Etcetera

A Non-Emergency Fundraiser (Or, Why Ron Paul has no chance in hell) [Editorial]

pO157.

Posted to Etcetera on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:02:36 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

I spent a good portion of my Friday evening at a fund raiser at some banquet hall. You know, the ones everybody gets guilted into going to, or possibly for the open bar serving only wine in a plastic cup or Canadian beer by the pitcher. The good thing is the evening allowed for lengthy introspection after which I realized a 3rd party candidate has little to no shot in this country for the foreseeable future.

As is the custom at many of these events, I spent much of my time people watching. Unfortunately, there is only so much hilarity that can be had from watching random women get severely buzzed and stagger around the room working the crowd. Eventually the crowd sat down before dinner and I talked to people at my table. There was quite a diverse group of people sitting around me, from the middle aged couple with kids, to a newly married set in their late 20s/early 30s with a baby at home, as well as surly empty nesters that pretty much ignored me the whole evening.

Anywho, the conversation eventually settled on politics as these gatherings usually do. As my rules of engagement for the evening regarding political conversation demanded reconnaissance only I mostly listened with one exception*. I was shocked to hear that almost everybody at the table seemed to be strongly disgusted with the way things were heading in general in this country and almost everybody used phrases like "lesser of two evils" or "I'll choose who I dislike the least." In my opinion, I would say almost everybody at the table (including the government civil servant) was espousing opinions on how "things should run" that were almost libertarian in nature, or perhaps more accurately a left-leaning libertarian slant.

Nothing else that evening was relevant to discussion, as the conversation soon changed when a person at the table started discussing how impressed he was with the amount of alcohol the women of Polish descent could put away. I assume the Polish families were making similar comments about the Italians in the crowd. Ahh, good times.

Why did I find this interesting and decide to bother everybody with its recounting? I think Ron Paul boosters, Libertarians, greens, or whoever may have some interesting ideas to bring to the debate. Quite frankly, I think their platforms would be sympathetically received by a wider spectrum of the population, but for a lack of "getting the word out" they are permanently relegated to the <10% category which is not enough to get delegates or house seats.

I think the problem many of these groups have is that they think "money bombs," smarmy t-shirts, or self righteous slogans coupled with some 'net roots' are enough to win the presidency/media attention/delegates/whatever. While 3 out of 4 people in the country have access to internet, many of the connections are dial-up and I would hazard a guess that the overwhelming majority of those people do not have the disposable time or income to hang out on discussion boards such as this one. Many users are likely to be older or may not feel comfortable discussing or researching alternative political philosophies or candidates online. As one candidate already found out, having strong 'net roots' and a metric crapload of cash doesn't mean jack if you can't reach the rest of the voters who don't have roots on the 'net.

My point? It's not about how much money you can raise, the size of your blimp, how gaudy you can trick out rides and then say "These guys really make things HAPPEN!!" but how you present the case to your average voter. In these days of style over substance and people wanting to vote for somebody based on how awesomely they could rock out Guitar Hero Ma and Pa Kettle aren't going to vote for somebody they consider to be "extreme." While the positions of 3rd party candidates may appeal to many voters (including myself) the sale has to be closed. How? By mainstreaming the party/candidate/whatever it is they are trying to sell. I hate myself for making this comparison, but look at the recent PR campaigns run by the Mormons and their public relations/advertising firm that ends in "Ask your Mormon neighbor for more information." The PR firm knows the group looks (at best) odd but by normalizing things and pointing out to potential customers that "regular" people hold those views it (theoretically) gets rid of the "weird/unknown" aspect. 3rd parties should be trying to do this by running ad campaigns, encouraging their members to talk to people and breaking down the idea that not all libertarians live in shacks in the Dakotas and many Greens shower and hold down real full time jobs. Destroy the stereotypes.

My point? Money bombs, youtube videos, blimps, net roots and all that crazy shit isn't going to do much without voter outreach which is something almost every 3rd party I have ever seen lacks.

That is all.

*When one person who considered himself a "lifetime Republican who recently changed his affiliation to Democrat" brought up that he would leave the country if Huckabee won I laughed and said I almost hope he won the GOP primary. I explained I almost wished he would get the GOP nomination because I hoped that would prompt some internal party discussion about how far they had strayed from their roots and allowed the social conservatives to dominate the platform over the recent years. I sensed from the blank looks around the table that it was not a time for a discussion on the vagaries of the libertarian wing versus the socially conservative base of that party. I shut up after some nervous laughter.

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by pO157, Ron Paul, libertarian, democrat, republican, politcs, election, debate, primary, caucus, Super Toopers, Green Party, Alcohol, fundraiser, marines, Feist, Jimmy Eat World, Foreigner, drunks, Gov. Natalie Jessman, poland, italy, you forgot poland, george bush, USMC, Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper, YouTube, blimp, money, money bomb, editorial (all tags)

This story: 12 comments (7 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
6

Resistance Is Futile

uncarved block.

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:38:54 PM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

    I'd argue, and in fact recall doing so before, that third parties won't stand a chance until they stop going for the top office (the presidency) right from the start, and work at getting a voice further down the legislative ladder and going from there. The model is just too stable to be moved right away by even a charismatic/rich figure like Perot; winning the presidency, along with keeping the two main parties together, involves cobbling together enough single issue voters consistently enough to win*. Once this framework is in place, it's incredibly easy to make a small change in the sales pitch- excuse me, stump speeches- to defang all but the most popular third party candidates.
    Third party presidential candidates also face problems with a media aimed at flattening dissent and working very hard to fit every story into an agreed framework. Noam Chomsky has pointed out that brevity is representative of power here. If you say anything that contradicts the CW, you will be questioned, sometimes with hostility, by MSM hosts, with dire consequences. If you're debating someone, a reformer will come across as muddled or meandering, in contrast with the more concise, even glib, message coming from the other side. If you're alone, you either challenge the host, and sound rude or garrulous, or you don't, and sound like you don't believe what you're saying. All of these are poison when you're trying to win an office like the presidency, or even a Senate seat.
    So is it possible for a third party to get very far? Maybe not, but the Reform Party shows how the ball could get started. Would the RP have gotten farther if Perot had actually backed Jesse Ventura? Could an (apparent) egomaniac like H Ross actually have used his high profile to help other people win? Was Pat Buchanan a symptom or the disease in the RP collapse? I have no idea, but I believe that any successful third party would do well to study this era in US history, and consider whether it could turn it into success on election day.

     *This "big tent" party structure also leads to near constant discontent, as candidates can only typically deliver on a small portion of what they promise. This instability is actually a benefit, near as I can tell, because it keeps the large parties from getting stale-- think about the variety in Republican candidates and their narratives this election cycle.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

7

Ron's Rhetoric Wrong

pO157.

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:06:41 PM EST

5.00 (interesting)

I just finished watching the CNN GOP debate and I thought I'd share my thoughts on Dr. Paul's performance because it kind of ties in to my rant above.

We all know the mainstream media is ignoring Rep. Paul, for whatever reason. After tonight's debate there is no doubt left in my mind, given the times he was silenced, ignored, or in the first half where he was promised more time in later questions that never came. He was often ignored on questions that were central parts of his platform, instead diverting to Romney or McCain. Most telling was the question about Justice O'Connor where he was only allowed 5-10 seconds to respond but then Romney was allowed to expound for a much lengthier period of time.

He is currently being marginalized as the guy out on the 'fringe'. His debate style plays into this. I noticed he came in during the (few) times he was allowed to speak by expounding on his platform in highly technical or cryptic terms (ie "Guns & Butter" or vague references to "printing money" -- we all know what that means, but throwing them out without explanation doesn't help get his point across to the non-converted) and speaking in more of a direct to the audience sermon style than a debate. It is easy for the other candidates to ignore him because of this and as such his comments are quickly forgotten, especially since CNN did not mention him (with the exception of the brief O'Connor snippet) during their post debate wrapup.

What should Dr. Paul do about this at the debates? He had one major advantage that nobody else on that stage did. His platform is vastly different to his opponents and likely connects with real people (anti-war, true fiscal conservatism, a solid legislative record, it all bears no repeating). The problem is that his positions are so different (economics, etc) that people probably have no clue WTF he was talking about. For example, his statements about as President he would have a hands off approach to the economy. He did not explain why this was needed, nor why that would be the position of the true conservative. Part of this was the fault of Anderson Cooper for cutting him off, but he should have been as forceful as Romney (who refused to shut up and eventually Cooper gave in -- I honestly hope he is not allowed to moderate the general election debates. He was horrible.) He let his few opportunities get by him, which sucks.

He needs to go on the attack in a polite but firm way. Question McCain and Romney's support for the war, attack the President's financial and foreign policy shenanigans. Ask the other candidates why they have not come out and repudiated Mr. Bush's policies. Explain that programs like the stimulus package and more deficit spending is the root of the economic problems we face.

He needs to start moving the discussion in his favor, not just throwing out cryptic commentary that only his supporters really understand until the moderator shoots him down. The Justice O'Conner question was a perfect example. He would have nominated a 'constitutionalist'? WTF is that? 95% of the folks back home probably have no clue. He needs to break these things down and hilight the differences between Romey, McCain et al and himself. Force those candidates to respond to him and eat into their time.  He needs to contrast himself with the other people and show why he is the only true conservative on stage. If he did it right he could have wiped Romney's jackass smirk off his face and mopped the floor up with him.

He did not do this, and while he may have energized his base I fear this was his last big shot before the Super Tuesday to get the word out.

9

^ 7

Re: Ron's Rhetoric Wrong

thefadd.

Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:52:38 PM EST

4.50 (interesting, brilliant)

Reacting to your quicklink, I think Huckabee and Paul should totally play on their being run out of the conversation last night and hold a debate of their own. They'd need some kind of sponsor to make sure it got media time somewhere but I think it would be a fabulous thing to have happen. It would probably be the best debate in years because those are two guys who are actually chomping at the bit to debate actual issues...mainly because they're so far behind but you know.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

10

^ 9

Re: Ron's Rhetoric Wrong

pO157.

Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:12:46 PM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

Reacting to your quicklink, I think Huckabee and Paul should totally play on their being run out of the conversation last night and hold a debate of their own. They'd need some kind of sponsor to make sure it got media time somewhere but I think it would be a fabulous thing to have happen. It would probably be the best debate in years because those are two guys who are actually chomping at the bit to debate actual issues...mainly because they're so far behind but you know.

That would be excellent. I would buy that for a dollar.

Honestly, I believe Huckabee would be a terrible person to put in the Oval Office. My views on that have been expressed here before so I will not go into it. The thing that got me is he almost had me agreeing with him on a few occasions. I caught myself nodding my head when he was speaking a few times even though many of his positions are hypocritical or harmful to the country. He is a very amazing public speaker and a charismatic individual.

Now if you could combine Huckabee's public speaking skills with Ron Paul's policy positions... Wow. Now that would be a candidacy!

11

^ 9

Re: Ron's Rhetoric Wrong

pO157.

Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:24:58 PM EST

4.00 (informative)

Gravel apparently took your idea to heart.

My mom recently sent out an email discussing MoveOn's impending endorsement of Obama. I replied stating that Gravel would probably be closer to MoveOn's constituency, and asking how come he got no love? She replied back that one of those political quiz things indicated that she is actually much closer to him than Obama (as are most of the people she talked to through MoveOn) but they want to support a candidate who is 'viable' and who can 'bring in money.' And she wanted to pick a candidate that would win for once. Because of this, Mr. Obama's fate is sealed. He is going to lose big time.

On a side note, how many true democrats (especially the MoveOn set) could really disagree with this anyway?

12

^ 11

Re: Ron's Rhetoric Wrong

thefadd.

Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:47:35 PM EST

5.00 (informative, informative)

MoveOn is rather major in active liberal circles and I think the details of his endorsement by MoveOn are rather telling of how the primaries will play out. The reason Gravel got no love is because MoveOn offered its members/contributors/email list recipients the two remaining Democratic choices: Clinton and Obama. Additionally, MoveOn said it would endorse "Whoever wins the Democratic Nomination" should neither Clinton nor Obama gain at least TWO THIRDS of their greater organization's support in a stroll poll held over the past two days. I participated in the straw poll and voted for Obama.

In the previous straw polls, Obama and Clinton were in an absolute dead heat. Most indications were that members wouldn't come up with a definitive choice. However, Edwards supporters migrated wholesale to Obama, giving him an overwhelming 70% of the general memberships support. Now, the organization does skew young but it also skews very active and Californian. I have little doubt that seeing their candidate gain that much support will galvanize those younger, frequently more apathetic voters to the polls en masse on Tuesday.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

8

^ 7

Re: Ron's Rhetoric Wrong

thefadd.

Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:47:38 PM EST

4.00 (interesting, interesting)

Though he is one of only two candidates currently in this race who I would go to my polling place and vote for, I have to allow that he didn't come off well last night. The only part I really saw was a quick post debate interview with him. All the other candidates had their spokespeople come out and answer questions from the press about how their guy did. The coverage I saw was actually decent in that they spliced together the spokespeople rattling off derogatory spin adjectives about their competition. Then they gave Paul about 5-10 seconds to respond to how he thought he did last night.

I would make the criticism doesn't come off as Presidential but after 8 years of Bush WTF is Presidential? He's very folksy and feels overmatched. When asked "how did you do tonight," almost any presidential candidate would take the opportunity to expound on a major point of his/her campaign. Obama, for example, you'd expect to say something like, "I felt I was really able to communicate my message of change for America." Paul, by contrast, actually said how he thought he did, something along the lines of what you described, "I had some trouble getting my points heard early but later on I got some more time and was able to make a couple good points."

That's exactly why his supporters love him. But the man also has a great advantage of a platform I think most Americans would get behind if they knew what it was and I just don't see enough of that from his campaign.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

2

Representative Sample?

Shy Elf.

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:16:22 PM EST

4.50 (astute)

So, we're supposed to take the crowd at "a fund raiser at some banquet hall" as a representative sample of the US?

3

^ 2

Re: Representative Sample?

pO157.

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:21:54 PM EST

4.66 (funny, funny, funny)

Hey, I just supply the anecdotes. You supply the analysis of my analysis of the anecdote. :)

5

For A Second

thefadd.

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:32:19 PM EST

4.50 (funny)

I thought we were being asked to contribute to TnT.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

1

Is McCain A Third Party Candidate?

thefadd.

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:57:17 PM EST

4.00 (astute)

Seriously, though, I don't see things have significantly changed much over the past 100 years or so. I think third party candidates exist mainly on the fringe with certain personalities pushing themselves into the spotlight with an outside chance to influence an election/possibly win.

The key, I believe is personality. Teddy Roosevelt was able to raise a nominally successful 3rd party run as was Ross Perot. This guys both had much livelier personalities than the failed 3rd party runs of say Nader. Policy wonks, whether from the left or the right in say Pat Buchanan never stand a chance as third party crashers. If Paul (though not technically a 3rd party candidate) had someone else's youth/personality/looks, he would be scoring much higher.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

4

Third Parties

skeptic.

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:49:35 PM EST

4.00 (interesting)

In comparison, in Canada there are four different parties that are represented in the Federal Parliament, which are the Conservatives (who are in power but as a minority government), the Liberals (the loyal opposition), the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Quebecois (BQ).  Furthermore, there is an excellent chance that in the next election, there will be five parties in Parliament, if the Green Party manages to elect someone, which I personally expect to happen.

Fundamentally, the Parliamentary system (used in most of the countries of the world) is friendlier to a diversity of political opinion or a multiplicity of political parties than is the American system.  And with some system of proportional representation, it gets even friendlier to a diversity of opinion.  Canada hasn't gone that far, as yet, although there are certainly proponents of proportional representation (the NDP, for example).

Meanwhile, the US will have to make do with what is effectively a two party system.  I just hope that between the two leading parties, America will manage to obtain a good government in this year's election.

This story: 12 comments (7 from subqueue)
Post a Comment