Posted on February 9, 2008 in
Articles With there being increasing evidence that [tag]Ron Paul[/tag] is shifting from his Republican Presidential campaign to his reelection campaign for the [tag]House of Representatives[/tag] — essentially dropping out of the Presidential race — the question becomes what to do with all the energy, effort, and money behind Mr. Paul’s spirited run. While I did not agree with a lot of his platform, he showed he was a viable, sincere candidate and, unlike other ‘outsider’ or [tag]independent candidates[/tag] (Nader in 2004 or 2000, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Dennis Kucinich), he proved that he could combine [tag]grassroots support[/tag], galvanize several cross-sections of the population, and have significant fund raising capability. Though it appears he has ruled out running as a third party candidate for the 2008 Presidential election, his campaign shows that there is a tremendous opportunity to establish another [tag]national political party[/tag] in America (and if anything has been made clear by the internal treatment of Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel by the Republican and Democratic party, it’s that the parties want nothing to do with them or public discussions on dissent and policy disagreements).
The question then becomes what could be the basis of a [tag]new third party[/tag] in our current political system?
• Politically, individuals with high political capital would form the basis for the parties ‘national’ identity. These would include marginalized but formerly popular party politicians like Ron Paul, [tag]Dennis Kucinich[/tag], [tag]Mike Gravel[/tag], Pat Buchanan, former Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, and former Rhode Island senator Lincoln Chafee, and prominent independent politicians such as [tag]Ralph Nader[/tag], Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and Jesse Ventura. Though they may not share much on social or economic agendas, they do share a commonality towards reform on the issue that has dominated the political landscape for the past 7 years and yet has seen the least actualized transformation: [tag]foreign policy[/tag]. Both parties, with only minor differences, want to continue sending billions of dollars a year to Middle Eastern dictators, financially and militarily aiding Israel, prolonging military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, abating a non-diplomatic, hawkish stance towards Iran, and pursuing the War on Terror through the any-means-necessary dictum, including torture, civilian monitoring and spying, and the refutation of signed international treaties on justice and prisoner of war treatment. Within this lays a tremendous gap on policy pursued and policy desired; most Americans have rejected the Bush administrations foreign policy agenda, which will only be tweaked, not overhauled, if Hillary Clinton or John McCain were to be elected.
• Though there may be disagreements on how the American government spends money domestically, there can be tremendous agreement that some elements of government spending must be changed or curtailed. Like foreign policy, the realistic difference between [tag]Democratic[/tag] and [tag]Republican party[/tag] is minimal: both are guilty of passing the current federal budget (created by our ‘fiscal conservative’ President, George Bush), which has pushed the government deficit to record highs. Indeed, both parties are guilty of abating a reckless federal fiscal policy. This leaves room for a new party with a radically different vision of ‘government’ — one that spends less money overall and shifts money from war-making, war-facilitating, and corporate welfare to investment in American citizens through health care, education, and other domestic programs.
• Monetarily, Ron Paul managed to raise over 30 million dollars over in several quarters. If a new party was to combine the Green, Libertarian, and Reform party, it would have excellent fund raising capability as well as a solid party membership base (remember, Nader won almost 3 percent of the vote in 2000 and in many states won between 5 to 10 percent of the vote). With the money Ron Paul has a raised, viable candidates who present a realistic alternative to Republicans and Democrats could have incredible winning potential for local and Congressional races. Reinvestment of presidential campaign funds by Ron Paul into a new party would be wise as it seems that the Republicans are poised to unseat him in his primary, and such momentum and financial ability should not be squandered on furthering the Republican party’s agenda.
Now the real question is, when do we get started?
