The liberty minded parties such as the Constitutional, and Libertarians possess an inherent divisiveness by virtue of being a group of individualists. It is a characteristic that exists much to the respective parties’ own detriment. It is a systemic issue that prevents the respective parties from going very far in the mainstream political spectrum. Of course it obviously does them no favors being constantly demonized in popular culture, labeled as “terrorists” and “extremists” simply because of a natural aversion to compromise on moral issues that ultimately affect personal liberty.
With this in mind, the liberty-minded groups have to exercise a measured level of discernment with “grass roots” organizations and the front people of these groups so as to avoid a corporate co-opted candidate who says all the right things to get elected, the person who is all the right things to all the right people. This will inevitably provide the conditions for an incurable case of apathy on the part of the constituents, because “their guy got in.”
Voters must be open to the possibility that the Tea party could easily be funded by trans-national corporate interests in an attempt to both infiltrate the party to stifle dissent and secure political power, or use the party to prop up another party. This is a pretty common occurrence in politics.
There were claims that the Republicans funded Ralph Nader in the 2000 election to hurt Gore’s chance of winning. Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party candidate was famously funded by corporate interests, compromising votes for William Howard Taft, which guaranteed Woodrow Wilson’s win. This ultimately cost the election for the other competing factions. More recently Libertarian candidate for Governor, Robert Sarvis in Virginia was funded by Democrats in an attempt to stifle the Republicans chances of winning.
It is not a far stretch of the imagination to consider that the elements of the Tea Party could either be used as leverage to give power to another mainstream party or it could be hi-jacked by rabid corporate interests in an attempt to maintain control of the system. At the same time, the liberty-minded voters must remember to refrain from inaction stemming from the false notion that they are powerless to cause change. Since these liberty-minded groups are filled with the remnants of society’s “rugged individualists” their bad habit of being overly critical of anyone who happens to rise to prominence because they don’t fit the ideal standards.
Ron Paul was the closest thing to a Libertarian in the mainstream. Dr. Paul was also ripped to shreds by the corporate-controlled media, and by conservative in-fighting—all amounting to the same issues that plague his son Rand Paul—not being “Ayn Randian” enough for the good of the party–the same in-fighting that is the catalyst for the destruction of the Republican Party.
On the one hand, it is positive that liberty-minded constituents won’t support Rand Paul or Ron Paul just because they are libertarians, but they are far from the “lesser of two evil” paradigm that we are accustomed to.
After Bush, the public desperately wanted a change, and Obama’s oratory prowess was welcomed with open arms.
Many voters are disillusioned by the system, and so they are unable to believe that anything can be done on their part to make a serious change. The generally benevolent and overly critical conservative, or classically liberal people could very well sabotage a true grass roots movementthemselves, or on the other hand exalt it to a position beyond reproach.
The public simply needs to hold liberty candidates to a higher standard lest there be sacred cows.