A Free Market for Marketing Freedom
Ron Paul and his supporters are much exercised by the danger to America of both crony corporatism and top-down “solutions” that are designed and implemented by officials of the state. They would like to see a country whose direction is determined much less by either, and much more by the free market — defined simply as the sum of voluntary actions and transactions of individuals.
Those working to make Ron Paul president are seeing success based on that very principle — but applied to the campaign, rather than the nation.
Look at any other candidate’s campaign, and you will see a relatively top-down organization, in which the foot soldiers fill various roles that the campaign managers and strategists decide should be filled. In this form of centralized planning, the upper echelons of the campaign employees serve as the politburo. Perhaps ironically, this is standard practice for democratic politics.
Paul’s campaign is something entirely different: it is mostly — almost completely, in fact — a group of excited individuals who, in a small way, are social or political entrepreneurs: coming up with new ideas and working on whatever excites them the most, or whatever idea or effort they think is proving the most productive. These are autonomous individuals, organizing only spontaneously and among themselves to see through specific projects. The best ideas and the efforts of the hardest workers among them rise to the top in a veritable free market of innovation and implementation. Even the platforms they use to communicate and organize exist because one or a few passionate volunteers decided they’d be useful.
If I were Ron Paul and were taking a question on what America would look like if free markets replaced crony corporatism, I’d point to the end-run that these volunteers have made around the corporate media who’ve worked very hard not to take any notice of them and their candidate, and I’d recall the fact that has been known since the beginning of civilization: that if you let people do things they want to do for self-interest, they get done well.
And rest assured that all of us Ron Paul supporters are fighting for his presidency out of self-interest.
Some of the efforts are huge and well known. For example, Michael Nystrom founded the Daily Paul, which is now the super-efficient clearing house for all Paul-related information; Israel Anderson founded Ron Paul Flix; Zak Carter got kicked out of the U.S. army for endorsing Ron Paul and his foreign policy in his military uniform in a YouTube video, and has since turned his skills to getting media attention for others who are good spokesmen for Ron Paul’s ideas, and so on and so on.
Of course, there are many other extraordinary efforts that been extremely, moderately, or not at all successful (!) — and that is as it should be in this world of laissez faire and innovation.
What really demonstrates that the Ron Paul campaign is a unique hotbed of innovation and free-thinking are not those big efforts that put their creators’ names “out there” in the public domain, but the extraordinary contributions of people whose names you’ll never know, and whose impact, while massive, may never be traced back to them.
It is because of these people that the official campaign could probably close its doors tomorrow and hardly anyone would notice.
There’s the man who donates plasma specifically to pay for his Ron Paul merchandise that he uses to canvas for him.
… And the couple who moved across the country to New Hampshire just to be able to vote for Dr. Paul in its primary.
… Then there’s the lady who is writing a letter to every mosque in the country to ask them to consider speaking about Ron Paul and his message of peace.
… And the homeowners that got together 20 friends to paint their entire house as a huge mural advertisement for Ron Paul’s candidacy — until the city made them paint it over.
… And the gas station attendant who slips a Ron Paul “Slim Jim” into every newspaper in the shop.
… And so on and so on.
I had no idea about any of this until I “came out” for Ron Paul in my article, “Become a Blue Republican (Just for a Year)” on the Moderate Voice and the Huffington Post, in which I urged those who had supported Obama in 2008 to undo the neocons’ expansion of wars against people who do not threaten us, crony corporatism and the take-down of civil rights under Bush, to register as Republicans for just a year to ensure that Ron Paul, who is against all of these things, wins the GOP’s nomination for president.
The same day, I was contacted by the above-mentioned Israel Anderson, who thought that the idea had legs and immediately set about helping make it so by securing the Facebook page and domain, which quickly formed the basis of what now is widely referred to as the “Blue Republican movement“.
A few days later, I had a call from an Elijah Stanfield, a video producer who was to create the Blue Republican video, watched by nearly 30,000 at the time of writing, that explains how the Republican caucus and primary system works for the benefit of people who are considering switching parties to vote for Ron Paul. This was not the first project he had undertaken for Ron Paul. Then a few weeks later, I had a call from the said Mr. Carter, who promptly started calling media outlets all over the USA to help spread the Blue Republican meme.
And so I discovered not only the amazing size and enthusiasm and connectivity of the Ron Paul movement, but also the power of synergy as individuals, working for themselves, but with each other, have a total impact that is so much more than the sum of its parts.
That this is the very nature of the Ron Paul revolution — and not just a small part of it — is unprecedented. Certainly, Obama three years ago generated unusual excitement, but it never involved the same depth and duration of commitment that we see today among the Ron Paul revolutionaries.
I would suggest that America hasn’t seen such a movement around a political candidate in recent history — and when it did last see such a thing, communication and information technology, and most other things, were entirely different.
For that reason, the outcome of our efforts for Ron Paul is unpredictable (although the signs are good!). That is a great thing because it means that anything is possible. That fact should excite all of us as we push for a change in this country that no one quite dare predict, but an increasing number dream about.
We all know the famous words of Margaret Mead:
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Well, here we are.
5 Responses to “A Free Market for Marketing Freedom”
With all due respect to Margaret Mead, the Ron Paul phenomenon is still mostly a rightwing phenomenon – which means his undeniable popularity will create more cracks in the GOP than it does among dems. The problem with govt isn’t too much govt, it’s govt that is too intertwined with corporate interests – to the detriment of the citizenry.
“The problem with govt isn’t too much govt, it’s govt that is too intertwined with corporate interests – to the detriment of the citizenry.”
Very well put, z.
Zephyr, just how is government supposed to be big and NOT intertwined with business? Are there any examples of that anywhere in the world, in all of recorded history?
I’d also note that, according to RealClearPolitics, Paul has consistently polled as the second-most electable candidate against Obama, regardless of his standing in the Republican primary. In other words, which would indicate he’s got the most support from non-right wing. I know of a lot of liberals who would prefer him over Obama.
Of any of the Republican candidates, I would prefer Ron Paul. I think he is spot-on with many of his beliefs. I disagree with a few (some vehemently), but I admire him for his relative consistency.
Disagreements include:
Gold standard, silver standard, etc. currency. Russia is the #1 producer of gold. Do you really want Vlad Putin as your Chairman of the Federal Reserve?
Civil Rights Act: he opposes it. Without it, we would have cronyism restricting a significant portion of our population. That was and would be an abomination. I do not believe he is racist (at least not necessarily), but I do believe that something had to be done to stop the lynchings and oppression.
Free Trade: He favors free trade (although not FTA’s). He opposes the FTA’s because he believes them to be regulated trade, not free trade. I agree with his assessment of the FTA’s. I disagree with his free trade stance since he is opposed to allowing immigrant professionals from coming here commensurately to the traded goods. In other words, the FTA’s we have fail us because we can import cheap products made by uneducated and low-educated workers, but we can not ALSO get such goods and services from their highly trained professionals.
Free trade is wonderful on the surface. The main problem with it is that other countries do not play fair. Thus, we would not have free trade; we would instead have trade biased only against us with no protections from our side. We fought a revolution to stop Bank of England from imposing unfair trade on us–we don’t need to give them that power back!
Global warming: he believes that we have much worse problems. He may be right about that in the short term, but I have looked at the science and have determined that AGW is a serious problem. It will also be detrimental to many coastal states, so from a states’ rights pov, it should be addressed by the Federal Government. If Massachusetts (my home), Florida and Delaware lose significant portions of their land due to rising tides (because of the increased temperatures due to greenhouse gas emissions) then this is no longer an issue for each state to decide. Iowa will not lose territory due to rising oceans–so they have less reason to regulate.
Other EPA stuff: he says that states should be allowed to regulate pollution themselves. He lives in Texas. Apparently he does not realize that the lakes in Massachusetts (and other NE states) are losing their buffering capacity due to coal-fired energy plants in the midwest. Again, this is a states’ rights issue that affects other states. Again, the Federal Government has to stop some states from negatively affecting other states.
Things I agree with or agree with in principle:
Eliminate income taxes: Income taxes are, imho, stupid and unnecessary. They allow congress to pretend that they are not affecting the economy when they are. Excise taxes, property taxes and sales taxes would be much better.
Stop policing the world: We are often greeted as liberators and dismissed as conquerors soon after. Let’s not jump in. We have our own problems, let others solve theirs as they see fit.
End the war on drugs: I agree in principle. We are losing this war and can probably never win it. If there is a demand, there will be suppliers of the demand. Meanwhile, our making the stuff illegal fuels criminal behavior with boatloads of money. I wish that the stuff was not addictive, but in the end, we can not stop drugs. Regulate them and tax them–probably our best option.
Define life as beginning at conception (or at least when the heart starts beating?) for Federal purposes. Meanwhile, allow states to set their healthcare procedures. I openly state that I am a Roman Catholic. I believe that human life is sacred and should be protected. I will allow for procedures needed to save the life of the mother (with an emphasis on needed).
Let the states decide education for their populace: I am from Massachusetts and we place a very high emphasis on education. If other states don’t want to, I don’t want to subsidize their stupidity.
There are multiple other freedoms that he supports that I support.
Things that I am not as passionate about:
Audit the Fed–maybe eliminate it
TSA–eliminate federal control
Immigration–I am against illegal immigration (as is he), I just don’t think we can ship 10-20 million people out of our country.
Just my take on things.
Disclaimer: I consider myself a moderate yet have never voted for a Republican candidate for President. I wanted one of my Republican senators (John Heinz–I lived in Pennsylvania then) to run, but he died in a plane crash. I did vote for Clinton the first time, but opposed him the second time (voted Ross Perot). I would have voted for John McCain in 2000 but the Republican elites chose GWB. By the time McCain ran in 2008 he was saying all different things and I would no longer support him.
Prof, my actual words were, “too intertwined” – notice use of the word, “too”. I’m down with capitalism, just not crony capitalism. Imo, the greater problem with govt isn’t size, it’s quality. That said, I’m not afraid to see some pruning, even enough to work up a sweat, but not to the draconian extent favored by Dr. Paul.