WASHINGTON, November 22, 2011 — Join columnists Rich Stowell and Conor Murphy in their column Right Hooks as they debate the question: Is Ron Paul a viable candidate?
RICH STOWELL:
Every four years America gets in a big fight. As with most internecine arguments, passions run wild and loyalties are made or broken in fits of emotion.
It's no different this election cycle in the Grand Old Party. And the most emotional bunch are the Paul disciples.
In many ways, Ron Paul is an appealing candidate, especially for conservative Republicans. He preaches individual liberty in an uncompromising way. He is a fearless advocate of limited, constitutional government. He has no known baggage of compromising on his principles. His warnings about the excesses of the Federal Reserve seem prophetic.
But the main question Republicans will be asking themselves as they go to polls early next year is: "Who can beat Barack Obama?"
Ron Paul cannot.
First is his age. Next November he will be 77 years old. While that should not be a disqualifier, it will likely turn a significant chuck of voters away. In 2008, according to various polls, upwards of 20% of voters were concerned about John McCain's age. Even a fraction of that would doom Paul's candidacy.
Secondly, his presentation plays well with his die hard supporters, but he doesn't connect with passive voters. He often speaks technoratese, especially on monetary matters, and doesn't always explain how his principles translate into a better way of life for those whose votes he would seek.
Finally, and most damningly, the election will come down to one thing: Who can collect 270 electoral votes. Even if Paul were able to win all of the states that McCain won in 2008 he'd still be 70 votes short. Of course some of those might be gimmes, but to win Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, and Colorado he would have to draw votes from constituencies who expect certain things.
Most politicians understand this and they called it "running for office." To Paul and his devotees, it would be nothing short of crass pandering and abandonment of principle.
In terms of his supporters' emotions, Ron Paul might have the best argument in the world. But it takes votes to become president.
CONOR MURPHY:
Ron Paul has spent the last thirty years proving everyone wrong. But only in the past couple years has he done that in terms of his electability. Not only is he a front-runner in Iowa, but he is also poised to make Nevada a close race, and could easily make things interesting in New Hampshire. While much has been made of his supposed weaknesses, none of them will pose much harm to his candidacy.
Rich, you have said that Paul's age will be a problem, and point to John McCain's age when he ran in 2008. One of the big differences is that McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, did not inspire confidence in independent voters. However, Dr. Paul does better than any of his Republican colleagues against Obama among independent voters (almost a 10% advantage). With the public becoming more disillusioned with “hope and change”, Paul's age and experience might be reconsidered in a more positive light than it was with Senator McCain.
Dr. Paul would be the first to admit that he is not the most charismatic speaker, but that will not stop him from making President Obama look like a fool in the debates. Obama will have no retort when the intellectual godfather of the Tea Party questions him about the failed bailouts and stimulus package. Ron Paul will win over disenchanted liberals who are angry about the President's foreign policy. And there will be no competitive debate over monetary policy of which Obama seems to know very little.
One of your most questionable arguments against a Ron Paul victory is that he would have to win all the states that McCain won, plus some swing states as well. This view makes the assumption that McCain was a strong electable candidate, which is ludicrous. In reality Paul wouldn't even need to win all the states that McCain did, because he has a much better shot in many more swing states. And perhaps the most important argument in favor of Paul involves California. California is the elephant in the room that the establishment Republicans want to ignore, but the truth of the matter is that Dr. Paul provides the greatest chance since 1988 for a Republican to win on the West coast. No other state has had as much conflict with the federal government when it comes to “states' rights”. A Paul presidency would allow for California to keep their medical marijuana dispensaries open without fear of intrusion from the federal government.
While you're questioning Ron Paul's electability, you're forgetting about the lack of electability of John McCain, John Kerry, or Bob Dole who were all very weak candidates. A candidate with Paul's knowledge, integrity, and blunt honesty could be exactly what the electorate is looking for. Obama is also much less popular than he was four years ago, and Paul will not have the disadvantage of running as Bush III. Dr. Paul has a strong advantage over the President with regards to the economy which will ultimately be the issue that decides the election. If there is anyone who should be worried about Ron Paul's electability, it is Obama.
RICH:
Like most libertarians, Paul supporters are almost too rational for their own good.
Everything you say might be true (which I am not ready to concede), but even if they were true, enough voters aren't rational. Our case in point is Barack Obama. There was no reason for a great many of Americans to cast their votes for him, yet they did for very emotional reasons.
When matched up against the young, smooth-talking and good looking Obama, Paul will be cast as inadequate. He might make a great deal of sense, but his message would get lost in the optics. And if you think the legacy media won't do their very best to highlight and exaggerate the contrast between him and our current president, you are fooling yourself.
You are right that McCain was not a strong candidate from a conservative viewpoint. Yet he promised to capture the independents to which you say Ron Paul can lay claim. Perhaps Dr. Paul will earn 10% more or even 20% more of independent votes over his Republican rivals. Those votes would come at a cost of far too many conservative votes of people who want a strong military presence overseas and want to see the PATRIOT Act and other counter-terror tools kept in place.
In terms of the states Paul can win, there is absolutely no way that he can be competitive in California, Illinois, New York, Oregon, or other traditionally blue states. Californians want one thing: more government and higher taxes. Given a chance to vote for them, the good people of the Golden State snatch it every time. It is pure delusion to think that, over the course of a six-month campaign against the national Obama-Democrat machine that Paul can get taxers and spenders to buy his vision of significantly shrinking the government.
Finally, remember that before McCain got the nomination, he was the media darling on the Republican side. That all ended when he squared off against Obama. Any goodwill that Paul has right now with the media will evaporate once Obama's campaign trains their sights on him.
It might not be fair, and it might be irrational, but Ron Paul just can't win a national election.
CONOR:
You're right that some voters aren't rational, but don't make the mistake of thinking that they will automatically make an irrational choice. Like you said, many voters cast votes for emotional reasons, and nothing can be more emotional than losing your job or a loved one overseas. Both of these are the end result of policies that Barack Obama supports and has presided over in his tenure as President.
Of course Barack Obama is an irrational choice for president, but he was one of two bad choices. He also had the advantage of running against a Republican who was seen as another George W. Bush, one of the most unpopular presidents that we have ever had.
I simply do not believe that conservative voters will stay home instead of voting for Paul over Obama. President Obama has done nothing but shake the beehive of conservatives and Tea Party folks who will do everything they can to kick Obama out of office, even if that means voting for Ron Paul. In this regard, Dr. Paul holds the advantage. Even if a small percentage of Republicans stay home, there will be many on the left who will jump ship and vote for Paul because they feel that Obama has betrayed them on foreign policy. On the other hand there will be no Republicans jumping over to Obama's camp.
California is not as clear cut as you think. While it's not likely to go red, I do see it getting much more competitive than it has been in the past. Voters there are not necessarily all big government types. Many are just turned off by the extreme social conservative nature of the Republican Party. While Paul himself is socially conservative, he does not believe that the federal government has jurisdiction on those issues. As long as Paul can keep California somewhat competitive, he can force Obama to spend much more time and energy on a normally blue state.
You talk about John McCain being the media darling back in 2008. That is one of the biggest reasons that he was able to get the nomination. Ron Paul has already proven his worth by becoming a top tier candidate, and he has done it all while being marginalized and ignored by the media. Ron Paul has no goodwill with the media, and the coverage of his candidacy couldn't get much worse. Imagine how well he could do when he becomes the nominee and must finally be paid attention to.
Dr. Paul's biggest advantage is his broad appeal (yes, you read that correctly). Almost everybody can find at least a few issues that they agree with Ron Paul on. For this reason, there will be very few voters who go into the voting booth to vote against Paul. The same cannot be said about our current president.
Conor Murphy is a graduate of Virginia Commonwealth University with a degree in political science. As a former radio talk show host on WVCW, Conor hosted two popular shows, Murphy's Law and Son of the Revolution. You can read more of his columns in The Political Pro-Con at The Washington Times Communities.
Rich is a teacher and a soldier. He is the author of Nine Weeks: A Teacher’s Education in Army Basic Training; Tunnel Club; and Not Another Boring Textbook: A High School Students’ Guide to their Inner Conservative, which you can follow on Facebook.
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
