In summer 2008, I took part in the overheated swarm of high school students at programs in DC, studying U.S. foreign policy by day and arguing with pasty-faced Wilsonians by night. On an outing to Capitol Hill, I headed to the Cannon House Office Building, following the crowd wisdom that Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) would talk to just about anybody. Panting, I arrived to the news that our target had just disappeared into a radio interview – only to be corrected moments later by the good doctor himself.
“I think I have time for one more visit.”
Starstruck, my group eagerly scooped up a handful of signature green pocket Constitutions and took turns offering pleasantries and “fight the good fight”s. The line reached me.
“I sympathize with many of your views, Dr. Paul.”
The room fell silent. On our way out, a friend turned to me and explained: “You’re supposed to support him!”
Ron Paul … deserves your consideration. Although I’m possessed of too many caveats to offer an explicit endorsement, his unique and genuinely interesting candidacy merits all the sympathy it can get from both sides of the aisle – especially during a primary season light on dissent, ideological diversity, and intellectual rigor.
Like most qualified defenders of the Paul candidacy, I have little patience for gold standard nostalgia or immigration nativism. But I infinitely appreciate having around the only voice in American politics (perhaps besides Dennis Kucinich) who understands the destruction wrought by the senseless war on drugs, can remember a foreign policy from before jingoism became the norm, and believes in genuine limits on executive power.
To be sure, Paul does not reach many of these conclusions the way that I would: I share with him neither a zeal for constitutional originalism nor a radically libertarian vision for the size of government. But like many of his more liberal supporters, I’ve come to appreciate Paul for speaking truth to power – for bringing stark reason to an arena where only slick political truisms are allowed to play.
Many politically ‘radical’ planks on Paul’s agenda are simply taken for granted in the realm of experts. Council on Foreign Relations task force reports, former Latin American heads of state, and economists alike support the normalization of illegal drugs. Despite differences over foreign aid and domestic policy, field experts writing in Foreign Policy have offered more praise for Ron Paul’s quasi-realism than for nearly any other political voice on foreign policy.
Moreover, Ron Paul is of the rare class tuned in to the grievances of both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, touching upon the conclusion that government and corporations need to be held accountable for the socioeconomic crisis at hand. Unlike the rest of the Republican field, whose lip service to free markets ends at the door of monopolistic corporations, Paul carries through with an orthodox take on economic conservatism that aims to privilege the rights of individuals over the rights of corporations.
Whatever his platform amounts to on balance, Ron Paul has much more to contribute in the way of unique substance than any other Republican candidate – and would force a reconsideration of Barack Obama’s tepid record as a defender of civil liberties. On these points, I suggest reading either of Conor Friedersdorf’s excellent qualified defenses of Representative Paul in The Atlantic.
And as it happens, the business of considering Ron Paul is no longer just an intellectual exercise. The Texas congressman is effectively tied for second place in Iowa, and has inched into the upper teens in New Hampshire. As Romney and Gingrich spar over the fickle, dissatisfied mainstream of the Republican electorate, Ron Paul’s loyal, well-organized base of supporters stands out as a rare asset that could surprise big on caucus/primary day.
Let’s hope that it does: support or merely sympathize, it’s high time for someone to shake up politics as usual. Give Paul a chance.