Posted under Conservatism & Election 2012 & Media & Political Correctness & Political Philosophy & Ron Paul
I will start with a disclaimer: I am a huge Ron Paul supporter. I supported him in 2008 from the start. I have supported him all this campaign season. I even have documented evidence for anyone who doubts my Paul supporting bona fides that I was calling for him to run for President even before he announced in 2007 and almost no one knew who he was. As a paleoconservative and not a libertarian, I have some issues with Ron Paul and I have never hesitated to make those clear, but he is clearly the best candidate of them all and is so right (and so alone in being right) on so many issues that I can forgive him on the issues where I believe he is wrong.
That said, I have never believed that Ron Paul could win the nomination nor be elected President. I have always considered his campaigns to be message campaigns, although this year he has clearly done a better job of running a “real” campaign, as his presence in Iowa attests. While I don’t think it helps to pour water on people’s enthusiasm, and I think the candidate always needs to maintain the pretense that he is in it to win it, I do think it is important to temper expectations. When I read or hear people say Ron Paul is the only Republican who can beat Obama, I cringe a little.
One of my concerns has been that if Ron Paul happened to win an early state or look like he might, then the weight of the Establishment - left, right and center – as Patroon points out below, would go ugly. So far a lot of the attacks on Ron Paul have been from ideological stakeholders (Mark Levin, Jeffrey Lord, Rush Limbaugh, National Review, etc.) who feel threatened by Ron Paul and feel he is encroaching on their turf and potentially spreading dangerous ideas that the rubes shouldn’t be exposed to lest it corrupt their minds, hense the hysterics to shout him down rather than engage his ideas. However, the main elements of the Establishment have so far patted Paul on the head. But if it looks like he is going to win Iowa or does win Iowa, then all bets are off.
Now I hesitate to go further, because I don’t want to be accused of giving anyone any ideas, but I also don’t want to be accused of flattering myself believeing that many people other than a core group read what I post here. I also think that my observations that follow are so obvious that it is not possible they haven’t already occurred to people.
I think Paul is unelectable, because I don’t think the voting public is ready yet for strict constitutionalism and what that would mean. As a strict constitutionalist (actually an anti-Federalist who sees strict constitutionalism as a transition) I obviously think this is unfortunate, but I believe it is true. Paul has always benefited from the fact that a lot of people really don’t understand what he believes. So he is a Rorschach test of sorts for moderates, hipsters, anti-war liberals, right-wing populists, etc. (The only people he need not be a Rorschach test for is hard core, non-cosmo libertarians who, shall we say, aren’t exactly a huge voting block.) What has always baffled me about the race and anti-Semitic charges is that they are totally unnecessary. All that it is necessary to do to make Ron Paul unelectable is to point out what strict adherence to the Constitution would really mean. No Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no unemployment insurance, no cancer research, etc. etc. etc. I support getting rid of all these things, but I have sense enough to know this is a 2% belief. Paul can say, as he does, that he wouldn’t get rid of those things overnight, but just not slavishly endorsing Social Security, etc. will lose him huge chunks of voters. If the Powers That Be really wanted to torpedo Paul all they would have to do is relentlessly focus on all the things he wants to cut, which is why the first resort to the racism and anti-Semitism charges is so baffling. It’s like they would prefer that as the first line go to smear. Is this just intellectual laziness? Is this by design?
RedPhillips on 19 Dec 2011 at 11:16 pm #
I actually think Paul is somewhat to blame for his newsletter problem. The abjectness of his apology and disavowal gave credence to the charge that they were that bad to begin with, but the supposedly shocking quotes were pulled out of context and when read in context they might be edgy, but they are easily defensible from a conservative standpoint. In fact, some of the supposedly shocking quotes happen to be true. Martin Luther King was a philanderer? Umm … well he was and this is common knowledge. Black men commit disproportionate amounts of crime? Umm … well they do and this too is common knowledge.
C Bowen on 19 Dec 2011 at 11:24 pm #
I would observe that what you really mean is that the people that vote, over 55, over 55 white women, are looking forward to a check.
One has to convince them, actually just a few small percentage points, that those checks are in danger because of spending on wars, ghetto poverty programs and more recently, corporate bailouts. (The intellectual problem is explaining inflation, but that is another issue. When we were a nation that purchased life insurance, people understood, now, less so.)
Paul deals with this political problem better than the “Paul Tarp Ryan” plan which leads with cuts.
And the threat is that older Republicans, white female Republicans, might splinter enough where the faction of those who fear the spending overcomes all other considerations.
So why would Movement types lead with the other? Because older white women don’t read their magazines or web sites? Can it be as as simple as that? Aren’t we over dramatizing these things?
Take Pat Buchanan–was his problem the Establishment, or his inability to respond to very predictable charges that led to betrayals?
Paul was on Alex Jones this past week–yes, my north of 35 brain said, really this week? And then he went on Leno, with Joe Rogan giving an endorsement (MMA angle?) Can we give him credit that he might actually have a plan here? Forbes Magazine did. Maybe Paul is an actual politician doing what he needs to do.
Last Thursday–this seems to escape discussion so far–Paul played the Vietnam deferment card on Newt.
I for one am glad to see this side, and I think he is ready.
That doesn’t mean we are going to win or anything, but in the bigger picture, stopping an idiotic plan to attack Iran, and teach the youth the nature of the beast–gives us a puncher’s chance this year, and years to come.
C Bowen on 19 Dec 2011 at 11:35 pm #
Red–re: post 1
Certainly a good point.
Just read the newsletters.
Jarred Taylor is in those pages; he could still get into National Review in those years, so I really think Party B should think this one over.
I am game–bring it on, as these chicken hawks like to squawk.
Kirt Higdon on 19 Dec 2011 at 11:58 pm #
In 2008, Ron Paul stood no chance. This year he has a chance, though a very long shot. He needs to finish first in either Iowa or New Hampshire and a reasonably close second in the other to achieve possible breakthrough status. A first and a third or two second places will not do. And yes, the charges of racism and anti-Semitism are at least partially due to intellectual laziness, but the anti-Semitic charge is largely due to the fear that Paul will leave Israel to sink or swim on its own. This fear is an important motivation to the Christian Zionists who loom so large in Republican primaries as they believe that God will only favor the US if the US continues to provide a blank check to Israel. I’ve met Republican voters who would gladly get rid of social security but consider aid to Israel, including going to war for Israel, to be a sacred obligation.
countenance on 20 Dec 2011 at 2:26 am #
People are comparing what RP would endure after a win in IA to what PJB went through after his NH win in ’96. Crucial differences now compared to ’96: The economy is much worse, the financial crisis has happened, RP is a lot better off financially for the long term, and unlike PJB, RP would not run the bus over his supporters when the media long knives come out. RP also has no media career he thinks he has to go back to like PJB, so RP doesn’t have to make nice with the right people. Remember, RP is retiring from Congress, so for him, it’s the White House or bust.
As for the possible charges about Soc Sec/Medicare/etc. – That’s an easy retort. RP could say that he’ll be President, and not in Congress, and that no Congress will ever prepare a budget without Soc Sec and Medicare.
Kurt Higdon: If the timeline of the 2008 financial crisis would have moved up 9 months somehow, RP would have done better in 2008 than he did.
Aaron on 20 Dec 2011 at 5:26 am #
That’s a very good question you asked. I think the racism and anti-Semitism allegations are there because they’re sexier topics than Social Security and Medicare. As you said, Ron Paul is a “message candidate” with no real chance of winning, even more so in 2008. The goal isn’t to keep him from winning, which he can’t do anyway, but (in the newsletter case) to write a hot story. In the anti-Semitism case, I think it might just be the usual paranoia, too.
On the substance of the newsletter thing, I clicked through the links to one of them, the one about the Rodney King riots. Whether or not you call that racist, I wouldn’t want the president to be someone who talks that way. People say that Ron Paul didn’t pay any attention to what was in the newsletters, and to his credit he’s lying about not knowing who wrote them. But if they went out under his name, then he’s responsible.
But I guess that’s irrelevant because he’s a message candidate, not someone who might become president.
Matt Weber on 20 Dec 2011 at 6:04 am #
I guess there’s a few possibilities.
1) They thought racism was a better charge than constitutionalism. Maybe because people do pay lip service to constitutionalism, while everyone knows racism is a no-no.
2) The newsletter thing originated as an intra-libertarian house cleaning session, and everyone else just picked up on it because it was easy and they didn’t really have to do anything. You know how it is: we don’t want to be associated with those libertarians over there, living in the 50s.
3) They genuinely believe that being associated with racists in any way disqualifies you from polite society, and felt required to inform their readers of Paul’s antics in this area.
4) They have become intellectually degenerate, and can’t actually articulate a coherent case against Paul’s constitutionalist positions anymore. Fearing that they might lose an argument, they stick to the safer route of denunciation.
Bruce on 20 Dec 2011 at 12:19 pm #
Aaron and Matt (especially his 1 & 3) answered correctly I think. I guess I’d phrase it differently. “Racism” and “anti-Semitism” are THE most powerful charges that can be made against someone.
countenance on 20 Dec 2011 at 4:31 pm #
I find it amusing that some think the content of the newsletters will hurt him. Now there’s a real cracker jack way to end Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign, run around telling people that he’s opposed to black crime and riots.
mike on 20 Dec 2011 at 10:49 pm #
nice piece! personally I would like Buchanan to run, but RP is the only one that really impressed me out of the whole group. I may disagree with him about immigration but thats pretty much it.
My Post Super Tuesday Despair: An Assessment of the Direness of our Situatuion | Conservative Heritage Times on 13 Mar 2012 at 2:49 am #
[...] consider myself very much a realist about the ultimate electoral prospects of these candidates as I explain here, but it is one thing to be a realist on an intellectual level; it is another thing to come to terms [...]