Worth a Look and a Thought
There are a couple of interviews of 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul worth a look. The first is his sit down Sunday with George Stephanopolous on ABC, and the second, a phone interview with Joe Scarborough on MSNBC. I’m not going to get into Stephanopolous’ uncivil treatment of a competitor who, in terms of percentage gain over time, is outperforming everyone (why else is he even on?). Paul’s a big boy, and treatment like that from a smug, fast-lane has-been, speaks for itself.
I think Paul is beginning to scare a few people and it shows; and that’s because there’s an increasing sense that he could become a Black Swan in American politics, much like Perot almost became in 1992 (and probably would have, if he hadn’t been such a complete dork). Indeed, that’s really his only hope — he’ll never get Blue Blood Republican support unless and until a swell of popular support compels it, politically.
The other scary thing about Paul is that he’s so transparent. He’s completely and unabashedly "on the record" and his political positions have been consistent on his stated principles for as long as anyone cares to check the record. And he even puts his money were his mouth is, by refusing to cash in on his lucrative pension and refusing government "assistance" in other areas such as student loan guarantees.
How do you demonize a guy who’s not hiding or shying away from a damn thing? Sure, you can highlight his positions explicitly, but even that’s increasingly backfiring as Paul is becoming better at explaining his positions in terms that make people stop and think, and that’s a very dangerous position for a typical political competitor to be in. The last thing you want is for people to actually think. You want them to react to emotional stimuli, expressly without doing much thinking.
It’s a big, big long shot, but certainly a lot less of one than several months ago. This could get very interesting and I’ll be watching.
WHAT IT'S ABOUT AND HOW IT WORKS
Free The Animal is an eclectic writing project about everything since November 2003. 23 years, 5,500 posts, 5 million words.
It's a paid membership blog. Most posts are free and public, but only paid members can comment. What determines whether it's free or paid is when I publish. Monday through Friday, free and public. Saturday and Sunday, for paid members. That's it. Membership info here.
Hi. I saw your post on Technorati. Ron Paul will be speaking near you this weekend. Come on out!
"The saddest life is that of an aspirant under democracy. His failure is ignominious and his success disgraceful."
(H. L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, December 9, 1929)
Ron Paul should get elected to the presidency. The constant running fight with congress will be the goddamndest thing anyone every saw, and will make clear the exact nature of this government (people who attempt to distinguish it as a "republic" apart from a democracy will have the facts rudely jammed down their throats).
No serious person could ever invest hope in Ron Paul.
I agree with all that, Billy.
Any sort of hope one does allow one's self ought not be that Paul changes anything; he won't, or wouldn't, I should rather say. But I think he's proven himself consistent enough on his constitutional principles (i.e., the most reasonable idea of a state yet proposed, as you put it) that there's at least a shot of a glimpse at the true nature of the state of politics, now.
An awful little to hope for. Then again, someone is going to be elected. If such a Black Swan were to come, it sure will be a goddamned thing to watch.
Linda:
From my perspective, predictions are virtually worthless — not even virtually. Nobody predicted the rise of the Soviet Union and certainly no one predicted its downfall anywhere near the time it fell. These things happened for reasons, but for reasons and timing and events and ideas and individuals and technology and hosts and hosts of things the totally unpredictable combination of which sets things in motion.
Iraq could get better. Iraq could get worse. We could contribute more to its betterment or more to its worsening, and we could do that either by staying the course or getting the hell out of Dodge.
Unless there are compelling, no shit reasons to be there this very minute, we ought to just get out and send the clear message that we better not have to come back.
This thing is a disaster from top to bottom and we ought just leave them to it. In the end, they're going to have to do it themselves anyway.
Plus, he's always had that eerie Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer aura about him.
As to Paul, he certainly comes across as forthright and confident, and I don't doubt that he's principled and consistent. But, based on what he says to George, I think he has a rather breezy take on recent history and its lessons for current US foreign policy.
Talking around the 5:16 mark about the prospect of taking the troops out of Iraq right now, he says:
The persons most likely to murder their way to the top in Iraq if America pulls out precipitously are up for at least as much mayhem as anyone who took power in Southeast Asia in 1975 — who certainly did not allow things to go "much better than anyone predicted" for a decade or two there. And the new proprietors of Iraq wouldn't content themselves with the radical rearrangement of local cultures only, as did those new SE Asian governments, post-Vietnam war. Nor would they welcome friendship and trade with us, now or — if they're as true to their principles as they appear to be — thirty years from now.
Of course Paul believing otherwise is not necessarily an impediment to him being a factor in the 2008 race. Just some earnest advocacy of our breaking free of the UN would make for worthwhile campaign spectacle.
Now see. You made a creditable case for leaving without once inviting anyone to consider how swell things worked out when we left Vietnam.
Candidate Paul could do much worse than take a page out of your book.