One of the things I miss the most about the primary season is when networks would have online polls after their debates. Republican debates would inevitably be followed by an anchor sheepishly announcing that the winner of the online poll, by a good 20 points, was…Ron Paul.

This would then be followed by an explanation of Ron Paul’s online presence and supporters (dubbedPaultards by Wonkette), and how they didn’t exactly reflect the mood of the whole country. Netroots support for Ron Paul was beyond anything anyone could have predicted. In addition to online polls, they were responsible for comment spamming, money bombing, and a giant blimp. All this for a congressman whose major claim to fame was voting no for practically every single bill.

What are we to make of such enthusiasm for a candidate who was never taken seriously by the mainstream media? Was it simply that Paul was the only Republican candidate who wanted to pull troops out of Iraq? Or is Ron Paul’s ideology, Libertarianism, on the verge of some sort of tipping point?

When I was in Texas covering the primary, I became rather attached to We the People Radio Network, an ultra-Libertarian talk radio station (they mentioned “Dr. Ron Paul” about every five minutes). The station seemed obsessed with the “New World Order,” inoculations, drinking water purification, gun control, and martial law. (They even had an advertisement for a book that played during every single commercial break about how to live under martial law; the hardest part, according to the ad, is the beginning.)

To be sure, there have always been these kinds of people. But now would seem to be a timely moment for the Libertarian party. President Bush, whose job approval rating hovers around 30%, has taken the power of the executive branch to new heights. His administration started two wars, approved plans to both torture prisoners and spy on citizens without a warrant, and turned the Justice Department into a wing of the Republican Party. It’s easy to sympathize with those who have become disillusioned with not just the Republican party but with the federal government as a whole.

A recent Time Magazine article suggests that Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate for President, could act as a spoiler for McCain in November. He’s polling around 6% nationally, and, like Nader in 2000, could tip the balance in a few states. If Obama continues tacking to the center on foreign policy, it’s not impossible to imagine the anti-war crowd jumping ship.

But Libertarians have yet to be brought into one cohesive movement. It’s not so much that they’re divided on issues as they are divided on priorities (much like the far left in 2000). Some emphasize ending the war on drugs; others champion curbing illegal immigration. There are the gun nuts, the anti-war crowd, and the tax-cutters. And some, like the WTPRN crowd, believe in a shadow government. (Somehow, I doubt that these people are that big of a voting block — they probably just assume that elections are rigged by the Bilderberg Group).

If Barack Obama is the candidate who inspired a movement, then Ron Paul is a candidate that a movement latched onto. My sense is that they won’t latch onto Bob Barr. He’s not as charismatic as Obama nor as extreme as Paul; he’s a reformed Republican who claims the party lost its way. That’s hardly an inspiring platform on which to run for President. Ron Paul’s success seems to have more to do with the failures of the Republican party than with anything else.

During the ’80’s and ’90’s, the argument between Democrats and Republicans could be summed up as Big Government vs. Small Government. But a lot’s happened since then: 9-11, the Iraq War, and global warming. The ideology of small government has taken a hit. Most people see the problems we’re facing as monumental ones that the government should play a role in. Candidates invoke the Apollo Moon Mission when talking about finding alternative energies. They invoke World War II when talking about fighting the war on terror.

On the one hand, this lack of a small government option could leave room for a Libertarian to garner enough votes to play a spoiler role. On the other, most people see the problems we are facing as monumental ones that the government should play a role in. Universal health care is a popular position to have. So is addressing climate change.

My favorite Ron Paul moment was when he was on The Colbert Report. Stephen Colbert told him to raise his hand if he wanted the following federal programs eliminated. Social Security? He raised his hand. The Department of Education? Still raised. The U.N.? He raised it even higher. UNICEF? Paul’s hand was still raised. UNICEF? Colbert asked incredulously. Paul stood by his answer, although he claimed he wouldn’t make it a priority.

It would seem that, despite the success of Ron Paul, Libertarians are still a part of the fringe.

–Hillel Aron

Photo by iceman9294.