What the Ron Paul Revolution Could Accomplish

A Consideration Regarding an Undesired Outcome

November 5th could prove to be the day that vaulted Congressman Ron Paul into the top tier of Republican primary candidates and on to the Republican National Convention this coming September. As part of a grassroots-organized fundraising blitz the campaign received over $4.3 million in online contributions, an astonishing accomplishment that caused the mainstream media to pay new attention to the oft ignored candidate.

But even with this newfound prominence there is no guarantee that Paul, who ran on the Libertarian ticket for President in 1988, will prove successful in his quest to restore constitutional dignity to Washington D.C. Securing the Republican nomination, however, is not the only way in which Paul’s movement could impact the American political landscape. The Congressman could, for example, use his notoriety to make an assault on the exclusivity of the two-party system that has come to have a dominating strangle hold American Politics.

It wouldn’t be a stretch to describe Dr. Paul’s following as uniformly diverse. A brief list of his supporters might include Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, constitutionalists, anarchists, pacifists, minarchists, liberals, conservatives and, well, likely any group excluding neoconservatives.

He may be running as a Republican, but he’s likely not one of them. You can see it at every debate. He is the outcast; he is the black sheep in the tightly knit family that is the Republican Party. By today’s standards Ron Paul is far more of an independent than a Republican. But Independent simply doesn’t suffice in this two party system.

And thus, if Ron Paul doesn’t win the Republican nomination, it becomes important too consider to what uses he could put his powerful newfound notoriety and support. He could, for example, despite his repeatedly stated reluctance to do so, run for President as an independent. He would be a new kind of independent, unlike Ross Perot who fueled his own fire with personal fortune, or Ralph Nader who managed to register less than 3% of the national vote.

He could simultaneously run a campaign against the lack of constitutional regard demonstrated by the main two parties and the institutionalized disenfranchisement of the third party candidate. He could stand on his bully pulpit and announce to the country that it is time for the exclusivity of this system to change.

If he were to run as an independent, he would certainly face an uphill battle in the race for the Presidency. Some state constitutions stipulate in their election bylaws that candidates for the Presidency may not run under different affiliations in the primary and general elections. And it’s possible that he wouldn’t be invited to participate in the nationally televised debates.

But he would be a legitimate candidate with access to the press, money and an army of loyal and dedicated supporters who appear willing to stand by their man through think and thin.

Ideally for those who advocate a return to constitutional principles in America, Dr. Paul will never have to face a decision about running for President as a third party candidate. However, too much momentum has been built to simply throw in the towel if the present battle is lost. Perhaps, then, the best outlet for that momentum is a bringing into the light of the farcical two-party system commonly referred to as democracy in America.