Why Ron Paul Will Win. A Liberal's Perspective

Ron Paul and more importantly, his supporters, will win the long term battle.

I will readily admit that I am a liberal, be aware that I identify as a liberal in the more classical sense, but pragmatically tend to support the more left leaning candidates. I also enjoy (and have an have an eye for) politics. In the past, I have fed my family with the money made from working for several political campaigns. I have never been paid to work for a national campaign, but was the campaign manager for several regional candidates (they all won) and two state-wide races (1 won, 1 lost). I left the field because it is not work that allows me to be the father that I want to be. Too many long hours, too much travel and too much "compromise".

However, being a political junkie at heart, I have been watching the 2012 race fairly closely and the Ron Paul "Delegate Strategy" in particular.

ATS members like OutKast Searcher have been demonstrating the difficult path that Ron Paul faces to the nomination. In particular, I think his most recent post about the nomination being settled by a vote of acclamation is quite astute. You will see on Page 7 of that thread where I provided C-Span footage of how Boehner can very quickly end the roll call vote if needed. Unfortunately for Paul supporters, I don't think the tactic will be necessary. There is a very good chance that Romney will secure 1144 bound delegates before Tampa.

So, why do I state that Ron Paul will win?

Because politics at its most nuts and bolts level is controlled by informed motivated minorities.

No. Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee at the conclusion of the Tampa convention, but his Delegate Strategy has mobilized and informed a not insignificant portion of the electorate on how the system actually works.

And this is a very good thing. And I say that as an individual most associated with the Democratic Party in my state.

I believe strongly in the two party system that Americans have utilized over the course of our history. I have studied the European systems and feel that they are far more likely to end in grid lock and bad legislation. The problems we are facing today (and it has happened a couple of other times in our history) is that one of the two parties are not living up to their end of the bargain. The Republicans have gone off the rails and become a defacto extremist party. This is common in Europe, but in a two party system it is a recipe for disaster.

This is why I am pleased by Paul's Delegate Strategy. It has mobilized an informed minority on how to take back the Republican party and return conservatism to its rightful place in American politics by advocating for smaller government, less federalism and austerity (even though I personally disagree with most of these stances). Right now the mainstream in the party seem to be on the brink of a cliff waving their hands in the air like mad men, unable to do their job of governing, because to them "compromise" is worse than defeat.

There is little doubt in my mind that even if the TPTB within the Republican Party are ignorant to this fact, that there are plenty of others that are watching the same cycle I am and will capitalize on it in the future. The result being a Republican Party that is more in tune to actually governing.

Political governance operates on a pendulum, and it seems to me, that in the long run, the Ron Paul campaign and its supporters, will help swing the pendulum back into some sense of equilibrium.

So Ron Paul will win in the way that actually matters the most.

By the time this election is over, I hope to God that there will be a multi-part series on TV on how the process works, and the tactics politicians use to their advantage that is not obviously a part of the process.

It is kind of confusing, especially when most people are just taught that the delegates determine who the nominee will be.

While that's true, it leaves a lot of details out.

Do I think that will happen? Nah

I don't see it happening. Just look at what happened to the Tea Party.

The Paul campaign exposed how the GOP establishment controls voting in Louisiana by outsmarting them within their own established system.
The Dems are no better.
Loved watching the established polticos squirm and lie about how they were victimized, Sounded like a bunch aof democrats.

I appreciate your very open minded post. I'm glad, even though you a line yourself with these views, that you realize the need to bring balance back to the party. I support Ron Paul, I will vote for him regardless, I do not think he will be the next President of the United States, but as you said I believe he has won in possibly a more important way.

reply to post by LordOfArcadia


The problem is. that we don't have a 2 party system we have a three party system and only one has full control. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are in control. The only one that truly controls our laws,policies and legislation are lobbyists.

GOP and the DNC are smoke screens for the public to waste time arguing while the lobbyist clients continue to control the market to there desire. Although, I'm Certain that those lobbyist spend billions to motivate congress to do what is best for the middle class tax payers and not to increase their bottom line.

reply to post by headorheart


Thank you for the kind words. Disagreements around governing philosophies help make a robust democracy.

reply to post by interupt42


Having seen how the sausage gets made, my take is that the issue with lobbyists is not near as bad as people fear but a whole lot worse than they guess. The classic Tammany Hall-esque notion of lawmakers getting paid to vote a specific way just doesn't happen. Where money plays a huge role is in access. It is staggering how many different issues there are and it is an impossibility for a legislator to devote staff time to investigating the importance of every one (much less they personally investigate every issue themselves). Money WILL buy you face time in front of a legislator to make your case.

Where it starts to get really dangerous (from my perspective) is that while money won't buy you the legislators vote or support, if he or she actually agrees with the lobbyist's stance and agrees that a specific piece of legislation should be passed or a specific amendment attached to a bill, the legislator still runs into the obstacle of time and limited staff resources.

So the ever helpful lobbyist will say, "I know your time is stretched, so if you would like, I can offer you this draft piece of legislation that my organization wrote that you could use as a starting point for your bill." The legislator, more often than not, will submit said piece of legislation with only the most minor of trivial changes. He or she doesn't feel like they have done anything scandalous because they actually agree with the lobbyist's position.

If you are interested, take a look at the proposed legislation for half a dozen different states at the start of their sessions. I would be willing to bet that you will find almost word for word identical pieces of legislation submitted in totally different states. Of course each will say they were written by whomever is the sponsor in that state.

I find this to be an extremely dangerous practice that has become far too common. The last time I checked (a couple of years ago), the vast majority of legislation proposed in my state was written by interest groups.

You maybe right about the small time lobbyist, but if you are talking about big pharma, oil cartels, unions, etc.etc.. they are the ones calling the shots! Just look at Sheldon Adelson giving over 10 million dollars to Newt Gingrich's campaign, what kind of policy do you think he would have had towards Israel if he had won the presidency? Don't try to mitigate one of this country's biggest problems!