It looks obvious

In a comment on a pervious post Ingrid, the writer of two interesting blogs,  raised an interesting point:

what do you think of the libertarians’ approach for getting to office? I did go to one press conference/meeting for a libertarian here in TX, and I think they are more devoted to their outlook than even Republicans are. However, thinking political strategy, I do not believe that anyone will ever get voted into office if they do not try to hook up with independents. They will never get the voter’s base needed to get into office, and more so than an independent, running for very high office(s) seems to be a waste of time and money that actually undermines them. In other words, they are being looked at as ‘oh, one of those running again’ when they never win.

This is an interesting question - does a political party, or activity, only justified by the ability to be elected? The obvious answer is yes, if one unable to be elected one cannot achieve its political goal. But this rule out any ideological movement and make the political game completely irrelevant. However I argue that political influence and political games can be achieve by participation, even without winning. Ross Perot  wasn’t elected President, Ralph Nadar failing in a cycle of four years and so does the Libertarian Party - but I don’t think that we can dismiss their effect. By participating, and attracting enough support, Ideological candidates force the first tier candidates to some policy decision that will appeal to the public that support the "purist".

Liberal Democracy require endless concessions and compromises. The results of any policy are never to the satisfactory of any ideological movement, nor can they be since they are the results of a compromise and political deals, but this is the only way, that we know, to maintain a Liberal Democracy. This is also the reason why I would not be shocked, nor disappointed, when Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination. I support Dr. Paul candidacy, I even donated a little bit money to his campaign, and I agree with large portion of his agenda. However the metric I apply to measure his success will be by how much will he be able to effect the GOP agenda, will his campaign trigger a movement that will oppose compassionate conservatism and Neoconservativism, not by winning the nomination.

It is therefore why ideological movements can’t, and shouldn’t, win general elections. But that doesn’t mean they are doomed to fail, their success is simply measured differently.