The Ron Paul effect ala Ross Perot
If you’ve never heard of Ron Paul you’ve been living under a rock. At the bottom of the ocean. In a cave. On a distant planet. For a very, very long time. Ron Paul is the new darling of the American grass roots political movement. He’s the Howard Dean of the 2008 US Presidential campaign. Fortunately to this point at least he hasn’t managed to hang himself out to dry due to his over-exuberance at a campaign rally. Unfortunately the very things that make him so attractive to so many people will likely cause him not only to lose, but cause his party to lose the presidency in the end.
Why do people like Ron Paul?
He’s is very much a supporter and advocate of the Constitution. He has been for a long time. I first heard of the guy when I used to participate on a discussion forum at Vote.com under the username pureevil. I was very much a supporter of him in those days, and to some extent I still am, but certainly not to the degree I once was. Another reason people like Ron Paul is that he is really an underdog. He’s been in politics for years, since the 1970’s. He certainly knows his way around Washington, and clearly has political longevity. Anyone who takes a moment to review his voting record can’t help but be impressed. Even if you don’t agree with every single thing he has done you can see he clearly stands on his convictions. For instance Ron Paul has never once voted to raise taxes. Not once. That’s pretty impressive in and of itself, but when you couple that with other details he looks better and better. He never voted for a congressional pay raise. Never voted for to take a government paid junket (a trip taken by a member of the government at public expense), voted against the patriot act, voted against the Iraq war. The list goes on and on, but at this point it is clear (at least I hope it is clear) why people really, really, really like Ron Paul.
Why Ron Paul can not win
Ron Paul can not win the Presidency because he is a strict Constructionist. Essentially that means he believes if it is not directly addressed within the Constitution then it is outside of the governments jurisdiction. More alarming than that however is that a Constructionist believes that anything in the Constitution can only be taken at face value and there is no room for interpretation. So when it says A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. in the 2nd amendment it means just what it says. Period. Which to a gun advocate such as myself seems great, but then when you realize that it’s lacking certain protections. For example you don’t want the neighborhood gangs running around with guns, but the 2nd Amendment clearly states that everyone can have guns. A true Constructionist doesn’t make exceptions like the rest of society does for those elements.
Why Ron Paul is like Ross Perot
Politically Perot and Paul are almost nothing alike. Except for the effect they produce. I remember back when Perot was running in the Presidential election. Most people, and I tend to agree with them, put blame squarely on Perot’s shoulders for Bill Clinton having defeated Bush I. The Democratic left wasn’t going to be swayed from voting for Clinton, but a significant portion of the right was swayed from voting for Bush in order to vote for someone who just happened to be more in line with their own beliefs. Ultimately it was Perot’s decision to run as an independent that cause Bush I to lose the election. That’s the same thing that will happen with Ron Paul. He will be a spoiler for the Republican party and we can pretty much be assured that if he runs as an independent against both Republican and Democrat only the Republican candidate will truly suffer. It will be a repeat of the Bush, Clinton, Perot campaign. The democrats will vote for their candidate and no one else but that person. In the meanwhile the republicans will fracture in two camps. One for Ron Paul and one against and the party candidate will be the one to suffer.
Ron Paul is a great guy and I agree with much of what he says
Seeing as none of the other republican candidates care at all about the constitution, I fail to see how Paul taking some of their support would hurt the interests of the constitution.
ron stated on hannity’s show after the fox debate that he has no plans to run as an independent.
Mike – By virtually assuring that a democrat gets into office. As if that’s not already assured…
Ron –
1) I don’t watch Hannity and Combs anymore. Aggravated me to much
2) It wouldn’t be the first time someone has changed their mind though I’d like to think better of Ron Paul.
This is speculating to a certain extent. Some of the things we are missing are those issues that are happening around us.
How many people besides Rep. Ron Paul have been talking about inflation and the falling dollar?
Who has been talking about bringing troops home NOW, not in some fantasy 6 months to 24 months from now?
I could keep this up for a while but it only takes one more snow flake on a mountain for a point of criticality to be reached and an avalanche to start.
Some of those points of tangent have been popping up already and the only person that has been talking about it is Ron Paul.
I see Tancredo, Huckabee, T.Thompson and Duncan Hunter vacating the fight in the next 1 1/2 months.
Same with Biden, Kucinich, Gravel. None can keep up the race without polling numbers, grassroot spontaneity, or some greater internet presence.
As the fields reduce in size and more trouble looms on the horizon, I can’t help but speculate that more people will come to hear Dr. Paul’s message, and actually understand it.
All other Republican candidates are doomed to failure in 2008. The GOP’s only hope is to run a candidate who has clearly demonstrated consistent opposition to Bush policies.
Therefore, an independent run by Ron Paul couldn’t possible cost Republican the White House. They will have already lost it.
Everytime Republicans forget their true principles, someone like Perot, or Ron Paul comes along to remind them of what they used to stand for.
I disagree: I believe Ron Paul is a significant threat to convert Democrats. It’s partly a function of his message, and partly the pressures the country is under. I believe the climate in America is unusually conducive to Americans disavowing dogmatic positions and considering things they wouldn’t normally, and I think economic pressures in the coming months may increase this factor. Finally – don’t underestimate the sheer determination of Ron Paul’s supporters – there’s something very American about them that has no parallel in the other candidate’s supporters.
Agreed John, the intent of my writing this piece wasn’t to say that Ron Paul would be the sole cause of a democrat win. Instead it was to illustrate that even with the most “Republican like” candidates running they don’t have a chance. They’ve strayed so far from what they once stood for, but they don’t realize it.
wsc321 – I hope you are right as Ron Paul is the one candidate who I would love to see make the White house. Unfortunately I just don’t see that happening. A constructionist label is pretty close to a death sentence in this modern America we live in. At least in and around many of the metropolitan areas.
[...] this morning I resubmitted an article I had written about a month ago. By resubmit I mean I changed one thing and put the link out there in cyberspace where I knew (or [...]
I doubt Ron Paul will have any effect on other candidates running in either party… unless he wins of course. For the most part Paul is drawing people from both parties… while the mix may be slightly republican heavy, most of those would likely have stayed home if not for Paul. Perhaps a miniscule number of Paul supporters would vote for Tancredo, but certainly not many and it would be an unmeasurably small number who might vote for any of the other neocon war mongers. Paul’s larger base is probably those identifying as independents, libertarians and constitution party members as well as unlikely and first time voters. This may well lead to some real surprises as these folks are never polled and therefore unpredictable… they also outnumber both republicans and democrats by a significant margin.
Tsoldrin – Didn’t the whole “neocon” label go out like 3 years ago? Serious question because I more or less gave up on politics when Bush got back in. One time around the mulberry bush was one thing, but twice? No thanks.
As for Ron Paul’s effect on the Presidential race if you are resigned to him having that little impact overall why would you support him? We’re talking about the “leader” of the free world. I hope it is Ron Paul, but it almost sounds like you (and many Ron Paul supporters I’ve spoken with) are saying if he doesn’t win I’ll take my ball and go home.
Your argument about the second amendment is foolish and not at all accurate…wouldn’t it just be more effective to prosecute the criminal gangs in your scenario than restrict the rights of innocent law abiding citizens hmm?…in any event criminals already have guns anyway, since they don’t follow the laws on gun ownership either.
Secondly, if you don’t want to see a repeat of Bush-Clinton-Perot you would be best served to see that Ron Paul actually takes the Republican nomination.
Thirdly, in your posited independent run for Paul you fail to note the strange support he gets from left-wingers opposed to the war, the patriot act, and the general disaffection the democratic base has for Hillary Clinton.
Steve -
1) I made no “argument” about the second amendment. I used it for an illustration of a point. You are preaching to the choir.
2) If Ron Paul gets nominated at this point he would unfortunately be decimated by the democrats. I doubt it will get any better in the future but we can certainly pray for just that.
3) The amount of support Ron Paul gets from those disgruntled sources is, forgive me, laughable at best. A few democrats might not like Hillary, but do you honestly believe they are going to roll over and allow a constructionist into the White House?
And that brings me back to point number one. You said “Your argument about the second amendment is foolish and not at all accurate” -
What is a constructionist?.
Paul’s being a strict constructionist is not the problem that most Republicans and conservatives have with him. He’s certainly a very likeable, affable guy, much like Tancredo. Paul’s problem isn’t only that he has the looney techy-types (who have no political clout) as his base–his MAIN problem is the fact that the GOP chiefs won’t support him (again, much like Tancredo) so in effect, he’s been “ostricized” by most Republicans. What is left are lefties who are more patriotic than the usual anti-America lefties, and those are Libertarian, young stock market types who want the Feds out of their lives. His other problem is one that few people mention–Sandra J. Miller’s intense and investigative expose of his REAL stance on the Invasion from Mexico proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Paul is actually PRO-amnesty, and that will NEVER fly with most Americans.
Levotb – No doubt that the average “red blooded” American takes issue with amnesty for illegal immigrants, but that seems to be a fairly popular position for those from Texas.
With the Republican establishment blackballing Ron Paul, refusing to invite him to debates, and otherwise treating him as second class, why should I care if some other Republican gets beaten in the general election?
Frankly, if Ron Paul is not nominated, I don’t care who wins. Think about the mechanics of the election. If we can’t mobilize and nominate Ron Paul, our camp has virtually no chance in the general election. The republic is done, it is finished, we are waiting for the worms.
I am supposed to be terrified of Hillary. She is bad, and she probably will be nominated. But Bill Clinton actually was not the wastrel that G. W. Bush has turned out to be, probably because the parties squabbled too much to be the most effective at looting the treasury and impoverishing the citizens.
So pardon me for not really caring who wins the election if it’s not Ron Paul. And remember, friends don’t let friends fail to show up and vote for RON PAUL!!!
Oscar Stilley
os
Oscar – Thanks for your input. I agree with much of what you’ve said, but unfortunately I’m to cynical to care much these days. They’re all thieves and liars. Fact of the matter is that this republic has been long dead, but people only ever seem to realize it when it comes to presidential politics.
When Ron Paul is elected he will be the head of one branch of government. We have checks and balances. Don’t get too caught up in minor details. His views will be tempered by a congress that is extremely liberal.
The balance will be a good thing.
John – He won’t be elected, unfortunately. He’s too fringe
[...] The Ron Paul Affect, ala Ross Perot [...]