An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Clinton Caveman

Guest Voice: What Is A Moderate To Do? (Part I) »

Guest Voice: Change Yes, Ron Paul No

Posted by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief in Guest Contributor, Politics.
Jan 6th, 2008 | Comments

Here is another Guest Voice by Joel S. Hirschhorn who is highly critical of both parties.. Guest Voice columns do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.

Change Yes, Ron Paul No

By Joel S. Hirschhorn

Ron Paul’s supporters like more traditional political activists can spin and delude themselves about election results. But the Iowa caucus results could not be clearer: The vast national desire for political change is manifesting itself through support for both Democratic and Republican change-candidates.

Despite Paul being flush with money and having a large number of workers in Iowa, he was solidly rejected as the leading change agent.

Even with a huge historic turnout of about 348,000 participants, Paul did not attract significant numbers of independents that could easily participate in the Republican caucuses. They went to Obama, Edwards and Huckabee.

On the Democratic side, of some 232,000 people that turned out for the caucuses, nearly doubling what it was four years ago, about 70 percent wanted change and went for Obama and Edwards, roughly 150,000 participants.

On the Republican side, of the 116,000 participants, about 40,000 change-voters went for Huckabee, compared to 11,600 that chose Paul, giving him fifth place. That 10 percent for Paul was very close to the 9 percent found in a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus voters (margin of error 3.5 points). Interestingly, like Paul, Huckabee also wants to eliminate the federal income tax.

In both parties, change-voters totaled about 200,000. So Paul received just 6 percent of that large fraction, and just 3 percent of the total of all caucus participants in Iowa. Paul was first in only one county, Jefferson, with 36 percent

Edwards was absolutely correct when he summed things up this way: “The one thing that is clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won.”

With all the hoopla from Paul supporters about younger people being for Paul, that’s not what the Iowa results showed. Younger people seeking change and inspiration flocked to Obama, in particular. There was no demographic in Iowa that overwhelmingly went for Paul.

Sure, Paul beat Giuliani, but Paul’s effort in Iowa was much bigger than Giuliani’s.

None of these results will impact Paul’s supporters nationwide. Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote a great article on Alternet.org: “Ron Paul is Scary, But Those Who Cheer Him Are Even Scarier.” He was right when he said: “The scariest thing about GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd-ball racial views. It is that people take him seriously.” But now Iowa has thankfully shown that the vast majority of Americans, especially those seeking political change, reject Paul.

After losing badly in Iowa Paul said: “The other candidates talk about tinkering with the status quo. We don’t want to tinker; we want to change the status quo.” He said that his campaign is on the upswing and gaining support among independents, frustrated Republicans and unhappy Democrats.

Just one very big problem: The Iowa results show that all these people are much more likely to vote for other Democratic and Republican change-candidates.

Paul’s supporters claim that he will do much better in New Hampshire where Libertarian Party members hold a number of offices. I don’t think so.

Several polls taken before the Iowa results found Paul at just 5 to 9 percent. Will Paul get a big boost from Iowa? I don’t think so.

Paul had predicted he could finish in third place in Iowa, and many of his supporters think he will do that in New Hampshire. I don’t think so. Paul will likely finish fifth in New Hampshire, in large part because more independents will go to Obama and McCain.

When Paul first ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, he won just 0.54 percent of the vote. Iowa shows that his second presidential bid will not produce much better results.

Paul is definitely not tapping in a major way into the national populist movement, major desire for political change, anti-status quo sentiment, or even the anti-Iraq war issue. Clearly, other Democratic and Republican change-candidates are doing much better.

This reality will not affect Paul’s passionate, cult-like followers that are solidified like cement in their belief that Paul can and should be our next president, something that Paul himself probably never really believed.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

DanHansen

Joel S. Hirschhorn:

An interesting attempt to dismiss Ron Paul by "damning with faint praise" - you treat Dr. Paul as though he had a strong place in the original field ("flush with money") and is simply failing miserably (say, as if Edwards was suddenly polling at 10% or as if he were a McCain-type candidate who had fallen on bad times).

Ron Paul has risen from *nothing*. He has indeed raised 20 million in the last quarter - when he started with almost nothing in the bank. Ron Paul has risen from a candidate who was polling in the 1% to 3% area to one polling in the 9% to 15% range. He has done this all with a genuine grass-roots movement that has entered the fray with eyes wide open (his "cult-like" supporters. Nice touch, a little buried invective.).

This is a success story, not a failure.

Dr. Paul is probably the articulate and persuasive proponent of our core values of individual liberty and freedom I have every heard. He at heart is a small-government, non-interventionist Republican fighting to have his message of freedom heard in a system where the other candidates have all embraced big-government solutions and who constantly beat the war-drums.

I'm proud of Dr. Paul. I came to Paul on own, after watching my party run up hundreds of billions of deficit spending and listening to my government seriously discussing invading and/or attacking 5 countries in the middle East and South Asia (and actually invading 2 of them).

Ron Paul has already been an agent of change. A branch of the Republican party along with allies from outside the party has stood up and let it be known that even if they are not the majority they will let it be known that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld troika turns out to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Spending and bankrupting future generations, hiddden taxes, torture, and empire are not the America that was envisioned in the constitution.

Do you support the principles Ron Paul espouses? Your dismissal of his supporters as cult-like suggests no. In that case it would suggest that you are hiding your dislike of his policy decisions behind a commentary on the horse-race aspects of the campaign. The very fact that Ron Paul can rise from nothing to being taken as a serious candidate tells me something already.

He's already succeeded.

DesertRat

Iowa LOVES government farm subsidies (corn, ethanol, etc.). Iowans do NOT want change as Ron Paul would end the handouts promptly. One can never underestimate the intelligence of the average pig farmer.

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who even talks about real issues. Who else talks about perpetual war, the falling dollar, inflation, ending the income tax (replacing it with nothing), sound money, restoring lost rights, the medical mafia, etc? Nobody. Voting for any candidate OTHER than Ron Paul will result in lots more of the status quo.

What most Americans are too ignorant to understand is that the system IS heading for a major crash no matter who is elected. That means that ALL government handout will come to an abrupt stop. All empires end in very unpleasant ways.

What is that old saying? Be careful what you wish for…? You just might get it it. So, continue to rail against the only candidate that speaks truth to power and who has real solutions to real problems. With the exception of Ron Paul, all of the candidates are like bobble-head sock puppets talking in an echo chamber. Enjoy your chains if he is not elected.

Jim_Satterfield

Isn't it amazing how after an article has written of how scary Ron Paul supporters are they show up and prove the point?

WCH

While Mr. Hirschhorn is correct that Dr. Paul stands little chance of winning a majority of votes, his conclusions as to what this says about the American populace and human nature are far too mild.

Your title should more accurately read "Dr. Paul? No. Change? No to that too. But let me pretend a while."

When people are queried about their preferences for government, removed from the pejorative influence of a particular candidate (which the press never does, but always attaches some person's name to the question), what people SAY they want in government is far and away what Dr. Paul presents. Especially if you listen all the way through his statements. ALL of the other offer platitudes, or nonsensical detailed "solutions" disconnected from reality.

Dr. Paul actually presents reasoned and thoughtful context, history and rationale. And he is consistent, with personal integrity. But, as they say, "Americans usually don't go for that."

I am struck by the apparent overwhelming preference for sound bites, vague mutterings and feel-good platitudes, as opposed to clearly stated positions that are thought out and with understanding of what is realistic and what is the philosophic underpinning and advantage of his position.

With vague platitudes ( from EVERY other candidate) it is so nice and easy to read whatever we want into their statements. Dr. Paul's positions require thought. And a self-confidence that seems to have been bred out of us. (don't get me started on the power elite) Again, "Americans don't usually go for that". (Yes, quite a few do give thought- the 10% who voted for Dr. Paul, for example - but we're talking majority here.)

The other truly saddening aspect of this as it relates to human nature, is that we cannot seem to help but demand that all candidates defend their position as though they alone were to implement whatever position they are espousing, and do it immediately. Even though we decry dictatorial power in principle, we demand it in practice. And of course, we never think about what we are asking. So the candidates, with the exception of Dr. Paul, yammer on endlessly (even the nice ones that I kind of like) about what they will do to fix things for all of us, knowing that they cannot do much without Congress (Congress as enabler or co-conspirator? There's a thought), and knowing that one size does not fit all, even though, like addicts, we seem unable to stop asking for that kind of solution.

Again, human nature seems to demand that we cram our own pet solutions down the throats of our fellow citizens. The founders of the nation well understood the problems with unchecked "democracy", and set up a republic to protect individuals. This allowed the fantastic outpouring of individual energy that is the backbone of our success and of all great nations. Yet, just as in history and in America today, even with the most "progressive" candidates, we seem hell bent on eroding that individual freedom. It appears we are not different than the Israelites 3,000+ years ago, when they demanded a king to protect them, giving up, out of fear of external boogeymen, their democratic/republic-like government, even though God warned them of the loss of their liberty. Or the Romans when they elected Caesar for life, setting in motion the change to Empire and the resultant demise of the civilization. Why should we be any different? History is pretty clear that the odds of America being different are nil.

I hold little hope that the essential problems of inflation, exploitation of most of us by an increasingly powerful and sophisticated power elite, economic downslide and loss of civil liberty will be checked. By either side of the "Republicrats" party of power and property. The 10% who seem to get it, simply are not enough.

gorak

Uhhh, the voter pool for the Iowa Republican race was 60% evangelical and minutely independent. The caucuses are notorious as an activist rally. New Hampshire is the real test of Paul, as there independents have full voice and voting barriers are low.

Jim_Satterfield

Not quite, gorak. Here's a link to the entrance polls of the caucus. Notice that 13% of the Republican voters were independents. I think that would come to a little over 18,000 independents taking part in the Iowa Republican caucuses. In addition 39% of the registered voters in Iowa identify themselves as independent.

blog comments powered by Disqus