In 1992, Independent Ross Perot upset the election, bringing in 19% of the vote to Bill Clinton's 43% and George H.W. Bush's 37%. He did this on a populist, Washington-outsider campaign, at one point leading in the polls (which being an incredible flake he promptly lost). Then, as now, Americans were sick to death of electoral pablum. But now, unlike then, thanks to the netroots, we commoners not only have a voice in the polls, we have a voice in the debate. We have questions, we expect answers, and we are not putting up with the usual B.S. Hunter S. Thompson may be dead but his spirit is alive and kicking.
This growing influence has given me pause to consider the unthinkable - what if a real grassroots, Washington-outsider candidate could get on the ballot? It's not just exciting to consider - in this stretched out campaign, a grassroots campaign might actually be able to find fertile soil.
But there's a catch to that sentiment for the Democrats. Because in this election, the strongest Democrat is Hillary Clinton, arguably the biggest insider to run for office in years. And the candidate with the most vibrant netroots backing is a Republican, Ron Paul.
What if?
More below the fold.
During the 2000 elections, it was a running joke that Al Gore and George W. Bush were virtually identical, with nary a difference in their stated policy. Years later it's clear that in reality nothing could have been farther from the truth - and that the joke was on us. But at the time that viewpoint was not unreasonable. Both Gore and Bush were running their campaigns with the same strategy - maximum caution and minimum risk, aiming to win by as narrow an electoral and popular margin as they dared. The result was the closest presidential election in American history, and an internationally embarassing month long name-calling session that was ultimately resolved in the courts. This was not only the fault of the candidates. It was in fact mostly the fault of the negligent press, who failed to do their job and tell us what we wanted to know - what we NEEDED to know - about the candidate's true political views and commitments.
How times have changed. Looking over recent events in both Democratic and Republican parties, it is clear that the power of big media and spin doctors to control the debate is fading fast, and the most significant factor in this erosion of power and explosion of truth are the netroots.
There were many faults with the Democratic YouTube debates (many of which can be laid squarely at Anderson Cooper's feet), but the informality of the questions was not one of them. The questions were offbeat but sharp, goofy but revealing, amateurish but meaningful, personal but seminal. The candidates fell back on their usual talking points as often as they could, but nonetheless found themselves faced with questions they could not easily spin their way. As a result, we actually got meaningful clarifications of position from John Edwards and a significant foreign policy debate between Obama and Clinton (not to mention some delightfully forthright opinions from Joe Biden). Last week, at YearlyKos, we again saw the power of netroots bluntness, when Clinton put her foot in it and was forced to spin her courting of lobbyists. The power of the netroots is most fully seen not by the number of cheers for the candidates, but by the number of boos for positions they'd rather not have liked you to know about and the crap they routinely peddle to cherry-picked audiences.
The long-term effect of this can only be positive. Candidates are not only being asked the questions on peoples minds that big media never bothered to ask, they're being expected to answer them. Nor are the voters the only ones who benefit. Politicians themselves are finding the freedom to speak their mind that they never thought they had - case in point, Al Gore.
So what if the grassroots really plays a meaningful role this time?
At the moment, the Democratic field looks unstoppable, with three powerhouse candidates and a relatively strong second tier. In contrast the Republican field is mired in personal controversy, fizzling political capital, and destructive infighting. Despite all this, it doesn't take a genius to see that the game will change entirely once both sides pick their candidates, when the two candidates really start to square off against each other for the american population as a whole rather than inside the narrow confines of primary voters. For the Democrats, the smart money is on Hillary Clinton for the nomination. For the Republicans, the situation is much less certain. Thus far, no candidate has really lept ahead of the pack, or even ahead of their personal failings. As far as I can tell, only two candidates seem to be gaining or holding ground. The first is Mitt Romney, who politically should have been the favorite but made the mistake of being Mormon in a party dominated by Christian fundamentalists. The other is an even-tempered yet iconoclastic libertarian representative from Texas, Ron Paul.
Despite a long record in Congress, Paul is a consummate outsider. His opposition to the war in the Republican field is what catches the eye these days, but his voting record and long-standing policies are what really set him apart - his own party has tried to remove him on multiple occasions opposed him at many turns. He also just so happens to be the darling of YouTube and libertarian-leaning web communities everywhere - and the only candidate to not shy away from the Republican YouTube debates. With every debate he steadily gains funds from small donors and polling percentages. It is improbable that he will win the Republican nomination, but if he did, his support would be from grassroot sources far removed from the traditional Republican base.
In contrast, Hillary Clinton only deviates from the standard electoral playbook in only two respects - her gender and her already remarkably close contact with the White House. Every word out of her mouth is carefully parsed and chosen for maximum spin and palatability. Obama and Edwards, her only serious rivals, are somewhat more daring in their rhetoric and promises, but no more so than you would expect of career politicians trying to move up from second and third place. Her Washingtonian reputation reached its peak recently at YearlyKos, when she actually defended lobbying. While she might be more honest than her competitors, one could not ask for a more serious disconnect with the disaffected American voter.
I therefore invite the reader to consider the possibility, however remote, that we could see the following. Hillary Clinton, the consummate insider, vs. Ron Paul, the career outsider. I know how most people on this site would vote, but I ask you to honestly consider how two such different campaigns might play in a general election. Naturally the bases would support their candidates (and/or oppose the other) as usual, but there would be real meaningful difference between the establishment and the anti-establishment, which is where the real battle would be waged. Would Hillary's history and political acumen help or hurt her? Would Paul's unconventional politics sway new voters or dissuade existing ones?