The New York Times Magazine has a lengthy article on Ron Paul, showing both his strengths and weaknesses. As I do not believe Paul has any realistic chance of winning either the Republican nomination or the general election, I’m less interested in what we learn about Paul as opposed to what we learn about America. This can be seen in the conclusion of the article:
Whatever the campaign purports to be about, the main thing it has done thus far is to serve as a clearinghouse for voters who feel unrepresented by mainstream Republicans and Democrats. The antigovernment activists of the right and the antiwar activists of the left have many differences, maybe irreconcilable ones. But they have a lot of common beliefs too, and their numbers — and anger — are of a considerable magnitude. Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States. But his candidacy gives us a good hint about the country the next president is going to have to knit back together.
Ron Paul fills a gap left by the major candidates. The Republican Party has become completely taken over by authoritarian war mongers, with most of them also theocrats (or at least pandering to the religious right for support). While we do hear opposition to the Iraq war from the Democrats, there is less talk about civil liberties, limited action to hold Bush accountable for trampling on the Constitution, and the candidates totally run away from the concept of separation of church and state as they try to appear more religious in the hopes of picking up votes. On economic issues, there is the fear that The Wall Street Journal is right that Edwards “holds sway over party’s agenda.” (more…)