What Ron Paul Represents

Ron Paul will not be president. Despite making some noise about a race for delegates in the remaining primaries, the 2012 presidential run of Ron Paul is appearing increasingly quixotic. Barring disaster, Romney has decidedly ascended to nominee-in-waiting of the Republican party.

But Ron Paul was never going to be president. One may never know if Paul himself saw his chances as realistic. But his purpose, from a historical perspective, was never to lead the course of human events. He was a vessel for the frustrations of many, frustrations that did not have a place before Paul. Their anger and place within the electoral patchwork of America existed before Ron Paul, and will exist after he has gone. What Ron Paul did was give a particular voice to that collective frustration. And in that lies a message for politicians: democracy is not a system wherein individuals steer the aspirations of its people. It is one by which, if it is working properly, individuals emerge to encapsulate the aspirations of the people.

Leo Tolstoy saw history as inescapable. The major events that shape human history are to him not the whims of individuals, but the collective voice of a seemingly infinite number of individual aspirations. Those major events would have occurred despite the personal ambitions of one or a few persons. And sure, it is a bit antiquated to compare Napoleon’s invasion of Russia with Ron Paul’s run for president, but more contemporary examples may shed light on the phenomenon. Would one really believe that if not for Hitler, the Second World War would not have happened? Or if Ronald Reagan had not been president, the Soviet Union would not have crumbled? Tolstoy himself said it best, in War and Peace:

“So all these causes—myriads of causes—coincided to bring it about. And so there was no one cause for that occurrence, but it had to occur because it had to.”

Ron Paul himself was a reactionary candidate. Having been a mere doctor in private practice until the early 70s, Paul had been interested by politics but never entered them. That all changed in 1971, when, faced by an economic trouble and high inflation, President Nixon took the United States off the gold standard. Since then Paul has been the standard bearer for monetary policy.

But Ron Paul the candidate represents more than monetary policy. From his stances on interventionism to drug policy, Paul has managed to attract a diverse constituency from both the traditional right and left of American politics. And while one can see Paul supporters both young and old in the crowds of people that flock to see him, one thing is certain: Ron Paul supporters tend to be young. Many of those young people, to be sure, find themselves increasingly alienated from the traditional system of warfare between Democrats and Republicans. While the 76-year old doctor may not himself be progressive, his political stances are becoming increasingly popular among a significant constituency of 21st-century Americans.

Paul has his personal charm, of course. He is a mild-mannered and knowledgeable old man who does well to hide the extreme nature of his views with politeness. Nonetheless, the idea of Ron Paul would still exist without him. Democrats and Republicans should take note, then, that the traditional partisanship known to most Americans may not be the most effective political strategy in a changing country. If the frustrations of enough people can coalesce around a viable (and, despite attempts to ignore him from the Republican Party and the media, Ron Paul’s polling numbers prove his viability) candidate for president, it is something that should not, and cannot, be ignored.

Ron Paul will not be president. But anyone running for president in a 21st-century America should look at what makes his supporters tick, because in that lies valuable lessons for anybody with political aspirations in a democracy. Candidates don’t win on the power of the personality. They win because they had to win.

Paul Loses the Love of the Military

Ron Paul is no longer the military’s darling. The International Business Times reported last week that campaign contributions from members of the armed services shifted in March. Ron Paul once dominated both his Republican primary opponents and Obama in terms of military fundraising, but that title now belongs to the sitting president. Obama received $10,568 from service members last month, while Paul pulled a mere $4,857. The story here is not so much one of Paul losing support of the military. That seems natural with Romney becoming the inevitable Republican nominee. What is surprising is that the shift went from Paul to Obama.

The change reflects war weariness not among the general population, but the armed services themselves. Recent polling has shown that while morale among military members is high, the outlook towards the wars is becoming bleaker. It makes sense, then, that Paul has gained traction among that particular voting block. Obama’s foreign policy, on the other hand, has been surprisingly bold given his views on the Iraq War in 2008 (his opposition to the war was one of, if not the biggest, difference between himself and then-candidate Clinton in the primaries).

While Romney’s stance on the war in Afghanistan remains decidedly vague, the shift of military support from Ron Paul to Barack Obama further fuels the narrative that Republicans are hawkish while Democrats want to end the war, despite the realities. Romney’s camp should take note, then, that while talking tough on foreign policy is one thing, going against the whims of a war-weary nation is another one completely.

The Ron Paul Video Game: Nearsighted Nerds

With the race for the Republican nomination all but over, substantive news about Ron Paul has been hard to come by (has it ever been easy?). That is no doubt why the buzz around the Paulian blogosphere has focused today on the imminent release of Ron Paul: Road to REVOlution, a web-based video game that pits the libertarian crusader against mobs of socialism-loving bad guys. The side-scrolling adventure will surely warm the hearts of those of the NES generation who grew up saving Princess Toadstool from the clutches of King Koopa — aside from a few minor differences (the game features 13 bosses representing the different branches of the Federal Reserve and allows the character to collect delegates as well as gold), Road to REVOlution is a nostalgia-inducing throwback to the Golden Age of gaming. Daniel Williams, REVOlution’s 27-year old creator, said he is “making liberty sexy” with the release of the game.

Whoa, hold on a second. Sexy?

While I’m sure it wouldn’t be too hard to find polls supporting my claim that Paul’s support comes largely from a particularly nerdy demographic, I’ll speak from personal experience here, being a member of said demographic.

Let me be clear: video games are not sexy.

Like Star Wars, crossword puzzles or comic books, we of said nerdy demographic may find our hobbies to be completely enthralling (well, because they are), but fail to realize that those hobbies may not be enjoyed by the population at large. Yes, I admit, the idea of a Ron Paul video game does sound kind of cool. But I also admit that my being a white, 18-34 years of age, devastatingly nearsighted and slightly overweight man explains why I might think so. Call me crazy, but the average Ron Paul supporter may also fit that bill.

Shirtless Barack Obama is sexy. French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s wife Carla Bruni is sexy. A Ron Paul video game is not. And while some political nerds understand that utilizing technology is a powerful force in modern politics, understanding what is sexy and what is not is what brings one group of supporters into the streets and keeps another in their parents’ basements playing video games.

Smith, Goldwater, Jackson and Paul: Presidential Godfathers

Get ready for Romney. From pointing out weaknesses in his support among conservatives to his inevitable assumption of the Republican nomination, the media narrative has shifted in recent weeks towards a Mitt victory. Rick Santorum’s insurgency seems to be losing steam, and the conventional wisdom is that if Romney can win in Wisconsin on Tuesday (which appears likely), the battle for the nomination will be all but over. Ron Paul’s candidacy has become an afterthought, if it had ever been a forethought in the first place.

But not for long. American presidential politics have a history of fielding losing candidates whose demographics or ideals are an election or two before their time. Those candidates, who lose and often lose badly, see their legacies culminate with a president only a decade or a few hence. The Irish Catholic, inner city progressive Al Smith was crushed in 1928 only to have John F. Kennedy elected 30 years later. Barry Goldwater’s business- and military-friendly stances were routed in 1964, but the ascendency of Ronald Reagan prompted columnist George Will to famously comment that Goldwater had actually won, “it just took 16 years to count the votes.” More recently, Barack Obama can be included in this tradition — Jesse Jackson gained traction in the 1988 Democratic primaries due in large part to the support of Southern African Americans, but eventually lost the nomination to Michael Dukakis. Obama went on to become the first African American president after defeating John McCain in the most decisive national election in recent memory.

What those failed candidates have in common is a fervent, near fanatical conviction from their supporters. Jubilant crowds of Irish immigrants poured into Albany when Al Smith was first elected governor of New York. Barry Goldwater inspired a generation of modern conservatives. Jesse Jackson remains a popular spokesman for the black community.

Enter Ron Paul. Paul shares many of the characteristics of said failed candidates, from the diehard supporters to embarrassing defeats in national-level elections. Evidence of mainstream appeal of Paul’s positions, from debt to war, is there, however. What is needed is a candidate who can smooth the Paulian edge, to stitch his ideas together to appeal to a broader electorate. The question, then, is who?

The Good Doctor Is In

Ron Paul made the surprising claim this week that the Supreme Court will probably uphold the Affordable Care Act (see: Obamacare), saying “they [the Supreme Court justices] haven’t done a real good job in defending the free market and the original intent of the Interstate Commerce Clause.” He unsurprisingly predicted that that particularly outcome would be a tragedy for the nation.

Being against Obama’s reforms is all well and good. But what is Ron Paul for? What would a President Paul do for the ailing American healthcare system, aside from repeal the Affordable Care Act? Let us count the (abridged) ways.

TAX DEDUCTIONS

Paul’s plan would “provide tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses.” Although details of this portion of Paul’s plan are hard to come by, it does specifically note giving a payroll tax deduction to any worker who is the primary caregiver for a spouse, parent, or child with a terminal illness. It would also exempt workers from the employee portion of the payroll tax if they are suffering from a terminal illness.

Paul’s plan would also enact tort reform by providing a tax credit for “negative outcomes” insurance a patient would purchase before treatment, theoretically reducing the costs of malpractice lawsuits while protecting the patient.

HEALTHCARE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS

HSAs, which provide an income tax-free “rainy day fund” for buyers,  are currently available to Americans who are enrolled in high-deductible insurance plans. Paul would make them available to all Americans. Advocates for HSAs purport that the accounts make the system more efficient while reducing costs, but opponents claim that those with said accounts might leave their current insurance provider, thus throwing the insurance pool out of balance.

INTERSTATE SALE OF INSURANCE

Ron Paul predictably falls on the conservative side of this left/right argument. While Democrats argue that opening up state healthcare markets to the nation at large will begin a “race to the bottom,” Paul and other conservatives argue for the freedom it will allow consumers to purchase insurance in states with much lower premiums.

—

Ultimately, Paul’s healthcare plan talks much more about stopping or preventing the government from taking certain actions, rather than allowing it. While some could say that Paul’s plan is short on details, others could argue that, well, that’s the point.

Raucous Caucus in Missouri

“It’s like the Hatfields and the McCoys around here,” the former Republican chairman of St. Charles County in Missouri told ABC in the aftermath of the boisterous caucus there Saturday. After the civility at a local high school descended into electoral chaos, it took nearly a dozen police officers and a helicopter (a helicopter!) to quell the unrest.

By most accounts, the rabble rousers at the Francis Howell North High School were Paul supporters. After a dispute regarding videotaping within the event and a number of other procedural disagreements, some of the unruly caucus goers became disruptive (one Paul supporter called the events “fascist”). Fearing for the safety of those in attendance, caucus organizers postponed the choosing of delegates until further notice. If nothing else, let’s savor the irony of an event designed to facilitate open political discussion being postponed because a few protestors were concerned with a descent into fascism.

Humor aside, the events in Missouri speak to something deeper than the unfairness of the GOP establishment. The disruption in the Missouri caucuses wasn’t limited to St. Charles County — a number of other caucus sites reported trouble from Paul supporters. The problems were clearly not an isolated incident to be blamed on a few loony Ron Paul supporters. Disruption seemed to have been the aim of the campaign itself. Between the events in Missouri and Paul himself making the serious allegation of vote tampering in three caucus states, it is becoming obvious that the Paul campaign is reverting to very unconventional tactics to keep itself relevant in the face of continuing losses. The campaign is becoming increasingly quixotic in the face of reality. Winners don’t need recounts.

Paul All Alone in Congress

Ron Paul was endorsed by Rep. Tim Johnson of Illinois’ 15th Congressional District today. Johnson joins the pitifully small group in Congress that has endorsed Paul for president; Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) and the candidate’s own son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) stand alone in their public support for the stalwart doctor. Paul has also received the whopping endorsement of former Idaho Rep. Bill Sali.

Why is Paul’s support among elected Republican officials so meager, despite receiving respectable percentages of the vote in every state in which he competes? Although the Congressional Tea Party Caucus is chaired by Michele Bachmann, Rand Paul actively lobbied for the creation of the group during his run for senator in 2010. One would think, with the idea of radical spending cuts and criticism of the Constitution-trampling Obama on the rise among those on the American right, that more elected officials in Congress would be willing to make the leap to support Paul.

A look at said Paul supporters in Congress hint at a reluctance amongst elected officials to buck the Republican Party’s authority, despite a clear disillusionment towards its elders from the electorate. Both Walter Jones and Tim Johnson are longstanding members of Congress who have obvious political reasons to support Ron Paul: Jones, who represents a North Carolina district with a strong military tradition, has a history of going his own way on matters of war. Tim Johnson, on the other hand, has seen his traditional constituency in central Illinois altered due to redistricting this year — he now represents many more Democratic-leaning voters who might find a Patriot Act-hating candidate more palatable than one who focuses on social issues. Both Paul and Johnson, despite being socially conservative, tend to run on their fiscal and individual rights records rather than their respective stances on social issues.

Justin Amash, the freshman representative from Michigan, was voted into office on a wave of Tea Party support in 2010. Since then, he has repeatedly caused trouble for the traditional Republican Party. His record is so controversial to mainstream Republicans that Amash supporters claim the 31-year old Tea Party candidate has been the target of gerrymandering from his own party, exposing him to a potential loss in 2012.

With the only Paul supporters in Congress being historic Republican rabble rousers or the target of inner-party warfare, it is no surprise that most have steered clear of the unconventional candidate. They have chosen, instead of endorsing a candidate with a clear record of fiscal conservatism, to hide under the dress of the Republican Party. They do so at their own electoral peril.

The Return to Gold

Ask your average voter about the issues most central to Ron Paul’s campaign and you’re likely to get one of a few answers. The overextension of the American military abroad is bound to be one of them. Maybe states’ rights, or the Republican’s opposition to the War on Drugs. But you are unlikely to get too far before you hear about one of the most pressing themes of Paul’s candicacy: monetary policy.

credit: christmassocks.deviantart.com/

Paul unleashed on Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last week at a Committee on Financial Services hearing, telling the beleaugured beurucrat that he is destroying Americans’ wealth through the manipulation of currency. Unlike his other rivals for the Republican nomination, Paul frequently cites the 1971 decision under Richard Nixon to have the United States leave the gold standard as disastrous for the country. By pegging the value of the U.S. dollar to a stable commodity, the argument goes, inflation and deficit spending would be checked.

But because Paul has no realistic shot at winning the nomination, the country will never have the pleasure of seeing Barack Obama engage in an intellectually stimulating debate with an opponent. So, as a tribute to Paul’s woefully unmainstream ideas, we can address them here.

Chatham House, a London-based financial think tank, released a report in February that states a return to the gold standard could be “damaging” to the world economy. Ultimately, the report says, returning to a gold-backed system could overvalue its price, which in return would lower the value of your money. The problem in that scenario is the opposite of Paul’s doomsday fear: deflation.

In an economic downturn, the rigidity of a gold standard can also have horrible consequences for Joe Taxpayer. Under a gold standard, the central bank would sets its interest rates based on the amount of gold it has in reserve, which would undoubtedly be less in a recession as people pull their gold out of the system for a rainy day. The government would then have to decrease the amount of money in circulation and raise interest rates, simply to have enough gold to stay on the standard. For someone struggling to pay their bills, that rainy day would be a downpour.

Paul’s proposals are by far the most radical of any of the presidential candidates, Barack Obama included. Yet he contributes an element of intellectual debate into the race that is healthy, and ultimately productive. Whether or not we agree with Ron Paul, I’d be hard pressed to find an American that would prefer the current circus to an honest debate between two competing ideas.

America: Slipping Into Fascism?

At a campaign stop in Kansas City last week, Ron Paul asserted that the United States was “slipping into a fascist system“, citing increased collusion between government and business, as well as other factors. The candidate joins a chorus of voices, from the far right to Occupy Wall Street, who have levied this charge. So is it true? Is our country heading down a path to full on fascism, a la Hitler, Mussolini and Franco?

No. The claim is an idiotic one, and only seeks to further cheapen the American political discourse by conjuring bogeyman that neither the right or left care to be labeled as. But although you won’t see Democrats or Republicans discussing the merits of a fascist state in smoke-filled back rooms, I doubt this is what Paul had in mind when he spoke to that eager crowd in Missouri. So, just for the sake of fun, let’s humor him.

As Paul made the claim, we’ll take his definition as our rubric. The Republican contender, at his rally, said:

“We’ve slipped away from a true republic. Now we’re slipping into a fascist system where it’s a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen.”

At its most basic, political dictionary level, Paul’s claim is incorrect. If by a true republic he is referring to a system in which the people elect politicians to represent them, I fail to see how we have slipped away from it. While one could argue about the corrupting influence of money on politics, until I see a banker turning away voters at a polling station, I won’t believe an accusation that says our republic is in danger.

Big business in bed with big government? Despite the bailouts and cries of outrage from both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, the banking system in the United States was not nationalized after the disaster that got us into this mess. The bankers, who have been the target of average-American anger since the bailout, have weathered the storm relatively unpunished by the government. The auto industry, meanwhile, has come back to life after a relatively short government intervention. If anything the most serious threat of “fascism” in the Paul-ian sense is the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United, which has allowed corporate money to flow unchecked into our political system.

When Ron Paul spoke in Kansas City of individual rights, he was referring to Anwar al-Awlaki, the American killed by a drone attack last year in Yemen. While Paul’s constitutional objection to the killing is almost rational, he seems to forget the Obama administration’s attempts to curtail the government’s wartime powers, not expand them. Everything from Obama’s attempt to close Guantanamo (a plan derailed by Republicans) to his reluctant signing of the National Defense Authorization Act hint at the administration’s attempts to allow the threat of tyranny to recede, not grow.

To be sure, the United States faces tough times. And it is easy to see, studying history, that it is in times of national crises that there may be undesirable side effects to their solutions. Nonetheless, it is intellectually and ethically inexcusable for either side of a political debate to launch accusations that only seek to stir up fear. Exploiting fear to further your political ends and establish a radical interpretation of your country’s place in the world only leads to… well, you know.

Maine, CPAC and the Wisdom of Keeping Silent

Ron Paul was conspicuously absent from this year’s CPAC, the event where presidential hopefuls attempt to prove their conservative bonafides to an awaiting and eager audience. Despite being a two-time winner of the CPAC straw poll, Paul didn’t participate this time around; his campaign cited “travel constraints” for its candidate’s no show.

But Gingrich was there. And Santorum. Romney managed to embarrass himself by touting his  “severely” conservative credentials. So why would Paul, who has yet to win a single primary  contest, skip a chance to throw some red meat to a crowd that adores him?

A look at the primary calendar might help to explain. Maine, which just held its weeklong caucus,  voted at the same time as CPAC. Looking down the road a bit, Washington holds its caucus on March 3. Paul’s strategy of focusing on caucuses instead of primaries puts a different spin on his campaign than his Republican rivals.

Whereas a candidate like Romney struggles to prove his conservativeness to a skeptical electorate, Paul has a somewhat opposite problem. On the one hand, Romney must explain his relatively moderate time as a governor of a blue state to a Republican electorate clamoring for a conservative champion. On the other, Paul’s staunchly libertarian message may be appealing to blue state conservatives who lean right for economic reasons, but his stances on social issues such as abortion, guns and gay marriage may not be as palatable to them.

Because Paul is fighting a laser-focused, state-by-state campaign, he must pay special attention to the specific electorate of those states that hold caucuses, and in them Paul’s best chance of winning. As CPAC offers a very big conservative microphone to presidential contenders, speaking at the event may have worked against Paul in states–i.e. Maine and Washington–where taking a very public stand on a full range of conservative issues could be dangerous. If CPAC were an event that only required a candidate to speak on economics, my bet is that Paul would have jumped at the chance to speak this year. But, as the annual conference proves, people talk about a lot more than Austrian economics at CPAC.