Ron Paul is not a typical Republican. For one thing, he’s a fiscal conservative, making him an atypical politician in general.
Prior to the last Republican presidential debate, Paul was known primarily for voting “no” on most bills that crossed his path, as most legislation increases the power of the federal government. Paul is a bit of a stickler for decreasing the power of government. Thus, as a Congressman for Texas’ 14th district, Paul has acted contrary to the congressional norm, almost always voting against federal projects that would benefit his district.
After the last Republican presidential debate, however, Paul became known as the candidate unafraid to call the Iraq War a failure. He even called out Rudy Giuliani for using the events of Sept. 11 as a catalyst for his presidential campaign; he also stated, correctly for the most part, that the United States was attacked based on its presence in the Middle East, not because terrorists hate our precious freedoms.
John McCain take note: This is how a real maverick speaks.
Now there are petitions circulating that intend to bar Paul from future appearances at Republican debates. The reason, as far as I can ascertain, is that many Republicans don’t feel that Paul is a party-line guy.
Well, of course he isn’t. This is the same guy who ran on the Libertarian Party presidential ticket in 1988. He is a Republican by necessity, more than anything else. But he does have a lot of support, especially on the Internet.
Bloggers are simply atwitter over Saint Paul. Online polls often place Paul in first, second or third place among all Republicans running. The Web site Technorati, which indexes blogs, placed Paul at number one in search engine requests.
Still, he’s unpopular among the party faithful.
“Given what he said last night it was just so off the wall and out of whack that I think it was more detrimental than helpful,” said Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis, after the second Republican debate, as he declared his intention of barring Paul from the Republican presidential debate in his state.
Anuzis later said that he did not intend to bar Paul from the debate – but not before he received a flurry of online criticism. To wit: “Ron Paul will continue to tell the people of this country that there are a number of frauds being perpetuated in this country namely the ‘unconstitutional war fraud,’ the ‘income tax fraud,’ the ‘federal reserve fraud,’ and the ‘policing the world fraud,’” writes Paul supporter (and “scare quote” supporter) Thomas Costanzo on the Web site Free Market News Network.
Now, I’m no supporter of Paul for a number of reasons: Namely, I think a lot of his views, primarily reverting back to the gold standard and thereby doing away with the Federal Reserve, have a certain Lyndon LaRouche vibe to them. And it should be no surprise that most of Paul’s support comes from the Internet, as the Internet has a tendency to attract the more peripheral elements of society. Nonetheless, Paul’s presence is refreshing, and it could very well lead his party in a different direction.
Barring a candidate from a presidential debate, even on account of his unpopular views, is a terrible idea. We can all agree that Paul does not have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the nomination, but his presence means that certain viewpoints, shared by many Republicans, will be heard.
Presidential candidates run for a number of reasons: The most obvious is that they think they will win. Many candidates run in order to improve their own visibility and political Q rating. Some of these candidates, upon losing the party’s nomination, become the nominee’s vice presidential pick. But many candidates run in order to change the tone of their party’s debate on any number of narrow topics. This is what Paul is doing.
As a point of principle, second-tier, third-tier and fourth-tier candidates all deserve their time on the debate podium. Especially at this early juncture in the campaign season, it’s important to hear all the candidates discuss the issues. If we accept that the U.S. has only two major political parties, then it is important to realize that both of these parties intend to be “big tent” parties, where even among their own ranks disagreements occur.
Paul may not win, and his views may be unpopular among Republican Party leaders. But his rabble-rousing demeanor and refreshing rhetoric are important to the democratic process. His voice must not be silenced.
[email protected]