Ron Paul Can Win (a history lesson)
It’s hard to tell if the idea that Ron Paul cannot win in 2012 is more ignorant, in its complete lack of historical sophistication, or more arrogant, in its claim to certainty amid all the complexity of 300 million lives and the myriad issues that affect them.
Sometimes, perhaps once in a few generations, a nation can undergo what a mathematician or physicist would call a “phase change.” The classic example of such a thing is a pile of sand. Every grain you add makes the pile slightly steeper and slightly higher without moving any of the other grains inside the pile, until eventually one grain is added that causes an avalanche of sand down the sides of the pile, moving thousand of grains and changing the shape of the pile.
Such behavior can be exhibited by all complex systems, and a nation — it should be obvious — is much more complex than a pile of sand.
The important point for those who would presume to make such grand predictions as “Dr. Paul cannot win” is that no examination of the pile of sand before the point of avalanche would tell you that, or when, the avalanche will eventually happen.
But happen it does; indeed, happen it must.
And there are numerous examples of abrupt and dramatic phase change in the politics of great nations.
The U.K., the country of my birth, provides a compelling and closely relevant example. As every schoolboy knows, Churchill led Britain to victory in the Second World War. Indeed, he did as much as any man on Earth ever has to save civilization as we know it.
Three months after the entire nation poured into the streets to cheer this great leader (the man a few years ago voted by Britons the greatest Briton of all time), Churchill went to the country in a general election to retain his position as prime minister. There was simply no way he could lose. The best slogan the Labour party, his opposition, could come up with was, “Cheer Churchill. Vote Labour.”
And amazingly, that is exactly what the nation did. Churchill was defeated. No one anywhere — including the people of Britain who voted in the election — had even thought about the possibility. No newspaper had considered it. After all, the election was a foregone conclusion in Churchill’s favor. And yet an unseen, perhaps unconscious, will of the people caused a cultural and political phase-change in the British nation that they neither knew they wanted nor knew they had the power to cause.
Many historians now say that the unseen sentiment that produced this result that shocked not just the British but the whole world was the idea that all the blood and treasure lost to maintain the freedom of the British empire and the Western world demanded something more than continuation of the old political settlement. After a huge crisis, the people wanted a whole new system. In 1945, the Labour Party, with its vision of state-delivered cradle-to-grave security of health and basic material well-being (welfare state), in some way met that national desire for a grand political change.
Following what was in fact a landslide victory for the Labour party, the character of the nation changed massively, and more change rapidly followed in the British identity, as an empire was lost and the mantle of the world’s greatest power was handed to the U.S.A.
Those who have noted that one of Ron Paul’s greatest qualities is his humility might also be interested to know that Churchill had put down Clement Attlee, who defeated him, with the words, “A modest little man, with much to be modest about.”
Perhaps a more fanciful comparison, but nonetheless indicative: no one in China was predicting that the Long March of Mao, which began in defeat and despair, would end in Beijing with victory and the proclamation of a whole new nation under a whole new political system.
And which newspapers were pondering the possibility of the First World War just a month before it happened?
We cannot see past a phase change. I don’t know if the U.S.A. will have undergone one at the time of the 2012 election, but the necessary conditions for one are all in place, as far as I can tell.
One has to reach back a good way in American history for a time of such rapidly rising sentiment that not only are our leaders unable even to think of real solutions to the problems of greatest concern (rather than just making expedient changes at the margin), but also that the prevailing political and economic system is structurally incapable of delivering any long-term solutions in its current form.
The sheer range and interconnectedness of the problems that the nation faces are such that any permanent solution to any one of them will require profound systemic change that will necessarily upset many economic, political and cultural equilibria. And that is nothing more than a definition of a national phase change.
The average American may not know what is to be done, but she can sense when the system has exhausted all its possibilities. At that point, not only does the phase change become reasonable; it becomes desirable — even if what lies on the other side cannot be known.
As anyone can find out just by talking to a broad cross-section of Ron Paul’s supporters, his base is not uniform in its agreement on the standard issues of typical American party-political conflict. In fact, Paul supporters vary significantly even in their views of what in the old left-right paradigm were the “wedge-issues.” Rather, they are united around concepts that could almost be called meta-political: whether left and right really exist, and, if they do, whether they are really opposed; whether centralized government should even be the main vehicle for political change, etc.; and whether there are some principles that should be held sacrosanct for long-term benefit, even when they will hurt in the short-run.
For those with eyes to see, such realignments and re-prioritization may even be glimpses of America after its next phase change.
If Ron Paul has committed support from 10 percent of the adult population, and most of that 10 percent support him precisely because they believe he represents a whole new political system, an entirely new political settlement, then we may be close to critical mass — just a few grains of sand short of the avalanche.
Another piece of evidence that the nation is close to a phase change and a gestalt switch is the very fact that the prevailing paradigm (from which the mainstream media, established political class, etc., operate) has to ignore huge amounts of data about Ron Paul and the movement around him to continue to make any sense. The studied neglect of data as “irrelevant” is invariably indicative that the neglected data are hugely important. If information doesn’t really matter, why go to all the effort of ignoring it?
Specifically, on all the metrics that a year ago everyone accepted as useful indicators of political standing, Ron Paul is not just a front-runner but a strong one.
First, and most directly, he does extremely well in polls. The organization of his grassroots support is not just excellent; it is remarkable, by historic and global measures. His ability to raise money from actual voters is second to none. His appeal to independents and swing voters is an order of magnitude greater than that of his competitors. Secondarily, he has more support from military personnel than all other candidates put together, if measured by donations; he has the most consistent voting record; he has the magical quality of not coming off as a politician; he oozes integrity and authenticity, and, as far as we know, he has a personal life and marriage that reflects deep stability and commitment.
To believe that Ron Paul’s victory is a long shot in spite of all standard indicators that directly contradict this claim is to throw out all norms with which we follow our nation’s politics — and that is a huge thing to do. The only way it can be done honestly is to present another set of contradictory reasons or metrics that are collectively more powerful than all those that you are rejecting. I am yet to find them.
If it is true that the studied neglect of data to hold tight to a paradigm is the best evidence that the paradigm is about to collapse, then the massive and highly subjective neglect of all things Paulian is specific evidence that the country is moving in Paul’s direction.
Of course, none of this means that Paul will definitely win. But it does mean that a bet against him by a politician is foolhardy and by a journalist is dishonest.
It is worth returning to Churchill’s career for an even more delicious example: just days before he became the great wartime leader, his career had been written off as that of a kook, and he was being discussed as someone who had extreme ideas and whose thinking did not reflect the mood of the nation. The House of Commons was abuzz with his decline and imminent fall.
And then, rather suddenly, something he had been saying for many years — that there was something rotten in the state of Germany — became so obvious that it could no longer be avoided. Once the nation saw that he had been right all along, he became the leader of the free world in very short order. His career changed. Britain changed. The world changed. No one had seen that coming, either. In fact, everyone thought they knew what was coming: the kook was about to disappear into political backwaters, if not the political wilderness.
Do I even need to draw the parallel?
If Paul wins, it won’t be because he is the kind of candidate Americans have always gone for. It will be precisely because Americans have collectively decided on a dramatically new way of doing business — a new political and economic paradigm — and then he’ll not only have ceased to be a long shot; he’ll be the only shot.
Share This
Related Posts
-
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is a Threat to Democratic Japan (Rue 89, France)
Posted on May 31, 2013
-
George W. Bush’s Legacy: The Debate Continues
Posted on Apr 23, 2013
-
Abe Must End Gamesmanship Over Post-War Constitution (Hokkaido Shimbun, Japan)
Posted on Mar 19, 2013
-
Mitt Romney: Obamacare was Very Attractive to Minority, Low-Income Voters in Helping Obama Win Reelection
Posted on Mar 3, 2013
Most people CAN vote for Ron Paul regardless of whether he’s nominated by the republican party or (probably) not.
Forty-two states permit write-in votes during the presidential election. That is, voters can write-in the name of anyone they please on their ballot for president.
Voters can write-in the name Ron Paul for instance.
The only states that do not permit write-in votes are HI, LA, NE, NM, NV, OK, SC, SD .
.
The grains-of-sand analogy applies a lot more to our current economic situation. Should the proper trigger come along, Great Depression II is perfectly possible, especially with all the previous attempts to cover up, rather than fix, the core weaknesses.
The change in attitudes may look more like a nuclear bomb than the dropping of a grain of sand.
Very cool, original analysis.
Yes, there are a growing number of Americans who are sick and tired of republicans and democrats. And why wouldn’t they be, afterall, the current system isn’t serving them, it’s only propping up a status quo that favors the few and divides and subjugates the rest. Of course they are looking for an alternative. It would be great if Ron Paul was that alternative, but I’m not convinced. Fact is, I no longer believe there are leaders who will implement huge change within the existing system. Most significant changes in this country during the 20th century came from the bottom up and forced leaders to listen and take action. With our current self-absorbed and digitally distracted citizenry, it is going to take a lot to motivate them. A Ron Paul presidency might be a distraction, maybe even a welcome one if he actually demonstrated the courage of a couple of his more worthwhile convictions, but when it comes to any actual saving? That will have to come from us.
While things can change they don’t often change as much and as fast as it would take for Paul to win. Could he win/ Sure but I doubt he’ll do it in 1 year and when you factor in age…….ignorant or arrogant it’s still 100 to 1. Do you like those odds?
Amazing. Is this author a genius or what? I’m not sure when I’ve seen somebody articulate abstract workings among the chaos so accurately. Impressive and concrete observations.
Well let’s see.
Who will bring the troops home?
Who will cut the budget by half a trillion first day?
Who will prevent the million murders a year our government currently performs?
Who can free me from being accountable to my Creator for all those deaths?
Who will do their best to get the Patriot Act repealed?
Who really cares about ME, and truly believes that I own myself, NOT the government?
Who admits the dollar is now worth less than 2% of what it originally was?
Who wants to stop the current policy of robbing seniors by keeping interest rates artificially low?
Who wants to end the War on Drugs and use that money to actually HELP people?
You don’t need me to tell you to Vote Vertebrate to know which man in the room has the spine.
Vote Vertebrate – Ron Paul 2012!
Ron Paul is my main man! He’s the only one who is trying to break the cycle of poverty within the black community. Everyone and their mother knows that the war on drugs is the main reason why our cities are so ghetto and dangerous. Ron Paul isn’t a racist. In fact he’s the only president that will stop this police state that we’re living in.
The reason Ron Paul can win is because the majority of the American people agree with him on the big issues.
The only reason a minority of people say he can’t win is because that’s what their focus group research tells them is the least damaging way to handle him.
Haha, clever!!
So it’s fascinating. I was going to post “yes, he may win, but he’ll fail to make any change because he won’t have a Congress that will support change.” If Congress won’t play along, change is damned near impossible (look at Obama’s last two years, for one example).
However, now with the Tea Party supposedly holding the House in a stranglehold, maybe he will have the support to get this change his supporters want.
Mind you, I still think he’s whack-nut crazy. But perhaps a little crazy is what’s needed?!??!!?http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904800304576474451102761640.html
76 is pretty old to take on the demands of a presidency. Just look at how quickly the job ages people who are much younger. Also, as Barky noted, congress won’t play along.
This is what I think too, except for the comparison to Obama (I’m still not sure whether I think Obama didn’t really want to change the status quo or didn’t have the clear vision of what he wanted to change it to, but either way the analogy to Ron Paul fails.)
But I can’t conceive of how a Ron Paul presidency would function. I haven’t read his thoughts specifically about executive power, but I assume he and his supporters believe that the branches should serve as legitimate checks on each other. So how would this play out? Would President Paul veto every bill until Congress came around to his way of thinking?
I do agree with the OP in that the possibility of his electability shouldn’t be dismissed. I think that’s because he’s the only person out there who does express a clear vision, and people are hungering for that even if they’re not sure they agree with everything his vision encompasses.
Congressmen want to be re-elected. They will run to side with Ron Paul on issues as the pile of sand will have already made it’s enormous shift. What an incredible article. Ron Paul is now being attacked. They just tried to ignore him. Next Ron Paul will win. Liberty and freedom. Ron Paul 2012.
@JSpencer
The age thing I have to give you.
However, The president is mostly a speaker — it doesn’t matter if congress “plays along”. He might not be able to get legislation passed, but he can push bills that will expose their “corporateness”. For that matter, he could make a bunch of executive orders that would force them to act.
Congress has been giving the president way too much power. A good rebel would force them to either play hardball, or rescind that power. Either way, he wins.
Seems to me there is a lot Ron Paul can do without the support of congress. To start, he can obviously bring the troops home, clearing the foreign bases. That will save a lot of money and be a massive boost to the economy by returning military personnel spending.
Second, he could conceivably end the drug war by pardoning all non-violent drug offenders. That would save the states a boatload of incarceration money and boost the economy by providing labor.
Even if he does nothing else, either of these changes will improve our security and economy more anything the other candidates are considering. Ron Paul is not pro-welfare state — but he is, in fact, the only one with any hope of funding our existing obligations.
We all need to buck up and realize that we’re leaving Ron Paul out there to flap in the wind. I wrote his name in in 2008, I’ll be doing the same in 2012, if he is not nominated.
We need to come together, and dedicate our votes to Ron Paul no matter who the Reps nominate. Whether it be a pledge, signed by those who will vote or whatever, we need to send that message to the NRP. If you don’t nominate Ron Paul, we’ll vote for him anyway, and in 2012. You’ll lose.
Ron Paul is dedicated to us. I’m dedicated to him. Are there any who will join me?
To see more about Ron Paul’s ways of effectively leading and changing America fro the Oval office, visit RonPaul2012.com. or search the internet. He wrote extensively about what he could do with absolutely no support from Congress.
The man knows the challenge before him. He accepts it and has a well thought out plan. The only question is will America answer his call?
A mousey 76-year old man with much to be mousey about. Puhleez.
And, as a colorful sergeant used to holler at lesser ranks: go pound sand
Odd, I didn’t realize that Paul’s supporters planned to vote him in as a dictator rather than President. As other commenters have noted, he can’t do much without Congress. So Paul feels that the President has been given too much power and Paul would abuse same power to get his own way? That’s pretty much what GW Bush did and that didn’t work out so well, did it? As much as I would agree we spend too much on our foreign wars (I was always against Iraq and feel it’s time for Afghanistan to end) as well as the war on drugs, the one thing that Paul supporters seem to forget is that our economy is still in the toilet. You want to add all new military veterans (returning from war and closed foreign bases) as well as incarcerated non-violent drug offenders to an economy that has little to no jobs? Won’t all that new found savings from the above simply have to go to unemployment and the safety net since jobs are scarce or is Ron Paul libertarian enough to leave all these folks to their own devices with no help? Unless one of those executive orders you plan on having Paul sign is one that creates jobs out of thin air (particularly since the private sector has been a bit lax in this area), there may not be much for those folks to come back to. Gee, I thought people accused us Obama supporters back in 2008 of having a “messiah complex”, but Paul supporters seem to feel he can “save” us all. Color me still skeptical.
Ending fiat money and the Fed plus the federal Drug War plus attempting some other quirks is neither a panacea nor a serious campaign “platform,” and, e.g., what is his alternative to the Fed? Is it serious? Et cetera…
I look forward to serious overdue reform of all governments, especially the federal monster, but I am largely resigned to awaiting its eventually being forced, when it no longer can be avoided.
No president can force congress to go along, so there’s no difference there. The point’s a non-starter.
And no, changing a ship’s direction doesn’t immediately get it to the destination, but it is required in order to reach that destination. Companies have the money to expand, but are quite rightfully scared at this time. If the system is cleaned up, which will be painful, but not a painful as trying to maintain the current mess, then both people and companies will feel free to get back to normal.
It’s not a “messiah complex” to believe that he could do a better job than what we’ve been getting.
Prof,
You are assuming that companies want the system cleaned up. I highly doubt that considering for most of them (the larger ones, at least), the system works to their advantage. All the lobbyists and members of Congress they’ve bought over the years is merely an investment that is paying off for them.
The one other thing that bothers me about Paul is how can someone that wants to take us backwards, lead us forward? He’d want to get us back on the gold standard…given current world fiscal conditions, that’s nigh on impossible. I’m also not crazy about his positions on women’s rights. He is anti-choice and claims that he’d “leave it to the states” and would be perfectly content if all states outlawed abortion. Many libertarian men are free with their own freedoms, women’s freedoms…not so much.
The financial world doesn’t want a clean-up, of course, but the “main street” companies sure do. The mess isn’t being maintained so much because it works to someone’s advantage, but because so many would get hurt to clean it up. It’s much easier to see the terror than the greed at this time.
Paul has admitted, at time, that the gold probably can’t be brought back, but we’re not faced with a binary decision. There are ways to take away the power of the Fed, and make it more transparent and accountable, without having to return to asset-backed currency. The Fed is simply too opaque for a company that wields government power. It took a lot of effort just to find out about the over $1 trillion that they secretly loaned out during the crisis.
One way or another, the federal government is going to shrink. It can be shrunk with forethought and planning, or it can be forced to cut back when the markets crash. I’d rather take the first option, but we’re clearly heading for the second at this time.
He also can’t change the abortion issue. Regardless of who likes or doesn’t like it, the states ARE changing that. The president won’t make much difference there, just as he isn’t right now.
Yeah, Prof, that power to nominate SC justices doesn’t make a bit of difference. His occasional claims that it is up to the states to decide on abortion has two problems. First, does it really matter which level of government limits your choices in the name of Jesus? Just listen to Ron Paul:
“There is something that precedes liberty, and that is life,” Paul said. “If we are to defend liberty … you have to understand where that liberty, and where that life comes from. It does not come from the government, it comes from our creator.”
Hmmm. In looking up Paul’s opinions on gold I found this gem. And here it certainly sounds like he’s pushing for a gold standard. But that’s OK, backing currency with valuable metals would fix everything.
Ron Paul is a Social Darwinist jackass. He sees people as specimens to be experimented with and cares little for their feelings, thoughts and dreams. Ron Paul has no soul. Ron Paul is the most important part of Ron Paul’s service to country.
You cannot serve your Country, but not it’s People. The very idea is an absurdity.
Jim, apparently you didn’t read your own article:
or how about:
and of course, there’s always history:
But of course, this time is different, so a fact-loving guy like you can completely ignore the past.
Yes, Jim, the economy was not perfect before fiat currency, only better.
Jim Satterfield said:
Jim,
Your argument about the president having the power to nominate Supreme Court Justices is well taken.
Your question about “Does it really matter which level of government limits your choices?” is also important in that the so-called “State’s Rights” position–while often a “constitutionalist” position, does not always achieve libertarian ends.
I think you misunderstand Ron Paul, however, with your “limit your choices in the name of Jesus” comment. Ron Paul very rarely invokes Jesus or Christianity or religion in any of his speeches.
When Ron Paul made the comment (which you quoted above) “[liberty and life] does not come from the government, it comes from our creator”, he is essentially giving the classic liberal explanation of where rights come from. Classical liberals believe that humans are endowed with rights by their Creator, which is in juxtaposition to the argument that rights are granted to people by government.
Whether rights come from the Christian God or Yahweh or Allah or a pantheon of gods or from nature is irrelevant; what’s important is that these rights are endowed by nature as opposed to endowed by government.
This idea that the government is separate from the people, an enemy to the people is one of the basic problems we have now. The idea behind democracy is that the government is the people.
The biggest change in public life over my lifetime has been this separation of the people from the government.
Of course government acting as an agent of the people, of society as a whole grants or resend rights. There is no supernatural involvement at all.
The idea that our rights come to us from nature or from our creator is simply an attempt to use the reference to a higher power to make our rights out of bounds to human change and to increase their legitimacy. The same thing as was done for thousands of years to define the divine right of kings. But in truth there was no supernatural support for kings either.
We have been told the government is our enemy by people who profit from the separation of us from the government, by interests that want to control the government and who can’t do it as long as the people understand that collectively they are the government.
“Of course government acting as an agent of the people, of society as a whole grants or resend rights. There is no supernatural involvement at all.” Amen, Merkin.
I definitely take issue with the definition of “phase change” given, which would certainly be abhorant to any mathematician (?) or physicist. That’s kind of beside the point, I suppose, even though a pile of sand is a poor analogy even if we ignore the name given. After the “avalanche”, we still have what we had before: a pile of sand, which looks essentially exactly the same as the previous pile of sand, but bigger. Individual grains have made their way down, in, around, but you still have a pile of sand.
That, too, is beside the point, I suppose. A poor analogy for a “large change” doesn’t mean there won’t be an actual large change, poor analogy and terminology notwithstanding.
In any case, large changes can happen for good or for ill. If “Ron Paul can win”, that looks like a very large change for ill to me. Every country or group that has ever maintained a strong middle class has had strong social safety nets, strong monetary policy, strong workers’ rights, a strong sense that I am my brother’s keeper, and he is mine. Ron Paul’s entire governing philosophy goes strongly against these things, as do the policies of pretty much every Republican candidate running for president, and almost all running for lower offices as well. I believe the strength of our country will be greatly diminished by ignoring the poor and pushing more and more of the middle class into poverty. If Ron Paul had his policy druthers, I believe that is exactly what would happen.
Merkin said:
But the American government is separate from the American people. The argument that the American government and the American people are one and the same is not only factually untrue, but also has some extremely disturbing implications:
For example, the American government’s “shock and awe” campaign on Baghdad (a city of 5 million people) resulted in the deaths of at least 2000 innocent civilians. Are you seriously arguing that the American people did this to Baghdad and are therefore responsible for these innocent civilian deaths? A significant portion of the American people opposed the bombing of Baghdad, had absolutely no say in the matter, and (in my estimation) bear no personal responsibilty for it.
Therefore, the idea that the American government is the same as the American people is not only factually untrue, but extremely dangerous. It is exactly this kind of collectivist thinking that allows foreign enemies to legitimize their murdering of American citizens based upon their hatred of what our government does.
“Therefore, the idea that the American government is the same as the American people is not only factually untrue, but extremely dangerous”
I’m fairly certain that he was talking about how the government interacts with the people through programs that do affect the public, here in the States. Domestic programs — SS, Medicare/Medicaid, works programs, trade policies that favor US jobs, etc. I of course could be misinterpreting what he said, but I took his statement to mean that being “pro-America” while doing things through government that really hurt the people of America is not consistent.
On the other hand, we do elect the government. We, the people, theoretically have the power to remove those from office who do things like kill innocent people in foriegn lands.