Ron Paul is the most practical candidate in the 2012 presidential election. If you thought it was impossible for those words to be combined in that order, think again. Ron Paul has a small but growing number of staunch supporters; you’ve probably heard them speaking (or preaching, as some might call it). It’s usually “that crazy guy” in the back of the class, who thinks Ron Paul has never been wrong. Ever.
Why, you may ask? Because, the usual response goes, he has an ideology, and he never strays from it. On the other side of the schoolyard are the people who think Ron Paul is totally insane. Many people at least respect him for his candor, but some believe that he is simply an old, racist Texan who doesn’t understand the modern world. It seems as though these are the only two groups of people who have strong opinions on Ron Paul; everyone else is quick to dismiss him as the kooky grandpa who seems like a nice little man but could never be elected President.
Ron Paul is not going to win the 2012 presidential election. That much is clear to anyone who follows politics and isn’t a hardcore Paulite. He’s just too different, too anti-establishment, too old, too much of an ideologue and not enough of a politician to appeal to the general public. However, Paul is central to the 2012 election: He is the most important candidate in the election insofar as he is talking about the issues we as a nation must begin to confront if we wish to thrive and prosper again.
True, Paul has been talking about such issues for a long time, but there are two reasons people are beginning to listen. The first is the Tea Party. For better or worse, Ron Paul founded the modern Tea Party movement in 2008; it has since grown far beyond his control, but some of Paul’s positions have been adopted by the Tea Party. The second is the stagnation of the economy. Especially after seeing America’s debt downgraded by S&P following the defunct deficit negotiations in Congress, people are beginning to recognize that there are indeed flaws in the system that is Washington. Now the only question is how to deal with them.
Ron Paul is a quirky politician because, in fact, his supporters are right. He does indeed have an ideology, and he does mostly, if not wholly, stick to that ideology. Some critics have argued that Paul lives in the 19th century (not quite, but he is 76), and that his policies are incredibly regressive. For instance, Paul has argued that we should get rid of the dollar and return to the gold standard, also allowing silver and other materials to serve as legal tender. Most economists strongly disagree that this would be the best move for our country to make.
However, Ron Paul holds some positions that are arguably quite progressive. Take, for example, his philosophy on foreign policy: Paul believes America should not be the policemen and women of the world, we should stay out of the affairs of foreign countries whenever possible and we should remove the dozens of military bases we have in foreign countries around the world. Some call this isolationism, and they argue that it is actually America’s duty, as the world superpower, to intervene in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
There are many other issues like these that Ron Paul constantly tries to talk about, but I think these two (one domestic, one foreign) illustrate my point well enough: Whether you agree or disagree with his proposed solutions, Ron Paul is pretty much the only candidate talking about such important issues.
Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States. If you’ve seen Paul ramble on about the United States’ failed war on drugs and atrocious stripping of civil liberties, you probably agree. He just doesn’t stand a chance next to a polished pretty boy like Mitt Romney, and frankly, his ideology is probably just a bit too extreme for even this country. However, there’s no denying that Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race right now who’s making people think and talk about substantive issues.
If nothing else, I think people can take this away from Paul’s message: the Empire can’t be saved, but the Republic can. Paulites may complain that Paul doesn’t get nearly enough media coverage, but I have a sneaking suspicion that, should we survive the horrible doomsday that must follow the end of America’s reign as the world superpower, Paul will get a few more mentions in the history books than Michele Bachmann.
Ryan Plesh ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in philosophy and physics.
