For the last month there has been a rather heated discussion on this site and others about Ron Paul and to what extent his candidacy for the Presidency should be viewed as a positive vehicle for raising the issues of war, occupation, America’s military footprint (including bases) apoad, interventionism and civil liberties. Having watched Ron Paul the other night in the first Florida Primary debate, I can only conclude that his participation in these debates is helpful to those issues. His arguments were reasonable and plausible, and should not have been taken as extreme by the average viewer. Moreover, Paul faced three other individuals on the stage who presented polar opposite views to himself. On the issue of Iran specifically, Romney, Gingrich and Santorum had a contest to see who could sound more determined about going to war with Iran. Sadly, it is highly unlikely that we will hear such contrasting viewpoints in the future debates involving President Obama.
In the South Carolina Republican primary last Saturday Ron Paul received 13% of the vote and the nod from only 10% of the voters who identified themselves as Republicans in the exit polling. He received 14% to 15% of the Republican vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. Paul polls better among declared Independents, and will achieve higher numbers in states that have open primaries. In open states Independents will vote for him out of conviction and some Democrats will vote for him tactically. With a current ceiling of about 15% of the Republican vote, there is no realistic path for Ron Paul to the Republican nomination.
More importantly, to what extent are Paul voters motivated by his positions on international issues and civil liberties? The readily available polling date on this question is not extensive, but based on what I have found, even the most optimistic interpretation of the data would indicate only a small minority of Paul voters are primarily driven to vote for him based on these issues. In the Florida debate, Gingrich went out of his way to associate himself with Ron Paul’s FED and monetary recommendations. Of course, Gingrich wouldn’t go near Paul’s anti-war message.
To those readers who are convinced that Ron Paul is the answer – and maybe the only answer – to changing US policy, I say, “Keep on Truckin,” no need to read further. To the rest of us, and particularly those people who call themselves Progressives, I argue we should look back a year and ask what went wrong, and how did Ron Paul end up the only anti-war candidate of 2012.
I contend that the Democratic base is more inclined towards anti-war positions than the Republican base, and that no anti-war movement will succeed without getting the support of that Democratic base. Hence, the first question is: “how did we end up with no significant challenger to President Obama in the Democratic primaries?” Going back in modern American history, there have been two major primary challenges to existing Democratic Presidents, McCarthy vs Johnson in 1968, and Kennedy vs Carter in 1980. The latter contest revolved around Kennedy himself, so I will concentrate on the challenge to Lyndon Johnson.
BATR 2020 Election News
