ISSN 2330-717X

Is Paul A Precursor Of A More Presentable Candidate In 2016? – OpEd

By

By Philip Weiss

I’m stunned by the way that mainstream newscasters continue to overlook Ron Paul. He’s running second in the New Hampshire polls after Mitt Romney, but commentators can only talk about Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich– even when those polls are right up on the screen. The blindness (evident on NBC Nightly News, Chris Matthews, and NPR) feeds conspiracy theory– and may only foster the movement that Paul is leading. A couple people have pointed me to this video above, in which CNN reporter Dana Bash says she’s “worried” that Ron Paul will continue to hang in there through the nominating season.

Meantime, here are two realists arguing that while they couldn’t vote for Ron Paul, he presages an important shift in our politics.

Pat Lang says Paul is too old to be president, but likens our historical moment (as I have done) to the 1850s, when the slave power was regnant and it required a new party to break it.

IMO what you are seeing in the highly disciplined mass of young people who support Paul is the commencement of a powerful movement that will result in a political party.

In 1856 the Republican Party ran its first presidential candidate.  Paul should run as a representative of a new party.

By the way, Lincoln, who of course ran on the Republican ticket in 1860, repeatedly attacked a “conspiracy” of the slave power inside our politics in the 1858 Douglas debates, a race he lost. He said the conspiracy corrupted Whigs and Democrats, who coordinated matters like the Dred Scott decision behind the scenes. He wanted the debate out in the open.

Then here is Steve Walt’s view of Paul as a precursor:

Paul comes with too much baggage to persuade many people to follow his banner, and his views on other issues provides the media and other mainstream groups with an excuse to ignore the more interesting parts of his message.  If by some miracle Paul managed to win the Republican nomination, the general election would probably look a lot like Johnson’s crushing defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964.

But that historical analogy got me wondering. Contemporary political historians argue that Goldwater’s defeat in 1964 laid the foundation for the modern conservative movement, which came to fruition with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Paul has done surprisingly well during this primary season, and his views clearly resonate with a sizeable core of young and fairly well-educated voters. Is it possible that Paul’s brand of foreign policy restraint just needs a better champion, one who is both more broadly appealing but also not saddled by so much poisonous baggage? In short, just as Ronald Reagan eventually built on the Goldwater movement and made its core principles appealing to many Americans, might Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy be awaiting the arrival of a candidate (in 2016, or maybe 2020) who can put them in a more attractive package?

 

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

This article was published at Mondoweiss.net here: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/is-paul-a-precursor-of-a-more-presentable-candidate-in-2016.html

Please Donate Today


Did you enjoy this article? Then please consider donating today to ensure that Eurasia Review can continue to be able to provide similar content.


Mondoweiss

Mondoweiss

Mondoweiss is a news website devoted to covering American foreign policy in the Middle East, chiefly from a progressive Jewish perspective. Mondoweiss is maintained by Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz. Weiss lives in New York state and Horowitz lives in New York City.

2 thoughts on “Is Paul A Precursor Of A More Presentable Candidate In 2016? – OpEd

  • Avatar
    January 7, 2012 at 9:27 pm
    Permalink

    What baggage? In US politics, Ron Paul is a saint. No affairs. No inconsistent position taking due to corruption. Only a few un-PC comments ( that were generally true).

    Reply
  • Avatar
    January 7, 2012 at 10:02 pm
    Permalink

    It’s sad that Mr.Weiss has to marginalize Paul and write what is really just another hit piece about Paul being unable to win. His excuse is the good doctor has too much baggage. I wish he’d listed some of what he considers baggage as the thing Paul has is principals and constancy. It is amazing how the press treats Paul but this includes Mr. Weiss and he’s just not aware enough to realize it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to mgginva Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.