Norm Ornstein makes some good points but when he says that Ron Paul currently represents almost a third of the GOP, he goes way too far. One way of looking at this question is to ask how many Republicans in Congress share Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy, the war on drugs, the Federal Reserve, torture, or anything else that truly distinguishes Paul from the other presidential contenders. The answer to that question is that, other than his son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ron Paul pretty much stands alone. He doesn’t even have a small handful of fellow travelers.
Another way of looking at the question is to poll the Republican electorate on the issues. Here, Ron Paul does better. But I don’t think you can honestly say that anywhere near a third of the GOP base agrees with Ron Paul on his distinguishing issues.
Finally, you can look at a slightly different question, which is to ask what percentage of votes Ron Paul gets in competitive primaries. In Iowa, he just won the support of slightly more than a fifth of caucusers, and the bulk of those were independents, Democrats, and/or first-time participants. He might be able to expand the Republican base, but he has not yet come close to winning the support of 33% of the voters. Perhaps when the field is winnowed a bit he will be able to accomplish that task, but even then, just because someone prefers Paul to Romney doesn’t mean that they are truly represented by Paul.
I’d like to see the Republicans take some of Ron Paul’s ideas more seriously. If a third of Republicans thought we ought to end the drug war, I’d be pretty excited about that. But, that’s not even close to be being the case right now. The Republicans are experiencing some signs of disunity, but they’re still pretty much united in their dedication to being greedhead assholes. Everything else is just details.
It’s also important to remember that when you think about “someone like Ron Paul,” you remember that he’s an ideologue. We do not need more ideologues, left or right, in this Congress. We need more people like Barney Frank.
So when you say it’d be great if 1/3 of the Republican caucus opposed the war on drugs, I’d say it’s important to know how they got there. As I told Lysander, Paul opposes it himself for good reasons, but he makes a philosophical defense against it in the same way he argues against the EPA. Quite a difference. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if Paul voted against a bill to legalize all drugs if it gave the federal government the authority to regulate their commerce and toxicity. Someone against the drug war would jump for joy to vote for something like that. But I’m quite confident that Ron Paul would vote against it.
Burke would be rolling over in his grave at how conservatism in the US has become so Jacobin.
Who needs Burke when they have Frédéric Bastiat?
Damn, you even got the accents francais happening.
Seabe, this is a copy/paste of my answer in the Caucus thread.
As president, Ron Paul told Wolf Blitzer back in 2008 that he would pardon “all non-violent drug convicts.” Now I don’t know exactly whom in particular he would pardon, or how he would go about doing it, but he is as strong an anti-drug candidate as any that ever sought nomination in a major party. No one else even comes close.
Anyway, my point is he was attacked repeatedly as the guy who would legalize heroin, and still got 21% of the vote. In Iowa.
Is there any other national figure who brings as much attention to the drug war?
Including those in state prison? That’s out of his jurisdiction — unless they’re there for federal offenses, but then he’d be going against the states for choosing to enforce those laws, no? There are only 30,000 people in federal prison for drug crime, and I’m willing to bet they’re mostly not there for non-violent offenses.
This is why the states’ rights thing is a bunch of bullshit.
I don’t know if he meant that. But is there any other candidate who would come even close to that? Second, if he actually did that (for federal prisons only), what signal would it send to state prosecutors and to states suffering from prison overcrowding?
Bottom line, you can’t deny that a Paul presidency would be the best thing that ever happened to the drug war since it started. You have a philosophical difference over states rights, and that’s fine. But don’t let that crowd out the very positive aspects of Ron Paul that progressives would be in agreement with and which are underrepresented in the Democratic party.
Paul got 21% of the vote against the weakest Republican field we’re ever going to see… unless the party is in terminal decline.
You write:
Sounds like third party to me…
AG
Could be. A third party that gets less than 20% (and most likely less than 10%) of the national vote, and fewer electoral votes than George Wallace did in 1968. But it could be a third party….
But what if…
What if he pulls a large part of the Tea Party vote from the right, a large part of the non-Tea Party Republicans who simply think that Mitt Romney is a total ass and an equally large part of the anti-war Dem vote? Plus a large and enthusiastic youth vote and a serious part of the so-called “internet” vote? What then?
“UH oh!!!” is what.
What if the lowest approval numbers of the most recent Dem and Ratpub presidents…which regularly reach sub-30% numbers during bad times…are the numbers that represent the remaining numbnuts who actually vote without any thought whatsoever? The clomp, clomp, clomping, kneejerk party faithful. A group that is getting older with every passing second.
!0%? 20%? All numbers from the past. A rapidly retreating, pre-internet past, a past where when the networks and big newspapers/newsmags ruled.
No more, massappeal.
No more.
New game time.
Watch.
30% Ratpub, 30% Dem, 40% 3rd party?
Could happen.
Bet on it.
Of course, what would happen if he did run 3rd party would likely be more like this…
The corporate PermaGov would probably create a straw dog/Trojan horse 4th party…probably w/Bloomberg…to siphon off dissident votes and the (house-of-cards) game would continue.
But weakened even further.
Eventually?
Yup.
One way or another, having the truth out there and easily accessible can only help, long-term. Bet on it. That is, bet on it if you believe in the power of truth. Many do not.
Just as it’s always been.
Just as it’s always been.
Yup.
And the real “great game”…ever-expanding, ever-evolving despite all so-called opposition…continues.
Yup.
Bet on that as well.
AG
P.S. “Opposition.” Just another necessary force. Yes it is. Understand this and you are free. Free to do your tiny part for evolution without suffering from negativity. May you be so blessed.