21 Reasons that Ron Paul should run Independent (if he might actually want to be President)Submitted by Class of 1984 on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 21:07
I've been compiling this list over the course of the last two months. Some of the items are admittedly controversial, especially those at the beginning. But I think it's important to put it out there. If you agree, keep it going and pass it on as appropriate. If you disagree, then please disagree with all your heart and mind in the best interest of Liberty! Thanks for reading and considering.
1. He will not get the Republican nomination in the usual way -- that is, by receiving large number of votes from Republican voters. Simply, not enough traditional Republican voters will be swayed by his message, and there are not enough new Republican voters coming in the door.
2. If Dr. Paul were to win the Republican nomination through some other means -- for example, commandeering the delegate process -- the victory would appear hollow and illegitimate. This would have devastating consequences for his prospects in the general election. The Republican Party might even fracture into two parties, temporarily, and Dr. Paul would not receive support from his own party.
3. If Dr. Paul were to lose the Republican nomination, he would not be able to switch to independent later, both because of sore-loser laws and also a sore-loser perception. Neither would there be any other liberty-oriented third party candidate available with any chance of winning. We would be irreversibly stuck with two statists.
4. By running independent, on the other hand, Dr. Paul would keep options open: He could abandon the independent campaign in favor of a liberty-friendly GOP nominee if one arose. Or he could choose to pursue his own campaign all the way.
5. Funding required for ballot access as an independent would be provided quickly from one or two money bombs. An army of eager supporters will take care of petitions and other paperwork.
6. Any attempt to keep him out of the debates would backfire. His following and his media presence are too big now.
7. He would not squander financial and personal resources on a bruising primary battle.
8. He could remain on TV interviews during much of the primary season, commenting on politics and the presidential race as it occurs, elevating his own stature above the petty arguments likely to surface among the GOP candidates.
9. He would be free to select a VP running mate from outside of the establishment GOP, or outside of the GOP altogether.
10. He could announce his candidacy during a crisis, if one were to occur. (He has stated previously that he would run if the country particularly needs him.)
11. He could time his announcement precisely at the peak of public frustration over the choice between the likely Republican and Democratic nominees.
12. The political parties are part of the problem. Dr. Paul has mentioned this many times, including the chapter in The Revolution entitled "The False Choices of American Politics", his endorsement of third-party candidates in 2008, and frequent interviews alongside non-GOP allies. Dr. Paul has already placed himself outside of the boundaries of the GOP.
13. Political parties are collectivist institutions by their very nature. A stand against political parties is, in itself, an inspiring statement of libertarian ideals.
14. If successful, an independent campaign would not only elect Ron Paul but also bust up the major-party duopoly.
15. Many of his issues appeal to independents more than Republicans. Just for example, witness the speech at 2011 CPAC, with the concentration on the Patriot Act, foreign aid, and interventionism.
16. There are a lot of silent Paul supporters outside of the GOP, who have largely been sidelined by the Tea Party movement. They will come roaring back to life.
17. The "spoiler" label would not matter as much to Dr. Paul, who believes that a Democrat president is only marginally worse (if at all) than a Republican president anyway.
18. He might pick up endorsements from other independents such as Jesse Ventura or Ralph Nader.
19. He would have more time to evaluate whether he really wants to run.
20. It's not 1988 anymore.
21. It is rare for a game-changer to win by playing the game.
(Please consider this last point from the perspective of your own lives and your own experiences outside of politics. How do these things usually work?)