Ron Paul is Valuable, but that Value is Limited
By Mona
.
This former Deaniac opines that Ron Paul is the GOP’s Dean, and holds great expectations:
Right wing blogs are taking his name off of polls. This means two things. First, he’s winning these polls. Second, they’re scared of Paul. And that’s exactly where he wants to be…..And here’s one last thing that makes Paul even more marketable than Dean: Paul is from Texas. And since no other GOP candidate carries that distinction, he could carry that state and eventually the nomination with it. So unless he makes some major mistakes in the coming months, I’m predicting that he’s going to be a major player in the GOP mix…and sooner than you may think.
I’d like to believe that, really I would. But it isn’t going to happen. Personally, I do not think the baggage Paul already carries, as described by David Weigel here, is so extreme that one could fairly make him out to hold racial animus toward African-Americans. But it will be pulled out if deemed “necessary” by the GOP Destruction Machine, and ramped up to depict him as a virulent racist. (And it won’t matter whether Paul actually authored the comments or not; they were issued under his aegis.) As Weigel also describes, Michelle Malkin has already gone Rovian by maliciously making Paul out to be a 9/11 conspiracy nut — which he is not. The more popular — and thus dangerous — Paul looms to the establishment GOP message, the more of that you will see from what passes for the right these days.
.
And it is simple to depict him as a kook just by focusing on his opposition to, say, FEMA, especially in an post-Katrina America when the public perception is that the agency is necessary but needs to be run by a competent who supports its mission. (I understand why a facile vilification of Paul’s position is wrong, and am sympathetic to his views, but it just is not possible to make arguments like that salable to the American public when both left and contemporary right would join hands in depicting him as a scary lunatic.)
.
Ron Paul is superb on the salient issues of the day, however, such as the Iraq war, torture, and civil liberties. To the extent he can keep those issues alive in the context of the GOP primary slug-fest, he provides an incomparable service to the nation, and might force the authoritarian candidates to actually address the mess their terrorism and foreign policy approaches have created for us and the world.
.
But Paul stands zero chance of being the Republican nominee for President in 2008, and no amount of online enthusiasm — which I share — will change that.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 3, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
The most valuable thing Paul could do in a debate is to simply say “Here we are, in America, and we’re actually debating torture. What the hell has happened to this country?”
He frequently tries to cram a lot into his statements, because he has a lot to say, and he seems to want to address the fundamental nature of government. Which is a perfectly respectable thing to do.
However, I think he would do better to directly address the most pressing issues of the day. Fundamental issues regarding the size and scope of government are of course underlying all of this, but in terms of getting attention, I think a simple “What the hell?” is needed first.
Comment by mds —
June 3, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
I admire Dr. Paul’s integrity in this matter, staying focused on the fundamental issues he thinks are truly important, and where a change of course is needed. He could have tried to gain traction by hyping his libertarian support for government control of a woman’s reproduction, or for states deciding that homos aren’t full citizens, and the current Republican base might have shown some signs of interest (though such views would not have set him much apart from the field, either). Instead, he has avoided these easy chances for point-scoring and attacked his own nominal party’s abuses of civil liberties. I hope his gadfly role allows him to further stir the not-entirely-deranged members of the Republican electorate to self-reflection.
Comment by From my favorite Pedia, The Wikipedia —
June 3, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
The sad thing is: I doubt that Ron Paul really has racial animus, the newsletter notwithstanding. I do think he is a closet truther to some degree tho. He gives off that vibe.
Comment by Mona —
June 3, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
Well, let’s be little more honest, even nuanced, about his positions there. He thinks Roe v. Wade is jurisprudential horseh*t, as do I, and that abortion should never have become a federal issue. Abortion is a matter for state law, and Roe has been the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP and created the religious right as a political force — I saw it happen when I was driven out of the pro-life movement in the early 80s after the Catholics (who I could deal with and who tend to be more earthy and don’t think dancing, drinkin’ and card-playin’ send you to hell, and will even tell dirty jokes) became vastly out-numbered by the insane, homophobic fundies.
Paul is an Ob-Gyn. He’s delivered lots of babies. He sees both the mother and the entity inside her as deserving his care and the protection of the state. You can disagree with that, but it isn’t a manifestly unreasonable position to hold. it all turns on the value one vest in the fetus, and whether one thinks the mother’s liberty interest ought to trump the fetus’s right to live (or if the fetus is even vested with such a right).
Paul supports removing jurisdiction from the federal courts to hear cases under the Full Faith and Credit Clause that would force State A to recognize the same sex marriage entered into in State B. I’m not in agreement with him there, but his position isn’t the same as what you describe.
Comment by Doug —
June 3, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
Don’t count Ron Paul out yet. With close to 25% of Republican voters fed up with the war in Iraq, he has a lot of upside as the only candidate in a field of 11 who opposes the war.
25% would put Ron Paul right up there with Giuliani, as a major contender. He is also drawing a lot of new voters to the GOP (or former GOP voters who left in disgust over the past few years.)
Comment by Mona —
June 3, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
I see, never mind that, as the Weigel article points out:
But if your vibrations tell you otherwise, and you think Michelle is on to sumpin’, heh.
Comment by Geoff —
June 3, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
When you say that Ron Paul will never win – are you also saying that the US has no chance of ever returning Constitutional rule?
In anything we do – by far the biggest thing that makes the difference is belief. It is the foundation.
Is America losing its foundation of belief that it is a country ruled by its Constitution?
Comment by Mona —
June 3, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
I’d really be interested to know what is the “right” answer to that question. Off the top of my acerbic head, I say: “But of course.”
Comment by Glaivester —
June 3, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
When you say that Ron Paul will never win – are you also saying that the US has no chance of ever returning Constitutional rule?
I think that “never” in this case isn’t meant temporally. Rather it means that there is no possible set of circumstances under which he could win in this election (although he is unlikely to run again, I would think, given his age, so this is probably his last chance anyway).
So my answer is, the U.S. has no chance of returning to Constitutional rule by the time the Republican nominee is decided.
Comment by Glaivester —
June 3, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
Doug – Paul needs a majority, not a simple plurality to win. If he gets, e.g., 35% of the vote and the next two guys get 30% and 20%, chances are one of them will drop out and endorse the other and then he will be beaten 50% to 35%.
Nonetheless, I think he has a chance to become one of the top three candidates, because, as you said, he’s the only one that antiwar Republicans can protest vote against.
Comment by Glaivester —
June 3, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
I meant protest vote for.
Comment by matthew hogan —
June 3, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
It doesnt matter if he can win; it matters to get supporters to try to make him win so that they enter the lower and middle ranks of the party with participatory energy. Battles for ideas last generations, it’s not single victories but participation that matters. If you like Ron Paul, support, campaign, participate even if he ends up with 3% of primary voters. Participation pays off in the long run.
Comment by goldenequity —
June 4, 2007 @ 12:25 am
Who IS Ron Paul? They still need to know!!
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!
Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
Comment by Tequila —
June 4, 2007 @ 4:24 am
Agreed with Mona. Paul has no chance. The last real GOP insurgent candidate was Buchanan, and he never won more than NH in 1996. You can call Paul the new Dean when he out-raises everyone else in the field, as Dean did. Somehow I doubt the five anti-war Republicans left in the Party can scrape up anything like that.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
June 4, 2007 @ 5:33 am
The US is about to return to Constitutional rule. And the Senate will get the upper hand over those Emperors in Rome any day now.
“Losing”?!
Comment by Alex —
June 4, 2007 @ 5:42 am
Look, why are you even discussing the non-chances of a very, very rightwing wacko Republican candidate? The moderate Republican ship sailed years ago.
To get elected (if I permit myself a ton of handwave), he would have to compromise with the authoritarians, Jesus freaks, and torture fans. Compare the other side – what’s the worst thing you’d have to compromise with the Dems? Gun control? Spare me.
Comment by Barry —
June 4, 2007 @ 9:30 am
Glaivester: “Nonetheless, I think he has a chance to become one of the top three candidates, because, as you said, he’s the only one that antiwar Republicans can protest vote against. ”
Perhaps it’s just me, but I don’t see ‘antiwar Republicans’ as much of a base.
Comment by cm —
June 4, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
Ron Paul will be on the Daily Show tonight. Let’s see how it goes.
Comment by Glaivester —
June 4, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
Barry – he could get a good 10 or 20%. I expect him to outperform Alan Keyes in 2000.
(And let’s not forget that in some of the earlier open primaries, conservative-leaning independents might launch a protest vote for him.
Comment by mfrost —
June 5, 2007 @ 12:25 am
Ron Paul will get the Republican nomination because he appeals to so many people who love freedom. He continues to build from Republicans who are fed up with the Bush administration’s lies, Independents and even Democrats who love freedom and the constitution. Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act and against all attacks of our freedom. His message and integrity set him apart.
Comment by Alex Hammer —
June 5, 2007 @ 9:45 am
See also:
Ron Paul’s Winning Message
http://ronpaul.wetpaint.com/page/Ron+Paul%27s+Winning+Message
Comment by Gene Callahan —
June 5, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
No, 20,000 votes is not enough to get the nomination.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
June 5, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
No, Alex, I won’t “spare you.” The mainstream Dem candidates are every bit as authoritarian as Bush. Perhaps you’ve never heard of a place called “Waco”? We are choosing between two fascist parties. Yes, you are right, Paul doesn’t stand a chance, but not because he’s wacko, but because most of the American public now is. (Last night at a bar a fellow told me he wants to run for president, and among his platforms are “free” health care for everyone and immediate execution for anyone suspected of being a terrorist. The perfect fascist platform, and he was getting lots of nods in the bar.)
Comment by Alex —
June 5, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
Jim, can you reblock my IP address?