I have to ask another person to show me in the Bible where it says we have rights to life, liberty, and property. I don't see it. I've seen people pull out certain passages that have no connection to each other and it's quite a stretch to say that the passages have anything to do with rights.
Constitution Party Now Third Largest Party
- Thread starter american.swan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- constitution party
I have to ask another person to show me in the Bible where it says we have rights to life, liberty, and property. I don't see it. I've seen people pull out certain passages that have no connection to each other and it's quite a stretch to say that the passages have anything to do with rights.
Cleaner44
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2007
- Messages
- 9,355
This highlights that Huckabee is like the Taiban. Huckabee want to remake our Constitution according to Shria law... I mean the bible.
Number19
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,334
Difference between the two
At its core, the LP has as its foundation a philosophy of freedom. The Constitution Party is still a statist party - a second cousin to the Democrat Party and the Republican Party.
The Constitution ONLY applies to the federal government. The Bill of Rights ONLY protects our rights from federal intrusion. This is why STATE constitutions so often duplicate the Bill of Rights - so as to protect our rights at the state level.
So the Constitution Party can easily claim to follow the Constitution, for national candidates and a national agenda, and then turn right around and support those many restrictions on our rights at the state and local levels.
So Libertarians are for freedom at all levels of government. Constitutionalists support statist controls for our state governments. This is not necessarily bad, so long as they don't have control in all 50 states.
At its core, the LP has as its foundation a philosophy of freedom. The Constitution Party is still a statist party - a second cousin to the Democrat Party and the Republican Party.
The Constitution ONLY applies to the federal government. The Bill of Rights ONLY protects our rights from federal intrusion. This is why STATE constitutions so often duplicate the Bill of Rights - so as to protect our rights at the state level.
So the Constitution Party can easily claim to follow the Constitution, for national candidates and a national agenda, and then turn right around and support those many restrictions on our rights at the state and local levels.
So Libertarians are for freedom at all levels of government. Constitutionalists support statist controls for our state governments. This is not necessarily bad, so long as they don't have control in all 50 states.
Alex Libman
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,423
LP is the #3 party, and our only hope!
Constitution Party is a bunch of authoritarian theocratic crusaders who are worse than Bush (if that's even possible)! Anyone voting for them never had the first clue of what Ron Paul's campaign was all about! He never thumped the Bible once ("Christian theory of just war" is a historical / cultural concept), and he named his son after Ayn Rand! I wouldn't be surprised if he's really just a traditionalist / closet agnostic...
Constitution Party is a bunch of authoritarian theocratic crusaders who are worse than Bush (if that's even possible)! Anyone voting for them never had the first clue of what Ron Paul's campaign was all about! He never thumped the Bible once ("Christian theory of just war" is a historical / cultural concept), and he named his son after Ayn Rand! I wouldn't be surprised if he's really just a traditionalist / closet agnostic...
BuddyRey
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,172
That could be, but I would like to stress that nowhere in the Bible does it say that one must be a judgemental, narrow-minded demagogue to be a good Christian. In fact, far from encouraging said characteristics, Christ himself continually frowned upon behaviors like these throughout the New Testament. His battles with the Pharisees and Saducees were the very nature of a rebellious individualist's overthrowal of a repressive, monolithic regime and the corrupt government that propped up an even more corrupt state religion. If any historical figure would make a great protagonist for an Ayn Rand novel, it would be Jesus!
It's quite possible that Ron Paul is simply the kind of Christian in such short supply that he is rarely recognized as such, the kind of Christian Jesus Himself exhorted His followers to be.
Last edited:
DeafPalmdale
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2007
- Messages
- 212
"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?" Rodney King
Ron Paul is conservative, libertarian Republican, period. I would not have any problem to vote for someone who is a CP, LP, or GOP as long they support the Constitution. Just be a little flexible.
Ron Paul is conservative, libertarian Republican, period. I would not have any problem to vote for someone who is a CP, LP, or GOP as long they support the Constitution. Just be a little flexible.
cmasslibertarian
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2008
- Messages
- 188
This article gives a good perspective on the Constitution Party. Its a little old, but still accurate.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=220
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=220
Theocrat
Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 9,550
God is Sovereign, Mesogen
Because God is sovereign over the universe, all of the rights of man come from Him alone. The rights of life, liberty, and property as proceeding from God can be understood when one reads the following passages form the Bible:
Now, this list is not in any way exhaustive, but I hope it can give you some good background on why we Christians believe the Bible teaches that our rights come from the Almighty God of the Old and New Testaments.
Because God is sovereign over the universe, all of the rights of man come from Him alone. The rights of life, liberty, and property as proceeding from God can be understood when one reads the following passages form the Bible:
- Exodus 20:12 (life and property)
- Deuteronomy 8:17-19 (life and property)
- Job 1:21 (life, liberty, and property)
- 1 Samuel 2:5-7 (life and property)
- Psalm 146 (life, liberty, and property)
- Isaiah 45 (life, liberty, and property)
- Jeremiah 5:23-25 (property)
- Romans 9 (life and liberty)
- James 4:12-15 (life and liberty)
Now, this list is not in any way exhaustive, but I hope it can give you some good background on why we Christians believe the Bible teaches that our rights come from the Almighty God of the Old and New Testaments.
Devil_rules_in_extremes
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,271
Good post.
nate895
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 12,091
Theocrat
Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 9,550
CP vs. LP
I received that same e-mail last week. The Libertarian Party makes the same claim as the Constitution Party that they are third largest party in the country. How do we decide which one is the true third largest party? Maybe we can compare their party platforms.
Constitution Party's Platform
Libertarian Party's Platform
Now, which is the true third party?
I received that same e-mail last week. The Libertarian Party makes the same claim as the Constitution Party that they are third largest party in the country. How do we decide which one is the true third largest party? Maybe we can compare their party platforms.
Constitution Party's Platform
Libertarian Party's Platform
Now, which is the true third party?
How does this translate into "you are hereby granted the right to life and property"? When I buy some land, God didn't give it to me. I bought it from some other human. And when I buy some manufactured good, God didn't give it to me or sell it to me. This passage is not an explicit decree of any kind of right.
This isn't giving rights. Its a threat. Worship me or die. This doesn't say that you have a right to property. It says "I give you the power to acquire property and I will take it away if you don't worship me." That sounds like a conditional privilege to me.
Again a stretch. And since when does anyone return to their mother's womb? The Lord gives you conditional privileges and the Lord taketh them away at his will. These are not rights.
Yet again, another passage describing the Lord's power over you and your lack of power or rights to anything. You live and die based on the whim of the Lord. You do not own yourself. The Lord is your owner. These are not rights.
And on and on describing the Lord's power and not your rights.
Bow down slave, you owe everything to the Church, I mean the Lord.
WTF does this one have to do with anything? In summary, it says "I'm God. I made everything so don't question me. You owe everything to me. Now worship me."
O yeah. This is obviously a declaration of the right to property.
Huh? Can you maybe pick out a short passage. I'm not seeing the part that says you have the right to life and liberty,
Now we're getting close. Yet, this is not a right to liberty. This says that it is the Lord (the Bible) that decides what you can and can't do. It doesn't matter whether I harm someone or not. If I masturbate and spill my seed, eat shellfish, shave my beard, or any number of things, I'm not following the Lord/Bible's instructions. I'm not hurting anyone by wearing blended fabrics, and I believe I have the right to do so. The Lord/Bible does not. This is not liberty.
But this is sort of a declaration that you have the "right" to life, since it's saying that only the Lord can decide whether you live or die and not some other human.
I guess your idea of a "right" is something that the Lord/Bible grants you the privilege of doing?
Can you claim independence from the Lord?
I'd like to know why the Constitution Party singles out AIDS of all the diseases out there.
And ha ha ha! They say that state lotteries increase crime!! gimme a break
phoenix1861
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 28
Time to Go
Personally, I think that neither the LP nor the CP is viable, and that there is no hope for taking over the GOP (look at the numbers that the three statist stooges, McCain, Romney and Huckabee, drew over Ron Paul -- that's a sure sign of a party that has lost its mind in a big way).
I favor starting a new third party. I know that some have their doubts about whether it can be done, but I believe that it can (mainly by adopting a broad message and by learning from the mistakes of past efforts). I make my case for this approach in the following article:
***
Time to Go: the Case for a New Third Party
“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” – Amos 3:3
With Super Tuesday behind us, and John McCain’s straight-razor express belching smoke with a new vigor, I think it’s time that we conservatives and libertarians were honest with ourselves: the Republican Party can no longer even nominally call itself the home of limited government ideals.
It’s dead, Jim. Stick a tag on its toe and wheel it down to the morgue. And given the way it treated Ron Paul, his ideals and his supporters, I say “Good riddance!”
For awhile, many of us thought that it might be revived. There was hopeful talk among conservatives and libertarians to the effect that, “The spirit of liberty isn’t totally gone yet in the GOP – we can still bring it back.” The patient was in critical condition but seemed to have a faint heartbeat (brain activity is another matter).
Well, I’m now convinced that the heartbeat we were listening to during all of that time was our own. It’s a situation akin to a doctor hovering over a deceased patient, but with the stethoscope pressed to his own chest, all the while muttering, “He’s still in there. I can save him!” We conservatives and libertarians were the heartbeat of liberty in the GOP all along, and it’s time that we realize this and leave the corpse to rot in peace.
But what options do we have if we leave?
Among existing third parties, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties seem the most congenial for homeless conservatives and libertarians of the Ron Paul persuasion; at least ideologically speaking. In reality, however, the Libertarian Party is sagging under the weight of negative perception baggage, and it never has seemed serious about winning elections; whereas the Constitution Party, for all of its commendable points, will probably never have broad enough appeal to be successful, due to the religious language in its platform (and I say that as a Christian).
Consequently, I think the best path forward for homeless Ron Paul revolutionaries is to form a new third party. Now I’m aware that this is not going to be a welcome idea in many quarters, due to the fact that third parties have become virtually synonymous with political futility and kookery. But Americans are unquestionably looking for alternatives, and I can’t help but wonder if perhaps all of those failed, previous efforts might not teach us something about how to do it right.
Here’s what I have in mind:
Key Points:
1. Message
Past third party efforts have suffered from two primary ailments in this area: they have either limited their appeal by adhering to a narrow focus (a single issue or a small slate of issues), or they have simply offered the public a new form of statism, for which the Democrats and Republicans already serve in stellar capacity.
What is needed is a message that is different enough to set us apart from the major parties, and broad enough to draw support from virtually every political corner. For this, I suggest a two-sided approach to policy: federalism at home, and non-interventionism abroad.
Federalism:
My greatest disappointment with the Ron Paul campaign is that it has practically ignored the issue of federalism, which I think is critical, and which could have generated as much support for Dr. Paul as the war issue, if not more. In interview after interview and debate after debate, Dr. Paul consistently stated that he was in favor of “following the Constitution,” and that he wanted to roll the federal government back to its rightful place, but he never really explained what those things mean in a way that would resonate with average Americans. On most occasions, he simply didn’t have enough time, but I do think the issue could have been hit much harder than it was.
What I had hoped to hear during one of the debates was something like this:
“Americans are clearly not of one mind on every issue, so why should we have to live under the same laws? Imagine an America where California and Virginia could agree to disagree on the issue of abortion. Imagine if Massachusetts and South Carolina could agree to disagree on the issue of gay marriage. Imagine being able to go to the polls and cast a vote on such important issues without having to worrying about being overruled by a federal judge!
“Our founding fathers understood that not everyone wanted to live under the same laws. That’s why they crafted our Constitution so that the federal government had only certain, specific powers, and everything else was left up to the states, to be decided as their people saw fit. Today, though, politicians in Washington use our tax dollars to try and force us all to live by their edicts, by what they and their special interest friends want for us, instead of how we ourselves would choose to live. They want power. They want control. But they can only have these things if we let them. We can take the reins of our lives back again, if we will. By disempowering Washington we empower ourselves. Your choice is clear tonight (points to the other candidates): you can choose his plan for your life, or his plan for your life, or his plan for your life, or my plan to give you back your life.”
There is real dynamite in the message of federalism. It’s a simple, appealing idea. Show the blue staters how they can protect themselves against the red staters, and vice versa, and I think the argument will almost sell itself.
Non-interventionism:
We all know that Americans are sick of the Iraq war, and have no interest in repeating the mistake elsewhere, so the message of non-interventionism has a lot going for it. Ron Paul has been preaching this sermon consistently, and it was the issue that really catapulted his campaign into the national spotlight. Given that none of the establishment candidates are going to do anything substantive to change our failed foreign policy, I expect public disenchantment to continue to grow in this area, especially among the young (they don’t like being sent off to die for other peoples’ legacies – who knew?).
To see more on how these principles could translate into a party platform, see the American Freedom Party.
2. Grassroots level outreach and growth
Third parties typically squander their meager resources on promoting long-shot presidential candidates, when they should be working to spread their message among average Americans instead. Think about it for a moment: when was the last time you saw a newspaper ad for the Libertarian Party, or heard a radio spot for the Constitution Party? When was the last time either of them canvassed your neighborhood and left material on your doorstep? Or set up a billboard in town? Or sponsored a rally?
Whatever the long-term results of the Ron Paul Revolution might prove to be, I think the most significant to date is that is has put tens of thousands of like-minded individuals in contact with one another, in meet-up groups and chat rooms from coast-to-coast. If a new party came together, these groups could quickly become its affiliates. They would be a tremendous basis upon which to continue to spread the message of peace and freedom, far more so than anything available to any existing third party…and they’re already present in every state.
Consider what such groups have already accomplished to date. Reflect on the millions of dollars this grassroots revolution has raised. Consider the effectiveness of our writing and telephone campaigns, of how we have repeatedly made the establishment squirm over the last few months. Rudy Giuliani couldn’t go anywhere without Ron Paul supporters heckling him; and Fox News will surely never regain the credibility (or the audience) it once had.
All of this with so little formal organization! To call it inspiring would be an understatement. Given the powerful forces arrayed against us, the progress we’ve made is nothing short of incredible; and we must not let that momentum slip away. By all indications, we have difficult times ahead of us. We’re going to need one another’s support if we’re to defend what is left of our freedom, and we’re going to need to be ready with answers on those occasions when the establishment falls on its face.
Objections:
What about ballot access issues and getting into the debates?
Again, the meet-up groups scattered across the country are potential state affiliate parties, and I think they could organize and get enough signatures to obtain ballot access before the mid-term elections. They’ve already demonstrated that they can canvass effectively, so I don’t think that’s an unrealistic expectation at all.
Once ballot access is achieved, the key to maintaining it with the least amount of effort and expense will be to target the right elections, particularly those where a major party candidate is running unopposed. Third party candidates can pick up a lot of protest votes in such races. For instance, the Wyoming Libertarian Party was able to party status a few years ago, due to just such a scenario.
We should also make it a goal to highlight the unfairness of current ballot access laws, and to press for change. A little pressure can go a long way, and, if anything, this movement has demonstrated that it can apply pressure and get results.
Where the presidential debates are concerned, the requirement is that a candidate be polling at 15% in order to be invited; and, truth be told, if we aren’t polling near that level, we probably shouldn’t be running anyone for president. The key there is to do our job at the grassroots level, working to spread the word and build the party to the point where we’ll have the numbers we need. Ross Perot was able to do this as recently as 1992. During the general election he received more votes than George Bush in Maine, and more than Bill Clinton in Utah, and might have done even better had he not dropped out of the race for a time (and if he had had a better Vice Presidential running mate).
What about the perception that third parties can’t win?
No mistake about it, this will be a public relations battle, and what needs to be emphasized is that anyone who wants change must be willing to work for it, and to take a chance on it: “We will never have change if we keep electing the same old people who will continue to do things the same old way,” etc. It should also be emphasized that this perception serves the interests of the major parties, both of which would like us to think that we can’t do without them. This point should be incorporated into the overall call for freedom from Washington. The more we equate the major parties with Washington and its corruption, the more people will be willing to send their votes elsewhere; and the more noise we make, the more influential, and thus viable, we will appear to voters.
What about how long it will take to build influence?
If we concentrate on getting the word out to the extent that we should, I think we’ll be surprised by how quickly we’ll grow. There are significant numbers of Americans that either do not vote or else have fallen out of the system; the Ron Paul campaign has demonstrated that these people are reachable and winnable. It has also demonstrated that America’s young people are very much open to the message of peace and freedom, and that they are politically homeless and frustrated.
Finally, bear in mind that it will not be necessary for us to capture the White House or majorities in Congress in order to have influence. The more the merrier, of course, but votes in Congress are sometimes close enough that even a couple of congressmen and a single senator can wield considerable power. The same holds true with state legislatures.
What about the fact that so many Americans like statism just fine?
Unfortunately, many Americans do like statism, but the good news is that statists are divided into camps, and they don’t get along. Liberals tend to want to control our wallets, while conservatives would usually prefer to invade our bedrooms (when foreign countries aren’t available, anyway). These are generalizations, of course, but they’re reasonably accurate; and I believe that such differences present us with the very real potential of breaking up the cartel in Washington D.C. Again, it’s a matter of showing the blue staters how they can protect themselves against the red staters, and vice versa.
Under a return to federalism, states could make their own policies concerning issues like abortion, gay marriage, medical marijuana, etc., and the potential for this kind of freedom will appeal to both sides of the aisle. Some will use it to commit outrages against liberty, while others will use it to protect liberty. If, on the other hand, the federal government retains its current powers (and expands on them), the likelihood is that all we’re going to see is a continuous stream of outrages, and there will be no escaping them. For instance, under federalism, if New York ever decided to outlaw home schooling, home school families could flee elsewhere. If, on the other hand, the federal government ever started to regulate it, they would be trapped no matter where they were within the United States.
Thus the potential of what I’m suggesting here is the ability to better preserve our liberties by forcing statists to fight us for control of fifty state governments, rather than one national government. Additionally, as I pointed out under the “influence” question, we don’t necessarily need majorities to have an impact on the system. Every single person we send to an elected office has potential to obstruct the decay of our freedoms.
Summary:
I started this article with a quote from the Old Testament book of Amos – “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” It is evident that the friends of freedom can no longer pretend to walk in agreement with the GOP establishment. The party has set itself intractably against the Jeffersonian principles of non-interventionism, limited government, and individual liberty, and it has done everything in its power to silence contrary voices.
How much longer will we continue to allow the GOP elite to stymie us? In many ways, Ron Paul style conservatives and libertarians are already operating like a third party within the GOP. I’m suggesting that we just go ahead and make it official. We have the right message at the right time in history. The question is: do we have the vision and the will?
Even more fundamentally, given the enormity of what is at stake, do we have a choice?
"An army of principles will penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot...neither the Rhine, the Channel nor the ocean can avert its progress. It will march on the horizon of the world, and it will conquer." – Thomas Paine
Originally posted at: http://jeffersonian73.blogspot.com/2008/02/time-to-go-case-for-new-third-party.html
Personally, I think that neither the LP nor the CP is viable, and that there is no hope for taking over the GOP (look at the numbers that the three statist stooges, McCain, Romney and Huckabee, drew over Ron Paul -- that's a sure sign of a party that has lost its mind in a big way).
I favor starting a new third party. I know that some have their doubts about whether it can be done, but I believe that it can (mainly by adopting a broad message and by learning from the mistakes of past efforts). I make my case for this approach in the following article:
***
Time to Go: the Case for a New Third Party
“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” – Amos 3:3
With Super Tuesday behind us, and John McCain’s straight-razor express belching smoke with a new vigor, I think it’s time that we conservatives and libertarians were honest with ourselves: the Republican Party can no longer even nominally call itself the home of limited government ideals.
It’s dead, Jim. Stick a tag on its toe and wheel it down to the morgue. And given the way it treated Ron Paul, his ideals and his supporters, I say “Good riddance!”
For awhile, many of us thought that it might be revived. There was hopeful talk among conservatives and libertarians to the effect that, “The spirit of liberty isn’t totally gone yet in the GOP – we can still bring it back.” The patient was in critical condition but seemed to have a faint heartbeat (brain activity is another matter).
Well, I’m now convinced that the heartbeat we were listening to during all of that time was our own. It’s a situation akin to a doctor hovering over a deceased patient, but with the stethoscope pressed to his own chest, all the while muttering, “He’s still in there. I can save him!” We conservatives and libertarians were the heartbeat of liberty in the GOP all along, and it’s time that we realize this and leave the corpse to rot in peace.
But what options do we have if we leave?
Among existing third parties, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties seem the most congenial for homeless conservatives and libertarians of the Ron Paul persuasion; at least ideologically speaking. In reality, however, the Libertarian Party is sagging under the weight of negative perception baggage, and it never has seemed serious about winning elections; whereas the Constitution Party, for all of its commendable points, will probably never have broad enough appeal to be successful, due to the religious language in its platform (and I say that as a Christian).
Consequently, I think the best path forward for homeless Ron Paul revolutionaries is to form a new third party. Now I’m aware that this is not going to be a welcome idea in many quarters, due to the fact that third parties have become virtually synonymous with political futility and kookery. But Americans are unquestionably looking for alternatives, and I can’t help but wonder if perhaps all of those failed, previous efforts might not teach us something about how to do it right.
Here’s what I have in mind:
Key Points:
1. Message
Past third party efforts have suffered from two primary ailments in this area: they have either limited their appeal by adhering to a narrow focus (a single issue or a small slate of issues), or they have simply offered the public a new form of statism, for which the Democrats and Republicans already serve in stellar capacity.
What is needed is a message that is different enough to set us apart from the major parties, and broad enough to draw support from virtually every political corner. For this, I suggest a two-sided approach to policy: federalism at home, and non-interventionism abroad.
Federalism:
My greatest disappointment with the Ron Paul campaign is that it has practically ignored the issue of federalism, which I think is critical, and which could have generated as much support for Dr. Paul as the war issue, if not more. In interview after interview and debate after debate, Dr. Paul consistently stated that he was in favor of “following the Constitution,” and that he wanted to roll the federal government back to its rightful place, but he never really explained what those things mean in a way that would resonate with average Americans. On most occasions, he simply didn’t have enough time, but I do think the issue could have been hit much harder than it was.
What I had hoped to hear during one of the debates was something like this:
“Americans are clearly not of one mind on every issue, so why should we have to live under the same laws? Imagine an America where California and Virginia could agree to disagree on the issue of abortion. Imagine if Massachusetts and South Carolina could agree to disagree on the issue of gay marriage. Imagine being able to go to the polls and cast a vote on such important issues without having to worrying about being overruled by a federal judge!
“Our founding fathers understood that not everyone wanted to live under the same laws. That’s why they crafted our Constitution so that the federal government had only certain, specific powers, and everything else was left up to the states, to be decided as their people saw fit. Today, though, politicians in Washington use our tax dollars to try and force us all to live by their edicts, by what they and their special interest friends want for us, instead of how we ourselves would choose to live. They want power. They want control. But they can only have these things if we let them. We can take the reins of our lives back again, if we will. By disempowering Washington we empower ourselves. Your choice is clear tonight (points to the other candidates): you can choose his plan for your life, or his plan for your life, or his plan for your life, or my plan to give you back your life.”
There is real dynamite in the message of federalism. It’s a simple, appealing idea. Show the blue staters how they can protect themselves against the red staters, and vice versa, and I think the argument will almost sell itself.
Non-interventionism:
We all know that Americans are sick of the Iraq war, and have no interest in repeating the mistake elsewhere, so the message of non-interventionism has a lot going for it. Ron Paul has been preaching this sermon consistently, and it was the issue that really catapulted his campaign into the national spotlight. Given that none of the establishment candidates are going to do anything substantive to change our failed foreign policy, I expect public disenchantment to continue to grow in this area, especially among the young (they don’t like being sent off to die for other peoples’ legacies – who knew?).
To see more on how these principles could translate into a party platform, see the American Freedom Party.
2. Grassroots level outreach and growth
Third parties typically squander their meager resources on promoting long-shot presidential candidates, when they should be working to spread their message among average Americans instead. Think about it for a moment: when was the last time you saw a newspaper ad for the Libertarian Party, or heard a radio spot for the Constitution Party? When was the last time either of them canvassed your neighborhood and left material on your doorstep? Or set up a billboard in town? Or sponsored a rally?
Whatever the long-term results of the Ron Paul Revolution might prove to be, I think the most significant to date is that is has put tens of thousands of like-minded individuals in contact with one another, in meet-up groups and chat rooms from coast-to-coast. If a new party came together, these groups could quickly become its affiliates. They would be a tremendous basis upon which to continue to spread the message of peace and freedom, far more so than anything available to any existing third party…and they’re already present in every state.
Consider what such groups have already accomplished to date. Reflect on the millions of dollars this grassroots revolution has raised. Consider the effectiveness of our writing and telephone campaigns, of how we have repeatedly made the establishment squirm over the last few months. Rudy Giuliani couldn’t go anywhere without Ron Paul supporters heckling him; and Fox News will surely never regain the credibility (or the audience) it once had.
All of this with so little formal organization! To call it inspiring would be an understatement. Given the powerful forces arrayed against us, the progress we’ve made is nothing short of incredible; and we must not let that momentum slip away. By all indications, we have difficult times ahead of us. We’re going to need one another’s support if we’re to defend what is left of our freedom, and we’re going to need to be ready with answers on those occasions when the establishment falls on its face.
Objections:
What about ballot access issues and getting into the debates?
Again, the meet-up groups scattered across the country are potential state affiliate parties, and I think they could organize and get enough signatures to obtain ballot access before the mid-term elections. They’ve already demonstrated that they can canvass effectively, so I don’t think that’s an unrealistic expectation at all.
Once ballot access is achieved, the key to maintaining it with the least amount of effort and expense will be to target the right elections, particularly those where a major party candidate is running unopposed. Third party candidates can pick up a lot of protest votes in such races. For instance, the Wyoming Libertarian Party was able to party status a few years ago, due to just such a scenario.
We should also make it a goal to highlight the unfairness of current ballot access laws, and to press for change. A little pressure can go a long way, and, if anything, this movement has demonstrated that it can apply pressure and get results.
Where the presidential debates are concerned, the requirement is that a candidate be polling at 15% in order to be invited; and, truth be told, if we aren’t polling near that level, we probably shouldn’t be running anyone for president. The key there is to do our job at the grassroots level, working to spread the word and build the party to the point where we’ll have the numbers we need. Ross Perot was able to do this as recently as 1992. During the general election he received more votes than George Bush in Maine, and more than Bill Clinton in Utah, and might have done even better had he not dropped out of the race for a time (and if he had had a better Vice Presidential running mate).
What about the perception that third parties can’t win?
No mistake about it, this will be a public relations battle, and what needs to be emphasized is that anyone who wants change must be willing to work for it, and to take a chance on it: “We will never have change if we keep electing the same old people who will continue to do things the same old way,” etc. It should also be emphasized that this perception serves the interests of the major parties, both of which would like us to think that we can’t do without them. This point should be incorporated into the overall call for freedom from Washington. The more we equate the major parties with Washington and its corruption, the more people will be willing to send their votes elsewhere; and the more noise we make, the more influential, and thus viable, we will appear to voters.
What about how long it will take to build influence?
If we concentrate on getting the word out to the extent that we should, I think we’ll be surprised by how quickly we’ll grow. There are significant numbers of Americans that either do not vote or else have fallen out of the system; the Ron Paul campaign has demonstrated that these people are reachable and winnable. It has also demonstrated that America’s young people are very much open to the message of peace and freedom, and that they are politically homeless and frustrated.
Finally, bear in mind that it will not be necessary for us to capture the White House or majorities in Congress in order to have influence. The more the merrier, of course, but votes in Congress are sometimes close enough that even a couple of congressmen and a single senator can wield considerable power. The same holds true with state legislatures.
What about the fact that so many Americans like statism just fine?
Unfortunately, many Americans do like statism, but the good news is that statists are divided into camps, and they don’t get along. Liberals tend to want to control our wallets, while conservatives would usually prefer to invade our bedrooms (when foreign countries aren’t available, anyway). These are generalizations, of course, but they’re reasonably accurate; and I believe that such differences present us with the very real potential of breaking up the cartel in Washington D.C. Again, it’s a matter of showing the blue staters how they can protect themselves against the red staters, and vice versa.
Under a return to federalism, states could make their own policies concerning issues like abortion, gay marriage, medical marijuana, etc., and the potential for this kind of freedom will appeal to both sides of the aisle. Some will use it to commit outrages against liberty, while others will use it to protect liberty. If, on the other hand, the federal government retains its current powers (and expands on them), the likelihood is that all we’re going to see is a continuous stream of outrages, and there will be no escaping them. For instance, under federalism, if New York ever decided to outlaw home schooling, home school families could flee elsewhere. If, on the other hand, the federal government ever started to regulate it, they would be trapped no matter where they were within the United States.
Thus the potential of what I’m suggesting here is the ability to better preserve our liberties by forcing statists to fight us for control of fifty state governments, rather than one national government. Additionally, as I pointed out under the “influence” question, we don’t necessarily need majorities to have an impact on the system. Every single person we send to an elected office has potential to obstruct the decay of our freedoms.
Summary:
I started this article with a quote from the Old Testament book of Amos – “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” It is evident that the friends of freedom can no longer pretend to walk in agreement with the GOP establishment. The party has set itself intractably against the Jeffersonian principles of non-interventionism, limited government, and individual liberty, and it has done everything in its power to silence contrary voices.
How much longer will we continue to allow the GOP elite to stymie us? In many ways, Ron Paul style conservatives and libertarians are already operating like a third party within the GOP. I’m suggesting that we just go ahead and make it official. We have the right message at the right time in history. The question is: do we have the vision and the will?
Even more fundamentally, given the enormity of what is at stake, do we have a choice?
"An army of principles will penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot...neither the Rhine, the Channel nor the ocean can avert its progress. It will march on the horizon of the world, and it will conquer." – Thomas Paine
Originally posted at: http://jeffersonian73.blogspot.com/2008/02/time-to-go-case-for-new-third-party.html
Last edited:
nate895
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 12,091
I disagree with your assessment that the GOP cannot be taken over. It can be, we just need time to take it back, and money, and we need an advantage over the other candidates. I say this advantage will be to start early. If we start early, and I mean the day after the November Election, we can build up a solid group of voters, which we can slowly expand on in the early states until it is virtually impossible to stop. It is possible, we did it in Jefferson County, Iowa, and we can do it throughout this country, all it takes is time.
You are correct. By pretty much all standards, the Libertarian Party is the largest third party. The LP out-fundraised all other national third parties combined for 2007. The LP also has more candidates elected to office and better ballot access. The only area that the Constitution Party beats the LP is in registered voters, and only because people mistaken the Independent party of California as a truly independent party, and don't realize it's just the CP under a different name.
The LP has their headquarters in the Watergate in Washington D.C., where as the Constitution Party is headquartered Lancaster, PA.
There really is no comparison to size, strength or influence.
jblosser
Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,299
I'm a Christian who has always had reservations about the CP. That having been said, I was surprised at how fast the local CP people walked straight into the GOP to fight for Ron Paul, unqualified. Some of our best people here are CP and they're staying with the fight, not running back to their 3rd party. I wish I could say the same about the LP members around here, many of whom won't even vote in the GOP primary.
The LP members were the first to support for Paul before his campaign really got off the ground, and they were the first to give money. If it weren't for LP members, Paul's campaign wouldn't be what it is. I wouldn't attribute your own personal experiences as representative as a whole.
Similar threads
