Posted on 10/02/2007 1:39:05 PM PDT by mnehring
Getting America's youth excited about presidential politics is such a daunting task that it is difficult to fault a candidate who can inspire such exuberance. However, the most charismatic candidate of this election cycle also happens to be the most pernicious. Ron Paul, the Republican Congressman from Texas and former Libertarian Party candidate, has become a dark horse media darling of late. He has inspired a good deal of support, not only from big corporations and businesses, but also from a section of the populace whose favor and affections are so fickle that his strong appeal to them is noteworthy. So what is behind his popularity?
As odd as it is to say, the small-statured doctor, whose politics of large-scale privatization and isolationism are about as novel as the Charleston (ask your grandparents), has what every other candidate finds elusive: Ron Paul has Indie Cred. Indeed, one cannot walk down 21st Avenue without seeing spray-painted Ron Paul signs (on public property, oddly enough). Such is the situation on many campuses, from Texas to Maine. Why he has this appeal to the young and disaffected is obvious: Congressman Paul is incredibly charismatic. His combination of stark honesty and wide-eyed naiveté, not to mention his proclivity for Bush-bashing, give him the air of a cogent and qualified Ross Perot. His appearances on the Colbert Report, and the constant fawning praise he receives from Bill Maher, show that his popularity is largely youth-oriented. He is not only taken seriously by many prominent figures but has garnered a good bit of grassroots support as well. His official facebook group numbers over 24,000 and has raised over $75,000.
With all that said, he is obviously not a serious candidate for the Republican Nomination if one considers that he regularly polls within the margin for error, and is taken by mainstream Republicans only slightly less seriously than Dennis Kucinich is taken by Democrats. However, his popularity underlies two potential trends in youth activism, both of which are disconcerting.
The first potential explanation for his popularity is that youth supporters actually agree with his politics. This seems unlikely. That is, it seems unlikely that the sympathetic viewers of Colbert and Bill Maher are seduced into Paul's camp by the promise of catering to big business and abolishing all vestiges of social responsibility in the federal government. The second, and more likely reason, is the tendency to conflate the problems and injustices of the Bush administration, and a submissive congress, with inherent flaws in federal government as a whole. That is, those who are led to support his candidacy fall prey to the conflation that because the current administration initiates a program in a poor fashion, it is the program that is at fault as much as the administration. This is a mistake. That a federal program is poorly administered says nothing of the legitimacy of the program, or of the possibility of government being effective, but only reflects the quality of those enforcing the program. Paul has profited from this misunderstanding and conflation, and owes much of his support to this mistake.
Congressman Paul certainly achieves much of his popular support because he is so blatant and outspoken contrary in his criticism of everything the Bush administration exemplifies. He is, after all, a dyed in the wool Libertarian. He favors massive deregulation, such as abolishing every federal agency, except for those agencies which arm their employees (read: the U.S. military), and espouses a foreign policy that reeks of isolationism. Women's rights are the only significant area in which he is not at all libertarian, taking an anti-choice stance on abortion.
Naturally, his policies appeal to those who are sick of the deception, overspending and corruption of the Bush administration. It is seemingly a simple conclusion. The best way, he says, to avoid corrupt and inefficient government bureaucracy is just to dismantle the government. Or, the simplest way to avoid international conflicts is to not have an international presence. These solutions are juvenile and completely unworkable upon closer scrutiny. Paul's appeal speaks not to the viability or desirability of these solutions, but to the depths to which the Bush administration has damaged public trust of government. His policies of privatization and isolationism are so easy to critique that it seems odd that his popularity amongst college students is so strong. Ron Paul's policies would clearly abolish government programs such as FAFSA, on which many students depend.
It is easy to empathize with the impetus for much of Ron Paul's popularity. It is, indeed, the most visceral and guttural reaction to the trespasses on individual liberty perpetrated by the Bushies. Nonetheless, the implementation of Paul's policies would exacerbate the problems caused by Republican corruption and be even more pernicious. Hopefully those young people angered by the Bush administration will recognize the destructive and nihilistic politics of Ron Paul and, instead, put their efforts behind a candidate who sees government to be something constructive and helpful, and not hopelessly corrupted by the Bush administration.
Right, right, Republican corruption. Hu'd imagine it.
one cannot walk down 21st Avenue without seeing spray-painted Ron Paul signs (on public property, oddly enough). Such is the situation on many campuses, from Texas to Maine.L Ron Paul's busy little horde of whackos is into vandalism too?
espouses a foreign policy that reeks of isolationismStinks of cut'n'run, treason and jihad-boot-licking to me. Stinks to high heaven.
I for one hope Ron Paul runs as an Independent. He will take the anti-war vote from the left.
Who doesn't understand any of it.
and take republicans who drank the Paulestinian Kool Aid and ensure Hillary.
Look new tagline!
ping
Every strict constitutionalist candidate in the last three elections has been the new “Ralph Nader for the right”.
Every strict constitutionalist candidate in the last three elections has been the new “Ralph Nader for the right”.
Can’t we take part of Gaza and make it a Paulestinian State? Seems Ron and his flock would be right at home there.
That’s hilarious!!!
Edited for accuracy. ;)
In a nutshell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.