Thoughts on the Ron Paul rally

First off, I'm not a libertarian; I'm best described as a centrist, a mix of classical liberal (partially libertarian) and progressive. Nonetheless, I still attended Ron Paul's political rally on Friday night at the University of Houston. While I agree on more or less half of what he says, I found out three things by attending last night: why he appeals to the point where his supporters are rabid and would damn near defend him to the death, how he is actually similar to Barack Obama despite being on the opposite end of the political spectrum, and why I would most likely not vote for him in the general election.

Roughly 3,000 people showed up from my observational count at the Hoffeinz Pavillion. While there were some news stories on the event, the University of Houston did not promote it at all, which was surprising, considering that UH school itself made note of when former President Bill Clinton and current First Lady Michelle Obama came to UH to campaign for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, respectively. For both events, the turn out was far larger -- if you're told otherwise, its an exaggeration. Nonetheless, the 3,000 that did show up were excited, pumped,  and quite vocal. They undoubtedly sounded like a crowd that was twice the size.

I also want note the diversity of the crowd as well. The University of Houston is a diverse school and despite the fact that I only expect that maybe 1500 to 2000 of those in attendance were actually current University of Houston students like myself, it wasn't an all white Tea Party event like most of Paul's detractors would think it be.

The festivities opened up with Ron Paul's oldest son, Ronnie, introducing the family to the audience, which included his mother (Ron Paul's wife), his wife, and two of his children. He then introduced a family friend from Lake Jackson, who is a tenor. He sang a beautiful rendition of America the Beautiful that got a well deserved thunderous ovation from the crowd.

Ron Paul took to the podium a little bit after 7PM after being introduced by the CEO of Youth for Ron Paul at the University of Houston. He did not really say anything new as compared to what you've already heard about him -- he discussed the path that government has taken in the past century to infringe on civil liberties and liberty in general, he railed against an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, he attacked the welfare state and entitlement spending, and he espoused the virtues of a strict interpretation of the Constitution. On economics, it was more of the same -- criticizing the neoclassical synthesis (mainstream economics in general), the liberty promise of the free markets, the dangers of loose credit, and advocacy of the gold standard. He wrapped up a little bit before 8PM.

I finally got the grasp on Ron Paul's appeal, and while it may be complex to some, it really is not. It's one part rooted in pragmatism and another part that's rooted in a general philosophical shift: the pragmatism comes from the idea that the most practical approach to bring the United States government back to fiscal health is to "return" government to its original intended function as spelled out in the Constitution; the philosophical shift that is taking place is that the United States government does not function as the Founding Fathers envisioned instead of the United States government just not functioning properly at all. Both of those factors combined together lead towards support for a government that permits a truly free society and protects the rights, liberties, and privacy of the individual through less intrusive government and a smaller government in size -- it's what's many are yearning for and that's what they look to Ron Paul to deliver.

His speeches are similar to collegiate lectures and he has an "every man" presence. Paul wore a simple polo and blue jeans at the rally, and while every presidential candidate dresses down, the lack of a significant media presence gives credence to the fact that he's not the grandstanding, photo-op type. In other words, he is the politician that actually bucks the  politician archetype; and not only people are riveted and drawn to it, it gives people comfort. If you ask anybody that is a die hard Ron Paul supporter, they may tell you that he feels like a college professor, teacher, grandfather, or uncle to them -- he brings that much comfort to his supporters.

Paul is extremely similar to Barack Obama and not because they both appeal to younger voters. Both of them unfortunately foster an unrealistic expectation amongst their supporters to be bigger than the divisive national political climate that causes paralysis and dysfunction in Washington. The high, unrealistic expectations and the subsequent let down torched Obama's popularity politically and it would undoubtedly do the same to Paul, as he would have to either make the Faustian deal to become the strong-armed President with an executive branch on steroids he that so staunchly derides or basically leave Congress to run the United States, who he would probably not work well with. The reality is this: Paul would never unilaterally be able to produce a surplus in 3 years. That's abhorrently delusional as he would never have the cooperation of what will most likely be a Democratic-controlled Congress towards the middle of his first term if he wins the general election. If the United States operated on a European parliament-style legislative structure, then I'd probably buy that.

Paul discussed how he would use Executive Orders to reverse other "bad" Executive Orders (which, for the record, actually comes from a loose interpretation of a vague grant of this power in Article I, Section 1, Clause 1 and Article II, Section 3, Clause 4) -- moves, that if proven unpopular -- would ultimately severely damage, if not destroy, the purported Libertarian Revolution. It goes back to the real underlying economic problem that economists are generally screaming about at the top of their lungs and most politicians, including Paul and Obama are ignoring -- it's not necessarily the size of government, it's not necessarily the government regulation, it's not necessarily taxes, and it's not necessarily government economic policy (even though they all play a role); it's more than anything the lack of stability and coherent direction in government. Paul and his supporters would argue then that concern would be relatively resolved by moving government out of the economic arena; this conclusion is false. This was the same conclusion reached by the supply-side economists of the 1980s and by the 1990s and 2000s outsourcing caused labor competition to increase and stymied wages -- which was actually something that Adam Smith, the king of lassiez-faire economics, actually argued in his magnum opus The Wealth of Nations. Similar to Obama, the "taking-matters-into-your-own-hands" approach may invigorate supporters, however, it may alienate independent voters who would see that as adding to Washington's unstable aura.

While I agree on Paul on quite a few things, yet not necessarily his conclusions, I came to realize I could not vote for him in the general election. While, in truth, Obama is not really that much better of a candidate (he had the chance to become the first real progressive President since Theodore Roosevelt, however, poorly played his political cards and often times proved too willing to restrict civil liberties and infringe on privacy), I learned from Obama's first term that no matter how much a candidate says that they will be bigger than the Washington political climate and get results, if that candidate gets elected and he or she cannot aptly put together an offensive against an opposing party's caricature, the candidate's support will suffer and legislative success will be stymied. Obama's issues, more than anything, result from his inability to deliver on the extremely high expectations that were set upon him in 2008.

The expectations would be the same, if not higher for Paul; if he is elected, he would be seen someone that is "America's savior". Unfortunately, Paul would exacerbate the dysfunctional Washington climate; that may excite some, but overall it is not good for business.

Intellectual differences within his own party, not to mention the differences against the Democratic Party, would undoubtedly torch a lot of the things he would aim for in terms of doing. Paul would very similar to Calvin Coolidge in his approach in governing (granted Coolidge was quieter), and while it would have been acceptable in the Jazz Age, wouldn't be vastly accepted in today's world, if at all. Democrats would support his anti-war stance and defense of civil liberties and civil rights, but would rail against his insistence on the erosion of the welfare state, the elimination some government departments, and, especially amongst black and Latino Democrats, restraint against aggressive government intervention to protect civil rights; Republicans would support his anti-tax stance and free-market stance, yet when it comes to social conservatism, strong military neoconservative nationalism, and completely dismantling government involvement in the economy, he will undoubtedly find resistance and would have a difficult time uniting a fairly fractured Republican Party.

So I'm going to sit back and just wait until a centrist -- someone that believes that government should put civil liberties and civil rights first; someone that believes in smart, proactive economic investment policy; someone that believes in justified war and not wars to  extend outdated American unilateralism; and someone that believes that the welfare state does has some merit. I like Paul because he makes people think; however, Paul is not the best candidate for me, at least in terms of my personal political alignment; Huntsman was probably the closest to it of all the candidates that entered in for 2012. I don't really have a candidate that I will have unwavering support for this election, however, I wish good luck to all those involved.

How Antipathy Has Fueled - and Will Doom - the Republican Party

I attended a political lecture given by William Galston tonight here at the University of Houston.  Dr. Galston is a former public policy advisor to former President Bill Clinton and a noted progressive.

In one of his responses in the question-and-answering session after the lecture, he mentioned about the feelings of public antipathy, especially amongst the blue collar sector, that now harbor a resentment towards government and social programs. Moreover, he also noted that in the past half century, Americans have went from "trusting government too much" to "not trusting government at all".  He later answered another question after the question-and-answering session about the Tea Party, noting that the Tea Party movement was largely fueled by antipathy and antipathy can go a long way in carrying a political message.

Throughout history it has been proven that antipathy fueled movements may last as long as desired but don't really yield the results desired. The two most recent antipathy movements -- the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street -- are largely still ongoing in spirit, yet neither movement had a concrete agenda that could lead to significant, implemented change. Considering this post is about the Republican Party, I'll make a comment on the Tea Party: yes, I'm well aware that they talked about being anti-tax, anti-social programs, robust fiscal restraint, and anti-government -- but the Tea Party has yet to accomplish anything relatively significant, except to become the most vocal sect of a political party since the Dixiecrats of the mid 20th century.

Three antipathy movements are fueling Republican discourse at the moment: the relationship between government and the economy, which runs Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich's engines; the relationship between government and society, which powers Rick Santorum's campaign; and an overall disgust with the government, which pushes Ron Paul along. What these movements are causing is deep rifts within the GOP.  Granted, I'm well aware that all four candidates have somewhat put out plans to "get America back on track". The only issue is that while all four candidates have plans that undoubtedly address what is pissing people off at the moment, none of them are adequately sustainable.

Because of these antipathy movements, all four candidates are guilty of fostering unrealistic viewpoints of how the current issues facing the United States can be and should be resolved. In addition, all four candidates are dangerously guilty of promoting what they can and their policies can actually do about it.

Here's the reality: technological advancement, coupled with globalization, has increased competition for labor. Wages have stagnated because there's more people competing for jobs -- this time on a global scale. Wealth, increasingly, is transitioning from property to financial capital. Health care is expensive because of how medicine is practiced. The fiscal woes facing various states and governments is less about spending and more about inadequate revenue. The tax system has issues not because people are paying too much in taxes but because the current tax code keeps getting structured to shrink the paying tax base. American values are not on the decline; Americans are becoming more aware that if someone's personal choice does not affect them directly, then their rights shouldn't be infringed on. There's no such thing as a war against religion, but a realization that government is to be religiously neutral.

However, all four candidates are playing on antipathy felt by their constituencies. That should be expected and that is indeed part of -- for a lack of a better word -- "good" campaigning. As a consequence, especially with Ron Paul appealing to younger voters and voters that generally lean to the center-left, the Republican Party has diversified and within that diversification, each bloc of voters is pissed about something different and the aims of every bloc of voters are not universal.

Of course, the idea is that the unifying goal should be to vote President Obama out of office -- the underbelly of that is whatever candidate that wins the nomination will be clueless as to how to properly address and properly accept this new Republican diversity. If you need evidence: there's a reason why the Republican Party didn't accept Romney's moderate position and forced the former Massachusetts governor to project himself as a conservative; there's a reason why the Republican Party rejected the Internet-based and youth movement fueled by Paul's candidacy; and there's a reason why the GOP is still desperate to find the next Reagan, even entertaining candidates that have had ethics issues (Gingrich) and was embarrassed in their last election (Santorum in 2006).  As much as the Republican Party and their supporters do not want to admit it -- there's actually more to getting the incumbent out of office. You should have seen that lesson learned with George Bush in 2004 for the Democrats.

So of course, the antipathy streak will continue on in the Republican Party, considering that the schism is inevitable and that schism will end up giving Obama a second term. It will eventually doom the Republican Party. In truth, it dooms any aspiration that the political party has -- either sooner or later.

A Tale of Three Candidates

I've come to a realization about the three current front runners of the race for the Republican nomination. It might be a conclusion some of you have reached or may be none of you have reached.


The three front runners -- Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum -- have illustrated to me that idealism should be considered a drug and the Food and Drug Administration should publish pamphlets that state it is more toxic than heroin and cocaine could ever be.

Mitt Romney's candidacy (and apparently, inevitable nomination) is a result of the "Republican establishment" that is obsessed with maintaining power for the ideological ego of the Republican Party. Let's face it -- I really doubt anyone cares about anything that comes out of Mitt Romney's mouth outside of the media, ever. If you go out on to the street and ask someone randomly what are the things that Mitt Romney stands for, you would get an answer of "I'm not quite sure, but I know he's our best bet to beat Obama." Romney has emerged as the "establishment's" top choice for he is a byproduct of an attempt to finally have a coherently operating Republican political machine. They haven't had once since the late 1970s.

That attempt to have a coherently operating political machine is a side effect of Republican Party's idealist drug for finding the next "groundbreaking neoconservative" that will be the indisputable face of the Republican Party, or in other words, to finally resolve the Republican identity-crisis that has persisted since January 20, 1989 when Ronald Reagan was no longer President of the United States. There was Newt Gingrich during the early 1990s until he fell flat on his face during the infamous government shutdown that opened 1996. Tom Delay dominated 1997 and 1998, especially during the Clinton impeachment era, but his career was torched by his campaign finance scandal in the early 2000s. Finally, there was George W. Bush, but even he lost favor with the vaulted establishment during the last year and a half of his term.  As with with any narcotic, this time idealism, addiction has its consequences. For the Republican Party, it is the search for Reagan to end in hubris every single time.

Ron Paul is the Libertarian People's Champion. He's also the champion for disgruntled progressives and liberals that have become enamored with his libertarian (or adopted liberal) social agenda and his non-interventionist foreign policy talk. Libertarians and others that lean libertarian look at him as someone that would get the government out of their hair with spending cuts, repeals of regulatory legislation, and implementing Austrian school economic policies. He has a sort of a populist appeal (you can see it among his supporters,  who some pejoratively call "PaulBots"), even though he's not a populist. However, he's not above the idealist vacuum. Behind the "free society" campaign cloak is the really the idealist visionary mantra in the form of the rhetorical question of "Why should I pay for other people's problems?" It's the rejection of "everyone has to pay their fair share" -- with the point/counterpoint of view nuanced in how personal comfort and worldview.

The reality is that Paul, if elected, would never have the cooperation of Congress -- too left leaning for some and too right leaning for others. Resorting to pocket vetoes, vetoes, and Executive Orders, he would score major points with his core libertarian supporters, but moderates, liberals, progressives, and other conservatives would quickly sour on him as he would be painted as an uncooperative, obstructive executive. In addition, someone would eventually call him out that as a strict Constitutionalist he sure does seem hypocritical for relying on the Executive Order to achieve his goals  -- which by the way comes from a loose interpretation of Article II. In the end though, his free society vision is going to inevitably clash with what Americans are really wishing for -- to have a comfortable and stable life. As pressure will mount for him to come back to the grounds of reality and be forced to compromise for the sake of well, compromise, his most die-hard supporters are going to find themselves disappointed more times than being elated.

Rick Santorum is more or less having visions of grandeur of creating a quasi-Christian-fascist state that will serve as an answer to the Sharia-law driven Arab countries such as Iran. He has the support of the extreme Christian Right, which flirts without right bigoted and xenophobic rhetoric. I don't know whether to call it just being confident, just being arrogant, or so heavily intoxicated by the narcotic that is Christian nationalism he seems on the verge of being downright delusional.

He seems to have forgotten about the trajectory of what was once a, well, um...political career. He was never a star of the Senate as much as he claims to be and he was soundly defeated in his reelection bid in 2006. In truth, the only reason why Santorum is getting any sort of attention is because he's the only candidate that is catering to the Religious Right as Mike Huckabee is spending his time hosting his show on Fox News and not on the campaign trail. In reality, if Santorum was to ever win the election, he would never see his dream of a Christian state materialize. His incessant hard-on for war against Iran and to further shove the United States down the throat of the Middle Eastern political scene will bloat defense spending and as a result, he would be seen as the second coming of Bush 43.

Granted, I seriously doubt any one of these three will be elected into office. Romney's appeal when translated into general national conversation becomes more questionable as it deepens towards Election Day. Paul's anti-big-government rhetoric will not carry the same weight as it did Reagan in 1980 because as Obama's administration and first term overall can be described as "suspect", not "humiliating", and Americans will tolerate "suspect". Santorum will have almost no momentum if he won the nomination because he's way too polarizing of a figure.

Yet, while no politician is above the drug of idealism, I wanted to illustrate these three candidates specifically because they are doing the exact same thing that Obama did back in 2008 -- fill supporters up with such enthusiasm fueled by their own idealism that when it comes time for Game Day, which would be January 20, 2013 -- it's going to lead to sound disappointment.

Yes, media, Ron Paul is relevant

Official United States Congressional Photo of Ron Paul (2007)

"We furnish the Presidential race." - Somebody in some media organization that decided that the most compelling presidential race will be the one that is the most salacious.

Maybe there is a point to Ron Paul being somewhat ignored by the mainstream media -- he currently does not lead in any of the major polls for Republican candidates and there's only moderate awareness of him compared to Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and Rick Perry. However, the truth is that the mainstream media shoves Romney, Cain, and Perry down our throats, along with Michelle Bachmann and Chris Christie, despite the fact that Bachmann is not even a relevant candidate and Christie has no intentions in running. Aside from the fact that Paul is the most prominent American libertarian since Barry Goldwater, Paul has very little the media would want to salivate over: he doesn't utter comments in stupidity (Perry), has no controversy surrounding his religion (Romney), and he does not have a catchy tax plan (Cain).

I have to applaud Ron Paul despite the fact that I disagree vehemently with his economic views. He doesn't live for the political sideshow, his views have been largely consistent, and for the most part he practices what he preaches. He never maxes out his Congressional office budget and he has not enrolled in any Congressional pension plan. There's nothing really controversial about him (okay, there was the newsletter issue that he actually handled pretty damn well in my book). Not even his comments about the United States involvement in the Middle East. He doesn't even live for the soundbite. He doesn't have any political feuds. At least Andrew Napolitano gives him face time.

Paul doesn't get any attention in any of the presidential debates, which is something I really don't get. Rick Santorum is a pop conservative, Bachmann uses too much hyperbole, Perry aims for shock value, Jon Huntsman is a narcissist, Gary Johnson is way out in left field, and Romney is actually a moderate who is trying way too hard to appeal to conservatives. Paul offers solutions and political beliefs that can be subject to debate on an intellectual level, which is something that cannot be said about the rest of the Republican candidates (all right, I'll give Romney some credit). As a corollary to that, Paul professes far superior knowledge of the issues and offers said solutions that are far more coherent. Whether or not media outlets such as Fox, CNN, or even Bloomberg are intimidated by Paul or just trying to milk Romney versus ______ so much is up to all of you to decide, though I'll personally vote for the latter.

Overall, besides the media's infatuation with Romney versus ________, the media's real issue with Ron Paul is that he's not really a pop candidate -- as in, a candidate that the media can easily make a generalization about. He's not a party personality or a personality of a movement. Or, in other words, he's Ron Paul, a libertarian, instead of Ron Paul, the GOP superstar or Ron Paul, the darling of the Tea Party. He is truly his own man and his own candidate and he refrains from political grandstanding and pandering so that he can score constituency points through the media. That's what his followers adore about him. Consequently, that's why the media seems bored with him.

Notwithstanding, there's no guarantee that if Paul got even more media exposure that he would be a candidate that would be setting the world on fire. Considering that he is the most coherent Republican presidential candidate, he probably would set the world on fire, at least for the GOP. However, it is clear that if Ron Paul's candidacy is not successful, then it will be largely the fault of the mainstream media, who the American public will turn to be educated about the candidates, that consistently push him to being the candidate for libertarian political underground. When considering that, it is a damn shame that the media is doing a disservice to the American public with the debates: the debates should be more about a forum to get to know where all the candidates stand and not a political grandstanding and pandering showcase.

Yet, while most of the country remains ignorant to Ron Paul, he still continues to raise money at an aggressive pace with a series of successful Internet-based money bombs and donation drives. Paul still has a populist appeal that could resonate with more and more voters as the primary season begins to heat up at the beginning of the 2012 calendar year. Make no mistake about it: despite the fact that he is not a media darling, he is still a relevant candidate. It's my hope, personally in at least for the sake of healthy, sensible American political discourse, that Paul does not remain lost in the shadows of political mainstream media engineering.