Ron Paul and the third-party run

On FOX News’ “Special Report,” GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul declined to take a pledge to not run as a third-party candidate.

This is a different strategy than his 2008 GOP presidential campaign, in which he was clear from the beginning that running as a third-party candidate was completely out of the question. Paul’s current ambiguity about the possibility has led many, including myself, to think that Paul will definitely run as a third-party candidate once a GOP presidential nominee, probably Mitt Romney, is crowned.

Paul’s 2012 campaign already differs from his 2008 campaign. In 2008, he was still committed to his congressional district. In July, he announced he would not seek reelection for Texas’ 14th district, a position he has occupied since 1997. This election, Paul is all in, which will necessitate running as a third party after the GOP nomination is announced.

This would be the first time a third-party candidate posed a serious threat to the two-party system since Ross Perot received 18.9 percent of the country’s vote in 1992. Paul’s third-party candidacy will be even more of a threat than that of Perot, who proved to be too eccentric to run a successful campaign.

This is Paul’s third time running a presidential campaign, which includes his 1988 run as the Libertarian Party candidate, and he continues to raise massive sums of money and win voters who are tired of Obama and leery of Romney.

Paul’s third-party candidacy will also not fall into what I call “the Nader trap.” In the 2000 election, many liberals blamed Ralph Nader for splitting the liberal vote, giving George W. Bush the upper hand against Al Gore.

Paul will not split the conservative vote as much as Nader split the liberal vote. Paul appeals to liberals in certain respects far more than Obama does. Paul has been, is and will be the only true anti-war candidate in the election.

It should be clear by now that Obama’s campaign rhetoric will not always reflect his policies. Yes, he is withdrawing the troops from Iraq as he said he would in his campaign, but he is only doing so after Iraqi officials begged him to leave.

Paul is also more fiscally conservative than Romney, and his voting record in Congress has proven him to be committed to fiscal responsibility. Romney has the reputation of lacking any real fiscal or political conviction.

Even if Paul’s third-party candidacy does not lead him to the White House, his presence in the election will change the national discussion for the better, forcing voters to seriously consider the necessity of the United States’ military involvement across the globe and consider the consequences of the government’s manipulation of the U.S. economy.

Every election year, I hear the lament that voters are forced to choose the lesser of two evils. But this is only so because most people assume that voting for one of the two main political parties is the only option available. The two-party system then becomes a perpetuated illusion.

In 1992, Perot, an eccentric millionaire who wished his supporters to sign loyalty oaths, received 18.9 percent of the country’s votes running as an independent. In 2000, the winner of the popular vote lost the election.

In every election, anything is possible.

­— sdance@indiana.edu