Santorum and Gingrich are both unacceptable choices for the GOP nomination. Gingrich is hateful and opportunistic. One gets the feeling he'd support socialism if it got him elected. Santorum is married to a view of government that is more 19th century evangelicalism than 18th century enlightenment. He sees the USG as a mechanism to control private behavior he considers morally objectionable. Newt would do anything to gain power; Santorum would use power to limit what you can do.
Ron Paul's the only candidate with a proper understanding of the Constitution and the appropriate scope of the federal government.
But Mitt Romney's the only candidate left.
Six weeks ago I left the US for work. I've been mostly off the grid since then, catching the news occasionally, watching a clip on DailyPaul.com when I can, sometimes downloading the Peter Schiff show, watching gold creep up and the Obama short-term pump move the market north. The whole time I've been away though, I've been thinking how to cash-in our well earned gains from the Ron Paul campaign.
Much progress has been made in promoting a libertarian agenda in the GOP since 2007 and nearly all credit goes to Ron Paul and those of us who support him (most of the rest goes to the idiotic policies of others in Washington, who made the value of such an approach even more obvious-- who couldn't come around to the notion of liberty after a decade of Bush/Obama?). The question now is whether the GOP alters that message or adopts it on our terms.
Traditionally when a movement gains enough traction to swing an election, one of the two parties snatches up the ideal (if I had the energy I'd go dig up some examples, but it's late and I want to get up early and run tomorrow). It appears the liberty movement has already reached that summit, and now it's up to the GOP to bring it back into the Party. After all, the Republicans were at one point the Party of liberty-- this isn't a revolution so much as a revival.
But it's up to us Ron Paul supporters to keep them honest and true to the message. That's especially easy since Paul's running for influence more than office. Even if Paul can't win the presidency, he can secure enough delegates (as I've been writing last spring) to influence not just the nomination process, but the future of the party. Paul needs to maintain sway so he can keep the message from becoming watered down (see above note about being too tired to find examples, even though I know they're out there). All we have to do is keep supporting him and keep his influence apparent.
The most obvious course would be some sort of deal at a brokered convention where Paul influences the GOP platform. With this formula, Paul would agree to support Romney in exchange for certain executive actions and agreed upon support for some legislation, perhaps introduced by his son in the Senate. A full and complete audit of the Fed would be an obvious one. Other issues that he shares ground with Romney on-- cutting back on entitlement programs, reductions in spending, curtailing certain regulations-- might also be an option. Maybe Ron Paul might earn an off the record veto on the next Supreme Court nominee.
To me this direction is too risky for two reasons. Firstly, there's no guaranteeing Romney and company would honor the agreement. I'm inclined to agree he would. Romney is accused of being a flip flopper, but while he is the consummate pretty boy politician in how he presents himself, on substance he doesn't seem to lie to his colleagues. Gingrich, Santorum, and Obama would all learn to play the harp and sing Christmas carols in Dutch if they thought that would gain them office. Romney would do so too, but only partly because he craves power. There seems to be a legitimacy to Romney's aspiration for office. Yes he's the son of a career politician. But in my view, there's a sincerity to him which is absent from many other multi-millionaire candidates. And there's no denying that he had far more business expertise than the other candidates. At the minimum, if you're looking for an executive who knows how to run a large organization-- he's your guy. The other risk though is that it's a deal with finite returns. Once those policies are put in place or the next Justice is selected, the influence evaporates.
A better move would be to lobby for a spot in a Romney Administration. A VP nomination would be ideal (more likely for his son than for Ron Paul, given a number of factors), but the appointment of a likeminded Ron Paulite to a significant cabinet position would be a huge leap forward. The major disadvantage of a cabinet post is the sensible requirement that a cabinet member completely follow the president's lead. This idea disgusts Ron Paul followers, who shake with fury at the idea of mirroring Mitt Romney's policies. But every Constitutionalist should be able to embrace the idea that appointees are not elected officials, and should be subservient to the president in a republic.
And think about the long-term benefits to the liberty movement.
Let's say hypothetically, Paul throws his support to Romney and Mitt in turn agrees to nominate Rand Paul to be Secretary of Education. Rand Paul could get to work on devolving Education's mandates to the States, a policy Mitt and Paulites agree upon. Beyond that, his hands would be tied. Rand Paul couldn't, for example, object to further bailouts or foreign policy or the war on drugs-- it would be inappropriate.
But the advantage of such an appointment though would be clear. Most obviously it would influence the nation's education policy, or whatever post the friend of Ron Paul was nominated to lead. Additionally, it would setup someone, Rand Paul or some other Paulite, for a future run at higher office. Most importantly though, it would legitimize the movement.
Imagine the race in 2016 or 2020 if Rand Paul could point to four or eight years of success in minimizing the role of the federal government in schooling our children? If he could cite executive experience, cooperation with both parties, but a strict adherence to Constitutional principles? It would eliminate a great number of the present objections to Ron Paul-- that he can't win because he's too extreme, that his ideas are purely theoretical, that he's not suitable for the White House.
It's very hard in our system, unlike the European parliamentarian systems, to have a coalition type government. This solution-- a cabinet post with limited scope where a liberty minded candidate could demonstrate the value of our ideals-- is a viable option though. It shows our ideas work on a practical level, and serves as a political proving ground.
This is our road to not just the presidency, which is important, but inspiring a revolution in the way people imagine the role of the federal government. To change the system we need to change the way people think. For five years Ron Paul and his supporters have done all they can to do so through the GOP's nomination process, and made remarkable progress. Now it's time to not just lock-in those gains, but to reinvest them in the next step.
I know the objections from fellow Ron Paul supporters before I even hear them. Mitt's way off on foreign policy. Mitt's a big spender. Mitt is the same as Obama. But most deadly-- we can't compromise our convictions.
But that's exactly why we should push for a cabinet slot. Ron, or Rand, or some other suitable appointee is a way for us to have a voice in the next administration, without compromising. This person would be loyal to Romney, per the Constitution, but gradually build their reputation and clout for the next or 2020 election.
We need to appreciate that some of the usual suspects from the Ron Paul camp are unacceptable potential nominees. I'm sorry, but Joe Rogan is not a legitimate choice. Lew Rockwell would never get through the Senate appointment process. There are enough like-minded persons in Congress, the private sector, and academia who could step up that we wouldn't have to pick someone who might be interrupted as too radical and risk costing us everything we've worked for. Jessie Ventura might inspire many of Ron Paul's supporters, but he's not a realistic choice for a cabinet position. I'm looking for someone who can present a moderate agenda, but appoint liberty minded people below him. Imagine Jim Rogers running the Department of Commerce, with Peter Schiff as his Deputy? In office they'd need to fully support the Administration, but they'd be laying the groundwork for the future.
But to get there Ron Paul fans must continue to support Paul through the nomination process, and then vigorously support Romney in the general election. It's the nature of many Ron Paul supporters to fear the GOP. If I had a silver round for every time during a GOP debate I've thought "are they trying to drive me away?" I'd be richer than that guy who created the honey badger video and now somehow scored a book deal out of it (this really is the greatest country on earth). But to make this strategy work, we need to let Romney's campaign know that when the time comes, we'll follow through on our part of the bargain.
For the past five years the MSM and company have maligned Ron Paul supporters, marginalized them, minimized them, and mocked them. But fairly consistently, they've conceded the passion is there. Let's demonstrate that same passion for this new strategy, by backing Ron Paul until the end and then, contingent on a deal from the Romney camp, sending Mitt to the White House. It's the next step in getting there ourselves.
Sensible libertarian views on nearly everything- except foreign affairs.