I have to admit that this Presidential campaign mystifies me. There is definitely something going on this year that is qualitatively different from anything we’ve seen in some time. And I’ll be damned if I can figure out exactly what it is. The public (or at least that part of it that hasn’t tuned out completely) seems to have figured out that there is something very wrong with “business as usual” but doesn’t seem to have a clue what to do about it.
There has always been an “anger” vote in American politics. From the Anti-Masonics to the Free Soilers to the Greenbacks and the Populists. In the 20th Century, the two best examples are probably George Wallace and Ross Perot. Whether it be disenchantment with the elites, the Slave Power, the Bankers and Trusts, the Federal Government or something else, it has focused on ”the other” as the source of whatever ills may befall both the country generally and the voter specifically. It has usually been a rural or at least “non-urban” vote and it is often a “restoration-ist” movement in that it usually sees some elite as having usurped the true meaning of America while seeing itself as the embodiment of the true “patriot” spirit.
These movements have never really succeeded but they have often been given voice at least by candidates of the establishment. The only successful Third Party in American history (The Republicans) succeeded by managing to employ the rhetoric of many of the early 19th century protest parties, while toning down much of the anger. And some of our most politically astute Presidents (Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton) can trace a part of their popularity to managing and manipulating these movements toward their own ends. Ultimately these movements have always “sold out” to a clever establishment character who can sing their hymns, even if they don’t believe a word of their creed.
These movements seem to ebb and flow in patterns. There is the genuine “populist” anger (usually caused by some economic or social upheaval) leading to a movement which cannot be entirely dismissed by the status quo. There is the reaction of the establishment, which must actively court these voters in order to be certain they do not reach a critical mass. This leads to the assimilation of both the message and the voters into one of the established political parties. This is followed by the ultimate betrayal of the movement by the establishment, leading again to disenchantment and the rise of a new movement.
These times are often seized on by more ideological groups, whether they be of the left, right or libertarian persuasion, as signs of a coming upheaval in which their viewpoints will become ascendant within the masses and their dreams of utopia will finally come true. They have pretty much always been wrong. While the specific gripes of the “anger” vote may vary and may often align themselves nicely with the more ideological views of a smaller party, the voters themselves are rarely committed to any particular ideology. That being said, there have been success stories. The Free Soilers largely achieved their primary goals as a result of the Civil War. Many of the Progressive/Socialist goals were achieved during the 20th century, again in part due to War and Depression.
So can the current “anger” vote be channeled in the direction of libertarian goals? I do not see it as explicitly libertarian, even though many elements of it are sympathetic to libertarian positions. It resents the increasing power and scope of the Federal government. It wishes to see American pull out of many of its international commitments and wants to bring home the troops. It sees the tax system as unfair and despises the IRS. It is divided on issues like immigration and the environment and on the free market and free trade and so, frankly, are many libertarians.
Ron Paul seemed to channel a lot of that anger and give voice to a lot of those concerns but turned off many people with his broader, more consistent libertarianism. It does not seem that any of the current crop of Third Party candidates has been able to light a fire with these people. The Greens will always appear to simply be socialists to most Americans, Ralph Nader is a tired old man, a song people have grown tired of hearing, Chuck Baldwin is seen as a bit of a religious nut and Bob Barr has failed to inspire much love or trust among exactly the sort of people he needs to run a strong campaign. I think he is actually doing a good job of building a libertarian party, but not building the Libertarian Party. His nomination is seen by too many Libertarians as being a “hostile takeover” and he has done little to change that perception.
So I am a bit pessimistic today. The title of this article was originally intended to be a “call to arms,” a plea for all those truly opposed to the direction America has been headed under George Bush to join together and unite behind Bob Barr. If we are to have any real effect in this election, we must build such a “coalition of the unwilling,” who are “unwilling” to have any more of Constitutional rights taken, who are “unwilling” to continue our disastrous foreign policy and who are “unwilling” to allow the Federal Government to continue to dominate our lives. But I fear that the the meaning of the phrase has changed somewhat in the writing. I fear that the coalition capable of “stopping the insanity” is simply unwilling to come together. They may flirt with a protest vote or write in Ron Paul but many of them will end up voting for McBama or simply staying home. I hope I am wrong. I fear I am not.
Tags: Election 2008
