A Good Analysis of the Ron Paul Phenomenon
From The Weekly Standard (I love the pics)…
Selected quotes (and commentary):
RON PAUL TOOK IN $4.2 million in honor of Guy Fawkes Day Monday. While this is a wonderful haul for the congressman, it’s not quite accurate to say he raised it or even that his campaign raised it. Paul supporters organized the event on their own with minimal coordination with the campaign.
Naturally, the champions of “people power” have rushed forward to praise this event and point out how it can be replicated. Markos Moulitsas, perhaps the leading authority on how to make it look like you’ve personally created an internet phenomenon even when you had nothing to do with it, has already rushed out an essay summing up the Paul phenomenon. Moulitsas’s analysis comes replete with mind-numbing platitudes and easy-to-repeat formulas for other candidates to apply, presumably once they’ve retained an internet guru like Moulitsas to show them the way.
….But Paul’s fundraising success has nothing to do with web savvy savants running his campaign or even the technical abilities of his followers.
Notice the names in bold are persons belongs to the “Extremely Looney Left” (both dead and alive)…Also notice that Paul’s campaign seems…
to be having little to do with his success…
Paul is a fringe candidate who broke through into being a cult figure. To use a metaphor that seems oddly appropriate, Dr. Paul has gone viral. Although marketers everywhere probably wish they could plan such things, they can’t. I would bet even Paul himself is slightly bewildered by his popularity, and perhaps wonders why people who think Dick Cheney personally imploded WTC Tower 7 have flocked to his banner.
CRAZY PEOPLE LOVE to have a cause. Usually politics doesn’t offer a candidate worthy of their ardor. The 2008 campaign looked like it would be more of the same in that regard. The Democratic candidates all basically stand for the same boring platform. At their debates, the only thing they really contest is who despises George W. Bush more.
…So why have America’s lunatics taken such a shine to the formerly obscure Ron Paul? There’s a simple explanation: Although Paul spends most of his time talking about the Constitution and such cherished old time policies as the gold standard, he’s as close to an anarchist as we’re likely to see in presidential politics.
An anarchist? Ron Paul? I can almost hear you out there–
“Surely he’s joking.”
I’m not, and stop calling me Shirley.
Aaaww, memories of someone…I miss those guys…
Think about it. Ron Paul has taken a good, hard look around America and hates everything he sees. He hates the Iraq war. He hates the rest of our foreign policy. He pretty much thinks we shouldn’t have a foreign policy. He hates our bloated and meddlesome federal government. (What’s that they say about stuck clocks?) He hates abortion. He hates the Treasury and floating currency. Basically, he wishes it were 1796 and he could wear a powdered wig without being ridiculed in public. While Ron Paul himself has no fondness for anarchy, the same cannot be said of his devotees. It’s not an accident that they celebrated their hero on a day named for Guy Fawkes, perhaps the greatest anarchist in the history of the English speaking world.
If you hate something about our modern society, chances are Ron Paul agrees with you. Passionately. Ron Paul doesn’t go for half-measures or speaking in measured tones. Everything he sees is a threat of biblical proportions. If you’re the kind of person whose neighbors call you a crank, you probably see Ron Paul as a kindred spirit. And chances are he’s with you on the subject for which you’ve achieved your notoriety in crankdom.….
I think this is a pretty good anaylsis of a great many, if not MOST, of Ron Paul’s supporters. They are basically part of the Looney Fringes of both the Left and the Right…note, not ALL of them…I still fail to understand how some people I consider intelligent can support someone like Ron Paul based on the above analysis. Kucinich sees UFOs, but Ronulans, Paulbots, or Paulbearers, or any of the other names one can find for them on the internet (hat tip to IMAO for many of these names and the article) sees those same UFOs as part of a government conspiracy ran by the Skulls that Kerry and Bush were apparently members of (recall the “Don’t tase me, bro!” guy…).
SO WHAT does the Ron Paul campaign mean? At a practical level, it’s difficult to tell which party Paul will hurt more if he runs as a third party candidate in the general election. My hunch is that he’ll hurt the Democrats more. Ron Paul’s supporters tend to be angry over just about everything. Such people are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans.
On a grander level, the Ron Paul campaign has shown that a candidate who appeals to a motivated fringe can make some noise. After all, people who are willing to be Tased just to interrupt a soporific John Kerry speech and berate the senator for allowing Republicans to steal the 2004 election from him are probably also willing to write a check for a candidate who speaks to their frustrations.
In 2008, that candidate is Ron Paul, the undisputed owner of the “Don’t Tase Me Bro” vote.
Dean Barnett is a staff writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD
Hence why so many Democrats are even jumping on the Paul bandwagon…
