Ladies Logic

Friday, December 14, 2007

The Ron Paul Phenomenon

You may have noticed that Presidential politics has been on my mind a lot this past week. With the Iowa caucuses three weeks away, is it any wonder? The subject of today's post I'm sure will be controversial....Congressman Ron Paul. I've written about Congressman Paul in the past on my own blog and the more I dig into his record, the more puzzled I am by his candidacy. While I feel that his isolationist views are dead wrong and dangerous, I like a some of his thoughts on limited government.

Today Logical Lady Kimberly Strassel takes a look at some of the lessons that the RNC needs to take from the Ron Paul campaign.

If there's been a phenomenon in this Republican presidential race, it's been the strength of a fiery doctor from Texas and his message of limited government. As the GOP front-runners address crowds of dispirited primary voters, Mr. Paul has been tearing across the country, leaving a trail of passionate devotees in his wake.
Paul rallies heave with voters waving placards and shouting "Liberty! Liberty!" Money is pouring in from tens of thousands of individual donors--so much cash that the 10-term congressman recently admitted he wasn't sure he could spend it all. A fund-raising event on Guy Fawkes Day (in tribute to Mr. Paul's rebel persona) netted his campaign $4 million, the biggest one-day haul of any GOP candidate, ever. He continues to inch up in the early primary polls, and even bests Fred Thompson in New Hampshire.
Mr. Paul isn't going to be president. He trails in national polls, in no small part because his lack of a proactive foreign policy makes him an unserious candidate in today's terror world. But his success still holds lessons for the leading Republican candidates, as well as those pundits falling for the argument that the future of the GOP rests in a "heroic conservatism" that embraces big government. Mr. Paul shows that the way to many Republican voters' hearts is still through a spirited belief in lower taxes and smaller government, with more state and individual rights.


Congressman Paul is not going to be President. Besides his foreign policy stands, his supporters have put off so many potential converts (such as myself) with their tactics of gaming online polls to inflate his support and their blatent disregard for the property rights of venues that hold political events (such as the Iowa Straw Poll which dictated where signage could be posted...something Congressman Paul's supporters disregarded). Because of these actions, many Republicans disregard the Paul campaign entirely and that is a pity because his call for smaller government is a core conservative principle.

On the stump, Mr. Paul whips up crowds with his libertarian talk of "less taxation, less regulation, a better economic system." While Mitt Romney explains his support of No Child Left Behind, Mr. Paul gets standing ovations by promising to eliminate the Department of Education. Rudy Giuliani toys with reducing marginal rates; Mr. Paul gets whoops with his dream to ax the income tax (and by extension the IRS). Mike Huckabee lectures on the need for more government-subsidized clean energy; Mr. Paul brings cheers with his motto that environmental problems are best solved with stronger property rights. His rhetoric is based on first principles--carefully connecting his policies to the goals of liberty and freedom--and it fires up the base.

First principles....hmmmm where have I heard THAT before??????

The men vying to lead the Republican Party might instead make a study of Mr. Paul. One shame of this race is that for all the enthusiasm the Texan has generated among voters, he hasn't managed to pressure the front-runners toward his positions. His more kooky views (say, his belief in a conspiracy to create a "North American Union") and his violent antiwar talk have allowed the other aspirants to dismiss him.
They shouldn't dismiss the passion he's tapped. If Mr. Paul has shown anything, it's that many conservative voters continue to doubt there's anything "heroic" or "compassionate" in a ballooning government that sucks up their dollars to aid a dysfunctional state. When Mr. Paul gracefully exits this race, his followers will be looking for an alternative to take up that cause. Any takers?

Emphasis mine. The Party had best wake up and take a page from Congressman Paul's campaign. Small government is a winner! Returning control to the people will get you votes. This is not rocket science....it's common sense - something that appears to be lacking in both parties right now.

Labels: ,

2 Comments:

  • You don't seem to like Ron Paul's non-interventionist views. That's reasonable. He could be wrong.

    But I think it's wrong to call him kooky, which is what the WSJ piece does.

    Democrats: Islam(ic-fascism) is dangerous, we must fight it. The world is dangerous, we must manage it.

    Republicans: Islam(ic-fascism) is dangerous, we must fight it. The world is dangerous, we must manage it.

    Maybe Paul is wrong. But how would we know that in the utter absence of any real debate over these issues. At least one thing that is beginning to attract more and more people from the mainstream to Paul is he is offering a choice.

    What are the effects that America has overseas through its foreign policy? Are those effects always good? Hard answers. But when the only answer you get is that government is good, we must stay in Iraq, people begin to hunger for a real debate over the topic, for someone to say something serious and to challenge the unchallenged opinions governing the discourse.

    Ron Paul could be wrong, but he's serious about the issues. And he offers an alternative. Who else is seriously doing that?

    I mean, why does America need troops in, what is it, 130 countries? Should America really be protecting Japan form North Korea, and Taiwan from China?

    Why is America spending heaps of money to do what neither Russia or England were able to do previously, build up Afghanistan?

    And can America even afford all this?

    Pre-9/11 the government promised us it was protecting us from foreign threats. It promised us, it was protecting our airplanes. People sacrificed their liberty and their money to the government so it would protect us.

    Then on 9/11 the government didn't do this. It failed utterly to protect us. So the answer? Not only the same, but lots more of it.

    Maybe that was appropriate, given the realities. Maybe when you sit down and look at the facts, that actually does make sense.

    But thank God there is at least someone questioning that paradigm. Thank God there is someone saying, no, you don't need more government to protect you from incidents like 9/11, you need less.

    Wasn't that supposed to be the Republican viewpoint? You know, less government.

    Matt Dioguardi
    http://politics.shadowofiris.com

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:18 PM  

  • Matt - As with Pat Buchannan before him, I disagree with the idea that we can "withdraw" from the world. Whether we like it or not, we are in a global economy. Do I like how it is being handled? NO WAY - I think the government and businesses are doing a horrible job at it. I also believe that we have to help the helpless - whether it is in Darfur or in Iraq or wherever. The "non-intervention" doctrine goes directly against that. Compassion is not a Republican/Democrat thing - its a HUMAN thing.

    "Thank God there is someone saying, no, you don't need more government to protect you from incidents like 9/11, you need less."

    What is, according to the founding fathers, the ONE TRUE reason for the federal government? It was not for building interstate highways, it was for providing DEFENSE FROM ANOTHER 9/11!. Article 4 Section 4 clearly states that. That is the fatal (as far as getting my vote that is) flaw in his foreign policy. One of the few TRULY CONSTITUTIONAL things that Government HAS TO PROVIDE is protection from invasion. That is also a reason why I feel our current government is letting us down vis a vis border control.

    Thanks for stopping by.

    LL

    By Blogger The Lady Logician, at 4:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home