It doesn't matter whether Paul is in it to win - his message is the important thing.
Like Russia, Ron Paul is an enigma wrapped in a mystery that Sarah Palin can see from her front porch, or something. I’m paraphrasing the old quotation.
Pundits everywhere want to know just what it is the Texas congressman really hopes to gain this election. Does he really want to be president? Is this just a forum for his heterodox views on war and monetary policy? Is he out for converts to Austrian economics and a less interventionist foreign policy? Is he laying the groundwork for a Rand Paul presidency? Is he just messing with us? More tot he point, is he just messing with the Republican Party in a grand bid to expose their hypocrisy and lack of true, conservative principles?
All of the above, maybe?
Does it really matter?
In any case, it is very interesting to see how little Romney and Paul are going after one another. Perhaps Paul is content to let Gingrich and Perry pound Romney, and perhaps Romney doesn’t want to seem desperate. Either way, the election so far is still a two-man race with lots of third-tier shock troops doing the dirty work. I suppose the gloves will come off soon.
I asked yesterday if Paul would endorse Romney. I doubt it – I doubt he’ll do something out of loyalty to the Republican party that would be tantamount to betrayal to many of his most loyal supporters.
But then what happens to Paul’s delegates? What happens at the convention? Matt Lewis and Bill Scher have an interesting dialogue on the question (below, via.) There’s some suggestion that Paul could be a kingmaker but not a king. I think it’s more likely he could be a king-breaker. Ask yourself, if Ron Paul actually believes in what he says, is he more likely to back Romney’s neoconservative candidacy or to run on an independent ticket? Is he going to throw his weight behind bailout-supporting, big-government Republicans or is he going to strike out on his own (or, as in 2008, endorse someone else.)
Is there a third choice?
Whatever his aspirations, whatever his hopes or his long-term strategy – whatever his son’s hopes and aspirations – I hope that Ron Paul’s current influence in the 2012 race elevates his ideas and makes those ideas something to be reckoned with, not just in the GOP but across the aisle as well. We may never have a perfect non-interventionist, anti-drug war president in Barack Obama, but if Paul’s message on drugs could convince Obama that marijuana legalization is no laughing matter that alone might be a small, but important, victory.
Furthermore, I agree with Conor Friedersdorf that there is no progressive alternative to Paul when it comes to civil liberties.
If progressives are frustrated that relatively doctrinaire libertarians are attracting the attention and support of people who care deeply about civil liberties, why don’t they work to offer some alternative? Guys like me will probably still prefer Johnson. But is it really the case that the Democratic Party can’t produce a prominent civil-libertarian politician who Glenn Greenwald would prefer to Ron Paul?
That is itself a devastating truth about the post-2009 left.
Lots of liberals have told me to quit placing hopes on the president, especially since a president Paul would disagree with me on many important issues. I agree that focusing on congress is important, too, but I’m not sure the two are mutually exclusive. No other candidate better represents my very liberal views on peace and nonviolence. I would gladly vote for a Democrat who represented those views but hewed closer to my beliefs on universal healthcare, public education, and the welfare state more broadly (not to mention illegal immigration.) No such candidate exists.
I do agree that the hard work of building a political movement happens not with a president but with local politicians, intellectual operations, congressional districts, and so forth. The boots-on-the-ground stuff is unglamorous and not very rewarding. If nothing more, I do think Paul’s focus on an anti-war message has helped lay that groundwork to some degree, not just for conservatives fed up with big government and the big wars it starts, but for liberals like me who care deeply about civil liberties and nonviolence.
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook. Read my Forbes blog here.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Conor has let his new-found zeal for Paul blind him. Of course there are anti-drug-war and anti-interventionists on the left. There’s a number in Congress right now, and in nearly every relevant primary cycle there’s a Kucinich or similarly quixotic candidate to Paul. His “post 2009″ sort of gives the game away…
I’m disappointed that current Democratic leadership isn’t more civil libertarian, too, but pretending Ron Paul is a lone voice in the wilderness is silly.
Well I’m mostly pointing out that there aren’t any running. I’d happily vote for Kucinich or Wyden or Feingold if they ran and hopefully they do in the 2016 race.
As many people have pointed out to Conor, a primary challenge to Obama from the civil libertarian left would have been utterly pointless, and likely counter-productive, so the complaint that there isn’t one this year is specious.
For me, the bigger problem is that too many civil libertarians come with other goofball ideas that make them unelectable, as in the case of Paul and Kucinich. We need more guys like Wyden, Feingold, and Frank, and sadly we’re seeing fewer of them over time, which is why it’s important to rebuild the farm system rather than focusing on Hail Mary options like a fringe presidential candidacy.
Indeed, this is the most compelling argument I’ve seen on this issue, and a big part of me agrees. I just wish I could trust Obama. I think he has done lots of good, but not on a few key issues.
I think what I find most vexing about Obama is that his Administration has the right people in the right positions to be doing things much better than they are now…. If we can’t even get someone like Harold Koh to put an end to the drone war, I think there’s something deeper here than convictions that’s running the actual show.
Part of it I’d imagine is that maybe under a different congress he could’ve gotten more people confirmed that might’ve been more trustworthy on these issues. (Maybe not, this is hard to tell)
But a lot of my faith in personalities and people with powerfully intelligent views on some of these key issues was shaken when Harold Koh wound up the Administration’s front man on defending drone warfare.
There’s no left-wing civil libertarians?…
Did I dream up Kucinich and Wyden? Or for that matter Russ Feingold? Where were all these left “civil libertarians” when Feingold was fighting for his life in Wisconsin in 2010?
For example, Greenwald did all of ONE interview with Feingold during the lead up to the 2010 campaign and offered a half-hearted endorsement (then went straight back to savaging Democrats as being terrible and awful).
Well, that’s Greenwald in a nutshell. He’s far more interested in throwing brickbats and whining than making a positive contribution to changing things. There’s a reason he gets along so well with the Firedoglake crowd.
Greenwald is a mixed bag. He’s good on some issues for sure, but I do understand the criticism thrown his way.
Oh, he’s very good on many issues and definitely worth reading if you have the time (someone get the man an editor, stat).
He’s just not someone you look to for leading positive change or building a coalition.
The most effective counter-arguments to many of the things Ron Paul says today is some variant of “could you really support someone who also said *THIS*?” and points to this, or that, or the other Ron Paul newsletter.
Imagine someone who is not Ron Paul saying many of the things Ron Paul says today.
The question then comes whether the Republican Party, as it exists today, still has room for the things that Ron Paul is saying if someone other than Ron Paul is saying them.
{ 1 trackback }