republicans vote libertarian, white house won
by Matthew Smock
Published: January 2, 2008
Is Ron Paul a serious contender for the Republican nomination or another lunatic libertarian? According to the most recent Real Clear Politics averages of the major polls, Paul is polling 6.4% of the vote in New Hampshire and 4.3% in Iowa. For being such an underdog in both of those states, Paul is receiving more than his fair share of air time and taking in record-setting campaign contributions. Yet despite a steadily growing campaign chest and an almost fanatical fan base, the media has successfully marginalized him - painting him as a libertarian or more informally, a nutcase.
The reasons are clear: republicans dismiss him because his proposals don’t align with those of the current administration and democrats fear the drastic budget cuts sure to follow if Paul wins the White House. However, if Ron Paul can overcome the media bias and win the Republican nomination, he will be our next president.
Since Reagan’s passing, Republicans and Democrats alike have been tripping over each other as they rush to extol the virtues of the Reagan administration. At the Republican debates, the candidates often argue over who is the most like Reagan, the last clearly successful Republican president. News flash: none of them are much like Reagan, and all three frontrunners, though claiming nostalgia for Reagan, propose policies dangerously similar to those of George W. Bush. If the candidates continue to posture themselves as the next Bush, whose approval ratings have sat at 30% for over a year, we’ll see a landslide victory for the Democrats next November. Moderate Americans will choose a democrat over a third Bush any day of the week.
A Democratic president paired with a Democratic Congress would be awful, but that’s not the end of it. Our worst nightmares may also come true: a political reconstruction lead by Hilary Clinton and a second New Deal that reverses the progress set forth by Reagan. Steven Skowronek, a professor at Yale, has dedicated much of his work to studying how presidents become known as “great” presidents. His research indicates that the “greatest” presidents (Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan etc.) all succeeded failed presidents (Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, etc.) because people were willing to give these presidents authority. After a failed Bush administration, a loss to the Democrats is very likely, and such a loss would result in a very powerful and very liberal next president.
The Republicans’ only hope for victory in 2008 is to abandon Bush’s policies, and the only Republican that has clearly done this while still holding on true to conservative principles is Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the only candidate on the Republican side to denounce the Iraq War, and unlike the Democratic candidates who now criticize the war, he never supported it. If he can gain enough support to win the Republican nomination, his non-interventional stance on foreign affairs will get enough moderate support to keep a Republican in the White House.
With Ron Paul currently in fifth and sixth place in New Hampshire and Iowa, respectively, he trails the frontrunners significantly. In a long primary season, however, the race could change significantly, and Paul could certainly gain steam later on. If a nomination for Ron Paul is unachievable, let’s at least hope Paul gains enough attention and support to force our future Republican nominee to adopt some of his ideas. Paul, as an advocate of small and limited government, is MORE like Reagan than any of his competitors, and his foreign policy stance could win moderate votes in the general election.
If he isn’t chosen as the Republican nominee, whoever is chosen needs to adapt much of Paul’s platform. Otherwise, the Republican Party is doomed in 2008.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
