RON PAUL’S ATTRACTION:

One of the more fascinating dynamics of the current political season is Ron Paul. Mr. Paul, a Libertarian, is clearly out of the current mainstream and with, arguably, a distinct lack of the generally expected political polish. Why the groundswell for Ron Paul? 

The mainstream media’s analysis focuses on his anti-war stance and his appeal to those that are looking for a distinctly different approach to, well, everything, misses what I think is the real point of appeal. 

I believe there is a growing sense that America would be better off politically isolated when it comes to the international stage. 

Many if not an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that, in the grand sweep of history, there has never been a more significant force for good than America.  Americans, although willing to admit that tragic mistakes have been made along the way, also believe that those mistakes are overwhelmed by the positive impact of America.  Americans see themselves, accurately, as a fundamentally good, generous and welcoming people. 

Many are coming to the opinion, with significant points of reinforcement, that if we engage an issue we are wrong and it we do not we are wrong.  Many are coming to the opinion that we cannot win in the court of international opinion no matter what we do. Calls for American involvement are, typically, followed with criticism for the nature of the involvement. If we don’t engage we’re arrogant and unilateral, if we do, it’s just another example of American imperialism.  

Many are reaching the point of abject weariness: fatigue with our international engagements, allies that really are not, the “gotcha” environment of beltway politics and the absence of unifying issues that transcend partisan politics.  That sense of fatigue is leading to points of disillusionment and that disillusionment is leading to a growing sense that the answer is strategic isolationism: hence the Ron Paul attraction.

Mr. Paul’s positions call for fundamental disengagement from the mainstream trends that have been in place since WWII.  Mr. Paul calls for disengagement from a variety of trade agreements, international organizations, Iraq, Current tax policy, Federal controls related to education, strong immigration controls, entitlements and a variety of other issues. 

All these positions are typically Libertarian; they strike a chord with those that are having a hard time seeing what America’s way forward might be.  These positions appeal to many who feel, if not actually consider thoughtfully, that a massive “time out” might be the answer. Ron Paul is giving voice to that desire for a “time out”.

In terms of mainstream political thinking, Mr. Paul is not so much out of the mainstream as much as he is displaced in time. 

For most of our history, isolation from the intrigues of international politics was a hallmark of American policy.  This history begins with the founders cautioning about inter-tangling alliances and proceeds through to the 1940’s.  The isolationist aspects of American thinking were reinforced in the post WWI period as evidenced by our rejection of The League of Nations and was considered by Franklin Roosevelt to be his most significant political challenge in terms of committing America to WWII.      

Mr. Paul’s positions recall the fantasies of a simpler time; it relieves the stress of our self-appointed responsibilities in a complex and dangerous world.  Will Mr. Paul become President, highly unlikely?  Does his insurgency represent something of note, absolutely!   

D.E. Landry

xdel@cox.net

December 9, 2007