The Mystery of Ron Paul
As many of you probably saw, Andrew Sullivan endorsed Ron Paul yesterday. I have no idea what to think about this, really, except that if you’d sent his post to me two years ago through a time machine, when Ron Paul was still the name of an eccentric congressman known primarily to a few small-government types, I would’ve laughed, or possibly just scratched my head and asked if maybe your time machine was kind of, um, broken. Perhaps this is a function of my relative newness to Washington (I moved here in late summer 2005), but from a political perspective, 2007 is just awesomely, awesomely strange.
I looked into Paul’s candidacy right as it was starting to take off, but, many months and millions of dollars later, there’s a lot related to Paul and his campaign that’s still somewhat foggy. I had a conversation with a journalist friend yesterday about the Ron Paul phenomenon — the blimp, the money, the barrages of email and comments — and the question that neither of us could figure out is: What single issue, or combination of issues and circumstances, is really driving his campaign? And better yet, is it repeatable?
It’s a common question, I think, but one to which no one seems to have an answer. TNR’s Michael Crowley seems to wonder the same thing in over The Stump today. Ron Paul, asked how he’ll use his influx of cash, says, somewhat vaguely, ““This money will be used for the reasons it was sent.” To which Crowley replies:
Of course, it’s hardly 100 percent clear what those reasons are. Iraq? Libertarianism? The gold standard? Some inchoate anti-establishment anger? But sounds like it ain’t gonna go, say, down Rudy’s throat.
Yes, the anti-war crowd makes up a significant portion of Paul’s support base. But then why not Kucinich? What about, say, gold bugs? What about libertarians of either the Cato or Rockwell veins? If so, why haven’t other libertarians (of any stripe) ever really had this sort of popular success? Is it his purism, or his anti-authoritarianism? Is it simply a combination of an odd political situation, a less than popular war, and a GOP field that hasn’t found a single candidate to rally around? What’s the breakdown of issues that matter to his supporters, and after the campaign is over, are there lessons to be drawn for other candidates or issue-oriented groups? Why and how, in other words, did this unassuming country doctor — a man who, between his personality and his positions, is almost the antithesis of the modern American politician — become a political cult hero?
It’s not clear to me that many of Paul’s supporters, at least those outside his core fans, are entirely aware of his positions on many issues. Anecdotally, I was listening to NPR this morning (I’m unable to find the broadcast for a link, so you’ll have to trust me), and a reporter in Iowa interviewed a couple of folks at a diner. Two of them were very fond of Ron Paul, though skeptical about his chances of winning. Their back up candidates were… Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
Needless to say, this strikes me as at least a little bit confused. I suspect it is a confusion that is at least somewhat representative of Paul’s support (again, outside of his die-hard supporters, who I’m sure are well-versed in the Paul issue set). But other than a few brief anecdotes like this one, I have nothing to actually indicate that it’s a trend. Who knows? I’m not even sure the campaign could really say how his support breaks down.
As always, Ron Paul remains a fascinating — and, at this point, extremely well funded — mystery.
Is it really that mysterious? People are really tired of politics as usual. Ron Paul is proven as someone who is honest and different than other politicians — as you point out.
In this election, I’m rooting for Ron Paul and Barack Obama, and I’ll tell you why. They both represent a change from the establishment. The fact is that the president does not make laws, and thus his positions on a lot of issues don’t matter that much. I don’t mean to downplay a president’s power, because obviously the president does have a lot of power. But to me, it’s the strength of a person’s character that proves most important in Executive matters. As a moderate, I’m not sure whether Paul’s libertarian ideas will work out better for this country than Obama’s liberal ones, but clearly what we’re doing right now is NOT working. I’d be willing to try either route and see where it gets us.
— Miles · Dec 18, 07:29 PM · #
For one thing, the “money bomb” approach to fund-raising, in which supporters synchronize their donations for spectacular effect, is brilliant. He’s actually made it fun to give cash to a political candidate. Over and over again.
There’s more to it, of course, but I think that the trick of turning cash support into team spirit is hugely important.
— Matt Frost · Dec 18, 08:54 PM · #
“Why and how, in other words, did this unassuming country doctor — a man who, between his personality and his positions, is almost the antithesis of the modern American politician — become a political cult hero?”
I think you just answered your own question, Peter. The fact Paul doesn’t appear to be another blow-dried, poll-tested hack is hugely appealing in an age of rampant political BS. One perfect example is the upcoming 30-minute “infomercial” Paul’s running in Iowa (the weekend of Dec 22-23 I believe). You can find it on youtube right now, of course. Paul supporters have knocked it as low-budget, hokey, poorly edited, etc. — but to my eyes those are plusses, not minuses. It looks real, not a set-piece ad with the wife and kids all in matching sweaters around the fireplace.
As to the issues driving the campaign, that should be obvious. One is the war. Most GOPers still support the war, but many don’t — 25-30% if you believe the polls — so Paul gives them someplace to go. Small government is a big driver. Small government conservatives feel abandoned by the GOP; many who quit voting years ago are now supporting Paul. And then there’s monetary policy and the economy. That may be a bigger driver than either of the others. People look at the billions being spent on Iraq, the rising debt, and now the weakening dollar, housing bubble and credit crunch, and get the feeling the country is driving off a financial cliff. None of the other GOP candidates is really pounding on economic themes, they’ve been too busy arguing over religion, and to paraphrase James Carville’s famous phrase, it’s still the economy, stupid.
— DaveA · Dec 19, 02:00 AM · #
I believe DaveA hit the nail on the head why I like him. He is the candidate of the disgruntled. Our national spending is out of control which will lead to a serious downturn in our current life style at some point. He is the only one really talking about cutting spending.
His anti-war stance is also going against the grain in a good way. I’m a Republican but I am against the war. Paul brings up a valid point that we would all hate China being allowed to have military bases in America. That’s the thorn in the Arabs’ side.
Finally, he is also pro-life and against illegal immigration. Also, add the fact that he has more integrity in his pinky finger than Giuliani or Romney does entirely. Other than the war issue, he should be a dream candidate for people who claim to be conservatives.
— Patrick · Dec 19, 07:48 AM · #
What’s driving it? Anger. Anger at having the choice between two idiotic political parties, both of which are for big government and seem to be without any sense of modesty or limitation. Anger at being lied to by Bush & Co, especially with regard to the build-up to the Iraq War and the government’s use of torture. Anger at living in a country where mixing Religion and politics is the status quo…
What has made Paul so successful with getting his message out and fundraising? In a word: REDDIT. And Digg too. You Tube. And a whole bunch of Web 2.0 social networking. If you have a good message that will naturally resonate with a portion of the population who are ANGRY at politics-as-usual, and if the “established” media channels ignore you, then “user-generated media” is the natural way to go. Reddit, Digg, and YouTube are the de-facto new alternative “media”. Since it’s all user-generated, decentralized, and non-editorial, enthusiasm naturally spreads pretty fast in these networks…
— J Riordan · Dec 20, 12:32 AM · #
His appeal is simple, as others have stated. For me it is Trust. I have never encountered a politician who’s record matches so clearly what they have said they would do.
Of course I also agree with him on about 80% of the issues.
A Bush Republican, now a Ron Paul Republican.
Ron Paul in 2008
— Phil G. · Dec 20, 03:08 AM · #
It seems that you haven’t been paying attention. Ron Paul is the Republicans’ best hope and the Democrats’ worst nightmare because he can scrape off Democratic voters like no other Republican can. If the Repubs don’t nominate him, I predict he’ll be a thorn in both parties’ side as an independent candidate.
It’s every issue he brings up, not just the war. If you go to a Ron Paul rally, people cheer for every issue he says. He’s right on with everything he says. If someone had the same record and style and same positions, they could garner the same support because it’s not just a cult of personality, it’s about ideas.
I read another article about how Ron Paul could create a new coalition— something along the lines of MoveOn.org— for his libertarian/Constitutionalist principles, and it could really become a force in America. I think this is a great idea and it just may work, whether Paul gets the presidency or not.
“It’s not clear to me that many of Paul’s supporters, at least those outside his core fans, are entirely aware of his positions on many issues.”
This has been a common lie in the media, trying to discredit him (and us) by saying that his supporters are so dumb they don’t even know where he stands on things. Guess what, we do. Every Ron Paul supporter I’ve met knows his stances on all the major issues. They know, and they agree.
— Libertarian Girl · Dec 20, 02:17 PM · #
He’s succeeding in part because he could instantly restore (http://pruningshears.squarespace.com/pruning-shears/2007/11/15/the-ron-paul-cure.html) credibility to the Republicans on a number of issues. Right now the party is a spent force idealogically and will have to either go somewhere close to where he is or slide into irrelevance. Paul supporters figure it’s smarter to go there sooner rather than later.
— Dan · Dec 20, 03:36 PM · #
Thank you, Peter. I agree with Libertarian Girl’s statement that Ron Paul’s supporters DO know exactly where he stands on issues.
We are all much more than the sum of our political opinions. If you presume that people select their candidates stricly by seeing who agrees with them on the most issues, Ron Paul’s “cult hero” status may seem a mystery. If you forego that presumption, the mystery disappears. You will simply observe that here, FOR ONCE, is a politician whose integrity is unassailable, whose brilliance and honesty are unmatched. Obviously, people are going to rally for him.
— Pat · Dec 20, 09:52 PM · #
Paul is a lunatic who appeals, largely, to lunatics.
He draws support from 9/11 Conspiracy wackos, gold bugs, David Duke, Stormfront, UFO-oligists, and other nutjobs. Who want a “safe” fantasy enemy — the US government instead of the real one: all those Muslims who back Al Qaeda and engage in Jihad against the West in ways large and small.
Paul is a lunatic because his Libertarian fantasies about Fortress America (aka the return of Pat Buchanon) is a non-starter. As his small Government fantasies. Since 1945 Americans have decided they WANT Big Government, just doing things for THEM and not OTHERS. People want a highway system, student loans, etc. Because otherwise they figure the deck is stacked against them.
Paul does not articulate any practicable policy, not Fred’s Federalism, nor Rudy’s Managerial competence, Hillary’s group of “restoration” pols, or Romney’s Reaganism. He peddles fantasy and generates a very small (he’s less than 10% in most places) but fanatical base. Think Howard Dean or say, Joss Whedon. The latter has his lunatic fanboys but can’t ever run a successful movie or series on his own.
The internet has it’s downside — connecting the freaks and marginal players and giving them a megaphone. Considering that both Dennis Kucinich and David Duke like Paul his lunatic fringe positions (US is responsible for and “earned” 9/11, “the Jews” control US foreign policy) make him a lunatic non-starter.
Seriously, GOLD STANDARD?
— Jim Rockford · Dec 21, 03:26 AM · #
Yeah, Jim. You’ve nailed it. We’re all a bunch of fucking crazies who need a fantasy enemy.
But maybe that’s just the microchip in my ass talking.
— Matt Frost · Dec 21, 05:48 AM · #
“antithesis of the modern American politician”, no one else has the pulse of the people. It is really pretty simple and all you needed was the words of your article that I added to the first sentence of this paragraph. It is called listen, hear and than act appropriately. Ron Paul is just projecting and repeating what probably in my experience has been what 90 percent of Americans have been saying and feeling. Now it is whether those people hear and believe what he is saying. If they do, it will be that much of a land slide in his favor come the presidential election. If he makes it through the primaries I expect a land slide in his favor to happen for president. I can only hope more people listen and hear the messages he is sending before the primaries.
Join the revolution and vote Ron Paul!
— blogcruiser · Dec 21, 06:14 AM · #
Inside each of us is a desire for liberty. Along side that desire is primal fear. Ron Paul aroses that desire while his opponents attempt to inspire fear. Fear is the baser of the two and usually wins out. Hence, survival of the species.
But the rational mind attempts to manage these emotional responses by measuring them against reality. The result is Ron Paul ellicts a very strong following and on the other side people can’t find a rational basis to the fear mongers message and hence they have weak support.
Once voters can integrate the real world with these two desires, Ron Paul becomes the only choice. Those who dismiss any attacks against the “establishment” are not rational beings. Ron Paul does not oppose “the establishmnet” just those super rich elites that own/control the Federal Reserve and the media. It is these powerfull forces that have reduced our republic to an plutocracy.
The true lunatics are those that take as true any thing they read in this controlled media. A rational person would take time to examine the ownership/controlling interest of these organizations and then judge if this control might skew the “news” and control the election process unduely.
For instance the Washington Post was purchased by Eugene Meyer at a bankruptcy sale which he in fact engineered. Eugene Meyer was a investment banker and the Governor of the Federal Reserve in 1930 to 1933 and directly responsible for the prolonged depression. It is that depression that forced the Washington Post into bankruptcy and then Eugene picked up the Post for pennies on the dollar. Eugene was later the first president of the World Bank. Helping to funnel most of America’s gold to his international banking friends. Of course his daughter followed in his foot steps and was a top Bilderberger attendee.
One personal example: My dad was parters with Jimmy the Greek in technology play to bid for the off track betting contract in Delaware. Dad invented entering alpha (ABCs) into touch tone phones. The Wilmington paper ran 22 first or second page articles implyign that Dad was part of the “Mob”. The papers owners, the Duponts, where behind these articles(Editor made certain off the record addmissions) and they eventual settled out of court. But by then they did manage to kill Dad’s chances at the contract. The contract eventualy went to the “approved” enterprise.
— Peter James · Dec 23, 10:32 AM · #
Just sit and listen to him Peter and read some of his writings. It sounds like you are not so jaded and that you haven’t yet sold out to the washington neocons. I certainly don’t agree with half his extreme measures. But I know the genuine article when I see it. You will too.
— Bob · Dec 24, 07:08 AM · #