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.

Oh yeah, that tuition debate

I've been fairly lucky. College has not really cost me a whole ton of money. In fact, by the time I'm done with college, I probably won't even rack up $15,000 worth of student loans. But that's the beauty of attending the University of Houston, which despite the lack of cultural and educational recognition in comparison to the two institutions located in Austin and College Station, the school provides the best bang for your buck in post-secondary education at least here in Texas.

I've heard three arguments about the cost of collegiate education and what to do about it -- one from Presidential candidate Ron Paul, one from PayPal founder Peter Thiel, and another from Mark Cuban.

Ron Paul, in yet another item he attributes the federal government for fucking up, claims that federal government involvement has driven up the price of tuition at colleges. His general argument is that because of governmental involvement in the subsidizing of education, it has allowed colleges to raise tuition to outrageous levels. Paul is advocating for the divorce of government and education because of his strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

Thiel, in an interview with the conservative publication The National Review, opined that education is merely another economic bubble that is waiting to burst. He took it from a business standpoint for he believed that collegiate education had little return on investment. I would assume this comes from the fact that a lot of students emerge from college broke, up their neck in debt, and many times do not find jobs right away in the degree that they spent four, five, and six years working on.

Cuban wrote in his blog that student loans should be capped at $2,000. He feels that it would lead to a decrease in tuition costs because he thinks that the amount that can be secured by students through loans allows for colleges to charge more and more for tuition.

The cost of tuition has skyrocketed so much to the point where student debt has overtaken credit card debt to become the biggest debt crisis in the United States. In fact, the total amount of student debt in the United States has cracked $1 trillion. Ouch.

There's three reasons why most of us go or went to college -- one, we believe(d) that it is the only sensible path to a much more comfortable living; two, because our parents, teachers, and other peers instill(ed) in us the value of college, or three, both of the aforementioned reasons. It's especially true now as more and more people go to college than ever before.

There has been a major culture shift in the United States and the rising cost of tuition reflects that. However, I would stop short of saying that a supply-demand curve could be applied to it because any sort of equilibrium price that would exist is absolutely imaginary. As the United States transformed from mainly a blue-collar economy to a more service and information economy, businesses that specialized in providing services and information put more and more stock in having a collegiate-educated workforce, which spurred a greater demand for post-secondary education, which in turn led a rise in tuition as colleges had to find a way to pay to provide for more students. Not to mention, colleges and universities have seen a decrease in funding from state government since the 1970s (thus putting the burden of educational funding on the federal government), which led to even greater rises in tuition as enrollment continued to increase. While many students (including myself) still turn to the federal government loans for financial aid (which accounted for over 60% of financial aid that 2007-2008 graduates received), most higher education institutions are relying on additional private sources (donations) for funding in addition to tuition.

In short, I do believe that out of control tuition increases would have occurred even if the Higher Education Act of 1965 was never signed into law by President Johnson. I think more than anything the perceived value of higher education, through changes economic climate, drove up tuition costs. As higher education institutions started to cater to more students these institutions became more driven to provide more for their students, if it was by way of better residential facilities, better on-campus technology, better educational talent, better degree programs, or even additional degrees being offered and awarded.

So in response to each of the arguments:

I vehemently disagree with Ron Paul about blaming government intervention with rising tuition costs. Tuition was already rising in the 1960s as it is and as the economy transitioned away from blue collar jobs to service and information jobs, thus adding more value to post-secondary education, the explosion in the cost of tuition was going to happen regardless of whether or not the federal government stepped in and started subsidizing college students' education. Ironically the free market champion can actually blame the market: as the United States increasingly de-industrialized the economy as the information revolution started to take hold in the 1980s and 1990s, it sparked a movement amongst students to enroll in community colleges and four year universities to even remotely have a chance a comfortable living. And even then for many that has not proven to be a reality.

I also disagree with fellow libertarian Thiel, who fails to get that there's no real such thing as a legitimate, quantitative return on investment on education because any perceived return on investment is subjective. Literally, someone who went to college, from undergraduate to medical school and residency, totaling 12 years in college could say that they had a poor return on investment on their education if they questioned the value of making $160,000 a year yet be saddled with nearly $130,000 in student debt while someone else could be in the exact same situation and argue the opposite. Furthermore, education isn't a bubble -- if the only real way to make a decent living in today's service and information economy is to acquire the necessary knowledge to participate in today's service and information economy then students are going to turn to robust higher education.

I also disagree with Cuban for virtually the same reasons as I disagree with Paul: collegiate tuition rose because more students started to find more value in education as government funding for it (especially from the states) decreased for it. Like I said, even if the Higher Education Act of 1965 was never enacted, tuition would have still skyrocketed at a faster rate than inflation because of the transition away from a blue collar driven industrial economy.

Furthermore, I think what has to be analyzed, in my opinion, is what should and what shouldn't higher institutions of learning should force students to pay for and what should or shouldn't higher institutions of learning be providing for. How much should faculty really be paid? How much money do schools really need to function? Those are the questions that we really have to be asking before we can really start a discussion on how to lower the cost of tuition here in the United States