SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Though he receives very little media attention and is frequently dismissed as a crackpot by mainstream observers, Ron Paul’s presidential campaign has been extraordinary by any measure. Even as Mike Huckabee surges in the polls and is followed by hordes of reporters, Paul, in near total obscurity, “is poised to out-raise the rest of the Republican field this quarter, fueled by his rock star status on the Internet,” The Trail, a Washington Post campaign blog, reported earlier this week. “As of Monday afternoon, he has clocked in $10.5 million, mostly through the Internet.”
It seems unlikely that Paul will be a serious candidate for the Republican nomination. Nonetheless, and whatever you think of his politics, the grassroots movement behind Paul is vibrant and growing. What’s driving Paul’s support? Where do his fans go from here? What are the long-term implications of his surprising campaign?
My colleague Thessaly La Force recently asked those questions of Tom Edmonds, a prominent conservative political consultant who has worked for candidates and causes, including the National Rifle Association. (He is not working for any of the current presidential campaigns.) Below are excerpts of Edmonds’ remarks, which have been edited for clarity and length.
There are huge blocks of Republicans who are not satisfied with any of their choices. Paul has tapped into that. People see him as fresh, direct, not trying to manipulate, not offering calculated answers, just being very honest, blunt, and sincere. I am a diehard conservative but my wife is a Democrat. She watched Ron Paul and said, “I like that guy, who is that?” I told her, “He doesn’t agree with you on any issues.” But a lot of it has to do with presentation and style. He is the anti-hero hero. He’s a maverick. The first rule of marketing is to be different, and he’s different. They all look alike, except for him.
The voters are disenfranchised from their government. Congress, the presidency, all institutions have low approval ratings. Paul is a way of venting a pox on all the other houses.
No one is giving Paul money because they want to influence government policy. That’s what donors to the other candidates are doing–they’re thinking, “We’d better support him because we’re going to need him in the future.” People are supporting Ron Paul out of conviction. The early debates primed the pump. The old media got him exposed. Now, the new media has provided the base for him. You can’t go to the street corner and find a Ron Paul for President office, but you can go online.
Part of Paul’s appeal is that he doesn’t fit squarely into either political party. His positions are libertarian, but also eclectic. All of the Republican candidates tend to support President Bush and the war, but he doesn’t. On the other hand, a lot of his libertarian positions on the role of government don’t agree with Democrats. Ron Paul is a rejection of the Republicans and the Democrats. He is a rejection of the political process. People are tired of being spoon fed these debates and issues.
He’s not going to win, but all he has to do is exceed expectations. He’s gotten so little attention out of the press, all he has to do is show up on the screen and it’s going to be news. He has nowhere to go but up. He has such magnetism that we could see him as a third party candidate. But you can’t run successfully as a third party candidate in this country. I don’t think he’ll run for president again. If he does he’d become part of the problem.
Where will his supporters go after the campaign? I think it’s kind of like a solid turning into a gas–it will dissipate but it will still be there if someone else comes along whom they can coalesce behind. They could turn out to be some kind of continuing force. Maybe they will help elect a few people who share the same values at the state level or the congressional level. If Ron Paul pointed to other congressional candidates who were worthy of support, that might work. So instead of focusing on the presidency, start the revolution at a lower level.
More from Ken Silverstein:
Perspective — October 23, 2013, 8:00 am
How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy
Postcard — October 16, 2013, 8:00 am
A trip to one of the properties at issue in Louisiana’s oil-pollution lawsuits
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”