US Politics: Underestimating the Ron Paul revolution?

US Politics / Paul Krishnamurty / 15 January 2012 / 2 Comments

If he doesn't win the nomination, Paul could run as an independent

"Voting against the Iraq war, and calling for the US to bring the troops home from all of her overseas military bases, has made Paul persona non-grata within the Republican establishment."

Ahead of next Saturday's South Carolina primary, Paul Krishnamurty discusses the chances of a candidate who has been dubbed "dangerous", "revolutionary" and even "racist."

Whether it's the Arab Spring or Occupy, anti-establishment movements are sweeping the globe as old political certainties disappear. It is against such a backdrop that the US elections are taking place, and opinion is becoming ever more fiercely divided. To Republicans, especially those of the Tea Party variety, Barack Obama is a dangerous socialist, whereas the President's liberal base wonder whether he's been anywhere near radical enough.

Taking centrist positions in such a climate is of limited benefit, which explains why much of the Republican base refuses to accept Mitt Romney's pre-ordained candidacy, and continue to hunt around for an alternative, however wacky or beyond the mainstream that person may be. After previously flirting with the ridiculous Donald Trump and Herman Cain, the anti-Romney brigade used the opening two primaries to propel two very unlikely figures into the heat of this battle. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul may have only finished second in Iowa and New Hampshire respectively, but those results were quite remarkable given their lack of publicity, generating momentum as the race heads South, starting with South Carolina next Saturday.

Of the pair, Paul is the more interesting character, because he represents such a threat to the political mainstream. Indeed, when his supporters chant "Ron Paul Revolution", they are not exaggerating. His love of radical 'Austrian economics' would mean an unprecedented shrinking of government, promising huge immediate spending cuts, to never raise taxes or endorse a budget deficit, and to scale back the Federal Reserve. He opposes US membership of all international institutions, such as the UN or NATO. Paul is strongly pro-life and pro-gun rights. His criticism of the Civil Rights Act and earlier opposition to MLK Day appalled Liberals. The biggest problem for this year's campaign has been to deal with accusations of racism in newsletters published under his name, from which Paul has since unconvincingly distanced himself. No wonder the Independent calls him 'dangerous'.

But it isn't just the liberal press that fear Paul. The Conservative-leaning Washington Post also uses the 'd' word with regards his effect on the Republican Party. Paul's opposition to the War on Drugs, Patriot Act and criticism of the Bush administration's response to 9/11 are in direct contrast to the party hierachy. Voting against the Iraq war, and calling for the US to bring the troops home from all of her overseas military bases, has made him persona non-grata within the Republican establishment. Supporters say it also silenced his voice in the mainstream media, although the networks would say he was ignored because his views are only shared by a minority, and therefore irrelevant to the contest.

The task for punters is to evaluate whether that party and media establishment speaks for the ordinary Republican voter. We've already seen the Tea Party depose Congress candidates who were deemed 'too moderate', which is precisely what many say about Romney. Currently, the anti-Romney vote is split several ways, but the race will soon develop into a two or three-horse race. Imagine a scenario where Paul were the last man standing against Romney. Might the grassroots voter prefer a candidate measured to have the most Conservative voting record of any Congressman since the 1930s?

Far from being anathema to the grassroots, there is some evidence that Paul is in tune with them. Despite the comparative lack of fame or media coverage, he has won the last two years' 'Straw Poll' at the Conservative Political Action Conference, finishing well ahead of Romney and Sarah Palin, and only lost by one vote at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. His son, Rand, is the junior Senator for Kentucky and a darling of the Tea Party, to whom Ron has been described as the 'intellectual godfather'. And while his anti-military stance looks like a vote-loser, the fact Paul served as a surgeon in the Air Force and that his rallies are packed with veterans could neutralise that handicap, instead feeding into an older American isolationist tradition.

With over three decades experience representing Texas in Congress, Paul would surely have a fighting chance of picking up the 155 delegates on offer in that state, (compared to the 40 Romney has won so far). When the race hits Virginia, he should benefit from the fact that all four rivals bar Romney have failed to secure a place on the ballot.

Even if Romney wins the wider race, there is another way that Paul could yet blow the Presidential race wide-open. So many Republicans will be dissatisfied with Romney that many may argue for a third, distinctly Conservative candidate. Paul ran as a Libertarian candidate in 1988, and with an army of devoted supporters and a truckload of cash, could plausibly be convinced to do so again. Sure, he's not the favourite, but there is plenty to suggest that odds of [18.0] to win his party's candidacy, or [36.0] to win the Presidency, are too high.

Comments (2)

1. Max | 17 January 2012

   Cheers for spelling out the extent of RP's extreme views, Paul, and for providing some neat advice. I'm struck by what you say at the top about the anti-establishment wind sweeping global politics. About time, but, back in boring Blighty, it makes it even more ridiculous for Labour to cling to the centre, saying they won't reverse coalition cuts. Harriet Harman has said cuts are too deep and too fast but that Labour must be responsible. Utterly, predictably anodyne statement. We need a credible alternative from left-field.

2. Paul Krishnamurty | 17 January 2012

   I couldn't agree more, Max. Labour's position makes no sense from either a strategic or economic perspective. On the very same day that S + P downgraded several Eurozone countries, therefore demonstrating the failure of austerity economics, Labour sign up to it. Just as under Blair, there seems no understanding of Labour's purpose, or the views of it's members and supporters.