In The End, Just An Internet Curiosity

I should warn in advance anyone who may be reading this that this post will probably aggravate at least one person, but I have to say this (spurred on in part by this Atrios post today).

Let me get this out of the way, fully realizing that any flaming may begin soon afterwards:

People, Ron Paul is not going to win the Republican nomination for president in 2008.

I’m really sorry to point this out because I know a lot of people are working hard and have contributed a lot of time, money and effort, but if bubbles are going to be burst here, the sooner, the better. I should add, though, that it’s commendable that so many people feel so passionately about his candidacy that they have involved themselves in this effort.

But no matter how much money he raises, the best he’s going to do within his party is neutralize one other candidate, probably John McCain. But despite his formidable online success, he’s not going to have more dough onhand than Willard Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani.

Yes, I know the whole “follow the money and the polling results” mentality of our political campaigns stinks. I don’t like it either. But we have to pay attention to it, and that’s why I’m highly concerned over the fact that John Edwards has embraced public campaign financing; the right thing to do in theory, but if somehow he wins the nomination, his Repug opponent most certainly will not return the favor.

Paul is still getting a pass from our media because he’s still a curiosity at this point, largely dismissed as the candidate of the lunatic fringe (which I largely disagree with, by the way; Paul’s emergence is a testimonial as to how much the Repug party has co-opted any notion of traditional conservatism on behalf of the “values voters” who will forever exist only to get played in that party along with the corporatist ideologue neocons, the true “base” when all is said and done).

But you can be sure that if he places second or third in the early primaries, he is suddenly going to find himself under the most intense media scrutiny he has ever faced.

So, let me link to this article in yesterday’s New York Times about Paul’s success and note some of Paul’s ideas…

Those ideas were on display Saturday as Mr. Paul said young people should be able to opt out of Social Security, called for an audit into how much gold really is in Fort Knox, and, in urging an end to the war, declared, “The Versailles Treaty is one of our biggest problems we’re dealing with today, because it was under the Versailles Treaty that we created — the West created — this artificial country called Iraq.”

If Paul wants to advocate – wrongly, I think – that younger workers should be allowed to opt out of Social Security, that’s his right. However, this would inevitably lead to more investment in our financial markets, which (you may have noticed) have experienced a bit of volatility lately, as well as a legitimate crisis with the program. I think it’s also important to note, by the way, that Social Security is meant to be insurance to supplement other investment income when preparing for retirement, not a means to get rich by itself.

It’s the same old story; if you think government is useless, vote for Paul or another Republican. But speaking for myself, I’m tired of being spoon fed the Repug narrative that government is the problem, which is what we’ve heard above all else for – oh, I don’t know – I’d say roughly the last 30 years or so (columnist Mark Shields had some good words to say about government here, and I’m not going to say anything about the Fort Knox or Treaty of Versailles comments – interesting stuff for online chat rooms and message boards, but somehow I don’t think debating the policy positions and agendas of Georges Clemenceau or David Lloyd George is going to do a damn thing to address our trade deficit, for example).

Also, Paul once advocated a return to the gold standard (though I believe he’s backed away from that recently) and the abolition of the Federal Reserve. Rightly or wrongly, I cannot imagine how our markets could exist in this country without the ability of the Fed to regulate the money supply and advocate for fiscal policy, and I’m not sure I would want to endure the upheaval that would ensue were we to try and eliminate it.

Paul also called for abolishing the IRS; I’m sorry, people, but that’s just plain wacky. The problem isn’t the existence of the IRS. The problem is our taxation, which, though primarily progressive (equitable, on balance), has been neutralized to some degree by the horrendous tax policy of this nightmare of a presidency and its loyal foot soldiers in Congress (and I’m sorry about Ed and Elaine Brown, and no, I haven’t been keeping up with their story – sue me).

If you’re saying that you don’t want the IRS to exist, then you’re saying that you don’t want our government to exist, either. Which would create 50 little kingdoms as opposed to a country and exacerbate our decline faster than anything else.

Also, in the New York Times article, Paul discounts out of hand the possibility of running as a third-party candidate.

Why? Hasn’t it occurred to him that that’s his only shot at actually winning the election? Or is he just more interested in screwing up the works for the rest of the Repug presidential candidates?

If the latter, then I would applaud him except for one consideration and that would be the money. When he goes down, is that just going to get funneled back into the RNC? If so, then what good has he accomplished?

I would definitely like to see Paul’s feet held to the fire over these topics and others. I admire his background and I give him credit, but again, if his party were represented by people who weren’t totally unconscionable liars or platitude-spouting dimwits who have good hair, then he’d still be in his rocking chair wrapped in a shawl, nipping on a hot toddie and listening to The Adventures Of Frank Merriwell on the crystal set.

Update 12/13/07: This is a much better version of what I was trying to say here.