Will 2008 be the turnaround election?

I've been waiting, and hoping, for four decades... since 1963, for my fellow Americans to really embrace liberty; to stop falling for phony political rhetoric and to support someone for President who really understands and believes in the principles this nation was founded on. Barry Goldwater's defeat in 1964 was my first disappointment.

My hopes got a boost in 1980, when Reagan was elected, and, for some time, he did not disappoint. He stopped the rampant double-digit inflation of the Carter era, cut taxes, and settled our economy into relative prosperity. Yes, there were problems. Reagan was infected with the Republican desire to interfere in the affairs of other nations, and with the belief that military strength solves problems.

Reagan was replaced by George H. W. Bush, forgettable to the point that a young Arkansas compulsive liar was later able to defeat him. Clinton declared that "the era of big government is over", a statement that was true as long as he could redefine the word "big", as he did so many other words.

There was again brief hope in 1994, when the "Republican Revolution", led by Newt Gingerich, gained control of both the House and Senate, took control of 20 state legislatures from Democrats and gained a majority of governorships.

All of those 30+ years, I was "aboard" the Republican train... hoping that they would move America away from socialism and back toward small government and liberty... and being repeatedly disappointed. When the "Republican Revolution" fizzled out, I gave up on the GOP. Yes, they were still better than anything the Democrats represented, but barely. The GOP had become big government, cowering in fear that Democrats might regain control by bigger promises, and responding with even bigger promises. They lost the courage to stand by their principles.

For a year or so, I was "politically homeless" and without hope that we would ever return to the principles that made our nation great. I happened to stumble upon the Libertarian Party of Minnesota, read a little libertarian literature, and got excited. Could it be? A party that believes as I do? A party that believes as the Founding Fathers did? I dug in to find out more, attending the Libertarian Party national convention in 1996. I was impressed with the consistent, thought-out deep positions I found, and even more impressed by the fact that every Libertarian I met was there, not for political gain, but to push the principles. They were idealists, but with practical solutions, and without phony rhetoric. I had found a home, and I'm still active, 11 years later.

Being a Libertarian is fraught with disappointment. Trying to compete in campaigns against embedded power-mongers spending tax money like teenyboppers with unlimited credit cards is a mountain the LP may never climb. Nevertheless, the LP has had impact, issue-by-issue, year-by-year. In 1996, the word libertarian was frequently confused with "librarian" or "libertine". Since then, the word libertarian has become not only recognized by most, but vaguely understood by most. It has become a descriptor often used by opponents to falsely describe their positions... because they know the appeal the word has come to have for the public.

In talking with Americans over the past 44 years, I've been surprised frequently at how naturally libertarian Americans are. Sure, there are exceptions. When I talk to a rabid Republican, I may still hear insistence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I hear canned, meaningless but rousing phrases like "fight them there or fight them here", and "support the troops". When I talk to a rabid Democrat, I'll hear equally meaningless but rousing phrases. But, in talking to average Americans, I hear very "libertarian" comments expressed as being little more than common sense. They know that big government doesn't work, that it's oppressive, both against us and against others, and they're sick of being forced to pay for government policies they oppose, and others that just don't work.

Now, surprisingly, we have something of a "revolution" occurring within the GOP. One man, Congressman Ron Paul, long admired by libertarians for his refusal to vote for any measure that is not constitutional, has found his candidacy for President to be creating a groundswell movement. I suspect he is as surprised as I am, but that grassroots groundswell has taken him from being a "marginally humorous" GOP candidate to what is beginning to look a lot like a serious contender. The major media tried their damnedest to portray Paul as a marginal kook and "out of the mainstream". Polls didn't even include his name, while including others who hadn't even declared for the nomination.

They're still trying to exclude Paul. The last "debate" of GOP candidates included Paul, but it played out like a conspiracy to keep him from having much chance to talk. There was an indicator that some are beginning to worry about Ron Paul: John McCain, after briefly answering a question, launched a sudden attack on Paul's anti-war position. It was a violation of the rules of the debate by McCain, but Paul responded well. It occurred to me that McCain's attack was a set-up to have the most credentialed pro-military candidate attack the only anti-war candidate.

Altogether, that debate was a real embarrassment, filled with rehearsed slogans, some personal attacks, evasive responses, and unfair time allocations. I thought Huckabee "won", but why shouldn't a long-time preacher win a bullcrap contest? For you astrology fans, there was a striking "proof" during the debate. After the debate, I suspected... so I went and checked my suspicion. Mitt Romney refused to give a clear opinion on a couple of issues (is waterboarding torture? should gays be allowed to be open in the military?). Romney is a Pisces, and a common descriptor of Pisces is "wishy-washy".

I have the ability to revert to the attitudes I had when I was on board the GOP bandwagon. It's a lot like getting back into being a fan of a football team you've ignored for a while. It comes back, and it's infectious, just like any virus. I can do what most active Republicans do... go with the flow, let anger surface, and root for the team. I can do the same with football commentators who use extreme measures to try to make the game as exciting as possible. I can let them get me excited too. Among "fans" of either a game or of politics, it's often the extremes that appeal to those already involved. Among "fans", being the MOST extreme is a goal to many... the biggest fan, the balls-out Republican, etc.

What gets almost completely lost in the political frenzy of campaigns, attacks, rousing phrases, and commentating, is thought and rationality. It becomes a spectacle of rehearsed knee-jerks and a barrage of roundabout rhetoric that cannot be clearly understood, so it cannot effectively be attacked. That's precisely why most candidates give long, involved answers, and dislike when specifics are extracted from transcripts. The specifics have to stand on their own, rather than being part of a barrage.

One can find some sort of evidence to back ANY position. If that evidence and position are presented emphatically and dramatically, many people will buy into it immediately, and "fans" of a party are pre-disposed to buy. The tendency within any such group of fans is to gravitate toward the most dramatic, and the most extreme views that fall with permissible limits of the group. That's precisely how the GOP has become more power-hungry and hawkish over the years. It's a frenzy that feeds on itself and becomes non-thinking... almost anti-thinking, because doubt becomes the enemy among fans. Doubt means evaluating decisions you've made in the past, and possibly even admitting that you had been wrong.

Will the Ron Paul revolution succeed? Few things would give me more pleasure than to see the GOP forced to accept Paul as their nominee. It could happen, but it would be a bitter pill for the GOP to swallow. It would be an explicit condemnation of what that party has stood for the past several decades. Oddly, Paul is, I think, the most likely of any of the current GOP candidates to be able to win the Presidency. If nominated, he would lose some of the hard-core Republican voters, but even more Democrats would vote for him, because he is likely to be THE anti-war candidate on the ballot. More importantly for the long run, I think Ron Paul's presence on the 2008 ballot would bring a lot of voters to the polls who have not been there is some time. He would win libertarian voters, and the many "independents" who have become disgusted with their old parties. In short... should Ron Paul become the GOP nominee, he would pull off a landslide victory... indeed a revolution.