Section
Pepperdine Links
Online Publications
By now, almost every American has heard of Congressman Ron Paul. Widely known as “Dr. No” for his longstanding practice as an OB-GYN and his refusal to vote for legislation unless it is expressly permitted by the Constitution, Paul has attracted a dedicated mass.
Few will argue that the Republican Party has fallen on hard times and all but the most committed Republicans will concede that George W. Bush’s presidency has, in many respects, been thoroughly disappointing. Many frustrated Republicans who have been recently experiencing a mild case of disillusionment with their party were likely pleasantly surprised when they learned of Paul’s unique blend of libertarian and conservative ideals.
For conservatives nationwide, Bush’s presidency has been anything but conservative: during it, we have seen a 23 percent increase in domestic discretionary spending, participation in an undeclared war costing taxpayers nearly $2 billion a week according to a 2006 Congressional analysis, and countless other big government adventures. What was once the party of limited government and protection of individual liberties has slowly drifted from its distinctive time-honored principles into uncharted territory. Some, likely hardcore Libertarians, will even go so far to say that the past eight years have been an unmitigated disaster.
Paul offers these disenfranchised voters an enticing alternative. Refreshingly respectful of the Constitution and the federal government’s intended role in the lives of its citizenry, Paul has largely earned his fame because he communicates steadfastness and restraint in a day and age in which inconsistency and compromised principles are becoming the norm in politics.
They also point to his integrity as reason enough to support him. Paul, for example, refuses to enroll in the federal pension plan that every member of Congress is entitled to. Out of 535 members of Congress, Paul is the only to decline his participation in this program. Many of these 535 share his limited government beliefs and have respectable conservative records, but as Paul has shown, it is one thing to preach about consistent conservative ideals but quite another to actually live them.
His biggest fans are seemingly attracted to the fact that he is unscripted and unpolished. At times, he is prone to looking disheveled; early in his campaign he was seen as reactive. Some Democrats admire Paul’s courage in distancing himself from the original 12 candidates in 2007’s Republican presidential debates but still consider him a political laughingstock. Meanwhile, some Republicans have voiced their contempt for Paul by calling him a “crazy old man,” “simply nuts” and “totally unpresidential.”
The first two comments obviously indicate narrow-minded naiveté about Paul, but the last one is seemingly legitimate. If Paul is indeed thoroughly unpresidential, the question to ask is, why?
More than anything else, the reason why Paul is deemed “unpresidential” is not because of his credentials or personal qualities. He owns an M.D. from Duke Medical School, is a distinguished Air Force veteran, and is a longstanding and respected member of Congress. His writings on monetary policy and economics suggest an understanding of these subjects that rival that of PhD candidate. But unfortunately, despite these scarce talents, Paul will never be considered presidential material by the masses until he stops doing precisely what has made him such a hit with his small rabid following.
People respect and appreciate honesty especially when they’d like to hear otherwise. I do not accuse any other candidates of dishonesty. Paul, however, has done the best at frankly communicating to the American public — or to those willing to listen, anyways — the state of our nation.
Ask any Paul fan why they like him and you’re bound to hear about his insistence on discussing and tackling seemingly forgotten issues. Sexy issues for political debate obviously include the ongoing Iraq War, our anemic economy, and illegal immigration. Paul never shrugs off these looming problems. What differentiates him from other candidates is his willingness to bring up uncomfortable truths about the problems facing America, such as the grim facts about our military involvement in Iraq and the importance of addressing monetary policy when discussing economics.
I had the honor of serving as Paul’s media sign holder immediately after the Republican presidential debates on Jan. 30, and had the opportunity to ask him a few questions. In particular, I commented that he was rarely given an opportunity to speak earlier that evening, which was really a glorified tennis match between John McCain and Mitt Romney. Perhaps his answer to my comment best sums up why some voters simply cannot get behind him: some people, he said, simply don’t want to hear the truth.
To an extent, Paul’s assertion that some voters do not want to hear the truth is quite true. But perhaps more precisely, what many voters want to hear is a more aspirational version of the truth. Frank Luntz, the legendary political communications guru and author of “Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear,” has cited that most people want a president to be self-defined and aspirational. Paul is undoubtedly self-defined, but is he aspirational? No — or at least it seems that way.
Though his campaign slogan of “Hope For America” is perhaps as aspirational as you can get, Paul’s problem is that he frames his goals negatively. He has an excellent command of the issues confronting America, but is prone to emphasizing the stark negative consequences of our domestic and foreign policies instead of touting the rewards we would reap if we changed our ways.
Paul can help his case for the presidency by framing his ideas more positively and by communicating his future goals more than listing the current problems plaguing our country. While many politicians seemingly need to become less trite, more realistic, and more focused on problem-solving, it seems to me that Paul would reach more voters by communicating his policy stances in a more aspirational manner, perhaps by beefing up his “Prescription for Prosperity” campaign or by expanding it to a comprehensive “Prescription For America.”
But back to our responsibility as voters: until the American public redefines its concept of the word “presidential” and realizes that character, merit, and a thorough comprehension of even the minutest issues facing our country ought to count more than celebrity endorsements, speaking skill and physical appearance, we will have, at worst, helped select the wrong president. At best, we will have selected the right president — but for the wrong reasons.
Ron Paul, unfortunately, will not be elected president in 2008. Until he changes his campaign approach to a more aspirational and goal-oriented one, and until the American voting public changes their approach in selecting a president to a more substantive one, it is unlikely Paul will ever occupy the Oval Office. In my mind, this is perhaps the ultimate political tragedy.
Submitted 02-14-2008
MALIBU, CA
