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.

Primary numbers

The whole presidential primary situation is spinning out of control. There are 50 "great" States in these United States, and it seems that most of them want to be the first State to hold the primary or caucus. State legislatures are now openly ignoring both parties' rules establishing the kickoff date as February 5 (the Democrats allow 4 exemptions, the GOP allows none.) Now, numerous States are trying to push their primaries and caucuses into early January.

The order in which primaries happen is very important. Traditionally, it's kicked off with the Iowa Caucus and then the New Hampshire primary. This is changing now. The earlier a State holds its primary, the greater the say it has in who is going to run the country. By contrast, Indiana holds one of the last primaries (sometime in May, if I recall correctly), by which time the primary is really pointless: the candidate already has all the delegates needed to win the nomination.

I like tradition. I like giving Iowa and New Hampshire an early say. It's nice that the little guys can have their moment in the sun. But this madness needs to end. I'm big on the sovereignty of the States and on decentralized government, but this primary horse race is entirely out of hand. And it's become a perversion of what the primary system is supposed to be. Really, the point of the primaries is so that the party organizations in the various states can select delegates to represent that state at the party's national convention, in order that the candidate who best represents the needs of the party in that state will win the nomination. Primaries are really internal party matters, not matters for the public at large.

The reality of the situation dictates otherwise. The Iowa caucus is a closed affair, open only to card-carrying party members. Other States have "open" primaries, in which anyone can vote for a candidate for either party. Indiana merely requires that you declare a party allegiance at the point of voting so they know which ballot to give you, but there's no follow-up or anything. This is a far cry from the days of power brokers with cigars in smoke-filled rooms hashing out deals and doing a lot of closed-door maneuvering so the party can select its desired candidate. In essence, John Q. Public now gets two votes for President.

The system has become completely broken. If the states are going to play so fast and loose with the primary system, I think it's getting close to time for the Federal Electoral Commission to step in and put its foot down: either parties deal with it internally or there will be a national primary day in which ALL primaries and caucuses are held. What we've got now is bloody ridiculous.