Ron Paul: Unexpected Optimism for 2008
My analysis of the Republican nomination for President:
After initially supporting Tom Tancredo, I now support Ron Paul for the Republican nomination. There are a number of reasons for this:
1. Tancredo’s campaign, for some reason, has yet to pick up steam. I fear the immigration issue has been co-opted by all of the other candidates, and Tancredo is having trouble “branding” himself as the standard bearer, a title he deserves. Ironically, Tancredo’s success in Congress in bringing attention to the immigration issue may have aborted his attempt to be President, since amnesty is now as “untouchable” politically as gun control for anyone seeking the Republican nomination. Tancredo is a national hero for his role in organizing opposition to Bush’s amnesty, and if the nation survives in the long run, history may recognize him as the second greatest Italian person in our history, behind Columbus. Knights of Tancredo, anyone? Seriously, Tancredo would make a great President (or Speaker of the House later on!), but I don’t see any momentum there, and that could change. Ron Paul, however, is making remarkable progress…
2. I had heard rumors a few weeks ago about Paul’s fundraising success. Now, it is official that Ron Paul has more cash on hand than John McCain, and is in third place financially. Given the large corporate metropolitan support behind Romney and Giuliani, this is remarkable, reflecting a large grassroots level of support. At this point in the game, a small corps of very intense deep support is possibly more important than soft support in a poll because you’ve been running television ads (e.g. Romney). Some reports have also indicated that following his debate confrontation with serial adulterer and all-around sociopath Rudy Giuliani (Paul has been married to the same woman for fifty years), his name became the most popular search term on the Internet, displacing pop culture searches like “Paris Hilton” for a few days. For real conservatives, the smart money is now on Paul, who leads Tancredo in cash by about 5:1.
3. Because of the intense support he enjoyed when he talked realistically about the war and his seriousness in chaining the federal government back to its constitutional bounds, I see Paul breaking away from the “second tier” candidates. Since McCain is now pretty much a dead duck (pro-war and pro-amnesty, just like Bush, who couldn’t get elected dogcatcher), I see the race becoming between front runners Giuliani and Romney, with Paul a strong third.
4. I don’t think Paul is likely to win, but his chances are not insignificant. And that’s miraculous given Paul’s positions. Paul is like having a Founding Father running for President- he actually supports what the Constitution says, which is amazing in our political environment. Since he has a non-negligible chance of getting the nomination, I see it as my duty to support him as the candidate most reflective of my views.
5. Paul can win the general election, because he’s the only Republican with a better war record than Hillary. Ron Paul opposes any war not declared by Congress, which is why he voted against a “police action” in Iraq. Unlike Bush and his chickenhawk neocon advisers, Paul has actually served in the military and doesn’t think American troops should be wasted on these chickenpoop nation-building exercises. If it’s war, we declare it, fight it, and go home. I agree with this guy that many people are in “Hillary Denial” and don’t appreciate the albatross the war has become for the Republican Party. Paul may be the only Republican who CAN win.
6. Ron Paul’s election would bring real hope for our country’s future. I have to admit, I have long given up hope for the federal government. I’ve come to see it as an empire birthed by Lincoln, that must inevitably run its course from tyranny to depravity. Only by waiting for its demise could we hope to restore true liberty in a saving remnant of the American nation. But Paul offers hope for three reasons: 1) He is profoundly conservative, probably the most conservative of any in Congress, but also 2) is able to deliver his message very inoffensively, and 3) offers a realistic Grand Bargain between warring sides in the Culture Wars who have a common interest in overthrowing the Establishment (which largely uses the Culture Wars as bait to gin up their respective bases, while doing nothing substantial about the core issues). Paul is able to communicate as this harmless, likable character that appeals very much to even very liberal people. He was by far the most popular candidate to speak at Google, a place known as a hotbed for infantile liberal ideas. However, if it turns out that the freedom to smoke pot or engage in other vices means more to liberals than socialist health care, then Ron Paul (and his federalism in returning regulation of that sort of thing to the states) is a bargain. There’s no other political movement I know of that could get me (a hardcore traditionalist) under the same tent as a cannabis enthusiast. That’s a lot of potential, and a wonderful development. I will ally with anyone, liberal or conservative, to get the federal government to butt out of state concerns. They can have socialism in San Francisco, and we’ll have freedom in Texas. This idea of two irreconcilable worldviews trying to control and reform each other via the federal government is waste and silliness for both sides. Paul provides a forum for the Culture Wars to resolve through peaceful secession of common interests, to agree to disagree and stop bothering each other.
7. I think libertarians are about half right, but have this sort of autistic tendency to assume humans are perfectly rational, and in extreme cases, makes for ridiculous policy prescriptions. However, I can strategically support a libertarian like Paul for President, as the President controls our enemy, the federal government, and a libertarian will weaken the power of my enemy. In fact, I think government ought to be powerful in inverse proportion to its size. I would prefer authoritarian local government (as do most people, when you look at the subdivision restrictions most people are more than happy to submit to), a conservative state government, and to the extent necessary, a libertarian federal government.
I think I’ll put a little check in the mail to Ron and his campaign. The man deserves so much credit for just standing on unwavering principles of the Old Republic in these late days of the American Empire.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Very good article. At one point I thought he may have a chance, now I’m beginning to believe he can really do it.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Good article. I believe if those supporting Tancredo, Thompson, Huckabee, Hunter, etc… jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon his poll numbers would rise quite a bit and make him look more legitimate. However, as a libertarian I can’t agree with your #7. Libertarians don’t believe we are really rational, hence the more freedom the better. Instead of having a small group of people decide the population’s actions have the people make the choices for themselves. The government is a perfect example, have you ever seen a coalition of people more irrational than politicians? The freer society becomes the higher our standard of living goes. History has proven it numerous times.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Quick fact check- despite numerous initial reports (including from McCain’s own campaign), that McCain only had $2m cash on hand as of June 30th, the final came out to $3.2m, which put him well ahead of Ron Paul. This doesn’t detract from the strength of Ron Paul’s position, just checking the facts. Check here for more:
http://ronpaul.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/07/correction-on-r.html
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Thanks so much! In NH he’s tops no matter what the polls say. I mean SOMEONE had to give him$2.5M!
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Thank you for an outstanding and highly intelligent article. I agree with you completely!
Ron Paul will help restore a proper balance of power between the Federal and State governments, as the Constitution requires. And if he can just say ‘No’ to congress’ overspending for a few years then he will have done a great service to our country.
Also here are some additional reasons to be somewhat optimistic regarding the election.
‘Scientific Polls’ at this stage only measure name recognition. Over the next six months Ron Paul will gain name recognition and people will learn about who Ron Paul is. Most people who learn about Ron Paul become major supporters.
Ron Paul has the most contributions from U.S. military personnel above all other candidates. So support the troops and vote Ron Paul!
Ron Paul places 1st or 2nd in every straw poll, debate, and active participation survey.
Ron Paul is 1st in YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, Meetup, Google, etc. The old media is just too slow to realize what is happening.
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were doing about the same in the ‘Scientific Polls’ at this stage in their elections. Ron Paul has tremendous momentum and his support is growing exponentially. The other candidates are stagnant. Only Ron Paul’s support is growing and will continue to grow!
Ron Paul is the man of integrity and courage that America needs at this time.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” John Quincy Adams
We are making history – Vote Ron Paul!
Visit YouTube and search Ron Paul to learn more…
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Tom,
Well said. Not everyone has caught onto this, but the old school Republican ideology that Ron Paul represents is ideally sited to todays current politics.
His views on civil liberties, the war and the size of government have an appeal to voters on both the right and the left. I for one am a former Democrat who has crossed parties to support Paul in the primary fight.
Best,
James
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:21 am
Second correction on McCain’s cash. He has $3.2 million on hand, but also has $1.8 million in debt. Ron Paul is still ahead since he has no debt.
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:57 am
“I think libertarians … have this sort of autistic tendency to assume humans are perfectly rational, and in extreme cases, makes for ridiculous policy prescriptions. ”
On the contrary, libertarians make the opposite assumption, which is why they oppose the concentration of power in a few hands. Libertarians understand that under liberty, irrational people reap their own rewards and cannot burden their neighbors with their own irrationality. This does encourage rationality, but certainly does not assume it.
“Autistic tendency?” Psychobabble smears like this are usually deployed when real arguments are missing. And to claim that others are supporting “ridiculous policy prescriptions” without specifying what they are is another smear in place of real argument.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 am
A big problem is what we define as libertarianism. I’m a conservative, which is a distinct tradition less wedded to abstractions.
To the extent we define l-ism as Constitutionalism, I agree with it whole-heartedly. However, I am loathe to endorse l-ism b/c it is an imprecise term.
In particular, I am weirded out by the open-borders arguments many libertarians tend to make, and by the atheistic self-centered vanity of the Ayn Randites.
Again, maybe that’s unfair, as libertarianism is hard to define. I am much more comfortable with the Lew Rockwell variety than I see coming out of Reason.
So I mainly break with libertarians on issues in the extreme where their ideology breaks down: on issues of immigration / open borders and dealing with obvious social vice that appeals to the prurient interest. They are about half-right, and 90% right on economic issues and the federal government.
I think local communities ought to be able to hang those that distribute pornography, for example. A libertarian would argue, “how are you going to define what is pornography?” My response is that the person distributing the questionable material had better ask himself that question before it goes before a jury of his peers.
Links that reflect my view:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/04/libertarianism-is-applied-autism.html
“We live in a world where violence — perpetrating it and preventing it — is the fundamental fact that social and political organization must deal with. Thus, all property rights come out of the barrel of a gun. Once you realize that, the reason why we prefer the welfare of our fellow citizens to that of non-citizens is (to get all reductionist): They are the ones who would fight on your side.”
http://acrossdifficultcountry.blogspot.com/2006/07/marginalia.html
Thomas Fleming, being his usual disagreeable self, summed up a good critique of some libertarians with this comment about libertarians misunderstanding of patriotism:
“Libertarians, hearing such a description, run gagging to the sink. There are no nations, no communities, no families. Only self-seeking individuals exist, and the “common good” is a term invented by fascist oppressors. This is the only answer they have for any social question, from drugs to pornography to fast food. This shopworn and counterintuitive platitude from the Enlightenment is so self-evidently stupid as to require no refutation, though David Hume supplied one in his great essay on “The Original Contract.” Nonetheless, people such as Ayn Rand and the nerds and geeks who cling to her in the naive belief that her rotten novels will turn them into supermen could never understand the fact that human beings are social animals. This is a part of human nature which no libertarian theory can eradicate, and my advice to them is to find another planet where they can all live in solitary caves, where they can snort coke and watch porn videos to their hearts content. Their ideas are irrelevant, not just to present circumstances, but to the human condition. ”
If Ron Paul is to break out into the mainstream, we’re going to have to put aside these differences and unite in common cause against the real enemy. All of these issues of disagreement are best hashed out on the local level, where those who disagree can have the true liberty of voting with their feet. All the libertarians can move to Nevada, the conservatives to East Texas, and the collectivist commies to Vermont. Ain’t federalism wonderful!
July 24th, 2007 at 9:07 am
I should clarify that I have yet to see a public position of Ron Paul that I really disagree with. He definitely does NOT fit into my definition of a “nutty” libertarian (nor do many self-described libertarians, like the paleo-libs over at lewrockwell.com), but seems every bit the liberty-loving realist on immigration and local/state sovereignty. It would be better to call him a Constitutionalist who is supported by many libertarians.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Hey Tom, I’m glad you support Ron Paul- it’s fascinating to see his support grow and hope burns in my heart when I see his chances of being the next president (or the one after that) grow like it has.
It’s interesting to note that the internet is like hyper word-of-mouth, and it seems Ron Paul has caught on there first. Word-of-mouth is the reason Ron Paul’s movement can and will be the most powerful!
Continue to spread the good news!