what began as a remarkable campaign, but by now it no longer matters as the libertarian aspects of his campaign died long ago.

Posted in Blogosphere, Bob Barr, Libertarianism, Religion, Ron Paul, Separation of Church and State, Social Issues. 2 Comments »
« Older posts