Tag Archives: Ron Paul

Why Liberals Could but Won’t (and Shouldn’t) Support Ron Paul

16 Aug

The call of Ron Paul: every collegiate twenty-something feels it at some time or another. Because college is a time when young people often discover their own political leanings, the politics of the youth have always seemed to encompass more progressive views than those of general society. That’s not to say all college students are liberal –there are plenty of conservatives –just that they’re more progressive than the rest of the country. On the issues of climate change, gay rights and the legalization of marijuana, college students on a whole are left of center. The Pew research center reported that 66% of those under the age of 30 voted for President Obama in 2008. Pew even says “Among voters ages 18-29, a 19-point gap now separates Democratic party affiliation (45%) and Republican affiliation (26%).

A way to seemingly reconcile the progressive social leanings of the youth with free-market ideals is libertarianism. It seems like this is a natural way for those who were raised republican to integrate their liberal social mores with fiscal conservatism. Because the very nature of dorm life creates an integrated environment where students are exposed to and live in close quarters with people of all races, sexual orientations, geographical backgrounds and political ideologies, the desire for inclusiveness can lead to support for politics like the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, support of gay marriage, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and a host of other causes. It’s harder than it is easier to graduate college with exclusionary politics.

Although the Pew statistics suggest young people identify more with Democrats than with Republicans, a key group amongst the young politically minded are the libertarians. Often torn between the social politics of the democrats and the fiscal politics of the republicans, most libertarians I’ve met are fervent and zealous in promulgating libertarianism. After the spending-binge that is known as the George W. Bush presidency, libertarians shunned the Republican party. Early incarnations of the Tea Party were quite libertarian –then the Religious Right and Birthers infiltrated the group. With libertarians unable to call the Republican party home and unable to find solace in the Democratic party because of their pro-union, pro-spending philosophy, these politically displaced nomads were wandering around looking for a candidate they could believe in.

Enter: Ron Paul.

Rep. Ron Paul has always had a niche group of supporters; it’s why he’s been a member of Congress for so long. Ron Paul is able to draw in young supporters with his willingness to vocally oppose some of the less inclusive policies of the Republican party, to allow for some progressive views on social issues and maintain a conservative fiscal approach to the economy. The objectivists who treat Ayn Rand as a prophet find in Ron Paul a candidate who closely mirrors the philosophy that they believe in. Rand fans are to fiscal policy what evangelicals are to social policy: a vocal, zealous, block of consistent voters. I’ve been known to jokingly refer to Ron Paul’s supporters as “Rondroids” who defend him against every assailment and inflate his Google numbers and Wikipedia page far beyond his actual relevance to the rest of society. As we’ve seen in American politics, small minorities can outshine and out-maneuver silent majorities. Just as the devout showed up in high numbers to support Michele Bachmann at the Iowa Straw Poll, Rand fans turned out in high numbers to support Ron Paul.

Conservatives and libertarians adore Ron Paul – but unexpectedly, some liberals can at times be mesmerized by him too. His public persona –chalk it up to good PR or individualism—is that there is a contrast to the current Republican field of candidates. He is often perceived to be much more of an intellectual than his contemporaries. He undoubtedly gained some liberal empathy when Rick Santorum picked a fight with him during the GOP debate to garner some air time. But he frankly appealed to the youth so much because he advocated for troop withdrawal and an end to America’s militarism. This view is so far out of the mainstream that you rarely see even Democrats arguing for it –despite its popularity with liberals. The problem is that the very idea that gains him so many fans –the drawback of the military and defense spending—is what puts him so outside the status quo of Washington that he has become a dismissed entity. The dismissal of anti-militaristic views from the mainstream goes back to the post-9/11 era when any and all opposition to anything the defense department did merited accusations of anti-patriotism. The Bush administration all but sewed militarism into the American flag. Do you think the Patriot Act, the Iraq War and torture at Guantanamo Bay would have happened if a culture of fear-mongering didn’t exist? The dismissal of Ron Paul from presidential viability also gains him some empathy with liberals because that very dismissal marginalizes the anti-war sentiment of many on the left. Many Obama supporters are becoming disaffected with President Obama’s continuation of military and defense emphasis and the continuation of the Iraq War, especially after he touted his vote against the way during his campaign. The disaffection with Obama over defense policy may pave the way for some liberals to jump ship and join the Ron Paul train.

There’s little evidence of this yet; the President’s approval rating with liberals has gone down but it’s still very strong. But it would be a mischaracterization to say Paul could win over liberals in an election. While his approach to military spending is right in line with a liberal philosophy, he has extremely conservative views in too many other arenas. He opposed abortion, even reintroducing the Sanctity of Life Act. His rhetoric around the separation of church and state characterizes famous supreme court cases as a way to “deprive citizens of their religious liberty.” He was also critical of the Civil Rights act of 1964. He is one of the most fiscally conservative members in Congress. All of his fiscal views and most of his social views are conservative – so for liberals to jump from Obama to Paul would require a complete 180 on their political philosophy. Paul’s blunt anti-war sentiment has a magic surrounding its rhetoric, but at most he can elicit liberal praise. As far as liberal votes go, it’s the economy, stupid—so one progressive stance won’t negate an entire history of conservative fiscal policy and criticism of liberal economic values.

But that’s in regard to the choice liberals will make when they vote. In our daily lives on non-election days, we often don’t define ourselves through the scope of “democrat” or “republican.” We don’t have to vote up or down on the totality of a candidate as a person. Liberals can (and should) admire Ron Paul’s vocalization of anti-war sentiment. The two-party duopoly of our political system orients us in such a way that we have to see politicians as one-note. We ascribe each politician a persona –usually based on false marketing in campaign ads–and demand that they adhere to it and ignore them when they don’t. Ron Paul can’t be categorized and dismissed as such.


GOP Debate Made for Great TV

14 Aug

Credit: National Park Service via Wikipedia

Ever since the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debate – the firsttime presidents debated for a national TV audience – the importance of television-friendliness as a presidential quality has been well known and subsequent debates have demonstrated the ability of style to trump substance. The estimated 70 million viewers of the first presidential debate in history overwhelmingly named Kennedy as the winner while audience members who heard the debate on the radio, called Nixon as the winner. Nixon reportedly refused to wear make-up for the debate and as a high school history teacher once told me, “he looked sweaty on camera.” Perhaps Nixon didn’t even look that bad, but certainly the tanned, charming, boyishly attractive John F. Kennedy certainly made him pale in comparison. What the Nixon-Kennedy debates showed us is that political discourse is as much about showmanship as it is about substance. Kennedy’s whopping win during the debate foreshadowed the shift in this country’s emphasis on political theater over political accomplishments.

Television itself has proven to be a game changer in the political discourse.  Early 2008 interviews can be credited with the take-down of Sarah Palin as any real threat to the presidency. Clips of her I can see Russia gaffe and her inabilityto name a single newspaper will live on forever in Internet-infamy and the Zeitgeist. But television can also be credited with supplying Sarah Palin with longevity and unwavering press-coverage, by her supporters and her attackers – perhaps even more so by the latter. Sarah Palin’s made-for-tv looks helped her gain early intrigue from the moment she was named as a Vice Presidential nominee; her made-for-tv personality, full of one-liners, folksy jabs and winks, has kept her relevant far beyond the expiration date of her actual political career (as governor of Alaska). Even though her favorability rating in the general public is shrinking, it’s important to note that major pollsters are still actually performing favorability polls on a public figure who is not running for president, does not currently hold office, and has flouted any indications that she might run. It’s true Sarah Palin could still jump in the primary, but I doubt it; she’s plenty powerful where she is right now: on TV and in headlines. TV arguably made and arguably disassembled her political career. Either way, it undoubtably made her who she is today, to the point where her bus tour/family vacation merits national TV coverage.

Which brings us where we are today: at the height of political theater. Sometimes politicians treat elections like job interviews, rattling off their accomplishments and repeating to us their resumes. Other times (increasingly often times) politicians treat elections like auditions, where the most attention-grabbing candidates know that PR stunts are what will keep them in the news. It’s difficult to ever predict how much of a politician’s personality you see is calculated, how much is authentic and how much is simply an appeal to a popularity contest. Swing voters like strong leadership and authenticity. Talking points only work on the hyper-partisan voters who have already made up their minds about 100% of their choices and are simply looking for a candidate that will be a mirror for their hopes and fears. Which is why primary debates are more zany than general election debates. Some of the candidates, like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman are feeding off of and feeding into the small but vocal constituencies that have absolute support of their agendas, like say the Religious Right in this case. Others, who lack in media attention, like Herman Cain and to a lesser extent, Tim Pawlenty, come out swinging just to keep their campaigns alive. There’s usually a sole, renegade candidate who is true to his or her beliefs despite being almost unelectable, like Ron Paul. And then of course, there are the candidates with the most mass appeal, like Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney, who walk the fine line of trying to simultaneously energize the base while still appealing to moderates and swing voters. (You’ll note Newt Gingrich doesn’t fit into any of these categories neatly. That’s because I treat what’s left of his campaign effort as an attempt to raise enough money to pay off his debts. I just can’t take someone with such low approval ratings, such little motivations and such a horrible start to the campaign season seriously).

Yesterday’s debate had all the usual character types, but was surprisingly, well, surprising. The last presidential debate was much more neutered. Moderated by John King, the questions were all wrong and pacing of the debate did little to keep viewers interested. With hundreds of channels to choose from, why watch a boring debate when the inexorable mashups of the best moments will appear in the blogosphere in a matter of hours? Fox News and the three moderators struck a good balance between questions that the audience wanted answered while still subtly pitting the candidates against each other – a tactic that leads to fantastically entertaining TV. Afterall, the GOP debate was competing withJersey Shore‘s timeslot. In yesterday’s debate, we saw the formerly shy and uncle-ish Tim Pawlenty take direct shots and Michelle Bachmann’s record and even get a hilarious jab at Mitt Romney into the mix. He was doing what he could to correct the mistake he made in the previous debate of not going for the jugular when asked about Mitt Romney’s track record. That mistake took him from the top of the pack to the bottom. Pawlenty had every incentive to make last night’s debate a game changer since he needs to win the Iowa staw poll in order to save his campaign.

Herman Cain’s “America needs to learn how to take a joke” line was funny and helped make the debate lively and energetic. Newt Gingerich’s claim that all questions directed at him were “gotcha” questions was funny, but for entirely different reasons.

Perhaps the most surprising smackdown was the Rick Santorum – Ron Paulclash. The clash was highly entertaining, but so unnecessary because neither candidate was in a position to be helped politically by it. But I suppose it’s key to note that both candidates benefited from the squabble in the sense that it earned them each more TV time then they otherwise would have gotten during the debate. (Santorum was awkwardly interrupted when the moderators let Bachmann and Pawlenty engage in a back-and-forth earlier) I guess the strategist in me wonders if either Santorum or Paul think they could ever get the nomination. From my vantage point, they’re both there to raise awareness for the issues they believe in, and of course, their own profiles. But hey, Paul may have won over some anti-war liberals with his gutsy insistence that the U.S. needs to back away from its military-industrial complex.

It’s unclear who emerged as the winner of the debate. None of the candidates surprised me as much as the Fox News moderators did. They asked poignant questions and confronted the candidates with some of their most notable gaffes. Cain was asked about his Sharia law comments, Bachmann was asked about her “submission” to her husband, Huntsman was asked about his record as a moderate and support for civil unions (I don’t think that can be called a bad thing, but the audience at the debate certainly did), and Mitt was asked about job growth in Massachusetts during his time as governor. The moderators of the debate kept the discussion energetic – but most importantly – televisable. This debate was far better than the previous one on CNN. Maybe that’s because we’re getting down to the wire and the candidates are finally starting to pick each other off or maybe it really was good moderating. Either way, televised debates have a major impact on elections. Even voters who don’t sit down to watch an entire debate, certainly see bits and pieces of them on youtube or any one of the 24-hour news networks that play these kinds of clips on loop.