Ron Paul has suggested dismantling FEMA, withdrawing all of our troops from abroad, returning to the gold standard, and ending the Federal Reserve. He consistently refuses to vote for or accept new legislation due to its lack of constitutionality. His mantra has always remained the same: “less government”. He hasn't changed his positions on lower taxes and less government, even after decades in politics.
And despite being the most consistent politician on demanding smaller government and lower taxes, which makes up the core foundation of ideas of the tea party, he's been ignored by just about everybody.
Most Americans think of Ron Paul as the long-shot Republican outlier—a hopelessly persistent candidate who will never make it because of his outrageous proposals (most recently, the media dug up a video of Paul suggesting that heroin use be made legal). Others may think of him as “Dr. No”, the candidate who appeals to wildly libertarian voters and to no one else.
So where do these seemingly extreme quirks stem from? Is there any legitimacy to his claims? Do any of his ideas and proposals hold merit? In the past, most Americans would have responded with a swift and decisive “no”, but things are changing for Ron Paul. The most recent Iowa poll saw him take third place, while a match-up between Paul and Obama put them at a near tie with the general population.
Perhaps people have begun to catch on to the magic behind the “Ron Paul Revolution.” As history has shown, the attitude and atmosphere of college campuses is a huge factor in deciding what and who will or won’t succeed. Consider the movement against the war in Viet Nam, for example, or the election of President Obama in 2008.
Ron Paul’s strongest support comes from college students who are disillusioned with the American government. As globalization weaves its way into society, college students are spending more time out of the country. They have begun to make comparisons between America and other countries, and they don’t seem to like what they’ve found. Americans consistently spend more hours at work, receive fewer benefits, less vacation time, and are sent into retirement with little to live off of but some savings and a broken system. The economic crisis continues to grow worse as unemployment stands steadfastly at the 9.1% mark, while billions of government dollars are being directed towards attempts to repair our healthcare system.
In addition to the socioeconomic issues at home, more and more young men and women are being sent off to war. As childhood friends and fellow students are endangered, killed, or return home with mental and physical problems, the college-age population is becoming fully aware of the havoc war wreaks on the country, on a very personal level. Perhaps his views on foreign policy are what has been key in appealing to the younger generation. In an interview for the NY Times given by Paul in January 2007, he made some considerably controversial claims about the administration at that time:
Ron Paul has always opposed the Iraq war, “….blaming ‘a dozen or two neocons who got control of our foreign policy,’ chief among them Vice President Dick Cheney and the former Bush advisers Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, for the debacle. On the assumption that a bad situation could get worse if the war spreads into Iran, he has a simple plan. It is: ‘Just leave.’ During a May debate in South Carolina, he suggested the 9/11 attacks could be attributed to United States policy. ‘Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us?’ he asked, referring to one of Osama bin Laden’s communiqués. ‘They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.’”
While these ideas are by no means popular with Americans, they are gaining traction as more media attention is drawn to the history of US involvement in the Middle East.
Because of the increasing attention being given to Paul, many people are beginning to look towards Paul’s education, career history, and political record in attempt to understand his views and policies. Paul was born in 1935 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He went on to attend the Duke University School of Medicine. After earning his medical degree, he served as a flight surgeon in the US Air Force during the Viet Nam war. Upon returning from the war, he began his career as an obstetrician/gynecologist before entering politics for the first time in 1976. According to author Chris Caldwell, Ron Paul was inspired to pursue a political career by his belief that the monetary crisis of the 1970s was caused by excessive government spending on the Vietnam War and welfare. These beliefs still translate today through Paul’s policy of introducing legislature to limit the powers and spending of the federal government, and refusing to accept legislation which does not clearly follow the Constitution.
With the media’s consistent barrage of out-of-context quotes from both Democratic and Republican contenders, it will be interesting to see how Ron Paul fares. While he continuously presents some of the most extreme views, he has remained consistent in his beliefs for the past thirty years. He never waivers, never loses his cool, and always has a compelling and well-thought-out explanation, even when it comes to subjects like legalizing heroin. As the economy stays stagnant, conflicts continue to break out around the world, and the American population grows more frustrated with what may be very out-of-touch politicians, Ron Paul’s sway with the election-deciding independent voters will most likely continue to strengthen.
Most Americans think of Ron Paul as the long-shot Republican outlier—a hopelessly persistent candidate who will never make it because of his outrageous proposals (most recently, the media dug up a video of Paul suggesting that heroin use be made legal). Others may think of him as “Dr. No”, the candidate who appeals to wildly libertarian voters and to no one else.
So where do these seemingly extreme quirks stem from? Is there any legitimacy to his claims? Do any of his ideas and proposals hold merit? In the past, most Americans would have responded with a swift and decisive “no”, but things are changing for Ron Paul. The most recent Iowa poll saw him take third place, while a match-up between Paul and Obama put them at a near tie with the general population.
Perhaps people have begun to catch on to the magic behind the “Ron Paul Revolution.” As history has shown, the attitude and atmosphere of college campuses is a huge factor in deciding what and who will or won’t succeed. Consider the movement against the war in Viet Nam, for example, or the election of President Obama in 2008.
In addition to the socioeconomic issues at home, more and more young men and women are being sent off to war. As childhood friends and fellow students are endangered, killed, or return home with mental and physical problems, the college-age population is becoming fully aware of the havoc war wreaks on the country, on a very personal level. Perhaps his views on foreign policy are what has been key in appealing to the younger generation. In an interview for the NY Times given by Paul in January 2007, he made some considerably controversial claims about the administration at that time:
Ron Paul has always opposed the Iraq war, “….blaming ‘a dozen or two neocons who got control of our foreign policy,’ chief among them Vice President Dick Cheney and the former Bush advisers Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, for the debacle. On the assumption that a bad situation could get worse if the war spreads into Iran, he has a simple plan. It is: ‘Just leave.’ During a May debate in South Carolina, he suggested the 9/11 attacks could be attributed to United States policy. ‘Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us?’ he asked, referring to one of Osama bin Laden’s communiqués. ‘They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.’”
While these ideas are by no means popular with Americans, they are gaining traction as more media attention is drawn to the history of US involvement in the Middle East.
Because of the increasing attention being given to Paul, many people are beginning to look towards Paul’s education, career history, and political record in attempt to understand his views and policies. Paul was born in 1935 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He went on to attend the Duke University School of Medicine. After earning his medical degree, he served as a flight surgeon in the US Air Force during the Viet Nam war. Upon returning from the war, he began his career as an obstetrician/gynecologist before entering politics for the first time in 1976. According to author Chris Caldwell, Ron Paul was inspired to pursue a political career by his belief that the monetary crisis of the 1970s was caused by excessive government spending on the Vietnam War and welfare. These beliefs still translate today through Paul’s policy of introducing legislature to limit the powers and spending of the federal government, and refusing to accept legislation which does not clearly follow the Constitution.
With the media’s consistent barrage of out-of-context quotes from both Democratic and Republican contenders, it will be interesting to see how Ron Paul fares. While he continuously presents some of the most extreme views, he has remained consistent in his beliefs for the past thirty years. He never waivers, never loses his cool, and always has a compelling and well-thought-out explanation, even when it comes to subjects like legalizing heroin. As the economy stays stagnant, conflicts continue to break out around the world, and the American population grows more frustrated with what may be very out-of-touch politicians, Ron Paul’s sway with the election-deciding independent voters will most likely continue to strengthen.
Please login to post.