Third Party Potential: Dr. Ron Paul

by Joel Thompson

Ron Paul calls the American government "the biggest threat to your privacy." Of the Iraq War he states it "was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it."

Not your everyday Republican politics. But these are two of the points that Ron Paul, a 71-year-old 10-term Texas Congressman, is basing his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. He doesn't always stray so far from the party, most notably on taxes and abortion, but his views are finding embrace from both Republicans and Democrats not feeling a connection with their party's stars.

My views are almost always better represented by the left, but I believe in letting the issues dictate my support far more than party labels. And I believe that no two issues are of greater import in 2008 than Iraq and the economy.

Paul was one of 5 Republicans in the House to vote against authorizing the Iraq War, and one of only two remaining in office. On the House floor in October 2002, he said "Many of the same voices who then demanded that the Clinton Administration attack Iraq are now demanding that the Bush Administration attack Iraq. It is unfortunate that these individuals are using the tragedy of September 11, 2001 as cover to force their long-standing desire to see an American invasion of Iraq. Despite all of the information to which I have access, I remain very skeptical that the nation of Iraq poses a serious and immanent terrorist threat to the United States." This was a truly prescient and brave remark to make at that time, and I only wish that Hillary Clinton or John Edwards had thought to be so independent.

On the economy, Ron Paul believes in tax cuts, but don't confuse him with George W. Bush. Paul believes that the federal government is largely wasteful, and that small government is the only answer because it would cost less to the American people. He demands, "We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States."

Ah, the Constitution (link provided in case Bush/Cheney/Gonzalez stumble upon BLoTics). What originally drew me to Ron Paul was an interview he gave to Fox News in which he staunchly classified himself as a strict constructionist of the greatest American document.

I couldn't find the Fox News interview, but this video expresses his views:


The Bush presidency has trampled on the separation of powers and on checks and balances for years, and Congress, with either party in the majority, has done almost nothing to stop him. The executive branch has taken too much authority away from Congress, and therefore has too much power. It is the very problem that Thomas Jefferson warned: "Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." I don't make a habit of quarreling with Jefferson, and I won't start now.

So where does that leave Ron Paul? He will not be the Republican candidate in November, so how does he spread his message after the primaries have narrowed the field?

The answer, I hope, is a third party run for the office. Paul was the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988 and picked up over 430,000 votes. Twenty years later, he would again be well suited for such a run, only now he has gained far more political capital and has a severely unpopular war to oppose. If nothing else, a Paul run would force the Democratic and Republican candidates to answer tough questions about the war and big government, issues that Clinton, Obama and certainly the Republican front runners have not done satisfactorily.

Christopher Caldwell examines the Paul campaign nicely for the NY Times. Time will tell whether Paul can turn his current momentum into political success in the months ahead.