Did Ron Paul help Republicans in Down Ballot Races?
This is a hypothetical question that I raise for discussion purposes. In recent years, the Libertarian Party in Texas has run a candidate in nearly every race. Many of these candidates have taken precious votes away from Republicans like Bill Keffer, Jack Stick, and Jim Landtroop, just to name a few. All of these candidates lost these races because 1) Republicans did not turn out and 2) the Libertarian took votes away from the Republican.
There are many reasons that the Republicans lost votes to the Libertarian. There are many reasons to be upset at the Republican Party and their candidates. Those folks that chose to vote Libertarian as a protest vote in the general election allowed Democrats to win. The Democrats have become intrenched in many of those seats now (such as Mark Strama) and (with the exception of Bill Keffer) it will take redistricting to win the seat back for a Republican.
I have heard that there are individuals who have voted Republican for the first time in 20 years this year. In previous years, these folks declined to vote in the Republican Primary so they can support the Libertarian Party as delegates and candidates. This year, they chose to vote in the Republican Party for Ron Paul (I can respect that decision) and get involved in the Repubilican Party.
By simple deduction, does this mean there are fewer Libertarians available to run for office this year? If so, does that mean that there will be fewer votes being taken away from Republicans in favor of Libertarians?
Posts
5 comments:
I'm not sure this can be quantified quite yet.
It's clear from some of things we've heard from the "Ron Paul Republicans" that they're very singularly focused. Some have gone so far as to say they won't vote at all in November if Ron Paul isn't on the ballot.
Furthermore, will those who have been voting for Libertarians down-ballot as late as 2006 make the effort to go down the ballot to do the same (if possible) come November?
Lots of questions....
Another question....
Since the Libertarian Party in Travis County is committed to destroying the Republican Party and to taking votes away from Republicans so Democrats can win, does that mean that the Libertarians support the liberal, socialist, environmentalist, big government agenda of the Democrat Party? Does this mean that when Libertarians put forth their effort to take votes away from Republicans, they are working to grow government even more?
It seems the Libertarians are working to help the liberal Democrats in Travis County achieve their goals by working to prevent Republicans from winning elections.
Randy,
This is why some of our founding fathers, like George Washington, despised the use of parties. With a two-party system, it's simply "us v. them." Those who become disenfranchised or frustrated with a party are then labeled names by whatever side they leave and further ostracized. Some of those that leave a party go on to form their own parties with benevolent intentions, hoping for change. Unfortunately, though, the groupthink mentality of collectivists (a very liberal idea) exists in BOTH parties, regardless of supposed ideological connections (i.e., conservatism and Republicans/liberalism and Democrats).
My point? The only way Ron Paul Republicans will end up helping the Republican Party is if the party allows them to. As long as Ron Paul supporters are labeled "renegades" by those Republicans who have fallen for the trap of groupthink, they will continue to join up with others more like themselves (ex. those within the Libertarian Party). Yes, there are some weird people that like Ron Paul. True, a lot of them are independent thinkers who will not vote to tow the party line. But, if the GOP wants to keep these guys from voting in other parties, maybe it should consider their wants as well.
Which brings me to MJ's comment above. She said,
"It's clear from some of things we've heard from the "Ron Paul Republicans" that they're very singularly focused."
That's a very broad statement. What exactly are you trying to say? As a Ron Paul Republican myself, the "singular" goal I share with other RPRs is to get constitutional conservatism back into the Republican Party and American government -- you know, the thing that once united the religious right, the economic conservatives, and the libertarians. Is that so bad?
Parties are not philosophies. The foundation of a party should be a good, solid philosophy, though. And as long as the Republican Party moves away from the philosophy of liberty and small government, why in the world should those who adhere to that ideology continue to vote in the party?
Randy, I have absolutely no ties to the Libertarian Party. I would consider myself a libertarian conservative, though. I think it's rather bold to say that the Libertarians (the large "L" variety) support socialism because they work against the Republican Party. Isn't that just pluralism in action?
Like I've said before, I will now be willing to work more with the GOP as long as I'm given a fair shake.
"I think it's rather bold to say that the Libertarians (the large "L" variety) support socialism because they work against the Republican Party. Isn't that just pluralism in action?"
Or pluralism 'inaction':-) ... Whether intended or not, the Libertarian Party has done more to help the liberal Democrats win elections and gain power, in Travis and elsewhere, than many other groups. Examples abound of where LP candidates delivered the win to the Democrats by splitting the vote. One is Senator Slade Gorton in Washington some years back, another is Stick race in 2004 in HD-50 here in Travis. The number of LP candidates elected is pitifully small, and the number of races they swing to Democrats is larger. They pick up 1-4%, that's mostly GOP votes, it helps the Dems in close races.
As far as advancing the cause of small government and liberty, the LP is a failure. It has had no measurable influence and has not gained real political power/influence, except for throwing some elections to the Democrats. Ron Paul himself is a testament to that, as he has had more influence and success as a Republican member of Congress and candidate than in his 1988 effort on the LP ticket. And there are many more very good small-Govt pro-liberty elected officials, all who are Republicans (eg Sen Tom Coburn). The successful approach for small-government pro-liberty types is to become a part of the Republican party and work to influence that party in the liberty direction.
"the "singular" goal I share with other RPRs is to get constitutional conservatism back into the Republican Party and American government" - And the point there is if you are going to call yourself a Republican, getting back to original question, are you going to be voting as such?
It's really a question to separate those who are participating to grow the GOP versus those who are participating to disrupt or hurt it.
Spacebetween, you sound like you are in the first group, but there are LP types and maybe even liberal anti-war/anti-neocons in the RPR who have a different agenda, if I go by some of the comments on some the Ron Paul boards. They wont be supporting or voting for even pro-liberty Republicans.
Spacebetween -
We have a two-party system; whether the founders wanted it or not, it's completely constitutional and it's been in place since almost the beginning (not as formalized as it is today, perhaps, but still there).
By "singularly focused," I meant "interested in only electing Ron Paul." I think you have to give me this - it's broad, but the very visible portion of Ron Paul Republicans in Travis County and elsewhere have made this mission clear.
I fully respect what you want to do - I work very hard during the primary season to support candidates who are ideologically sound, support the platform, and have a modicum of that elusive "electability" quality. Here's the kicker - the primary is over, our candidates have been chosen for good or ill, and the one goal of the Republican Party (of Travis County, of Texas, and of the US) is to elect Republicans in November. Ron Paul is not among those candidates, he's more or less out of the race at this point, and our focus has to shift. I was a "Fred Thompson Republican" but he's out of it, and while I don't pretend to love or admire Senator McCain, I'll accept that he's the candidate and move on. Because at the end of the day, I'm a Republican, and the worst case scenario for me in November is not John McCain winning, but Obama or Clinton doing so.
We have so much more at stake than the presidential race. We have several Republicans running for the state House from Travis County. We have a Ron Paul Republican running for tax assessor-collector - and I'll support Don Zimmerman wholeheartedly. We have May city council and school board elections to watch - this is where ideology is probably the most important thing to vet in a candidate.
What I'm saying is, I love that you want to get involved, and I don't believe anyone is trying to stop you or marginalize you. But I think we all want to make sure that the best candidates are elected in the fall, and for Republicans, that means electing Republicans.
I hope to see you on the blockwalking trails in October for Jerry Mikus, Donna Keel, Pam Waggoner, Jim Hasik, Don Zimmerman, Gerald Daugherty, or Melissa Goodwin (I'm sure I'm missing people). I also hope you'll take advantage of one of the many Republican clubs in Austin. I appreciate your enthusiasm - we need much more of it!
Post a Comment