0 votes

Time for new party?

The GOP delegate selection process is completed. Now the Ron Paul Campaign has only one major task ahead and that is the showing at the Tampa GOP Convention. It is therefore time to consider what direction the Liberty movement behind Ron Paul's messenger face could go now.

Let's first look at numbers (rounded). In 2008 presidential election there were 206.1 million eligible voters from which 131.1 million (63.6%) voted - 69.5 million (33.7%) voted for Obama/Biden, 59.9 million (29.1%) voted for McCain/Palin, 1.8 million (0.9%) voted for all other candidates and 74.9 million (36.3%) didn't vote.

What a "demogracy" where were less voters who voted for the winner taking all, than the voters who didn't bother to vote for anybody. What a vacuum to fill.

Now, the electoral college projections mostly look like it would be a real miracle for Mitt Romney to win the 2012 presidential election and in my opinion his only chance how to keep a decisive part of the Ron Paul camp on the GOP board and maybe win the election would be by allowing major commitments into the party platform and putting Ron Paul on the vice-presidential ticket, nothing less. But how likely is it after all, really?

On the other hand the Ron Paul camp more successfully than expected used the pretext of the campaigns and the presidential candidate nomination process to promote - in a very consistent manner concerned with real issues - the ideas of Liberty both within and without the GOP.

And it looks like the support for Ron Paul among voters is even greater outside the traditional GOP electorate and generally can be in two digit percent numbers of voters population in the USA.

Moreover the support for liberty ideas looks quite steadily rising (as the number of independent voters does, 80% of voters even say at least are not excluding possibility to support a third party) and does not look too volatile as say in the case of R. Perot in 1992 - prophetically warning then about the debt based policies - who plummeted from his frontrunner status quite quickly after major mistakes, still got over 18% of the popular vote after reentering into the race, yet then gradually disappeared pretty much into oblivion.

The Liberty grassroots movement clearly has a major political potential in the long run despite all the numerous shenanigans in the GOP straw polls and the delegate selection process, and proved it is able to rise significant money and organize big rallies as well as able of organizing itself at the local and state levels to achieve even takeovers of whole state GOP establishments.

And here we come to the core:
Wouldn't it be (in the case the attempts to nominate Ron Paul would not be successful) good for the Liberty movement to employ the current unity, capitalize not only on GOP leaning but on the truly independent grassroots support, as well as on the experience from the local organizing for voting in the straw polls GOP delegate selection process and form (maybe in a "federal flash mob" manner utilizing the current instantaneous communication technologies) a new full-blown official party with local chapters, county & district, state and federal organization, with own official platform and nominating its own candidates without old party establishment interference?

Remember the Republican party of 1854? How quickly it sent the Whig party into oblivion by giving up on attempts to reform it, became a major political power and got the presidency - in times of mail being transported by horses?

What really remains now from the then liberty promoting Republican party?

What much else has this whole GOP nomination game been now about than the establishment trying whatever unfair or outright illegal means to disenfranchise potential Ron Paul voters?

Ron Paul recently said: "We are the future." (they are the past)

Could such a new party - with the independent, young, smart, enthusiastic people who support Ron Paul's message on board - prevent the disillusion about politics, fragmentation of the movement and ensure its future recognition and development into a really serious political power with less old establishment interference and more spirit of the USA founding fathers into everyday political life?

The author Dr. Jan Zeman is an independent political analyst with such achievements as securing the decisive vote in the Senate for the Czech conservative/libertarian president parliamentary re-election in 2008 and subsequently persuading him into a vocal opposition against the Lisbon Treaty which then resulted in securing important exception for the Czech Republic from the EU Orwellian schemes. He is not a native English speaker, so please excuse possible errors.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.



Keep it in your pants. You don't get to tell others how to live because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

You are a Neo-Con wishing you were a libertarian. You're NOT. I find your bellefs repulsive and regressive.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

I don't care how you find my beliefs

or what you believe is my problem.
Only what I would care would be if you can bring also some arguments other than ad hominem attacks.
My stances have clearly nothing to do with the so called neoconservativism -an term invented for name calling by commies towards social democrats and eventually identified with by liberals believing in the development of the so called compellence doctrine, which is almost exact opposite to the golden rule. Homosexuality is not an issue the neoconservatives would even much care about not speaking likely vocaly oppose - the same as with the abortions and usually the support for both are the planks in the pathetic globalist/leftist agendas. EDIT: Here http://conservapedia.com/Neoconservatism please read before writing.
From your previous responses I would think you're a fanatical confused guy barely able to read and express some real argumented opinions who thinks he is a libertarian without having much idea what does it really mean and what are its basic principles as well as what do mean other political terms as for example the neoconservativism - and that's the only things which make me feel uncomfortable here and I'm sure that with your style you're here absolutely in vain because especially you and this way will not persuade about voting for LP virtually anybody.

Well, at least I'm not

Well, at least I'm not homophobic.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

good for you

at least some remedy for a failed libertarian.

The problem, as always, boils down to money.

In order for any party to be viable, it has to have money behind it. And a steady flow of it.

Yes, you need organization - in spades.

But without money, you won't have organization.

You would need lots and lots and lots of business owners in your camp. (most of them are GOP)

You'd need some heavy hitters at first to try to bring it all together.

What you can't do is rely on small donations from the grass roots.

You can't try to wing it without a strong network and organization.

That's what the other 3rd parties do, and that is why they fail.

They don't have money behind them making things happen, so no one pays them much attention. They can't attract decent candidates that are able to compete and win.

It can be done, but it takes the right people on your side and lots of them.

Good luck.

yeah lots of them

it is a matter of critical mass.

What if you get say 20+ million people (10% of US voters) behind you?

(There is no third party in USA which would have even a tenth of that.)

...and everybody gives you 100 bucks, how much you have then?

There in fact never was a presidential election in USA where 2 billion in todays dollar value wouldn't be able to lease the Whitehouse for the next 4 years.

What you need are the people loving liberty enough not just to give you the 100 bucks, but be aware enough to make a common sense for such donation and conscient enough to stand for its purpose.

You'll never get those 20 million voters unless you first have

big money already behind you and the organization to put it to use.

How do you convince the 20 million to vote for your candidates if that 20 million don't know you exist, or don't care, because you don't appear viable ON YOUR OWN?

This looks like a chicken and egg scenario but it really isn't.

What comes first is NOT the voters.

What comes first is an organized party with viable candidates.

By "viable" I mean backed by a truly organized party.

And by "organized" I mean with support, financial and personal, of the business community in each and every precinct.

The Dems and Reps have that. No one else does.

THAT is why they are the only "major parties."

They are ABLE to get the voters.

No other party is able.

They don't have the resources FIRST.

They don't have the organization FIRST.

You're right

That's why it was so good Ron Paul made his candidacy under GOP - to utilize the GOP organization and publicity coverage and got the liberty message out. Well, the GOP doesn't much like it (especially the neocons who hijacked the party decade ago and call Ron Paul get out of the GOP and the party establishment did many unfair things to stop the rise of Ron Paul as the GOP potential nominee - remember Iowa? Ron Paul clearly won the Iowa big time on the end, yet somehow he was third in the straw poll...).
And it was really very successful move despite all the GOP establishment shananigans, and now many people in most of the communities and precincts know he exists and learn the liberty ideas he so exceptionaly well is able to explain and turn people for, both within and without the framework of the GOP. -The word grace to internet spreads not only in USA, but all over the world.
The momentum of the Liberty movement gradually rised especially among young people, established several grassroots organizations as Campaign for Liberty and now even the official results show that in the GOP primaries and caucuses there were well over 2 million of enthusiastic organized people who voted for Ron Paul - roughly twice more than in 2008.
Just this number implies there are in average dozens of Ron Paul supporters in the precincts. And many estimate there are even more Ron Paul supporters among independents than registered republicans. That's quite a potential and a good base for a national party organization.
Remember, the major changes usually aren't made by a mass, but rather by a clever, commited minority - the American revolution also was not started by masses - most of the colonists vere indiferent, - but by a relatively small group of exceptional men who united overcame numerous obstacles, changed the paradigm and won their cause against the despocy. The Republican party of 1854 was also not formed by masses, yet it became very quickly successful, in several years got the presidency, fulfilled its abolitionist agenda, preserved the Union and sent the Whigs into oblivion. In our country a conservative/libertarian party "ODS" was created in April 1991 by couple of hundreds led by Vaclav Klaus, yet already in June 1992 it won the election and the liberal/leftist mass movement "OF" which in 1989 took down the communists, but was quite clueless what to do with the country and where some of the ODS members who wanted real free market capitalism recruited from was sent into oblivion - the "OF" (which got over 53% in 1990) got less than 5% of vote in 1992, ceased to exist and Vaclav Klaus after serving as prime minister and head of parliament House is our president since 2003 - and despite the tremendous push from liberal/EUfederalists/globalists and 8 years of social democrat government (1998-2006) our country still has own currency in the middle of the EU and has the national debt/GDP 42% - half of the EU average.
You're right, our western political system is about parties having major support, publicity, power.
What I see there in USA from my central Europe perspective are the literally millions of people who want liberty, don't like policestate, bailouts, indebted state and wasting their limited resources on military adventures in the foreign countries half across the planet - having exceptional leader, ideas for a major platform, are enthusiastic and able to organize, even take over state GOP party establishments... so I don't doubt for a moment, they're able to form a major party - and I have a feeling in my bones there is a historic opportunity to do it - now.

I don't know what politics are like over there, but here, people

are just too stupid and bull headed.

I don't have any faith that such a move, short of a complete near instant take over, could succeed.

There just is no compelling reason for people who are currently supporting either the DNC or GOP to support another party. They will support BOTH the DNC or GOP, or move back and forth, but people will NOT jump ship.

They are too caught up in the lie that one guy is really evil and their guy is either the good guy or is only marginally less evil, and that somehow, if their guy wins, we'll be better off. They really do truly believe that nonsense - millions of them do.

If there really are millions who don't - they're staying home on election day and it's anyone's guess how to draw them out.

How did you guys do it?

If NO ONE of any import supports the new party, if the media won't touch you with a 10 foot pole (or someone else's pole even) and if you can't raise money to buy your own media, how do you get those people who don't trust parties at all to come to your side? How do you peel support away from the other parties if you have nothing to offer them?

I just don't see it happening.

America is no longer the reservoir of freedom it once was. That torch has been passed.

let's look

the 2004 presidential election:
winner G.W.B-62,040,610 votes, turnout:122,267,553 voters
the 2008 presidential election:
winner Obama-69,456,897 votes, turnout:131,257,328 voters
for winner +7,416,287 votes, turnout: +8,989,775 voters
-which looks like Obama somehow "woke-up" to vote 7.4 millions.
The (mendacious) anti-war stances, (real) disgust with the GOP/neocon politics and his (from the very beginning void) promises of change. (in that order)
(turnout 2000 - 105,405,100 - which means the disgust with GOP/neocon politics brought to the 2008 elections 25~ million people more than in 2000 - which is ~3 millions higher number than the USA absolute population growth - so if we take voters/nonvoters ratio there could be net 4.5 millions of people who were "awaken" to go vote solely by that neocon mess)
That the Obama is a conman was absolutely clear to few, but you were warned Americans (I warned about the mass suggestion methods immediately after his 2008 Iowa victory speech and I still laugh about the number of downvotes, clueless negative comments and insults), but almost nobody from the hypnotized crowd was listening.
You're right most of the Americans are stupid and bull headed - just like all other nations under the pressure of the TV propaganda brainwashing.
The Obama's "awaken" 7.4 millions (and then abandoned) are now mostly yours, because Ron Paul effectively seized all the momentum of the anti-war and change message. The disgust with GOP/neocon politics of Cheney (GWB was only a figurehead) administrative is now augmented with the disgust with the Obama administrative continuing and even developing the neocon politics. Most of this antiestablishment momentum is among independents.

You're right that the complete near instant takeover is impossible. My point - although it is not much accepted here - is that the complete GOP takeover isn't in my opinion possible at all. Although many still cry here how they're gonna have Ron Paul nominated and win even after the major setbacks, there simply isn't enough potential of Ron Paul supporters among republicans against the mass of the traditional republican voters (-the dozens of millions of stupid violentminded bull headed rednecks and if I would be sarcastic -still believing not only things like that the world is 6000 years old but also the essence of the FOX-TV gospel the chosen one America should bomb halfworld into the stoneage and build there the democracy consisting mainly of military bases shooting the nuclear waste around..etc. and only like 300 thousand of those die out each year - paradoxicly yeah they would vote for Ron Paul - if the RNC and FOX would tell them to vote for him). Obama on the other hand still would have the around 60 millions traditional democrat voters (the by collectivist ideologies infected cosmopolits, believing they can whatever they want their way while on foodstamps, that the solar fields is the best way how to produce electricity, especially at night, and prevent AGW while lonely driving their car and that to kill unborn children is a progress in social justice...etc.) - Romney can't win without the Ron Paul camp. No way. So the 3rd party idea could be the leverage on GOP to adopt major liberty platform commitments and give Ron Paul the vicepresident ticket. If not - which I very much suspect because Romney looks to me like the choosen one to fail and get Obama reelected, which will most probably happen when one puts short glance at the electoral college projections - what you want then to do with the Liberty movement momentum and potential, give it up and leave the country?

Just some thoughts how to get people to vote: the communists here did it by scaring the s**t out of people and then they got like 99% turnout voting 98% for the one party - who didn't fulfilled the "people's democratic duty" (to legitimize the regime) could be fired and never find job anymore. Or that you cry that the Obama will ruin the coutry and do all the other very nasty things while you Romney somehow not -even you have very same agenda and handlers and your party has long history of doing the same -beting on people amnesia and silly allegiance. That's the fear way.
The other way is the frenzy of snowballing effect - if you quickly get say 5% best brains&hearts voting the party you eventually get most of their stupid voters (there the stupidity and going with the flock is the advantage) - that was the case of our "ODS" party in 1992 - but you must do it very quickly and at the right moment. If you vould be able to get together the Ron Paul independent voters (and maybe also the republican if their Tampa efforts fail) to sign for you in the party membership (best would be to put recruiting stands on that Ron Paul Party in Tampa, give them the "rank-honor" of the state party member number - let them pay some registration fee like say 50 bucks - going then to their State organization account - for them to see that nothing is for free and psychologically feel "investment" and of course get some initial funds - and let the initial members simultaneously take the recruiting action back to the States) and as quickly as possible put together well structured and professionally looking national webpage with of course possibility of pre-registration, instant donation, summary and detailed geographical overview with number of members and where - interactive maps, contact forms to precinct and district coordinators and then quickly put together a national party founding convention say with the same number of delegates and from areas exactly like the US Congress representation (you have the federal organization pattern at hand).
If you get the retiring Ron Paul at least as honorary chairman sign in and at least some members from most of the districts then you have the chance to get the snowball rolling.

In my opinion to propagate a party founding organization using MSM publicity and classical advertising methods is anyway superannuated and ponderous, takes huge money, needs anyway somebody with media influence which would expose you to infiltration risk on the party highest level and especially takes time - and so for a snowballing strategy it would be anyway insufficiently predictable and ineffective - so you can forget it anyway. Better than the corrupted MSM would be even an internet, iPhone, Android communication App, a "Libertybook" if you like - it unlike MSM at least could work both ways and by the third you can put news on the net instantaneously ;) This Liberty movement is anyway primarily about young people and they like their computer games, gadgets and paraphernalia they spend thousands on and mostly where it leads them is a stultifying virtual reality (and giving a constant stream of intimous data to NSA) - why not give them something like that but real and mingling with reality of local party fellowship and with the bonus of participation on something which is literally the most important thing for mankind - the Liberty?

I wouldn't like to see the Liberty cause advanced by the old, dead serious but deadly hypocritical ways as the major parties do - playing the serious dignitaries to advance the people's interests but in fact only having that herd of constantly brainwashed and intimidated sheeps lead by the wolves to the democracy where then on the end the state and federal wolfhouses with the couple of the lambs democratically decide what will be for the dinner. This way doesn't lead to the Liberty and never did. The key in my opinion is swiftness, inventiveness, grassroot principled selfdependence... it must be a surprise, something unprecedented.

Sorry, it is just what comes to my mind when I try to answer your post.

Time for serious change

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it"

It is time and our duty to shift the paradigm.
The whole system has become obsolete and corrupt


the system is corrupt

but is it really obsolete - I mean the system projected by the USA founding fathers? I don't think so. In my opinion it is one of the best (maybe the very best) systems ever invented and yes, the republicanodemocratic government which evolved on the global supremacy ideologies last century should be taken down, no question, but it can be done in a civil way, European nations also abolished the slavery system without a war - now there is a maturity test task for you Americans - to abolish the debt slavery you allowed to rise brainwashed by media - without a shot against an innocent fired. Only then you really deserve the 2nd Amendment - it is there to secure the free state, not to unleash a mayhem your military unleashes abroad.

I'm game. I no longer consider myself a Republican.

I don't like the idea of parties. Many concede to the idea that we'll always have a two party system---that that's just the way it is.
I don't buy it. Paul broke out of that as a Libertarian in the 80s and that was the first reason I looked into him.
Given the fact that the Independents are the largest voting bloc leads me to believe there is hope in breaking out of this horrible cycle.

Independents are the biggest losers

They don'y have committees and they don't get funding, the only voice they ahve is their own, and like Carlin says, No one cares.

I became an Indy in 93 to help Nader get ballot access and debates. All we got was law suits that we lost.

Ron Paul has given us an invitation to take back the GOP and help it's find it's way back to restoring america to constitutiuonal government. It's an AWESOME opportunity.

It wasn't easy for me to join the GOP, but once I had, I saw that I had been had by MSM. The GOP is a shell. The LP could have gone MS if they had joined, but they want to remain a third party.

That's OK, in that hundreds of RP GOP are talking those seats and offices with the goal of making RP's message a reality.

The only regret I have is not joining the GOP in 07.

Yes, but that's not to say things can't change.

Isn't that what a lot of this is about? Breaking the monopolies of banking, agriculture, media, political parties, etc.?
I'd really like to see the LP strengthen in local and state governments. Things are changing.

No, it's not about breaking them

It's about REPLACING THEM with NEW blood that stands by the constitution and not interested in being corrupted beccause we undersatnd what Ron Paul is saying and we believe we can do it.


that's the word - the establishment is eager to form them because they then have there the one number where to call for money. The people are all different, they don't have any interest in forming monopolies and federal agencies to tackle competition to them, the people need the market competition, because it secures them to pay less when they need something and also the competition makes for them the technological progress to increase their living standard - real progressivists are the conservative free market lovers, not the Obama federal and internationalist monopoly commies or better fascists to capitalize gains for their monopoly friends and socialize losses from public money only making progress in technologies to kill, subdue and control while keeping the technologies cappable to liberate people under lid.

My idea

is not to destroy GOP if not needed, I supported Ron Paul candidacy under GOP, because it is a way how to get word out, the GOP could and proved to be a good place to further the liberty ideas, because it is an established party with publicity, but why let the independents stand idle, why not open multiple fronts of the war for freedom and utilize independents (ok you're right now just a) potential?
- You say it was not easy for you to join GOP, maybe for other people it is absolute no no - so for them - a possible majority of Ron Paul supporters it can be a way how to intervene.
The goal is to restore republic, rights, freedom, not particular party interests. I would not cry for GOP if their establishment continues with their shenanigans and people stop to support them.

You are so RIGHT ON

Please come get a GOP committee seat and join us. YOU would be AWESOME to have on a committee!!!


offer, thanks, unfortunately I don't believe I would pass the immigration with my record of 9/11 research. ;)

I totally agree

that to concede to the two party system is not right. I also agree that it shouldn't be just the way it is. My idea here is to rise the independents and non-voters and I emphasize Ron Paul supporters are not just republicans, but especially independents. As a political realist I think only civil way how to overcome the republicanodemocratism is to form a powerfull 3rd party. And it happened at least once before.
The Ron Paul liberty movement has all needed - momentum, consistent leader one can believe, ideas to make major platform, supporters to make it happen and access to technologies to make it happen very quickly.

You have admitted defeat. I have not.

If you are really serious about freedom and Liberty, do the following:


"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

I don't admit defeat

it could be a misunderstanding. No, I wrote my article, especially because I firmly believe the ideas of the liberty cannot be defeated. I just posed the question whether the attempts to reform GOP after all that what happened during this campaign is the the right way now to go. I invoked the example of the 1854 GOP, because I think clever people should learn from history - not to repeat the bad and possibly repeat the good.

I am finished with politics...

Every person, in the end, is responsible for themselves. I will no longer submit to anothers authority, on the false hope that they would be willing to forsake their personal self interest, in favor of mine. It is not human nature and realistic with the behavior of man, especially those in positions of power. Acton was right, everyone has a price. The campaigns proved it, and the Rand episode proved it again. We have to be our own sovereigns and save ourselves, for we are the only one's in whose interests it is to do so... The people we have been waiting for to save us, is and always have been ourselves. You can't outsource the right to defend your freedom to any mortal man or ideology, you have to stand up, be accountable and ultimately responsible for yourself, and making your environment one worth living in.

don't give up please

there are ways to go. Individual ways. Me, personally, I prefer individual ways. I was working in top politics and achieved there something important, but I was always on my own and I never gave up my individualism - that's the key - rights belong to individuals, we must assert them as individuals. But sometimes - more exceptionally than always - is good to unite with others to gain momentum and power needed to change something. And the purpose of my article was to articulate there is an exceptional opportunity for the Ron Paul supporters to unite for a common purpose. Don't wait for others, but if the others are in a situation you can join each other for common purpose worth of fighting for don't let them stay behind, don't let you stand outside.

The time for poltics has passed...

It is long past time to make demands... Remember this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_In...

We need to assert ourselves and no longer ask for permission for the right to reserve our natural rights in exchange for autonomy... anything less is slavery and tyranny. The problem is most of us have forgotten what tyranny is. And are happy to accept it with the faint promise of being free to make choices about anything and everything EXCEPT on what matters....

This is "representation", without representation... NOBODY fought and died for THAT!!! And yet we are okay with it. Apparently...

yeah, the polltics should end

- to govern a country on the base of manipulated polls, without clear vision manipulating masses into supporting nonsenses and evil and getting such government legitimacy from confused poll opinions - in case of the (s)elections obtained using the easily manipulable machines and months of media brainwashing - this should end. (I hope you're not angry I inpired myself in your title typo. ;)
Yes, The Declaration of Independence establishes the duty to take down the despotic government.
Why I wrote my article above was because I think only viable civilized ways in our western system of democracy how to fulfill this duty is either to reclaim GOP and turn it back to its original purpose - promote liberty (then literally abolish slavery) or if not possible then to form a new full-blown, official national party on the base of the Liberty movement and Ron Paul rEVOLution - which I think now is the historical moment when it could be done and successful.
-If impossible then I'm afraid that the JFKs "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make the violent revolution inevitable" will sooner or later materialize. And because I'm definitely not a commie who like violent revolutions and I wouldn't like to see the mayhem of a violent revolution in USA I have written my article.

very interesting reading

indeed the awakening to the poor and poorer system perpetuated by statists calling themselves sometimes even "progressive" and like is indeed global - otherwise I would perhaps as an European never know about Ron Paul and post here.

If RP is not afforded a prime

If RP is not afforded a prime time speaking slot in Tampa, and if RP delegates are disenfranchised or otherwise treated without respect then yes, the movement should consider going 3rd party, but only if an RP led, organized, convention walkout can be arranged.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein