Ron Paul is a force to be reckoned with in the fight for the Republican nomination. Sure he'll probably never break out of his current 20-25% percent floor and ceiling (which was formerly thought to be 15-20%), but if he continues to take such a high percentage of the vote, Republicans will be forced to reconcile with their Libertarian friends come convention time. And believe me, this is all Ron Paul and his bellicose band of supporters want.
Both New Hampshire and Iowa have seen record turnouts for their first in the nation caucus/primary; party folks will tell you this is because of the strong desire to make the President a one termer. They're lying for two reasons. First of all the turnout hasn't exactly been off the charts, and more importantly they don't want to confront the inconvenient, but real reason behind the high turnout: Dr. Ron Paul.
Paul brings liberals and independents into the tent by running as a Republican. In 2008 13% of Iowa caucus goers were independents. This year? 24%, 43% of them went for Paul. And New Hampshire, largely considered an independent minded state saw a small uptick as well with 44% in '08 and 47% this year; however, Paul and Romney split that group.
The biggest Ron Paul numbers that should without a doubt give the GOP some serious concerns are his support among young people. In New Hampshire 46% of those 18-29 went for Paul. Romney with the same group? 26%. Flip it to 45-64 years olds and you see the opposite happening. Paul gets 19% of that age group, while Romney takes 42%. And Romney really isn't viewed as particularly conservative, the big time social conservatives in the race fair much worse with the young.
Now I'll admit, Romney scored a huge win last night and broad-based support across the conservative spectrum. He is going to be the Republican nominee for President, but he has Ron Paul to thank for that just as much as himself.
Paul, as I said before, brings in more Independents, which drives up turnout--many of the upcoming primaries do not allow non-Republicans, but Paul won't go for those states. Without Paul in the race, turnout would probably be below 2008 levels and the stories would be that conservatives have excitement to get rid of Obama, there's just nobody good enough to rally behind or even that there isn't excitement to fire the President at all. The first is actually true. Paul just cooks the books, because there a whole lot of Paul supporters who wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney in the fall--43% in New Hampshire said they would be dissatisfied with him as the nominee. Some would vote Obama, but many would stay home.
So, Republicans still aren't excited about Mitt Romney and never will be. Ron Paul just artificially brings turnout up, his supporters are not mostly self identified Republicans (15% were in NH last night). You can basically remove Paul supporters from the Republican turnout. The enthusiasm gap will be massive in the general election. People genuinely like Obama and want to give him another chance, especially given two recent developments--unemployment going down and bad strategy by House R's.
Many think Ron Paul will run third party. Those people are wrong. If he does its bye bye Senate seat for his 49 year old son, because the Paul name will have lost the GOP the election. Paul as a third party candidate means Obama wins, the Paul family can't have that. Instead his people will go for Obama more than Romney or even another current Republican anyway. This is because Paul's foreign policy is so important to his supporters. Romney et al. want to go back to the GW Bush days. That's catastrophic to Paul supporters. But realistically, since both candidates won't reflect their views, they won't turn out and Obama wins easily because so many who voted in the GOP primary aren't voting again in November.
In a recent Gallup Poll only 27% of the country said that they were Republicans, 31% said they were Democrats, and 40% said they were Independents. Even though many, though probably less than before, of those 40% are leaners that usually vote like partisans, it's a bad number for the Republican Party.
The previously mentioned Paul/Romney age divide illustrates the GOP's problem here; it's a party at war with itself. They have allowed themselves to become the party of the rich white guy and the southerner, with a mean economic Libertarian steak. They are outside of the mainstream on gay rights and immigration. And the sad thing is most people understand the need to reduce the deficit, something Democrats clearly will never be serious about. Something else the Democrats will never be serious about is education reform; they're too tied to the unions. Republicans lead on two major issues for the future, but unfortunately, Republicans are too far behind on the two other issues to attract the younger generation.
So instead those people are independents who don't believe in either party. I mean really, its kind of pathetic that the conservative party in America has become such an anti-tax protest party that a Libertarian technically falls into their tent. If Republicans would only stop fighting the already lost battle over gay marriage and illegal immigration, no there will not be fence built and no we don't have to be so anti-immigrant as a party, they would likely be winning a lot of young people support. Instead they stick to these positions hard and fast and continue to clean up in Orange County and the Hamptons, but appear to be anti-regular guy.
Republicans love to invoke Ronald Reagan and act like they are like him. There is not a Republican in the race who reflects Reagan at all. Reagan understood you had to make deals. He believed in supply-side economics because he truly felt it would grow the economy, which would benefit everyone. That doesn't mean he never raised taxes because he had to lower the deficit.
Libertarians see basically no role for the government; they only want it to not invade our liberties in any way. Democrats might say they want a government that only does what it has to do, but that's a pretty slippery slope, a slope that has put us in financial ruins. Republicans currently are dangerously close to the Libertarians.
However, the moderate conservative tradition in this country is to understand the limits of government, and truly create one that does only what it must do in service to its citizens. One that protects us abroad, while respecting our liberties at home. One that calls for personal responsibility but understands that we cannot just completely be leaving people in the capitalistic dust. One that understands that an "If it feels good, do it" society is catastrophic. A lean, mean government leads to lower taxes for everyone and more freedom for everyone. It also understands that there are a whole lot of issues that should be delegated to the states.
An obsession with no new taxes does not necessarily lead to what's listed above. Sure it would be great to never have to raise taxes and continue to lower them, but that's not always realistic. This may seem close to Libertarianism, but it's really not. This is because it sees a role for government, an important, but limited one.
The no role for government crowd has risen up before. Senator Barry Goldwater, a Libertarian/Republican Senator from Arizona took on LBJ in 1964. He won 38% of the vote, six states, and received 52 electoral votes. The party, having had it's fun with the unrealistic wing, nominated Richard Nixon, a strong believer in the moderate Republican tradition, in 1968 and he won two terms. People may hate on Nixon, with reason, for Watergate, but he took back the soul of his party.
Now Ron Paul won't be the nominee like Goldwater was, but let's hope the Tea Party crowd understands that the Ron Paul type is a guaranteed loser and stops it's movement towards this thinking before a Ron Paul type runs does get the nomination.
Remember, as Madison warned us, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." But since we are not, lets also remember what Reagan said, “Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” An understanding of the first quote and embracing the second has lead conservatives on for years.
No comments:
Post a Comment