I’m under no illusion that I would be attracted to vote for Paleocons, but I do think they have something valuable to contribute to the political conversation, and thus I’d like to see them gain at least some credibility. Even though I’m a liberal, I think conservatism is a valuable tradition that needs to re-assess itself and grow stronger in order to make healthy contributions to the polity. Right now, conservatism is toxic and a drain on the country, for the most part, and I don’t see that as a good thing. I’m not expecting conservatism to become “like liberalism”, just to become something that has a healthy backbone and can create a “vision” of our country and the world that I can at least respect. It’s important in politics to have healthy opposition, rather than the toxic vengence we so often see.

Hmm, how do I say this without sounding like I’m insulting our host and other commenters (and I really am not insulting them – I have genuine respect for most of their views, while not agreeing with them). The fact that Daniel talks mostly about things that an anti-war liberal can agree with, and stays away (for the most part) from the things that you would find most … out of the mainstream? … shouldn’t obscure the fact that Daniel in particular, and the paleocons in general, hold beliefs that, by your lights, are pretty out there. Maybe not quite as out there Baldwin, but … let’s put it this way: A true paleocon party, for better or worse, is not going to ever have electoral success, absent a sea change in the political beliefs of the typical American.

That’s not a bad idea, but for this election, we have to go with the choices we have. The only problem with Barr and Nader is that I do not think that the Barr campaign is going to build the Libertarian Party much after the election, and Nader is not building any party with his candidacy.

I agree that McCain is starting to slip into nutcase territory, which is why I think he’s also starting to tank in the polls. No one says this outloud, but he seems unstable. But Baldwin is really much worse, and he has no media spotlight on him, so no one much cares.

My point is that if paleocons want to grow their numbers, aquire some kind of party legitimacy as a movement, they have to nominate candidates who at least have a basic sanity about them and can make solid arguments for their cause that stand up outside the small world of inner-third party bickering. Baldwin simply can’t do that. If I were to make a suggestion, why not nominate someone young, smart, intellectually aggressive, highly literate, with a firm grasp on the general political scene, and yet possessed of all the basic paleocon values and agendas. There’s no need to find someone with actual political experience, if they can speak loudly and attract basic respect from others. In other words, where’s the “Draft Daniel Larison and James Poulos” movement among paleocons?

I think that a large part of Daniel’s point is that “nutcase” is in part a matter of definition, and that anything within the “accepted” range of political discourse is automatically accepted as “not nuts.” As a person who increasingly identifies as a left libertarian, I would certainly agree that Baldwin is a bit of a nutcase. But I would also put McCain in that category. Just because McCain’s foriegn policy views are relatively mainstream doesn’t make them any less nutty.

Yes, I really, really, do believe that McCain is every bit as nutty as Baldwin. And, on balance, Baldwin, while every bit as nutty as McCain, holds nutty views that, on the whole, are much less dangerous than McCain’s nutty views.

Conradg, calling someone a nutcase is not an argument. It is childish name calling. There are many who think that all third party candidates are nutcases. That anyone who talks about gold or the Fed or the Constitution even are nutcases. You are going to have to to better than foot stomping and name calling. “Ew, Baldwin is a nutcase.” The mainstream boys said the same thing about Ron Paul.

If there is enough support for the Constitution Party, they may be able to get better candidates, or be able to get more reasonable people into lower offices.

But why do they have to nominate such nut-cases

Well, the major parties nominated nutcases also, so it all evens out.

Wherever Baldwin stands on the issues, there’s no denying that his rhetoric, together with his extreme stances on things like trade, make him a poor fit to bring together the sort of cross-spectrum coalition that is really needed for an effective protest vote.

Well, again my hope is to get a better quality of candidates if there are more votes available.

… the real goal here is to build a party to oppose the current two parties.

Well if that’s the goal, then the CP isn’t going to get you there: any serious third-party effort is going to have to make some compromises, and it seems obvious to me that a fundamentally anti-war and decentralizing libertarian coalition is the way to go. Wherever Baldwin stands on the issues, there’s no denying that his rhetoric, together with his extreme stances on things like trade, make him a poor fit to bring together the sort of cross-spectrum coalition that is really needed for an effective protest vote. Then again I guess that Barr has failed in that, too …

Oh, and RedPhillips: I think it was me, more than anyone else, who got under your skin with my questions about Baldwin’s seriousness – but I’m a Barr supporter, and have no desire to “play in the two major parties”.

First, no one thinks that Baldwin has a snowball in Hell’s chance of winning. So his particular positions are not as much of an issue.

Second, the real goal here is to build a party to oppose the current two parties. The Constitution Party is extreme on some issues, but it is more nation-oriented than the Libertarian Party, and more friendly to traditional social mores. In particualar, it is more immigration-restrictionist. While both parties support federalism in principal, the CP is more interested in state and local control in practice, and in clear state-federal divisions. Finally, it has a position on monetary policy (pro-gold standard) whereas the Libertarian Party does not, to my knowledge.

The point is, people are not voting for Baldwin to get his agenda passed, they are voting for him to increase the political organization of people with socially conservative, pro-national sovereignty, pro-sound money ideas.

Third party politics is a messy business by its very nature. You have to be willing to get your hands dirty if you want to play.

Play in the two major parties all you want in the primaries. That is fine. But you can’t just inevitability support one or the other dud in the general. That is not serious. That is sheepish.