The Black Swans of Politics
by
Justin T. P. Quinn
I remember once arguing with an honest young atheist, who was
very much shocked at my disputing some of the assumptions which
were absolute sanctities to him (such as the quite unproved proposition
of the independence of matter and the quite improbable proposition
of its power to originate mind), and he at length fell back upon
this question, which he delivered with an honourable heat of defiance
and indignation: "Well, can you tell me any man of intellect, great
in science or philosophy, who accepted the miraculous?" I said,
"With pleasure. Descartes, Dr. Johnson, Newton, Faraday, Newman,
Gladstone, Pasteur, Browning, Brunetiere – as many more as you please."
To which that quite admirable and idealistic young man made this
astonishing reply – "Oh, but of course they had to say that;
they were Christians." First he challenged me to find a black swan,
and then he ruled out all my swans because they were black. The
fact that all these great intellects had come to the Christian view
was somehow or other a proof either that they were not great intellects
or that they had not really come to that view. The argument thus
stood in a charmingly convenient form: "All men that count have
come to my conclusion; for if they come to your conclusion they
do not count."
~ G. K. Chesterton
A recent article titled "Ron
Paul's dilemma" makes the case that "Ron Paul may
be in the ultimate damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation
as next month’s Ames Straw Poll draws closer."
If Paul polls fourth or fifth at Ames, it will feed the existing
narrative that he is a second-tier candidate with a devoted but
small legion of fans. Ames will be, at best, a wash. If, on the
other hand, Paul finishes first or second, it will feed the narrative
that he’s a straw-poll paper tiger with a small but devoted legion
of fans that swamped Ames from around the country. The media will
give itself permission to ignore the result and instead focus
on the "serious" candidates.
Rasmussen makes the unfortunate factual error of stating that Ron's
"legion of fans" could "swamp Ames from around the
country." The Ames Straw Poll is only open to Iowa residents.
A simple Google search could have prevented that mistake and allowed
him to reword it differently, though at the expense of weakening
his argument. A victory in Ames would not mean that Ron Paul is
backed by a small group of fanatics that crawled out of the woodwork,
but that he has strong core of support within the key state of Iowa.
Let us ignore that fact for now.
Instead, lets focus on the substance of Rasmussen's opinion: The
Ames Straw Poll is very important, but only if Ron Paul doesn't
win. It doesn't matter whether or not Ron wins, or even how
many percentage points he wins by. The Iowa Straw Poll can help
every other candidate, but it can only hurt Ron Paul. The voters
at Ames can have no bearing whatsoever on Ron Paul's viability as
a candidate. A vote for Ron Paul ipso facto makes it irrelevant.
You see, Ron Paul supporters don't count, even though they are
the paragon of what the ideal political activist would be. They
are arguably the only true grassroots activists in existence right
now. They don't wait for direction or leadership from Ron Paul himself.
Rather, inspired by Paul's ideals, they act on their own. Nothing
else in history comes close to what they've accomplished.
It was Ron Paul supporters, not the Ron Paul campaign itself, that
invented the "money bomb." Money bombs are online fund-raising
events, often held on dates with great historical and political
significance, which seek to generate a large amount of donations
within a short period of time. Such events are marketed through
"viral
advertising" where individuals take the initiative and
spread the news of the event through online vehicles such as social
networks, YouTube, and online forums. People who might think that
their small contribution to the campaign might not make a difference,
or who otherwise might not "get around to it," find themselves
encouraged by a large number of their peers to take an active part
in these events and donate larger amounts more often than they otherwise
would have. By seeking to set ever higher records in hourly, daily,
and weekly fund-raising, money bombs can generate millions of dollars
in free advertising in the media as well.
Remember the Ron
Paul Blimp? Once again, Ron Paul supporters acted on their own
initiative to make something happen. At 200 feet long, it beat out
the Goodyear Blimp as the largest blimp in North America. It also
cost $600,000 to fly for the six weeks it was in the air, and might
not even get off the ground this year. Flying over the eastern
seaboard, it generated over $2 million in publicity. The blimp needs
to be flying over Iowa now, but there seems to be little interest
in it! A single money bomb could do it, easy.
Let us imagine for a minute a Mitt Romney blimp or a Mike Huckabee
blimp, constructed and financed by grassroots supporters independent
of their respective campaigns. They would be praised from the rooftops
for their creativity and initiative. They would be asked, "What
is it about Mitt Romney that gives you so much hope?" With
such a spontaneous surge of enthusiasm and devotion for this man,
some may begin to wonder, could he be The
One? We'd never hear the end of it, but because it was part
of the Ron Paul Campaign, nay, the Ron
Paul Movement, it is referred to as a desperate
publicity stunt of questionable legality.
In every campaign in the history of campaigning, a lost run for
office means that interest in the candidate mostly dies out, but
not for Ron Paul. Supporters of Ron Paul are qualitatively different
from those who support other candidates. Jack
Hunter summed it up perfectly.
Ask the average Paul fanatic what they like about him and all
you will hear nothing but specific policies: "Follow the
Constitution!" "End the Fed!" "End the War!"
Paul is the purest example of what I like to call "philosophical
conservatism" in that what he believes strict adherence
to limited government and Constitutional principles is
more important to him and his followers than how his party perceives
him.
Even after Ron Paul lost the 2008 Republican nomination, the Ron
Paul movement remained a force to be reckoned with. It was Ron Paul's
Campaign for Liberty that forever changed America's political landscape.
It was the tireless efforts of the Campaign for Liberty that made
the Federal Reserve a national issue. Through countless emails,
letters, and phone calls made by people who were educated
about the Federal Reserve and Austrian Business Cycle Theory, HR
1207, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, gained
some 319 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. The Senate
version, S. 604, had
32 cosponsors. So great was the movement to "End the Fed,"
the majority of Americans are not only conscious of the Fed's existence
and activities, but are radically
opposed to it. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke now feels
the need to have futile
press conferences to try and win over the people.
A common soundbite you'll hear in the news nowadays (if you still
watch it) is that "many are coming around to Ron Paul's points
of view." The truly astonishing thing is that any politician
can posses a sound, logical form of thought in the first place,
much less convince people of anything. Scott Conroy's Doomsday
Scenario may prove to be true, as the "famously devoted
supporters of Texas Rep. Ron Paul wipe the sweat off their brows
without batting an eye and descend on the campus of Iowa State University
to propel the libertarian-leaning icon to yet another straw-poll
victory". This, for Conroy, would be a tragedy. If Ron Paul
were to win in Ames, the sanctity of the event and the godly wisdom
of all who attend would have to be called into question.
Yes, it is very true that it is not how high a candidate can get
in the national polls, but how many of his supporters he can actually
get out to vote that wins elections. If you show up to vote for
Ron Paul, however, well then, you're just some crazy fanatic who's
part of the ever growing cult of Ron Paul worshipers. You are like
a pestilence that swarms GOP events to drown out the voices of more
reasoned minds, a sacrilegious abuse of the Holy Democratic System.
Your votes are not to be regarded with the same reverence as those
offered up to the other lying, thieving, murderous scumbags that
always get elected president. You are at best an outlier, at worst,
a very real threat to our political way of life. The Ron Paul Movement,
the greatest grassroots campaign in political history, could destroy
Iowa's position as an early primary state, and ruin the chances
of any grassroots campaign for a small-name politician of ever being
competitive in presidential politics ever again.
The establishment media would like to completely
ignore Ron Paul by not even including him in the polls. When
they can't ignore him, they use a very simple formula. On the eve
of an important straw poll, say he can't win. When he does, downplay
the results as meaningless. Now, on the eve of the Ames Straw Poll,
they are hedging their bets with doublespeak; The Ames Straw
Poll is very important, but only if Ron Paul doesn't win. It's
a strategy that will likely stretch well into the primary season,
but this can only work for so long.
When it becomes too obvious that the Ron Paul movement is taking
over the country, they will resort to blatant lies and deception.
This is precisely
what Fox News did earlier this year when they tried claim that
Ron Paul was booed at the 2011 CPAC by playing the clip from 2010.
When Bill Hemmer asks Ron Paul how he felt being about booed, he
laughs in a very odd, juvenile way. The way his tong moves around
in his mouth, almost as if he is savoring the opportunity to humiliate
Ron Paul, I imagine him once being a large, fat bully in the fifth
grade. Ron Paul in fact got a standing ovation when he was announced
the winner of the 2011 CPAC Straw Poll. Such an amateurish attempt
at deception was quickly found out, and Fox News via Hemmer was
forced to publicly
apologize for their "honest mistake."
How
far will the mainstream go in order to stem the tide of the Ron
Paul Revolution? They already say it threatens to destroy
the presidential primary system. Will they go as far as Glen
Beck did, and group Ron Paul supporters in with terrorists?
Perhaps a bombing or a mass shooting will be blamed on the anti-government
Libertarian movement. A so-called "Libertarian Bomber"
would be just the excuse needed to send federal troops to arrest
people at Ron Paul rallies.
It
all makes one wonder how accurate those polls are that place Ron
at around 10%. It's clear that the media sees his supporters as
a mere factor that skew the polls away from results that are more
"representative of America." The fact is that Ron Paul
does represent America. He opposes the wars, he opposes the income
tax, he opposes further burdening the country with more debt, and
he wants to restore sound money and end the Federal Reserve. What
the media doesn't want is for Americans to figure this out.
They want people who like Ron Paul to think he can't win; his victories
don't matter; he's a "fringe candidate;" only kooks support him;
best to support someone else who actually stands a chance. The establishment
wants to create a self-fulfilling prophecy that a Ron Paul presidency
is a hopeless cause. Their plan won't work. Once the false paradigm
is shattered and the people see the truth, Ron Paul will become
President of the United States, and it will be all thanks to those
"Ron Paul fanatics," the Black Swans of Politics.
July
30, 2011
Justin
T.P. Quinn [send him mail],
who lives in New Jersey, has done project management for both private
firms and nonprofits.
Copyright
© 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
|