Whatever the reason for the weird ramblings in the Ron Paul family of publications — and to me, anyway, the most likely one is: the guy wanted to move some product, and his customers ate that crap up — it does suggest a sad conclusion: that the job of the constitutional candidate — the ombudsman for the founding document, the champion of the framers — is unlikely to appeal to anyone except the humorless crank at the end of the bar. And that’s not Ron Paul’s fault. That’s ours.
I agree with Rob about the Paul newsletter fiasco, but this last bit is kind of a head-scratcher. Just because a candidate constantly refers to the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that that candidate has a good, principled understanding of the Constitution whatsoever. Contra Rob, with the rise of the Tea Parties and the majority of Americans thirsting for the exposition of the principles of the American Founding, I think America is as open as ever to having candidates talk about the Constitution in serious, principled discussions. But when Paul talks about it, he doesn't do much educating. (In fact, why after 30 years in Congress has he not really been able to sway many people in Washington to his understanding?) He always talks about the Constitution in vague, almost throw-a-way terms, and overall, I get the impression more and more that his fidelity to the "Constitution" is simply his fidelity to his brand of libertarianism. And just an aside: If voters look at Ron Paul and view him as what a candidate is supposed to be like if he follows the Constitution, wouldn't you think that might turn people off from actually following it in the first place?
No comments:
Post a Comment