Ron Paul and the Fringe

In the comments on the previous post, Freddie writes:

... you're engaging precisely in the same mechanism that pushes Paul to the fringe by defending him, here. When you hold him to a lower standard because he is a member of a fringe group, you are further marginalizing that group and contributing to the sense in which they are a permanent "other"; you're highlighting the sense in which they are removed from contemporary politics. If the ideas of Paul's that you (and I) admire are to be given traction in the national debate, he and they have to be held to the same standard, or a higher standard, than others. The marginalization that inoculates him to charges of racism or anti-Semitism, etc., also disenfranchises the people and ideas that he represents.

It's a fair point. You could argue, too, that this dynamic was at work in the whole controversy over the Paul campaign and the neo-Nazi donations. Many of Paul's fans and supporters insisted at the time that since the good doctor obviously isn't anything close to a Nazi himself, there was no good reason to demand that his campaign return the donations it was receiving from groups like Stormfront. As Paul's campaign manager put it, "if people hold views that the candidate doesn't agree with, and they give to us, that's their loss." This isn't a completely unreasonable view, but it holds Paul to a vastly different standard than a more mainstream conservative candidate would be held to; if the media found out that John McCain, say, were getting cash from the Aryan Nation, it would take about ten minutes for his staff to figure out a way to hand that money back. Paul could keep the money, in other words, only because everyone understands his campaign to be a fringe affair. Call it the soft marginalization of low expectations.

Comments

but it holds Paul to a vastly different standard than a more mainstream conservative candidate would be held to

Unless, IIRC, you're name is "Reagan." Didn't he famously make exactly the argument that Paul's campaign manager made?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 9, 2008 3:28 PM

Many in the media (those that paid attention to Paul) demanded he give the money back. Paul just refused on the very logical grounds that it makes no sense to give money to Nazis.

Posted by R. Totale | January 9, 2008 5:51 PM

New Hampshire was the high water mark for Dr. Paul. Bottom line, Ron Paul is a fatally flawed candidate. Now, I am a Paul supporter, I sent him some money, I may send him some more, and I am going to vote for him in the California primary. I'd like to see Paul stick it out through super Tuesday - if only to see whether his constituency can be organized into something that can be politically effective in the post-Ron Paul era (which started last night).

It is entirely reasonable to suppose that the 8%-10% of the vote that Paul garners accurately represents the libertarian swing vote in the US. It is not large enough to elect a libertarian president, and only large enough to be a spoiler as a 3rd party. However, since we have a highly polarized, roughly balanced partisan electorate, It is large enough to determine the direction of American politics, if it can be organized to swing as a group between R’s and D’s.

Paul's numbers are consistent with what David Boaz and Cato determined to be the (small l) libertarian swing vote. The open question is whether these libertarian “cats" can be herded. If either major party was interested enough in attracting these voters, they could pander to them like any other interest group and potentially win the 2008 Presidential election as a result. Of course that means they would have to embrace some libertarian policies (more freedom, more peace, less intervention, smaller government) . Absent credible policy pandering by Republicans or Democrats, and absent a candidate to rally around, another organizing principle is needed. The organizing principle would have to be something extremely simple, clear, easy to communicate, easily rationalized and proven to keep the country moving in a libertarian direction, or at least restraining the headlong rush to statism. One organizing principle that meets the criteria - Voting for Divided Government.

Posted by mw | January 9, 2008 9:37 PM

If you give money from unacceptable people back, doesn't that just mean you're being bought by acceptable people?

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 11, 2008 4:37 AM

I watched the debate last night and I was shocked by the disrespect a legitimate candidate, Ron Paul, was shown by both FOX and the other candidates. I like Ron Paul, I'm not a supporter, but he won the debate. Putting decency aside and looking at last evening strictly from the perspective of political strategy, what does the GOP gain by continually coming across as mean, arrogant, self-righteous, and addicted to defense spending?
I know a lot of Republicans like Huckabee and Paul, not very many like Romney, McCain, Rudy, Thompson, Roger Ailes, Limbaugh, Hannity, Rumsfeld, Abramoff, Cheney, Bush...and I know a LOT of Republicans. Hard-working, family-oriented, community-loving people. It's sad how big corporations and crooks have taken over the GOP leadership, it wasn't always this way.
I wish there was a tall, 50-yr. old, blue-eyed, dark-haired, good 'ol boy with a trust fund who liked to play golf on Jupiter Island who believed in the things Ron Paul does. But I guess if he believed in the things Ron Paul does, he wouldn't be allowed on Jupiter Island, zip code 33455.

Posted by fougasseu | January 11, 2008 8:00 AM