Why Ron Paul Matters, Win or Lose

Lose he will, most think, regardless of what happens in Iowa.  However:

Paul’s success matters because no matter who wins in 2012 they will find their policy options tightly constrained by the movement he has helped to construct. A potential Republican President will find himself in a particular bind. Just look at what’s happened to John Boehner. And coming in Paul’s wake is Rand Paul, a far more telegenic character who has mastered the Neo-Confederate synergy of Ante-Bellum Dixie economics and old-tyme religion. The organization Ron Paul has built could reach a tipping point under Rand’s influence.

For rationalist Republicans struggling to regain some relevance in the party Ron Paul’s success is particularly instructive. Instead of engaging in the contortions that created John McCain’s 2008 “success” in the nominating campaign, we might be better off repeating the apparent failure of 2000, following such failures with carefully grassroots coalition-building. The White House is a hollow prize for anyone who can’t influence the base.

Politics is not about winning elections, it is about wielding power. Paul offers some valuable lessons in politics that rationalists could put to use.

Most people think that Mitt Romney will eventually walk away with the Republican nomination.  But compare Romney to Ron Paul — you couldn’t find a starker contrast in terms of the kind of politicians these two are.  Romney, like the vast majority of politicians, cares primarily about winning elections, and his fungibility over the years is all the proof you need.  You certainly cannot say the same thing about Ron Paul, at least at the presidential level, regardless of whether you agree with him.  I honestly don’t even think the guy wants to be President; he’d seem to be more content being the contemporary father of an old philosophy that gains more and more influence in the coming years.

Libertarians have plenty to be encouraged about these days.