Will the Libertarian Party Field A Candidate Against Presidential Candidate Rand Paul?

[idiom]

In the last 2 presidential primaries Ron Paul conceded defeat before I had a chance to vote in his home state. I hope that is not the case with Rand. But it's not logical to expect the LP to base their party's choice on whether another party nominates someone decent. History shows that the other parties won't do that. From their perspective, if Rand fails then that was 12 years of wasted time and effort. They are operating on the well-supported idea that Republicans and Democrats are anti-libertarian.

If Rand fails, but wins more support than liberty has ever had, how is that 12 years wasted?

When in history has liberty ever had as much momentum as it has now? Or as easy a target?

 

[FriedChicken]

The Libertarian party is loyal to its party just as much or more so than its philosophy.
They will run a candidate against anyone that isn't waving the LP flag regardless of their position on the issues.

They will come up with whatever reason they think sounds the best to do so.

... I'm talking about the national party leaders, not the entire membership/voter base.

 

[philipped]

Rand will be the better pick between Clinton and more than likely whoever the LP picks. I'm not a GOP loyalist, y'all can check my post history, but unless Rand goes full blown neocon with foreign policy or switches up completely come 2016...I'm pretty sure he's rooting for a GOP congress to make the potential loss of his senate seat in 2016 no problem, and he'll be smooth sailing to the official announcement as of then.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Bob Barr was never the liberty candidate, IMO. Chuck Baldwin was. Gary Johnson wasn't great, but he was admittedly better than Barr or Virgil Goode. But Chuck Baldwin is better than any of those three.

Uhm, I reject the notion that Barr and Johnson were the only remaining liberty candidates in the race. I much preferred the Constitution Party's candidate both years and voted such.

I could concede this, but it only reinforces my point. Even though there were arguably TWO pro-liberty alternatives in both fall elections, very few Paul supporters transferred over to vote for the better candidate. The Republican loyalty trappings co-opted the alternative movement's stated preference for voting for liberty people, on both occasions.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Structural suppression is generally a good thing. The whole point of federalization is to suppress crazy minorities or even majorities from moving the whole country in a given direction too quickly. Its not aimed at libertarians, its aimed at all up and comers. If libertarians ever gain power and right the ship, the same mechanisms will slow the drift into the next 'big' idea.

We just keeping trying. This cycle we may be able to roll enough of the momentum from the last to cycles into Rand to really get somewhere.

We should abandon 8 years of work that is showing real results because Rand is not a libertarian ideologue? For what? Bob Barr again?

We have not one a single presidential primary. And we would have had a lot more liberty people in office had we concentrated on open seat races, instead of latching on to every hopelessly out-gunned GOP sort-of liberty candidate who was trying to defeat an entrenched statist incumbent. And if Rand fails in 2016, as may be likely, will there be a reconsideration of strategy? Or will the "we've got to stick together, and stay focused, using the GOP" mantra keep being sung, even then?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I could concede this, but it only reinforces my point. Even though there were arguably TWO pro-liberty alternatives in both fall elections, very few Paul supporters transferred over to vote for the better candidate. The Republican loyalty trappings co-opted the alternative movement's stated preference for voting for liberty people, on both occasions.

Fair point. I wish Ron had actually campaigned for Baldwin in '08 and actively tried to convince his supporters to support him. And really, its unacceptable that any Ron Paul supporter tricked themselves into voting for McCain for any reason. That's the sad thing here, IMO.

 

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

The LP missed their big chance in 2008 and 2012 to make giant progress.

One of the most important things that Ron Paul did after he lost the 2008 nomination was to try to call the Libertarian, Constitution, Green, and Nader parties together and unite them on the 4 top issues that Ron had prioritized in his own campaign.

The RP Love-o-lution happened for only one reason: Those 300,000 quality activists mentioned above realized that they had an opportunity to get their ideas on TV and into the culture like they never had before.

In 2008 the New Hampshire Libertarian Party nominated (drafted) Lt. Col. Karen Kwiaktowski for Vice President. She declined the nomination, but it made me realize that by far the best thing that the Libertarian Party could have done in 2012 was to change their rules to allow drafting a candidate running for another party's nomination (even without his consent ala Karen K) with a provisional candidate should the draftee decline. They then could have nominated Ron Paul and leveraged massive amounts of Love-o-lutionary publicity for the LP provisional candidate.

The LP could still do this in 2016 if there was a Ron Paul caliber candidate running which there isn't.

The 300,000 activists know that a candidate that will actually say no to the generals and the bankers will never be allowed to run. The whole point of such a campaign is to shine a light on the extremes they will go to and crimes they will commit in order to stop genuine opposition.

Its true that despite Rand's assurances to the generals and bankers that he will continue to be frightened by TV and do whatever they say in the end, the generals and bankers would resist Rand every bit as much as a Ron Paul caliber candidate just for the practice. But, the enemy of the generals and bankers is not necessarily the friend of the 300,000 activists and will not inspire them to activate like they would for a genuine Ron Paul caliber candidate.

So, with a Ron Paul caliber candidate running for the republican nomination in 2016, some historical insight, and a little imagination, the LP could join and help revive the now dormant Ron Paul Love-o-lution.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

The LP is small, and the LP is also decentralized.

If you were to join the LP and start attending meetings, taking an active interest, and being a productive and helpful member of the group, you would soon have a significant amount of control of your state's LP. There is a leadership vacuum in the LP. The LP, like most clubs and organizations, has a dire need for doers.

Do this now, and you would be well-positioned by the time of your state party's state convention and then the national convention May 26-30, 2016 in Orlando. None of the above is always an option on the ballot. What's more, it often gets significant support (10% in 1996, 4% in 2008). In 2012 NOTA actually won against Rutherford for National Chairman in one round. Now because someone had to be chosen for chair the NOTA votes switched their votes eventually someone was chosen. But my understanding is that if none of the above wins because the majority of delegates actually do want none of the above, as would be evidenced by a majority vote for closure as opposed to taking new nominations from the floor, then NOTA wins and the position -- candidate for president, national chairman, whatever it may be -- would go unfilled. For None of The Above to win for presidential nominee would take a lot of organization and effort, but it could happen. Some people would feel sour having spent tons of time and money collecting sigs and getting on their state's ballot, and now that's all in a way wasted.

More realistic -- as in very realistic, for many states -- would be to nominate someone different than the national party on your own state's ballot. This could be a different person, or I believe it could be none of the above. This is not theoretical. Arizona's LP ran L. Neil Smith and Vin in 2000 even though the national LP had nominated Harry Browne and Art Olivier. This is very doable. If you and your friends control your state's LP (not a hard thing to do in most states) and you like Rand Paul you can either nominate no one (as long as your state's laws allow that) or you can just nominate Rand Paul. The Constitution Party in Montana nominated Ron Paul in 2008 in just this way. Rand's name would then appear twice on the ballot for the GOP and for the LP.

So if anyone is actually concerned about this and would like to do something useful -- be a doer! -- rather than just complain, that is my advice. Become active in your state party, thus quickly become important and influential in your state party, and then work to make sure that your state party nominates Rand or leaves that ballot slot blank.

The LP is small, and the LP is also decentralized. The problem is thus very solvable.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

The LP missed their big chance in 2008 and 2012 to make giant progress.

One of the most important things that Ron Paul did after he lost the 2008 nomination was to try to call the Libertarian, Constitution, Green, and Nader parties together and unite them on the 4 top issues that Ron had prioritized in his own campaign.

The RP Love-o-lution happened for only one reason: Those 300,000 quality activists mentioned above realized that they had an opportunity to get their ideas on TV and into the culture like they never had before.

In 2008 the New Hampshire Libertarian Party nominated (drafted) Lt. Col. Karen Kwiaktowski for Vice President. She declined the nomination, but it made me realize that by far the best thing that the Libertarian Party could have done in 2012 was to change their rules to allow drafting a candidate running for another party's nomination (even without his consent ala Karen K) with a provisional candidate should the draftee decline. They then could have nominated Ron Paul and leveraged massive amounts of Love-o-lutionary publicity for the LP provisional candidate.

The LP could still do this in 2016 if there was a Ron Paul caliber candidate running which there isn't.

The 300,000 activists know that a candidate that will actually say no to the generals and the bankers will never be allowed to run. The whole point of such a campaign is to shine a light on the extremes they will go to and crimes they will commit in order to stop genuine opposition.

Its true that despite Rand's assurances to the generals and bankers that he will continue to be frightened by TV and do whatever they say in the end, the generals and bankers would resist Rand every bit as much as a Ron Paul caliber candidate just for the practice. But, the enemy of the generals and bankers is not necessarily the friend of the 300,000 activists and will not inspire them to activate like they would for a genuine Ron Paul caliber candidate.

So, with a Ron Paul caliber candidate running for the republican nomination in 2016, some historical insight, and a little imagination, the LP could join and help revive the now dormant Ron Paul Love-o-lution.

Very good post, showing deep understanding of the events and people. Very insightful. Thanks.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The LP missed their big chance in 2008 and 2012 to make giant progress.

One of the most important things that Ron Paul did after he lost the 2008 nomination was to try to call the Libertarian, Constitution, Green, and Nader parties together and unite them on the 4 top issues that Ron had prioritized in his own campaign.

The RP Love-o-lution happened for only one reason: Those 300,000 quality activists mentioned above realized that they had an opportunity to get their ideas on TV and into the culture like they never had before.

In 2008 the New Hampshire Libertarian Party nominated (drafted) Lt. Col. Karen Kwiaktowski for Vice President. She declined the nomination, but it made me realize that by far the best thing that the Libertarian Party could have done in 2012 was to change their rules to allow drafting a candidate running for another party's nomination (even without his consent ala Karen K) with a provisional candidate should the draftee decline. They then could have nominated Ron Paul and leveraged massive amounts of Love-o-lutionary publicity for the LP provisional candidate.

The LP could still do this in 2016 if there was a Ron Paul caliber candidate running which there isn't.

The 300,000 activists know that a candidate that will actually say no to the generals and the bankers will never be allowed to run. The whole point of such a campaign is to shine a light on the extremes they will go to and crimes they will commit in order to stop genuine opposition.

Its true that despite Rand's assurances to the generals and bankers that he will continue to be frightened by TV and do whatever they say in the end, the generals and bankers would resist Rand every bit as much as a Ron Paul caliber candidate just for the practice. But, the enemy of the generals and bankers is not necessarily the friend of the 300,000 activists and will not inspire them to activate like they would for a genuine Ron Paul caliber candidate.

So, with a Ron Paul caliber candidate running for the republican nomination in 2016, some historical insight, and a little imagination, the LP could join and help revive the now dormant Ron Paul Love-o-lution.

What I imagine is that no party or movement should be a cult for a personality. The no-draft provision is there to protect the LP from being raided by Republicans or Democrats creating a phony groundswell for their candidate. If that were the case, McCain people could have joined the LP en masse and drafted McCain the LP candidate. The candidate that wants the LP nomination needs to show up and ask for it, and get voted up (or down). If Paul had sought the LP nomination in '08 and '12 prior to the LP convention, he would have gotten it hands down. But it wasn't there for him or anybody to hold up a party all year, waiting for an answer.

 

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

What I imagine is that no party or movement should be a cult for a personality. The no-draft provision is there to protect the LP from being raided by Republicans or Democrats creating a phony groundswell for their candidate. If that were the case, McCain people could have joined the LP en masse and drafted McCain the LP candidate...

Ironically, a self-confessed McCain person raided the convention in 2008 and won the VP nomination.

As the poster Helmuth above points out, these things are really there for the taking. All that has to happen is for a very small number of QUALITY people to be inspired.

I first saw it in 1998 in Clark County Nevada when all we needed was about 300 people to take over the county and state republican parties to try to nominate Aaron Russo for Governor. They canceled votes, cheated, bussed in ringers, and committed all the crimes we saw them do against Ron.

Of course it would be better to have somebody actually seek the minor party's nomination rather than have to draft him. But when you got somebody like Ron Paul on TV promising to say No to the generals and bankers, it was a once in a lifetime opportunity and would have been a way to tell the provisional candidate that his inspirational qualities were lacking. If Gary Johnson was as good or better than Ron, he could have been a better candidate than Ron Paul. He's like Rand and just about every Libertarian that ever ran for anything--still a little scared of what people will think and what might happen if the fed doesn't bail out the banks and the generals don't get their money.

By having a guy running for a major party presidential nomination talking hardcore libertarianism on national TV, 100 times more progress was made toward the cultural advancement of libertarianism than the LP and any other project that I've seen in 50 years.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Whatever, third parties exist in order to ensure that there is a legitimate choice C on the ballot, and not to give two party choices A and B an extra line. I can live with a faulty nomination on line C now and then, just knowing that a fair process free of A and B exists is a superior situation than a standby coronation. Ron Paul's campaign advanced the movement, no doubt, but it's mainly because the educational efforts of the LP and grassroots over the last few decades set up and seeded the harvest that has come post 2007.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Whatever, third parties exist in order to ensure that there is a legitimate choice C on the ballot, and not to give two party choices A and B an extra line. I can live with a faulty nomination on line C now and then, just knowing that a fair process free of A and B exists is a superior situation than a standby coronation. Ron Paul's campaign advanced the movement, no doubt, but it's mainly because the educational efforts of the LP and grassroots over the last few decades set up and seeded the harvest that has come post 2007.

So for you being a third party has value in and of itself. And it probably does.

But for many of us, the main motivation is liberty. The whole point of having an LP (for us) is to advance our ideas of liberty. If it's not doing that, then, to us, it's not doing anything for us. It's not a useful tool. It's just junk and a waste of time.

So for us, this third party exists not, as you say, to ensure choice on ballots, but instead to advance the cause of libertarianism. That is why it exists. If it doesn't do that, it might as well not exist.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

That's exactly what I said in the last sentence of my above comment. The cause of libertarianism was advanced precisely because it proceeded independent of the statist controlled establishment parties, which is what set the stage for Paul to break through in the first place. I have advocated for a grassroots based infrastructure for the liberty movement, dependent on neither the major of minor party apparatus, to avoid the pitfalls of both.

The value a third party has in itself is largely as a principled vetting system for real liberty activists, not neutered sort-of liberty people in a major party, who will cave to the special interests as soon as elected. But in order for the LP to serve that function, it has to exist truly separate from the two party universe.

 

[philipped]

That's exactly what I said in the last sentence of my above comment. The cause of libertarianism was advanced precisely because it proceeded independent of the statist controlled establishment parties, which is what set the stage for Paul to break through in the first place. I have advocated for a grassroots based infrastructure for the liberty movement, dependent on neither the major of minor party apparatus, to avoid the pitfalls of both.

The value a third party has in itself is largely as a principled vetting system for real liberty activists, not neutered sort-of liberty people in a major party, who will cave to the special interests as soon as elected. But in order for the LP to serve that function, it has to exist truly separate from the two party universe.

So what you're basically saying is I should tell some of my registered DEM young friends to become active in the county DEM party and push the philosophy of liberty there, and in the GOP as well?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

The value a third party has in itself is largely as a principled vetting system for real liberty activists, not neutered sort-of liberty people in a major party, who will cave to the special interests as soon as elected.

So did you push for the LP-NY to put someone on the ballot other than Bob Barr? Or did you just go along with that?

 

[RandallFan]

The Libertarian Party peaked in 1980 (with Koch as VP) with 1.00% of the vote. Gary Johnson got 0.99% against the biggest of big government candidates Romney and Obama.

The Libertarian Party also won't get any surge in third party votes because the main issue that could drive third party voting into 2%-10% is amnesty or free trade agreements at the moment, depending on how the war on ISIS expands.

 

[fr33]

If Rand fails, but wins more support than liberty has ever had, how is that 12 years wasted?

When in history has liberty ever had as much momentum as it has now? Or as easy a target?

He'll have done what his father did. Meanwhile the party he is in, is still a fascist freedom hating party.

As far as your historical question goes, statism is probably a relatively new thing for humans. The anti-statism folks of history mostly didn't have the benefit of recorded history.

 

[fr33]

Face it, the LP is a joke and a burden on liberty

I have to disagree with the burden. Aside from from only 1 or 2 local elections, Democrats and Republicans are the face of injustice in the next election. There isn't a Republican or Democrat running in state and national offices that is worth a shit. I'm going to vote for every Libertarian on the ballot.

 

[TheTexan]

This issue definitely has important strategic voting considerations. We definitely need to discuss this further, so that our very important votes are not wasted.