Ron Paul's strong showing in Iowa's GOP caucuses creates a dilemma for the Republican Party, which has always treated him like a crazy uncle it would prefer to hide in the attic. Now Paul and his dedicated band of Libertarian followers can't be ignored without jeopardizing the GOP's chances in November. By finishing among the top tier of candidates in Iowa's secret ballot, non-binding, presidential preference vote, Paul has made himself a force to be reckoned with, not just in future primaries but at the GOP's national convention. Moreover, it positions him to influence the actions of the party's eventual presidential nominee or even to bolt the GOP and run on his own in the fall.
Paul's brand of libertarianism appeals to one part of America's political DNA that favors limited government as an abstract philosophy. This ideology leads him to take positions on some social policies, such as removing criminal penalties for using marijuana that attracts younger voters, but also alienates the more conservative, Evangelical base of the GOP. To deal with that problem, his Iowa campaign ran ads emphasizing his opposition to abortion, ignoring the philosophical inconsistency inherent in such a use of government power. Another of his campaign pledges, to "bring the troops home," is more consistent with libertarian beliefs in shrinking all aspects of government. It also drew support from younger caucus goers. However, when they are taken to the extreme of downplaying the threat of a nuclear Iran, his isolationist views further alienate Paul from the mainstream of pro-defense Republicans and assures his future as a second tier challenger. Because of the highly homogeneous composition of those who attended the Iowa Republican caucuses, Paul could safely ignore the second strain of America's political DNA, one that strongly favors specific governmental programs to ameliorate the economic vicissitudes of daily life. As a result, Paul's radical but hardly new ideas were able to attract the support of a significant portion of a segment of voters who already represent a minority of the total American electorate.
While some pundits argue that Paul's showing in Iowa will have little impact on future GOP primaries and caucuses, Paul's emergence from the attic represents much more of a threat than it did four years ago to the Republican Party than they realize. For the second presidential campaign season in a row, Paul has demonstrated an ability to use new media to connect his unconventional message to those searching for something different in ways that will have an impact in contests to come. Unlike 2008, Paul seems to have learned to leverage his online support to raise money and generate loyal ground troops to carry his message to a wider audience. And, like the stubborn old man that he seems to be, Paul appears to be more than willing to use his new found support to pound home his ideas through the nominating convention and beyond.
However, it is in the larger national arena where the fundamental flaws of his candidacy will ultimately be exposed. While Paul was able to deflect criticisms during the Iowa campaign of racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic comments that appeared during the 1980s and 1990s in newsletters bearing his name by asserting he didn't write or approve of them then, the denials won't hold up to the type of media scrutiny his campaign will now have to endure.
His ability to continue to attract members of the Millennial Generation (born 1982-2003) will also be limited by these statements, since, as young Republicans like Megan McCain and pollster Kristen Soltis argue, even the one-third of Millennials who are Republicans are intolerant of intolerance. In the course of 2012, Paul will eventually come to be seen as the flawed messenger that he is. Those who are firmly devoted to the uncompromisingly libertarian philosophy of Ayn Rand will likely have to look elsewhere for their spear carrier.
Despite this problem, Paul's success in Iowa highlights a major problem that will nevertheless confront the Republican Party this year. In 2012, there will be a standard bearer for the Libertarian Party, former New Mexico Governor and former Republican Gary Johnson, who carries none of Paul's baggage. If Paul's cult can be convinced to transfer its allegiance to a different person without sacrificing their commitment to the ideological cause, perhaps through an endorsement by Paul, the worst case scenario for the Republican Party's general election chances will become a reality.
A spring 2011 Pew survey suggests that pure libertarianism represents the beliefs of about 10% of the overall electorate, and around one-fifth of Republican identifiers. With a potential nominee like Mitt Romney whose ideological consistency is suspect, the chances for a Republican split as great as that between Northern and Southern Democrats in 1860, which enabled the election of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, becomes a real possibility. The ability of the Republican Party to contain such a split will be limited by the social issue and national security beliefs of most Republican identifiers and convention delegates.
The level of fear, uncertainty and doubt that now permeates the nation, most visibly in the Tea Party and Occupy movements, has emerged in American politics about every eighty years since the country's founding. Each time it has led to tremendous upheavals in the relative standings of the two parties. Sometimes it has even enabled the founding of new parties and led to the demise of others that seemed to be a permanent part of the country's political landscape. In such times, the allegiance of any voter or constituency cannot be taken for granted. Current polling indicates that preferences for Barack Obama over any of his Republican challenges remains strongest among some of the newer parts of the Democratic coalition, such as Millennials and Hispanics, even as more traditional members of that coalition, such as the white working class, search for an alternative to the president.
Among Republicans, the three-way split at the top of the GOP field in Iowa between candidates representing the business-oriented, Evangelical, and libertarian wings of the party suggests this same desire for something both different and purer. This could make it difficult for the Republicans to build the broader coalition that is always required to win a presidential election. The sudden prominence after the voting in Iowa of the party's irascible uncle in the attic makes the task of achieving this type of Republican Party unity both more personal and more problematic than at any time since 1964.
Follow Michael Hais and Morley Winograd on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mikeandmorley
100% precincts reporting
| Candidate | Votes | Pct. | Del. |
|---|---|---|---|
 Santorum |
29,839 | 24.6% | 13 |
 Romney |
29,805 | 24.5% | 12 |
 Paul |
26,036 | 21.4% | |
 Gingrich |
16,163 | 13.3% | |
 Perry |
12,557 | 10.3% | |
 Bachmann |
6,046 | 5.0% | |
 Huntsman |
739 | 0.6% | |
 Others |
254 | 0.2% | |
 Cain |
45 | 0.1% | |
 Roemer |
17 | 0.1% |
Delegate counts are estimates and might be adjusted later.
Due to trying to push those issues in the GOP, and the future prospects of Rand, it seems unlikely that Paul would then flip and endorse Johnson, but maybe some of his people would still vote that way, which would be nice for trying to bring the LP more mainstream/toward debates. That platform is also closer to progressives in some areas vs. the paleoconservative version.
Bob Barr who ran from LP in 2008 now endorsed Gingrich! I wish i had never voted for him!
You are right to say that some of Paul's following is a sort of cult of personality, but others among the group are also attached to the libertarian ideology, either in general or inside of the GOP in it's paleoconservative incarnation. Their behavior may depends some on whether Paul makes an actual endorsement or not, and if the platform gets shifted some, but otherwise I'd assume they would split themselves between sticking with GOP, voting LP, not voting, and a few maybe strategically voting Obama in hopes of him being less hawkish/etc. than the GOP. Johnson would make the most sense to non social conservatives, but a lot of people, even RP supporters, still prioritize beating Obama above a more ideal platfrom (I do not share that sentiment nor am I an Obama hater).
So how can any conclusions be drawn this early? If Romney trounces Paul in New Hampshire, will everyone then assume Paul no longer has any influence in the party? If not, why not? Is Iowa more telling than New Hampshire, or vice versa?
We need to get quite a few more caucuses and primaries under our belt before anyone can say with any certainty how the race is shaping up. As for all of the lamenting about Romney not generating a lot of fire with the base, Republicans have shown a remarkable consistency in rallying around whoever is their Presidential candidate, so even if he cruises in as the 25% man by the time the convention is held, and no one else is doing better, he'll be the candidate.
We need to get a few more caucuses and primaries completed before we see how much of an impact the second and third place winners will really have, and how "fractured" Republicans really are - historically they have proved very adept at rallying around their ultimate candidate.
You know, I can't even finish what I was gonna write. God in heaven!!! (and I'm an atheist) just look at these guys. Romney, Santorum, Paul and Gingrich. If I were a Republican I would be running around like a chicken with its head cut off......Oh...., yeah, right.
Although none of the others can beat Obama Ron Paul has a huge chance!
"To deal with that problem, his Iowa campaign ran ads emphasizing his opposition to abortion, ignoring the philosophical inconsistency inherent in such a use of government power"
There is no philosophical inconsistency. He believes one of the jobs that federal government does have is to protect the individual liberties of people. In his opinion, it is the liberty of the unborn child that is being challenged by abortion. As we all know this is highly debatable.
At least Ron Paul is passionate about things in which he believes!
Look how well that worked out for the Republic of Rome.
There are an awful lot of Democrats, progressives and freedom loving folks on the left that do not buy corporate fascism and Wall Street control that are hard pressed to vote for Obama and never would pull a Red lever on election day.
The GOP will not have any candidate until mid to late Spring. This is far from over. I would not be surprised by a right wing, most libertarian third candidate if Romney manages to pull it off.
I'm rarely less comfortable than at political events. Just thinking of it right now gives me the willies. I'd join a left-libertarian party in a second. Anywhere where I could make a Big Lebowski joke and people would get it.
This pretty much underscores the problem with our corrupt and incestuous 2-party system.
Please explain to me how this comment is "Anti-semitic". You will soon, if you haven't already change "anti-semitic" from a moral description to a political one. Labeling someone "anti-semitic" is losing is meaning because you equate any criticism of Israeli policy or anyone, even a Jew, with a different view with Anti-Semitism. With your definition large portions of the Israeli population are "Anti-Semitic". Anti-Semitism is hatred and/or discrimination against any Jew based solely on their ethnicity, not on what one's political or social views.
It seems to me that coalition building is not a Republican strength. What are we talking about here? Coalitions between the right and the extreme far right? This is a punch line for a big progressive belly laugh.
But they discovered in 2010 that voters aren't going to vote for a pseudo-Republican when they can vote for the real thing.
The exit polls in 2004 said that a candidate's "values" were a primary consideration in whom voters voted for. But it wasn't the Republican definition of "family values" they were looking for. The voters wanted candidates who HAD values, ANY values.
So I hope we see more Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, candidates who can present an unapologetic defense of the progressive policies that appeals to the 99 Percent who have suffered under 30 years of the fraud of Supply-side Reaganomics and can make them realize that the loot grabbed by the One Percent is NEVER going "trickle down" to them.
Obama gets elected, ends one war, kills Osama bin Laden, and is trying to end the other war, after saving the automotive industry and helping to topple Qaddaffi... and Obama is the failure here (cause he can't fix all the problems Bush and trickle-down economics created)?
You need to change your medication.
Then there's the tea party itself -- the two I know personally who bought into that madness checked their sanity, not to mention civility, at the door. I still cannot figure out what they want, even though it's clear that they are going to demand it, and all the R candidates will try to give it to them -- perhaps it is destruction of the government, if not the nation itself. They are the crazy uncle in the attic, and we are so lucky that President Obama will not have to try to win them over -- they are a chain around the neck of Republicans.
Iowa is a state full of evangelical Christians who see the GOP as their Party of God. Iowa is an anomaly and should not be viewed as a beacon of voter hope in future primaries.
It isn't. Look at Huckabee.
Truman once said "If you need a friend in Washington get a dog" . Like President Obama , Washington did not like Truman .
this is a very good analogy.