Paul wouldn't have made a difference

So, Ron Paul runs in the Republican primaries and receives "more than 1.3 million votes." About the same as the combined totals of Nader, Barr, and Baldwin in the general election.

Of course, far less than half the electorate voted in the Republican primaries.

This suggests two contradictory things:

1. Ron Paul should have run as an independent. The Libertarian and Constitution parties probably wouldn't have run candidates, as a tacit endorsement of Paul, and he would have done much better than all the third party candidates combined.

2. It's a good thing Paul didn't run in the general election. He would have been ignored, and his "movement" might have ended with a whimper. Even if he had exploited the Bailout as an issue, it's unlikely he would have have made much of a difference in any particular state, or earn many more votes than Nader did in 2000.

DownsizeDC.org's latest Dispatch says,

What does the average person assume when he or she sees third party candidates listed in his newspaper with tiny vote percentages next to their names? We think he or she assumes that . . .

"Those are fringe candidates with fringe ideas that no one supports. Therefore, I need not consider what they have to say."

The system is rigged against third parties. This guarantees low vote totals for those parties. It also guarantees that the ideas those parties represent will always be viewed as marginal.

Third parties don't promote ideas, they marginalize them!

George Stephanopolous at Disney News said yesterday that the lower-than-expected turnout came at McCain's expense. In other words, people who don't like their party's candidate, but don't like the other party's candidate either, don't show up at the polls and vote Third Party, they instead stay home or don't vote in the Presidential race. Who can blame them?

Ron Paul had the most successful "small government" campaign in decades, collecting more votes in primaries than any Libertarian could win in the general election. But even then, he was soundly trounced and rejected by his party. Unless a billionaire libertarian runs for President himself, and frames all his policy proposals in pragmatic rather than libertarian terms ("Government program A hasn't worked; I believe policy proposal B will work, and here's why"), it's not likely that the "message" will reach and persuade very many people.

That's why I think the DownsizeDC.org route should be given a chance:

The way to a better future lies in withdrawing our consent and issuing direct orders to our supposed public servants. Votes send confusing signals. But plain talk is rarely misunderstood.

The new way involves building a new social force with the power to make public servants miserable. Withdraw consent. Issue orders. Make the public servant submit.

The politicians are busy right now convincing themselves that the public wants top-down, centralized, Democratic social engineering. Who can disabuse them of this notion? After all, the votes have been cast. The people have spoken.

Only YOU can disabuse the politicians of their self-serving interpretations of inarticulate votes. The Republicans were repudiated. Therefore, the things the Republicans did must also be repudiated. This should be the mandate for the new Congress. Fortunately, we have a vehicle for doing just that . . .

Ron Paul's "American Freedom Agenda Act" would repeal a good chunk of the bad things the Republicans did. Use our Educate the Powerful system to ask your elected representatives to pass this bill.

Use your personal comments to tell your elected representatives that the Republicans were repudiated, therefore the things the Republicans did must also be repudiated.

Votes may not mean much, but we can peacefully overwhelm Congress and force it to bend towards liberty. We just have to do it.