Why Ron Paul Can Win It All

by Christopher Deliso
by Christopher Deliso

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s record $4.2 million fundraiser the other day was one for the record books. Even those in the mainstream media who have been consistently ridiculing him have, however begrudgingly, had to agree with that verdict. However, Dr Paul’s spectacular success may well be only a sign of things to come, and if this turns out to be the case, then even the grumpiest of GOP resisters will have to realize that Ron Paul is the only candidate who can defeat the Democrats next year.

The media has, however, largely avoided considering future head-to-head match-ups. Largely because it’s primaries time, they have been devoting most of their efforts to nurturing the candidates that they (and their political-corporate owners) want to see nominated. First things first, right? But hold on one moment. Even with an endorsement from Pat Robertson, does Rudy Giuliani have solid enough conservative credentials to be the GOP nominee? Does Mitt Romney, for that matter? Are they capable of really firing up the conservative base? I think not.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, offers both a message and a manner that appeal strongly to traditional conservatives. He is strongly Christian, pro-life, pro-gun ownership, pro-freedom and civil liberties, while being tough on illegal immigrants and champion of a strong national defense and secured borders. He also opposes big government and public spending, generally favoring states’ rights rather than federal control. Can the alleged "front-runners" – Giuliani and Romney – boast the same package of conservative attributes, and back it up with a fastidiously consistent voting record like that of Ron Paul? I think not.

As for the latter quality, style, Ron Paul is a plain-spoken Texas country doctor, a straight-shooter who is eloquent without mincing his words, whereas Giuliani is a blowhard and a bully justifying his strengths by repeating "9/11" constantly. The American people, however, are smart enough to see through that. Romney, for his part, is not a convincing conservative, too carefully mannered and a bit foppish, just conservative enough to be elected governor of, er, Massachusetts.

Nevertheless, these alleged Republican "front-runners" believe they can defeat Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. As the last congressional elections showed, the Republicans are now on the defensive and will need to siphon away as many votes as they possibly can to win. There are certainly opportunities here, but neither Giuliani nor Romney are convincing alternatives for left-leaning voters sick and tired of Hillary/Obama’s weaseling out of any commitment to end the war state, and for young people in general. Guess which Republican strongly appeals to these disaffected liberals? Yes, once again, it’s Ron Paul.

And herein lies the really exciting part of the Paul candidacy, and the reason I expect the $4.2 million record will be eclipsed sooner or later by another one even bigger. Unlike most politicians, Ron Paul commands real respect and admiration from a large and very diverse group of Americans, support which is growing by the day. When people believe in a candidate, they give freely and on multiple occasions. When people are merely harangued on the phone or in the mailbox because their name happens to be on a party’s list of past supporters, they give – maybe – once or twice. True, there is massive corporate largesse on the way for the likes of Hillary and Giuliani, but still, somehow, it is individuals who vote in America, not entities. It would be very interesting to do a study of what percentage of "blank slate" voters feel, once introduced to that candidate’s positions, a strong affinity with those positions. Of course, I don’t have any such data, but from reading hundreds of comments posted under web articles and blog entries, I’d be willing to bet that the victor in such a survey would be Ron Paul.

With the tremendous new publicity Ron Paul has achieved the past couple days, his message is getting out to a wider and wider audience, making his voluntary donor base larger and larger. Unlike the establishment candidates tapping into their existing lists, he is actually creating new voters. The phenomenon is self-replicating and because the message of his campaign is very appealing to so many different people, it is spread willingly and genuinely. Don’t forget that this is the post-advertising age, the age of social networks where savvy consumers no longer trust mass ads, but more often buy a product specifically on the recommendations of trusted friends. It is the same with ideological consumers in a political campaign.

Here the internet has exponentially amplified the power of what the old patrician media, self-proclaimed guardians of information and the "proper" interpretation of that information, disparagingly demeans as "grassroots support" or "an internet following." This media, and the political establishment which it serves, despises nothing more than the people, and especially the young. The worst sin of Paul supporters, for the jaded media, is that they actually believe in the man; using "passion" as a descriptor in politics is ribald to the hardened cynics of the fifth estate. The supporters of this "obscure 72-year-old iconoclast" are thus passed off as "a small but impassioned group of young people," with obvious derogatory implications. The media finds it odd and amusing that voters should care about things that they’re not supposed to know about; in the present case, the Federal Reserve and national debt, things that are supposed to be ignored, and left up to the wise old men of the establishment to sort out.

With the age of the internet, however, the media and the political establishment are now terrified of the ramifications of losing control of their time-honored role as shapers of public opinion. And they’re very, very confused. As Ed Rollins, a former adviser to President Reagan and manager of Ross Perot's 1992 campaign told the Washington Post, commenting on the record donation to Paul’s campaign:

"…I've been in politics for 40 years, and these days everything I've learned about politics is totally irrelevant because there's this uncontrollable thing like the Internet. Washington insiders don't know what to make of it."

Ron Paul and his legions of supporters, however, do know what to make of it. And here emerges another key reason why his campaign is sustainable: it’s not based, like those of the alleged "front-runners," on sheer political calculation, all too obvious in their flip-flopping, half-statements, modifications and personal attacks. Dr Paul’s positions are consistent, nuanced and well informed; he doesn’t rely on sound bites or scripted answers, he doesn’t resort to petty personal attacks, and he can debate anyone anywhere at any time. These qualities inspire an awful lot of confidence in voters and, if the media wakes up and starts to do its job, a lot more Americans are going to see just why Ron Paul is the best possible candidate for America.

In the end, whether or not the big media shows up, however, is their own business; thanks largely to the internet, the American people are far more informed, and thus more empowered to choose than they have ever been. They possess that ability which the corporate media dreads most: the ability to think for themselves. This time around, free thought and free will are turning out to be pretty popular qualities indeed.

November 9, 2007

Christopher Deliso [send him mail] is a Balkan-based American journalist, director of the website Balkanalysis.com and a contributor to Antiwar.com. His compelling new book, The Coming Balkan Caliphate, analyzes how misguided Western interventions in the Balkans since 1991 have actually created and solidified the presence of foreign-funded Islamic extremist groups in that region.

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page