May 2011

After becoming the virally popular face of the Libertarian ethos in his bid for the 2008 GOP nomination, Ron Paul has announced he will follow with another run for the White House in 2012. The U.S. Congressman made his first run for president back in 1988 as a member of the Libertarian party. Since then, he's become a sleeper hit among idealistic independents and traditional conservatives. 

I remember when Ron Paul's campaign crept into my college's campus four years ago. I found the phrase "Google Ron Paul" chalked all over the asphalt on the quads and plastered as cheap print-outs on bulletin boards. His wasn't a campaign fueled by money or preexisting power. Ron Paul was a meme, propogating himself via curiosity, taking seed in the minds of budding Libertarians just starting to forge their own political vocabularies. He appealed to those who remained unmoved by the broad, empty campaign strokes of the majority parties. He was vying for the Republican ticket, but stayed far away from the typical neo-con fare.  

Of course, by sticking to his traditionalist conservative guns, Paul lost out fast. The GOP fell from power and promptly began to breed chaos. Some consider Ron Paul the ideological father of the resulting Tea Party movement. After all, the Tea Parties take their name from their distaste for taxes, which Paul certainly shares. He even has an actual son amid the conservative fray. But the Tea Party as a movement has in many ways mangled the politics that Paul preached during his 2008 campaign. 

Even as a self-proclaimed liberal, I've always greatly respected Ron Paul. He keeps his politics in the arena of actual conservatism, touting limited government involvement as the key to a free society. Unlike some Tea Party politicians, he seems to know his constitution. He's no flag-waving, scripture-spouting Republican. Unlike most nominal conservatives these days, Paul supports government reduction across the board--including cuts to the military and homeland security. As an obstetrician, he opposes abortion personally, but doesn't believe his feelings should dictate abortion laws across the nation. He's championed states' rights throughout his career. He opposes gay marriage--but he opposes straight marriage too, at least as an institution regulated by the state. As a politician, he is remarkably consistent in his ideology. 

And that's probably why he won't get very far this time, either. Supporters of Ron Paul love to cite their own logic as having led them to his philosophies. As probable Randian objectivists, they are very proud of themselves for believing in simple, clear logic. But elections in this country are won on collective emotion, and Paul likely won't stoop to wielding propaganda. 

He's also too liberal on social issues ironically due to his traditional conservatism. While neo-conservatives might rally for an outright ban on abortion, Paul believes in the rights of states to decide upon its legality. Same with marijuana--if the states vote to legalize it, he's all for it. He also believes in applying "don't ask, don't tell" equally to heterosexuals, prohibiting any kind of inappropriate sexual discussion or behavior in the military. Quite simply, he doesn't hate the right people enough to warrant the support of neo-conservative America. 

Whoever comes up against Obama next year will need to appeal to an anger fostered deep within the right. Ron Paul just doesn't provoke that kind of emotion, except among intellectual libertarians. It's a shame; while I might not agree with the man on everything, I respect that he embodies his politics without hypocrisy. I'd be thrilled to see more of his ilk within the GOP instead of the irrational fearmongerers that keep taking up the bulk of our airwaves. With true conservatives pitted against true liberals, we might actually see a productive competition of opposing ideals in an election. Too bad the system has become too sensationalized for that.