Ron
Paul’s Opponents Gambled and Lost
by
Bob Murphy
by Bob Murphy
DIGG THIS
The
Ron Paul Revolution keeps running. Just when I get complacent and
think, "Okay, that’s more than anyone could have expected from
him, let’s get ready for President Clinton…" he goes and mentions
Austrian economics to Jay
Leno on national TV. (And I had thought some young, "cool"
Austrian economist would have to do that!)
A
few weeks ago I
wrote about the site Intrade.com,
which is structured like a futures market in commodities, but where
the contracts can be on events such as "Ron Paul wins the 2008
GOP Nomination." When I last wrote, his chances were 6.1%,
and he had just edged out McCain to be in 4th place.
Well guess what? As of this writing, Ron Paul’s chances are up to
8.5%, and he is slightly ahead of Fred Thompson to now be in
third place.
Now
remember folks, this isn’t some survey. These are actual contracts
with real money behind them. So to the extent that you think the
futures price of oil represents the "market’s expert opinion"
about what oil prices are going to do, you should also believe that
the market’s best guess has Ron Paul in third place to win the GOP
nomination, and what’s crucially important is the momentum behind
him. Forgive me but I just have to include the chart of his progress:

Incidentally,
the reason I personally refer to Intrade as the best barometer is
that it represents real money and has a separate contract on Ron
Paul. In contrast, the more famous Iowa
Electronic Market doesn’t have a contract for Paul, so you have
to guess at his standing by looking at the "Rest of Field"
contract. The results there are comparable to Intrade’s, but it’s
not as obvious how much of the "none of the above" results
are due to Ron Paul. For those wishing IEM to have a separate Ron
Paul contract, you could write a polite email to its Board
of Directors explaining why they should reconsider. (From an
intermediate associate it is my understanding that they aren’t biased
against Ron Paul, but have a desire to keep the list of candidates
manageable.)
So
what do I mean by the title of my article? Simply this: Ron Paul’s
opponents thought they could ignore his message and just dismiss
him as a kook. There was no need for them to grapple with his positions,
because they were irrelevant. As Rush
Limbaugh explained when a caller told him he had the power single-handedly
to make Paul – the truest "conservative" running – a contender:
"I don’t think Congressman Paul has a snowball’s chance."
I
don’t know quite why I do it, but whenever I’m driving during the
afternoon I listen to the local talk radio station. (I listen to
NPR during rush hour, so I think it keeps me balanced with support
for the welfare-warfare state.) Now whenever these guys (especially
Sean Hannity) start ranting about the Democrats and how they have
no respect for the Constitution, I just have to laugh. You could
quite literally take their rants and equally apply them to the foreign
policy moves suggested by most of the Republicans.
I
actually heard two guys discussing Ron Paul’s views on terrorism,
and how he quotes John Quincy Adams, George Washington, and so forth.
These guys actually said something like, "That was good advice
back then. But when the Founders lived, all they worried about were
Muskets of Mass Destruction!" Now plenty of readers might sympathize
with that joke, but by the same token you should then understand
how modern day liberals think the 2nd Amendment is anachronistic
because of AK-47s. You have no right to go through the roof over
Democrats’ trampling of the Constitution, if at the same time you
think Ron Paul is crazy for wanting a declaration of war before
preemptively nuking a country.
The
right-wing pundits are going to have a harder time ignoring Ron
Paul as he gains in various polls and other measures. And if he
actually wins or places 2nd in the first few primaries,
even the official
debates may have to start giving him as much time as the median
candidate. Although some places at least have the courage to
flat-out
admit that they are stifling Ron Paul support, most other outlets
want to at least appear professional and objective.
As
I say, the right-wingers who have ignored Ron Paul thus far are
really in a fix. They hoped he would just fade away, and so they
wouldn’t be put into an uncomfortable position. But if he wins a
primary or two, the other candidates will have no choice but to
explain why, e.g., we need the IRS, or why the Department
of Education is actually a good thing. They’ve certainly made a
case for keeping the troops in Iraq, so they can battle Paul on
that point. But on virtually all the other ones (except maybe ending
the Drug War), Ron Paul out-Ronnies them all on the Reagan scale.
I’m genuinely curious: What are they going to say?
Ron
Paul’s opponents gambled on him just fading away, and they lost.
The next tactic will of course be to paint him as an absolute nutball,
and again, not by actually debating his positions, but just
by asserting them as self-evidently crazy. Over time that too
will prove inadequate. At some point, they will need to explain
why the party of limited government couldn’t possibly nominate a
man who would actually limit government. What are they going to
say?
November 3, 2007
Bob
Murphy [send him mail]
has a Ph.D. in economics from New York University, and is the author
of The
Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism.
He has a personal website at ConsultingByRPM.com
Bob
Murphy Archives
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
|