The stain of Ron Paul is everywhere. If you’re any sort of an online drifter you’ve probably come across the Paul supporters who love doling the virtues of their political savior. There’s no doubt that the nebbish conservative has massive support and can certainly make an impact in this election, but I don’t really think many of his supporters know exactly what they’re buying.
It’s easy to see what’s so appealing about the guy. He’s good at scolding idiot reporters on the economy and the fallacies of big government, and he usually comes away from the Republican debates as the straight-talking rational candidate. Looking like a sane man on a stage filled with irrational apes shouldn’t be considered a great feat though.
Another part of his appeal is that he’s considered a Constitutionalist and vows to follow governmental rules as laid out in the constitution. I know Bush is a horrible president, but have we regressed so much that a presidential candidate actually has to say that he’ll adhere to the Constitution? It should be a given. You don’t hear the Democratic candidates having to say that they’ll follow the guidelines of the Constitution because that’s half the job. That’s exactly what they’re elected to do.
It’s as if these people who I consider to liberal progressives are forgetting the fact he’s a Republican, and that’s not just by name. In the realm of the modern Republican, there’s the moral conservative and the fiscal conservative. Paul fits into the both molds fairly well. He’s a pro-life Christian who has written essays condemning the rigid separation between church and state, and he also jumped on the paranoid Bill O’Reilly bandwagon condemning secular liberals for waging war on Christmas.
His economic philosophy is one based on a smaller government and less restriction on the free market, which is exactly what we need after Bush, less regulation for big business. Contrary to what he might believe, a less restricted free market does not mean more competition and market competition does not solve all economic woes. Nobody wants a big brother type of government, but that doesn’t mean that some government intervention isn’t needed. If we’re going to believe that our government can only do badly, then what’s the point of elections?
And when I say that some government intervention is needed, I also mean that internationally. Ron Paul made a big splash through his non-interventionist views, and I know a lot of people jumped on his bandwagon for that reason. But let me say that not all intervention is bad. Yeah, Iraq was a horrible idea, but should we do away with the Peace Corps? Should we ignore genocide? I think its na’ve and absolutist to believe that we should never intervene.
But then again, I think its na’ve to support Ron Paul in the first place. No other candidate has more to gain from ignorance than Paul. And he knows this. The narrower the topic and the less people know how about him, the better off he’ll be.
