Dr. No, or Why Ron Paul Matters

I had a brief conversation with my folks last week, who asked me what the deal with Ron Paul was, and why he's even worthy of discussion. Given that this is intended to be an informative blog rather than a persuasive one, I will attempt to infuse as little personal bias as possible into this analysis.

Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas who has represented the 14th District since 1997. He is a staunch Libertarian (who was the Libertarian Party's Presidential candidate in 1988), with a very strong track record of not following the party line. The reason he's even in the GOP is that in 1996, the incumbent Democrat switched parties because he saw the writing on the wall for Democrats at the time, gaining the support of people like Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush. Paul ran against him in the GOP primary, hoping to affect some change.

Paul's nickname, "Dr. No", is derived from the fact that he is an obstetrician who routinely votes against any legislation he feels violates the intent of the Constitution. Any more, that's most legislation. I don't think he's ever voted in favor of a spending bill. If a bill passes the House with a vote of a whole lot to one, that one "nay" is probably his.

Politically, he's a staunch advocate for a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and the separation of powers. In discussing military action against Iraq, he introduced the legislation that would become a congressional declaration of war, as required by the Constitution, then voted against it because he believed it was Congress's role to declare war and he was opposed. Among Republican presidential candidates, he is the only one who is against the Iraq war, and is openly calling for immediate troop withdrawals. He also supports a much smaller government with far fewer programs, and favors a return to the gold standard. He is on the record as saying the federal government should not have jurisdiction over matters pertaining to abortion and stem cell research, and introduced legislation (which failed) which would have defined life (and Constitutional protections) as beginning at conception. This is a matter he feels strongly about, in no small part due to his background in obstetrics.

So why should you care about a 73-year-old doctor with an agenda that includes undoing most of what Franklin D. Roosevelt established?

The simple fact is that Ron Paul is the second Presidential candidate to draw much of his support from internet followers, and the first to do so with apparently active opposition from the mainstream media outlets. Of the five debates he has participated in, online polls show overwhelmingly people feel he "won" four of them. The sites conducting the polls (usually the networks which aired the debates) routinely accuse his "small" organization of "viral polling" or otherwise "fixing" the results. His organization does not have a lot of funding, and in national polls, he routinely maxes out with about 2% of the popular vote. On the other hand, his web presence and organization is leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else. By this point, I think it's safe to say that most people have heard of him, but they have no idea who he is. That's a much better place to be than people not even having heard of you.

In truth, Ron Paul isn't much of a technology geek. He's very old-fashioned. But he's attracted the attention of the leaders technology subculture (who tend to be staunchly libertarian), and they've thrown their knowledge and expertise behind his campaign. The result is that he is completely dominating the internet's social networking scene: his presence on Facebook, Myspace and Youtube dwarfs his opponents'. He's generating buzz, especially among 20-somethings, that other candidates can only dream of. And he's generated enough interest that he was invited to appear on The Colbert Report.

The Ron Paul campaign is interesting from a political scientist's standpoint because it is the first litmus test of the so-called blogosphere as a news medium. In a previous post I had commented on the media's ability to determine who was and was not a "legitimate" candidate. The Ron Paul campaign is the first serious challenge to this power. It is unlikely Paul will win the nomination, but this internet campaign of his has already had one huge effect. Initially, Paul was intending to run a regional campaign in a few states in order to force debate on certain issues. Due to the power of his volunteer staff, he was able to make his campaign a national one, and has been able to convey his message on a national stage.

That's why he's worth paying attention to. He won't win, but at least he can't be ignored any more.