I suppose the good news if you're a Ron Paul supporter is the extraordinary increase in coverage of the Texas Congressman's presidential campaign in recent days. The bad news, at least ostensibly, is that this new attention is disproportionately negative, if not hostile.
But Paulistas can find comfort in the intensity of these attacks. The increased fear of Paul demonstrates the campaign is, despite one of the primary criticisms coming from Paul's opponents, for real. There's no value in attacking politicians unless the attacker sees something to be gained in carrying out the offensive. The polls suggest Ron Paul is doing well. These attempts to plunder his success are the most convincing indicator that he has not just gained support but is now, at least in Iowa, the frontrunner for the Republican Party nomination.
But will the Party have him?
There's no denying that Paul's stances on federal drug laws, foreign policy, and federal bailouts differ from the majority of elected Republicans. But certainly his views reflect a libertarian tradition that has been prominent in the party for several generations. He has a different philosophy, but so did Goldwater, Reagan, and George W Bush. Yes, that's right: Dubya. George W Bush adopted, post-9/11, a neoconservative view of the world which imagined the United States as a global peacekeeper with the authority and capacity to carry out preemptive wars to thwart perceived threats of terrorism. This is a view which Ron Paul rejects. Deciding which approach the party should harbor is up to the voters. That debate is taking place now and will soon be weighed in Iowa and New Hampshire.
When Newt Romney and Michelle Santorum criticize Paul for those views their objectives are understandable and somewhat acceptable. They want to pinch his voters and win the race. That's normal in an election. Other critics of Paul aren't competing with him for the nomination, but do take issue with him for the specifics of his views. This is reasonable. I decidedly avoid discussing foreign affairs, but will point out that much of this opposition comes from those displeased with Paul's foreign policy.
But when Republican Party figures malign Paul simply because he's offering a view different than the one currently in control of the Party, they betray their allegiance to politics above principle. It's one thing to disagree with Paul, but to discount his views because they aren't the same as the string pullers at the top of the Party, that is indefensible. Is the GOP worried about winning to promote a conservative, small government agenda, or is the Party simply worried about winning to preserve power?
And what of change then, if that word can still be employed without a taint of cliche and promises unkept? Is the Republican Party completely intractable? Is this present platform fixed in perpetuity, never to be altered? If that's the case, did George W Bush act inappropriately then when he abandoned his "no nation building" policy and embarked on a series of overseas expenditures unprecedented in the past fifty years?
Surely the Party has some mechanism to debate at least the possibility of new ideas.
Paul has, for example, a unique perspective on gay marriage. His view is the issue is a states' rights issue. The federal government and courts should avoid the issue and, per the 10th Amendment, leave it for each state to sort out. (And at that level, he's inclined to have each state defer to local churches and other organizations). This is a novel approach, slightly discordant from the existing GOP angle on the issue but in keeping with Republican traditions of states' rights and individual liberty. It might not be the majority view amongst Republican voters right now, it might not be the right view- but isn't he entitled to make his case without elected Republicans declaring any variance from the mainstream is heresy?
And aren't the primaries the place to have that argument?
Or is the candidate selection process merely a competition to choose the person who can best gain more power for the Party, damn the issues? If Justin Bieber were born American, had the requisite years to be president, and that peculiar combination of electability, presidential appearance, and electoral vote magnetism, would the GOP nominate him? If Newt Romney knew they could be elected by promising to carry on with the America's transformation from a free market to a centrally planned economy, would the Party support them?
(They are now.)
Ron Paul might be wrong on the issues, but arguing that he shouldn't be voted for because his views are outside the norms of the GOP, is shameful. The primary process is supposed to be a time to vet new ideas and perspectives. John Anderson, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and Steve Forbes all entered the primary process and offered alternative views of which direction the Party should be headed. Their perspectives were, to varying extents, later adopted by the GOP (Anderson did not influence the Party much, Robertson's crusade marked the emergence of the evangelical movement, Buchanan's warnings about trade imbalances emboldened protectionists, and Forbes' advocacy for a flat tax is still gaining ground).
A skeptic would point out that none of these candidates ever won the presidency by entering the race and challenging the Republican Party's status quo. But going back a generation, there is an example. In 1976 Ronald Reagan's primary challenge of moderate Gerald Ford ended in failure. Four years later he was back, victorious, and at the forefront of the greatest change in the history of the Republican Party. This should provide some encouragement for Ron Paul fans who see a parallel between the campaigns- an outsider who became an insider with outsider ideas.
If the Republican Party leadership continues to try and undermine the Paul campaign by underhanded tactics- implying a win in Iowa won't count, dismissing his supporters as less than actual Republicans, urging voters to consider Paul unwelcome- they might not like what they get. Critique Paul on his foreign policy, ask him about his health, bring up the newsletters which (laughably) some have suggested suggest racism- but allow him to be heard.
The GOP can either embrace Paul and consider his ideas- not necessarily adopt them, but at least allow them to be heard- or it can risk losing the impressive number of supporters he has mobilized. Those supporters will go someplace though, and neither of the choices can be good for the Republicans.
Sensible libertarian views on nearly everything- except foreign affairs.