Top-down vs. bottom-up

Historically, attempts at top-down political change have been short lived. A recent example is the Reform Party of Ross Perot. Galvanized by Perot's campaign for President in 1992, supporters created the Reform Party and fielded candidates in all fifty states in 1996. In 1998, the Reform candidate Jesse Ventura won election as governor of Minnesota - the highest office held by a "third" party in a hundred years. And then the party basically collapsed, fielding only a handful of candidates in each election since.

People who desire long-lasting change are advised instead to start at the local level. Field candidates for local office, it is said, build up support for the platform, and then there will be established infrastructure to gain support in national elections for decades to come. There appear to be two major problems with this advice. First, through the history of the United States, the only third party to be successful with this strategy was the Republican party (the party was founded in 1854, its candidate Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860). Second, the federal government is so powerful now that platforms for change may take issue only with federal policies and programs. Local officials cannot effect change in these areas.

Ron Paul's Presidential candidacy offers a different approach: change an established party from within. Many journalists have written about how the Republican party has lost its way. It would be difficult to find a more diverse group of candidates than that found on the Republican slate. The party is looking for a strong leader in a new direction, and if they want, Ron Paul is ready to lead us there.