In what was thought to be the aftermath of the Zimmerman-Trayvon episode, there was a solid, if perhaps, premature, column from Matt Parrot, which noted:
Even if White Americans did want to feel guilty about the death of Trayvon Martin, the guy who shot him isn’t even White. George Zimmerman is of Peruvian descent, votes Democrat, mentors Black youth in his spare time, and is an anti-racist activist…For us, the most important and exciting development was the effectiveness with which Kyle Rogers of the Council of Conservative Citizens, Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent, Nicholas Stix (Jewish) of VDare, and others from across the movement effectively subverted and scooped the lumbering and lazy media conglomerates at every turn. The mainstream media kept lying, and our people kept catching and exposing them.
But alas, the story is only just beginning.
The Republican Governor of Florida—that hotbed swing state—appointed a special prosecutor, Republican Angela Corey, to replace the local prosecutor who originally handled the death of Trayvon Martin and did not press charges.
Republican Angela Corey is moving forward with 2nd Degree Murder charges.
In the background, Presidential aspirant (then aspirant) Rick Santorum sided against Zimmerman and with the mob. Alleged Tea Party Congressman, Allen West, sided with the mob against Zimmerman. And most recently in the news as far as this web site is concerned, Rich Lowry sided with Sharpton and the mob.
It’s clear that this is a political prosecution of Zimmerman, or rather, a witch hunt, based on discredited political calculus that pleasing the mob, will get the mob to vote Republican.
But circle back to Zimmerman’s original defenders, the ones who will remain his defenders.
A sense of justice, or at the minimum, the old concept of a fair trial, perhaps does triumph other considerations—an ethic evolves.
Zimmerman is going to be railroaded, in some post-modern combination of the Dreyfus Affair, ‘To Kill a Mocking Bird’, and Bob Dylan’s (born Zimmerman) misleading account of a song, Hurricane.
One of the hypocrisies of National Review and others at Breitbart or Daily Caller who wanted to run John Derbyshire out of town is how such publications and others have used race to sell their products. Richard Spencer points this out beautifully in his lastest blog at Atl. Right
“…With the Right, on the other hand, the conservative base is, in its guts, “racist”: such people grasp what is really happening to their country. They have sour memories of their (re-)educated children scoffing at the “talks,” quite similar to Derb’s, that they’ve given to them about Black people over the years. They’ve spent a great deal of their income isolating themselves and their families from “Diversity.”
In other words, the conservative base supports its “enlightened and forward-thinking” leaders despite what they say and do (and how they look). The base supports its leaders because it views them, rightly or wrongly—for the most part, quite wrongly—as on the side of the “home team.”
The Derb might have offended some NR readers with his scientific worldview, but it was always clear to them that he was in their corner.
Those who truly walk a tightrope, or who “dance around these issues” (in Rich Lowry’s words), are not the John Derbyshires of the movement (if any still remain) but the Rich Lowrys. It is they who must ensure that White anxiety, anger, and hope is safely and effectively channelled into the quarantine of the Republican Party and “Conservative Movement.”
John Derbyshire got off script.”
Spencer goes on to point out all the examples of how some supposed “mainstream” journals of opinion use race as way of selling itself to a mass conservative audience only to pull back and, as turns out, the pull the rug out from writers who probably thought what they were writing was once okay. As some have pointed out, Derbyshire’s latest article isn’t even the most caustic of previous things he’s written without penalty of termination.
Throughout the 2012 campaign we heard how Ron Paul supposedly profited from the racial and apocalyptic tone his own newsletters took from 1990 through 1994 and was attacked as an opportunist. Well, when will the same be said for Lowry, Beck, Carlson Breitbart et. al? Hmmm?
Here is a recent article from Justin Raimondo urging Ron Paul to run third party.
Here is a reply from Ron Holland that appeared today at Lew Rockwell.
Read them and give me your thoughts. Here are mine.
While I would love to have someone I could enthusiastically support in November, especially with the Constitution Party likely to nominate Virgil Goode who is not a clear cut non-interventionist and the Libertarian Party likely to nominate cosmotarian favorite Gary Johnson, I hope Ron Paul doesn’t run third party or independent, but not for the reasons Ron Holland gives.
I have expressed before my general wariness of candidates who compete in a major party primary who then jump ship to a third party when they fail to win the nomination. I make an exception to this if there were blatant shenanigans by the major party to keep the candidate down that could be exploited by jumping to a third party in which case the party switch could be viewed as a form of just punishment or payback, but in general I think it is a bad strategy and bad form. I say this because it strikes me as bad faith to go running to another party if you weren’t successful in the major party. It also reinforces the perception that third parties are for major party castaways and malcontents. If a losing candidate is unhappy enough with the major party nominee then he should refuse to endorse the major party nominee and endorse the nominee of a third party, not be the nominee of a third party.
I think if Ron Paul were to run third party it would diminish his standing in the long run the same way that Pat Buchanan’s Reformed Party run diminished his standing. Paul would very predictably start out impressively in the polls but would very predictably fade as the election grew nearer and the “don’t waste your vote” mentality set in. Ron Paul does his movement more good in the future as an ex-Congressman and an ex-GOP presidential candidate than he does as the/a poorly performing nominee of a third party or independent.
That said, the major case against a Ron Paul third party run in Holland’s essay isn’t really about a Ron Paul run in particular, it is about the electoral futility of third party politics in general. This is where I disagree with Holland. I readily concede that third party efforts are almost certainly destined to fail electorally, but that is only the measuring rod of success if you naively believe that the purpose of third parties is to win elections. As I have stated before, that is not the purpose of third parties or third party involvement.
Don’t get me wrong. I support and frequently counsel third party voting. I am the Constitution Party correspondent for Independent Political Report, one of the largest sites on the web for third party news and information. I attended the Constitution Party convention in 2008. I have supported the Constitution Party nominee in every presidential race since 1996 and regret to this day that I didn’t vote Constitution Party in 1992, its first year in existence. But I don’t believe that I am voting third party so that my candidate will win. I am voting third party as a way to register dissatisfaction with the status quo and either of the big two.
If you get past the notion that third party politics is actually about winning elections then Holland’s electoral futility argument is not persuasive.
If I hold my nose and vote for the GOP nominee (Romney) in spite of the fact that I have significant disagreements with him on the issues, my vote is still registering as a 100% endorsement of Romney. There are no half votes. There are no three quarter votes. Every vote counts the exact same. My holding my nose vote counts just the same as an enthusiastic “Rah Rah for Romney” vote. Voting third party is the only way I have of registering discontent. A vote for Romney is a vote for Romney and arguably a vote against the Democrat. A vote for the Constitution Party is a vote for the Constitution Party and a vote against the big two parties.
Now maybe this system is screwed up. Maybe there is something to be said for rank order voting or proportional representation or whatever, but this is the system we have. Our first past the goal post electoral sytem may favor the development of a two party system even though I don’t think this is what the Founders intended, but it also makes third party voting a real way to send a message to the big two and reject the status quo.
Also, Holland seems to contradict himself with his own argument. He says the power of Ron Paul and his supporters lies in their ability to keep the GOP Establishment guessing and anxious, yet he rules out preemptively one option.
Holland also seems to believe a Ron Paul endorsement of Romney is a possible bargaining chip. That ain’t going to happen. If Paul endorses Romney I will be very surprised. Ron Paul is a man of principle, and he simply won’t endorse an Establishment figure like Romney even with a Rand Paul Vice President selection, a Ron Paul cabinet position, platform language on the Fed, etc. and if he did there would be a massive revolt among his supporters.
So Holland is essentially saying give us a Ron Paul acceptable VP nominee or whatever or we are likely to stay home. First of all, I’m not voting for Romney under any circumstances, and I suspect a lot of Ron Paul supporters feel the same way. I also highly suspect that a lot of Ron Paul primary voters (which is different than Ron Paul “supporters”) will vote for Romney anyway because they will be seduced by the “anybody but Obama” and “don’t waste your vote” argument that seem to be so persuasive every presidential election cycle. So the actual number of voters who might be up for grabs based on Romney’s overtures is possibly not that significant.
But Holland’s alternative if Romney is insufficiently gracious to Ron Paul seems to be to stay home on election day. Would someone please explain to me how staying home, which will be interpreted as apathy, is superior to voting for a third party candidate that you know will not win but that allows you to send a message. What communicates better to the Establishment your political will – one additional vote for the CP or LP nominee or one less vote from the total?
Holland and others who make similar arguments need to disentangle in their minds the electoral prospects of third parties from the act of third party voting.
So in summary, Ron Paul should not run third party or independent, but neither should he endorse Romney, and Ron Paul’s supporters should likewise refuse to endorse Romney with their vote and should register their dissatisfaction by voting for the third party candidate of their choice on election day.
Via James Antle at American Spectator:
Ron Paul (through a spokesman): Congratulations to Senator Santorum on running such a spirited campaign. Dr. Paul is now the last – and real – conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. We plan to continue running hard, secure delegates, and press the fight for limited, constitutional government in Tampa.
“Dr. Paul is now the last – and real – conservative alternative…”
If only the Republican primary electorate understood that, which they don’t.
The person Santorum dropping out hurts the most is Gingrich. People expect Paul to stay in the race because he is a message candidate, but Gingrich isn’t a message candidate and only looks like a sore loser by hanging on.
It seems that the Trotskyites over at National Review in addition to purging John Derbyshire this week just also purged Robert Weissberg, author of the groundbreaking book Bad Students, Not Bad Schools.
Let’s make a list of people purged from (or gagged at) neocon National Review since its inception (add names in comments):
Revilo Oliver, Russell Kirk, John O’Sullivan, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Murray Rothbard, Jared Taylor, Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, Chilton Williamson, Clyde Wilson, Thomas Fleming, Peter Brimelow, Edwin Rubenstein, Paul Gottfried, Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire, Robert Weissberg, etc..
Looking at the names above, one can quickly see that National Review, over the years, has in essence purged all of its most talented writers. Since the function of National Review is not to confront the left but to police the right, as commenters have noted, it’s no surprise that National Review is repulsed by talent. National Review today is a three-ring circus of blathering fools like Jonah Goldberg or Ramesh Ponnuru, insane invade-the-world/invite-the-world interventionists like, well, almost everyone there, or non-entity fratboys like Rich Lowry. How many readers do they have left with IQs above 90?
As Richard Spencer noted in his recent piece, “The conservative movement deserves to die. And it must be fully de-legitimized before we can build something new in its place.”
James P. Lubinskas’ classic article “The Decline of National Review“
… must be a wonderful thing. We wouldn’t know about that here in the DC Empire, since questioning egalitarian orthodoxy gets you fired. The latest victim is Robert Weissberg of National Review. Here’s uber-weenie Rich Lowry announcing Weissberg’s firing, and here’s Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs clucking with glee.
What can we do? If you subscribe to National Review, cancel your subscription.
More Recent Articles