As easy as it is for liberals — at least the liberals who haven’t swooned by his libertarian seduction — to write off Congressman Ron Paul’s (R-TX) as a crackpot, they should be cautious. Albeit the septuagenarians wrinkles and languor, he embodies curious ideas and wisdom for the country.
In his column “Ron Paul loses his voice in GOP” fellow columnist Chris Hoitash discussed how the establishment in Washington D.C. and the media had seemingly turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to Paul’s campaign for the presidency. And while it is doubtful that Paul will receive the nomination from the Republican Party, President Obama should not underestimate the libertarian.
His sagacity and affability would aid him in any debate with President Obama. Paul isn’t a candidate like Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) who President Obama could outsmart, or a candidate like former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) who he could out humanize.
And although he might have the same penchant for loquaciousness as Vice President Joe Biden, Paul is still more fluent than the cantankerous Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) who was bested in the last presidential election.
It’s evident that the state of the U.S. economy will be at the center of the debate in next year’s race to the White House. A poll by Rasmussen, conducted on Oct. 21st, showed that a majority of voters saw economic issues taking precedent over all other matters of public policy.
I might think Paul’s ideas on macroeconomic policy are incorrect, but I realize that his ideas would sound much more suasive to voters than the jibber-jabber about fairness that would be uttered by President Obama. And yes, I did say jibber-jabber, because that is what President Obama’s eloquence has devolved into – uninspiring jibber-jabber.
Paul has his own treatise on macroeconomic policy — End the Fed — while President Obama hasn’t established any kind of modus operandi for his stewardship over the U.S. economy and his only ‘achievement’ is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 did stop the downward trend in the U.S. economy, that much is evident from the data, which shows a downward flow in the GDP and then an abrupt upshot in February 2009 when the legislation became law. However, it did not bring the unemployment rate below 8 percent as Obama and his
administration promised it would.
And as Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) once quipped “The problem in politics is this: You don’t get any credit for disaster averted. Going to the voters and saying, ‘Boy, things really suck. But you know what? If it wasn’t for me, they would suck worse.’ That is not a platform on which anybody has ever gotten elected in the history of the world.”
Because of this, Paul could all too easily mischaracterize the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 as a failure and the kind of pork barrel spending he has a genuine record of voting against. This, in the backdrop of a high unemployment rate and a national debt of $14.9 trillion, President Obama would have neither the guise of accountability or frugality to save him from that criticism.
In the hypothetical that Paul wins the nomination and then duels with President Obama, Obama would have to juxtapose the skeletal kind of government Paul desires — a kind of government without a Department of Homeland Security or Department of Education, and a government with the muscle to carry out the duties that many of its citizens desire.
Call it accurate or a mischaracterization of Paul’s beliefs, regardless, Obama’s chances of besting the Texan would be to have the juxtaposition of a progressive agenda versus a regressive agenda. I’m only a political science major, not a political prognosticator. I do not believe Paul will receive the nomination, however, if he does these are the factors that the incumbent should fear.
