And then there were none:
A free market assessment on the race for the presidency
by Paul A. Ibbetson

The withdrawal of Fred Thompson from the presidential primary will have far more of an impact to the Republican primary than to dampen the spirits of Thompson supporters. To say it plainly, the exit of Thompson marks the end of the potential of a conservative entering the White House in 2008. A person might believe that I will be starting a long winded defense of Thompson but that is not the case. My goal today is to bring readers to a sense of the cold realities of the political state of affairs from the perspective of a cold handed dealer; that is, the free market. If we look at the presidential primary we can see that Thompson, as well as the other true conservative in the race, Duncan Hunter sowed the seeds of their own defeat. I say this in truth as well as in sadness as I was a strong Thompson supporter and I believe that he would have made a very able president. However, if we fail to face the truth we’re doomed to a repetition of this kind in the future.

I continue to believe that the majority of this nation embodies mainstream conservative values. We see this time and time again when social and fiscal issues are allowed to be voted upon by the citizenry. So, if this is true, why are the candidates that remain in competition for the Republican Party that have any chance of winning moderates at best and moreover liberals in reality? Why did true conservatives like Thompson and Hunter fall by the wayside? The answer is that both candidates in different ways failed to address free market requirements for success and they suffered the consequences. It breaks down pretty simply. People are consumers and when it’s time to select a Presidential candidate they buy with their voting dollar. They invest in a Presidential candidate that markets his or her wares to the public the most effectively within the laws of supply and demand. Yes, we listen to the debates, read the flyers, we think, we ponder, and pretty much kick the tires on each candidate until we come to the critical decision on who we want to invest in.

If you can place your mind in the free market mentality of supply and demand it is easy to see that it is absolutely necessary that any product, no matter its superiority, must be marketed properly. Thompson, while I believe he had the superior product for the current market failed to advertise himself in a way to maximize his strengths. First, he got in late in the race and missed the window of opportunity to maximize his marketability. By the time he came into the race many potential Thompson supporters, anxious to invest promotional labor behind a candidate, opted for lesser candidates that actively wanted the position. Compounding Thompson’s woes was his perceived sluggishness and lack of tenacious vigor after announcing his candidacy. Later in the race Thompson would begin to assert his oratory skills and lay out his superior conservative record but by that time, people for the most part had invested in their candidates. Again, we see this in the free market. Even the best products that are marketed poorly collect cobwebs on the shelf until the business eventually closes its doors. Duncan Hunter’s inability to promote his conservative strengths, namely his ability to get progress made on the border fence, helped to bring about his political demise.

All this may sound harsh but it is both the cold truth and the beauty of the free market. I am a champion of the capitalistic free market system and I defend it at length from liberal socialists who would like to dismantle the market’s cold hand of supply and demand and replace it with warm uniformly of government distributed misery. I find myself constantly reiterating that the free market never promises success for anyone, simply a fighting chance for everyone. Hard work, innovation, marketing, and a viable product will always be the components of success. Within these requirements, Thompson and Hunter failed to sell their product to the American people properly. I think that is a shame as I believe the country will need what they had to offer down the road.

What now? Republicans find themselves now attempting to compete with liberal Democrats in the market place of ideas without a product that differentiates itself. Plainly put, voters no longer have a liberal and conservative product to choose from. The free market no longer will be based on supply and demand but on the precarious tenets of the selection of lesser evils. This is a losing proposition for Republicans who would have the audacity to believe that consumers would have an interest to invest in social liberalism within the Republican Party when they have tried and true products in the Democrat Party already time tested and on the shelf. The market cannot be blamed, the blame falls on candidates who have marketed themselves poorly and the candidates who remain that fail to contrast themselves with the competition. The final question will be answered down the road and that is whether consumers of the conservative ideology will change their buying habits or just stay home?