In The Blogs

The Theology of Paul

| Tue Dec. 18, 2007 11:42 AM PST

Once Ron Paul is knocked out of the GOP contest, what will become of his supporters? Will they dissipate, gravitate towards someone else, or reemerge with a third party bid? Whichever way the Paulites go, other candidates would be smart to study their movement's trajectory. Like the Howard Dean campaign in 2004, or the McCarthy campaign in 1968, the Paul campaign could be most important for its ability awaken and define a new generation of political citizens.

Continues Below

Continued From Above

Since I expressed that idea in my Apostles of Paul feature yesterday, many Paul supporters have contacted me to insist that that the real story is Paul's serious chance of victory. They point to thecaseforronpaul.com, which, among other things, discounts Paul's abysmal showing in phone polls by arguing that young people use cell phones and new voters aren't on call lists. In 2004, supporters of Howard Dean, who placed much better in those phone polls to begin with, made the same case. I'd say it's a weak argument.
The campaign's strange optimism is abetted by the belief in a rather unique mainstream media conspiracy. Paulites neither accept the leftist narrative that the media is controlled by the purse strings of CEOs, nor the right-wing notion that all reporters at latte liberals. Although they probably lean a bit more towards the latter, they despise Fox News. Where is this leading us? For the moment to Digg and exclusively Paulite organs such as dailypaul.com. Everybody else is compromised.
What makes all of this interesting is the way it illustrates and reinforces the political naivete of Paul supporters. They have often never volunteered for a political campaign or even voted. Unlike campaigners for Ralph Nader, or even past Libertarian Party candidates, they are deluded enough to think they can win. And that sets them up for the kind of post-election disillusionment that could send them back into their shells.
The long-term relevance of the Paulites will depend on their ability to join or create more enduring institutions. The libertarian magazine Reason would be a natural home (see their curmudgeonly discussion of our libertarian timeline) as would the more radical LewRockwell.com. The Paulites have often been called "Paultards" for their tendency swarm other blogs and plaster them with robotic slogans. But other Paul supporters have legitimately enlivened dialogs on this site and other general interest political blogs. It would be interesting if a few Paulites made more permanent homes there.

Comments

Submitted by Ryan (not verified) on Tue Dec. 18, 2007 1:44 PM PST.

It makes sense to say that young voters are underrepresented by traditional polling methods. I'm 25 and I don't know of anyone my age who owns a land line. Many people who are voting for Ron Paul are switching from Independent or Democratic registration to qualify as "Republicans." The fact that pollsters call "likely" republican or democratic voters with a "history" of voting for that party brings to light the fact that this excludes most young people and doubly excludes most crossover paul supporters.

also, to say that he doesn't have a chance is a self-fulfilling prophesy. i'm not a paul supporter in the slightest, but you're essentially discounting the potential of grassroots candidates to upend the corporate and special interest power structures that have a stranglehold over our supposed "representatives" in washington. i suppose, though i don't assume as you do, that a lot of the support for ron paul has less to do with a critical examination of his policies and more to do with the idea that he is honest. they would be voting into office a candidate running on a platform of Integrity (and some other things that sound sortof cool but might be a nightmare) and the exciting possibility of bringing a candidate to power from the ground up, not the other way around. paz.

Submitted by Cawdor (not verified) on Tue Dec. 18, 2007 1:57 PM PST.

"Once Ron Paul is knocked out of the GOP contest, what will become of his supporters?"

Assume much???

"Whichever way the Paulites go, other candidates would be smart to study their movement's trajectory. "

The other candidates offer nothing I am interested. If Paul loses then I WILL WRITE IN RON PAUL

NO PARTY IS GOING TO DICTATE TO ME WHO I WANT FOR PRESIDENT

"I'd say it's a weak argument."

Based on what facts .. oh yeh ASSumption

"Where is this leading us?"

The realization that MSM media and partisan blogs are out of touch and are proud of being so. Rome was out of touch with it's citizens once ...

"they are deluded enough to think they can win"

try the word "inspired" instead of deluded then maybe you will understand what you are talking about

"And that sets them up for the kind of post-election disillusionment that could send them back into their shells."

No we will take back our party and we will elect those people who will run on Ron Paul's platform. And if the RNC won;t take us .. then Meetup,Myspace, Digg, Facebook will be the HQ of our movement.

Brick and Mortar has got to go if it can't adapt

Submitted by Say What? (not verified) on Tue Dec. 18, 2007 2:14 PM PST.

"...they are deluded enough to think they can win."
--British Colonial Loyalist, speaking of the Revolutionaries in the Colonies--
August, 1776

"...they are deluded enough to think they can win."
--Whig Party Official, speaking of Lincoln and the offshoot "Republican" Party--
October, 1858

Submitted by Professional OpinionHaver (not verified) on Tue Dec. 18, 2007 2:31 PM PST.

Did I miss the memo? Where is the flyer that says every media outlets mention of Ron Paul must ask the question "what will you do when you lose?" Nah, there is no consipiracy. Just parrots.

Submitted by Dennis (not verified) on Tue Dec. 18, 2007 3:46 PM PST.

As I recall, Dean did rather well in the early primaries, until the media played The Scream seven hundred times in a week.

John Kerry was polling very low in 2003. Jimmy Carter polled low in 1979. Huckabee was low in the polls until just recently. The evidence suggests that polls aren't very reliable at this stage of the game.

Submitted by Steve Charb (not verified) on Tue Dec. 18, 2007 3:58 PM PST.

The cell phone polling disparity exists... but it accounts for, at most, 2-3% of the population.
Not enough to affect Paul's minuscule poll performance.

Submitted by Tom Curtis (not verified) on Tue Dec. 18, 2007 5:11 PM PST.

One if by land.
Two if by sea.
Light up the fires
of lost liberty.

Paul for president 2008

Submitted by Jahfre Fire Eater (not verified) on Tue Dec. 18, 2007 5:42 PM PST.

You raise some points worthy of consideration,Josh. As a formerly apathetic conservative, I'm working to leverage the renewed interest in the GOP. My own circle of friends has registered several thousand new Republicans this year and we aim to keep them involved going forward. It is time to toss the liberal neocon war mongers out of the GOP once and for all.
-Jahfre

Submitted by kelly g. (not verified) on Tue Dec. 18, 2007 7:52 PM PST.

the Paul campaign could be most important for its ability awaken and define a new generation of political citizens.

*shudder*

Submitted by vernica (not verified) on Wed Dec. 19, 2007 2:23 AM PST.

8 years from now, at the next Presidential Election Day, the country of 330 millions Americans WILL STAY STILL , watching on their hopeless TV screens how their (people's) "representatives" celebrate another face for another President of the United States of America. It might come even one year from now, even before we ( or Israel) drop another atomic bomb on UNdemocratic societies ( our enemies), who do not appreciate the glory of "free , democratic elections"... That might lead to the "peaceful change".(Others are hard to imagine).
At this very moment, when "presidential hopefuls" debate the future of ours, we in a great need of the PHYSIOGNOMIST to analyze the false pretentiousness of the candidates, beginning with Hillary
(surgically elevated) - to the end of the list ( Democrates alike Republicans). The physionomist, emplyed for the election) will explain to us that there are OINLY TWO FACES we should trust to: one- Ron Paul, another - Dennis Kucinich. The physionomist wil tell you that others ARE NOT ELECTABLE.
So, there is no need to bother to participate in the artifitial hysteria for "change": there will not be any, if Paul or Denniss ( or both) are not "avalable" for the physionomist's anaslysis.

Submitted by Daniel Aldridge (not verified) on Wed Dec. 19, 2007 6:08 AM PST.

Not all Paul supporters are the ideological robots you seem to think they are. I support Paul among the Republicans (and Obama among the Democrats) because they are both right on the Iraq War and because they represent a chance to break free of out stale post-1960's Red State/Blue State divide.

Instead of dissing libertarians for being corporate shills progressives should take the opportunity to spread their constituency beyond a shrinking "New Left" sensibility. Libertarians oppose an overblown and imperialist foreign policy, the hideous "War on Drugs" and centralized government surveillance under the guise of the Patriot Act. These people are your allies, not your enemies.

Progressives should also be more receptive to listening to critiques of the statism they adopted in the 20th century. The history of socialism, communism and bureaucratic collectivism around the world should give them reasons to be more skeptical that big government and the nanny state will solve the problem of poverty or bring about the sort of egalitarian society that they desire.

Submitted by Legacy on Wed Dec. 19, 2007 8:02 AM PST.

Daniel,

I agree with you that progressives should not be too quick to ignore libertarians, and that the old divide of free markets vs state-run economies is no longer as relevant as it was. There are cases where markets might prove highly effective (cap and trade) and cases where they don't (health care). You really have to take it on a case by case basis. This is why I hope that Paul's younger supporters, as they continue to involve themselves in the political process, will get beyond rigidly ideological positions and start to consider a more pragmatic approach. I think a lot of people on the left--you point out Obama--want to do the same.

Submitted by Aaron (not verified) on Wed Dec. 19, 2007 10:52 AM PST.

You are right Josh. The Jews will sink his ship, then onto Huck.

Submitted by Daniel Aldridge (not verified) on Wed Dec. 19, 2007 1:20 PM PST.

Josh:
I agree that a certain pragmatism is the key. No society in fact conforms to either a free market or state-run economic model. Both libertarians and progressives would benefit from trying to make their policies operate in the real world rather than hewing to 20th century secular theologies of "planning" v. "rugged individualism." As the GOP coalition dissolves (of which I was briefly part) I think progressives should seek the opportunity to join with disaffected others to form a new political coalition. As libertarians could gain from moving away from so-con and defense hawk "allies" in the GOP why should progressives hold on to an alliance with statists and corporate liberals in the Democratic Party?

Submitted by capt (not verified) on Wed Dec. 19, 2007 2:53 PM PST.

"why should progressives hold on to an alliance with statists and corporate liberals in the Democratic Party?"

For the money. That is always the excuse.

That might even be accurate to a degree.

As long as there are mountains of money involved things like principle and values are sold out in the name of competition and perseverance.

Submitted by Warren Raftshol (not verified) on Mon May. 12, 2008 12:57 PM PDT.

The task of the Paul movement is to awaken a large segment of the electorate to the fact the the media is controlled by the same criminal elite that runs both parties. When the people realize
how mind kontrolled they are, they will support a third party.