I'd actually say that, at this point, Ron Paul has about the same chance of becoming President as John Edwards--which is, to say, not much. But stranger things have happened (the Election of 1824 comes to mind), so it's worth thinking about.
Econlog devoted a post to that very speculation in December: "What Could President Paul Actually Do?"
I'll give you the teaser (it's not a very long post):
What would happen if Ron Paul actually became president? First, I'd have to write a $200 check to Walter Block. But what would happen next?
There are some major changes that Paul could make unilaterally. He really could recall U.S. troops from not only Iraq and Afghanistan, but all over the world. I believe he would really do so, and despite the radicalism of this change, I'm confident that these orders, however unpopular, would be obeyed. Perhaps there would be a 2% chance of a coup if he made the changes overnight, but that's about it.
Furthermore, there are a number of "executive order" policies that he could change with the stroke of a pen. If I understand the law correctly, the president could unilaterally end affirmative action in federal hiring (and the hiring of federal contractors). And he could probably stop federal prosecutions for the sale of medical marijuana.
It goes on from there to discuss legislation, the Federal Reserve, and other Paulist ideas, along with a frank assessment of what would and wouldn't go anywhere.
I am reminded in some ways of a Ross Perot self-funded infomercial from 1992, when he had Congresswoman Barbara Jordan reassure America that nothing horrible would happen if he won.
At the other end of the coverage spectrum on Ron Paul these days there is Encyclopaedia Dramatica, a Wikipedia-like political satire site that is crude (don't say you weren't warned) and occasionally piercingly funny:
How to identify a Paultard
Part-time Ron Paul supporter. Full-time failure at life
Is on the internet 25 hours a day (ZOMG PARADOX)
Is obese
Is a virgin who couldn't get laid in Bangkok.
Has achieved an operating thetan level of 4 or higher.
Can't vote due to inmate status, lack of citizenship, or being sixteen years old. Would gladly give their frail body up to Dr. Ron's cum-shooter
Lives in Montana, Wyoming, Texas, New Hampshire, or outside of the USA, where they can be found in the basement of their parent's house.
Always bitching about the property taxes he doesn't pay on the house he doens't own, even while attending public schools....
Cant get through reviewing the toaster he bought on amazon.com without mentioning VOTE RON PAUL 2008 over 9000 times....
Insults anyone who thinks Ron Paul isn't Jesus.
Constantly mentions that Ron Paul has delivered over 4,000 babies, as if pulling babies out of some lady's vagina earns you the right to be president.
Somehow I take these two very different approaches to Ron Paul as ends of a spectrum. Is Dr. No the wingnut goldbug [racist] comic relief that his detractors claim, or is he a man with a deep reverence for the Constitution, a new vision for America, and a better understanding of the economy than the Federal Reserve that his supporters see.
To which I am coming to believe the answer is YES.
I can't dismiss the fact that Paul is anti-gay, anti-abortion, and allowed publication of those newsletters under his name. Just like I can't dismiss Mike Huckabee wanting to amend the Constitution to make it read like "God's law."
But I also can't dismiss thoughtful Paul supporters like Brian, Shirley, or Tyler, who see in him a chance, not that much of one, but at least a chance to take back the government for the people and the Constitution.
So I'm wondering what happens to all the Paul supporters who have shelled out their money if he doesn't win the nomination.
He said, pretty definitively, on Glenn Beck's program the other day that he is NOT planning to run as an Independent. Now he obviously has to say that, but he sounds fairly serious, not to mentioned detailed about his reasons.
Thus the Republicans will have either Mitt or McCain running against Clinton or Obama, and between the four of them there's not a dime's worth of difference insofar as Libertarians and other fellow travelers are concerned. Do they hold their nose and vote for the infamous "lesser of two evils"?
In this case, how would you tell? Romney panders, McCain ultimately has positions that do not differ substantially from Clinton's, Clinton is a corporatist masquerading as a progressive, and Obama's lack of experience will inevitably lead him to be as much a prisoner to his advisers as Bush has been.
Do the Paulists all go home and sit out election day? If they do, will we ever hear from them again as a concerted movement?
(I'm thinking William Jennings Bryan and the Populists here.)
Or is there somebody ready to step up and turn this campaign into a sustained political movement?
I don't see anyone on the horizon right now, but you never know.
Comments