United Liberty
Paul Derangement Syndrome and the Iowa Caucuses
Thu, 12/22/2011 - 12:20pm | posted by Brian Lehman
In what is surely a complete coincidence, Ron Paul’s rise in the Iowa caucus polls has been accompanied by an incredible rise in anti-Paul rhetoric on the right. Now, certainly some of this is valid - I, like many others, am very bothered by Paul’s newsletters and many of his associations. But the level of hate and anger at Paul exceeds even that directed at Obama. It’s routine to see Paul referred to as anti-American, a charge heretofore reserved for liberals. It has even led to many claiming that, despite months of fetishistic obsession with the Iowa caucuses, Paul winning those caucuses would somehow render them meaningless.
Some, like Margaret Carlson, argue that a Paul win in Iowa would reduce the Iowa polls to obsolescence. She makes a number of other arguments as to why Iowa should be reduced in meaning, but the central tenet is that if Paul wins, they are essentially done. Now, I’m not going to defend the idea that Iowa’s claim to the first vote in the primary is somehow sacred, because I generally feel it is not. But if the caucuses were irrelevant, they have been so for a long time. It is nothing new that Iowa is not representative of the nation as a whole, that it is a poor predictor for eventual winner, or that the style of the caucuses is so unique as to be an entirely different beast from normal primary elections.
What is new is that a candidate with views that conflict with mainstream thought may now win them. I’m personally averse to supporting Paul for a number of reasons. But it’s clear that he is challenging some very well-established ideas within the GOP - mainly, that America is always the good guy when it comes to foreign policy, and that the GOP has often been on the wrong side of issues like torture, indefinite detainment, and warrantless surveillance. It is simply deeply uncomfortable for many on the right to accept that Paul’s positions have resonance among many voters.
So instead of arguing their case, conservatives have decided that ridicule, derision and mockery are the way to go. Paul certainly has some followers that are less than tactful, but now even moderate supporters are called “Paulbots” and “cultists.” Paul’s poll numbers are regularly in double-digits, yet he is ignored and treated with less respect than single-digit losers like Rick Santorum. And now the vaunted Iowa caucuses are suddenly being called irrelevant. It’s enough to make one marvel at the tizzy that Paul has caused amongst the right.
How can you talk about treating anyone with respect when you, in this very post, refer to other candidates as “losers?” Also, as far as your argument that “Conservatives have decided that ridicule, derision and mockery are the way to go” why did you not mention Ron Paul’s appearance with Jay Leno in which he implied that two other candidates were racists and/or bigots?
I think Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas, he just doesn’t present them well. But, if you are going to make an argument that he isn’t being treated with respect or that attacks are being made without regard to policy, you should ensure you and Ron Paul aren’t doing the exact same thing.
Brian,
I have to kind of disagree here. For one thing, the value of the Iowa Caucuses in general tend to be blown way out of proportion, especially on the Republican side. Since 1976, only 3 winners of the Iowa GOP Caucuses ended up getting the nomination and only 1 of those 3 ended up winning the Presidency. And one of those is Bob Dole, who was effectively a “favorite son” candidate in Iowa in 88 and 96 (he won both times in Iowa bot lost the nomination in 88) even though he represented neighboring Kansas at the time. So, who wins the Iowa Caucus doesn’t really tell us much.
Paul is doing well in Iowa partly because it is a caucus where anyone can participate simply be showing up and saying they are a Republican. If Iowa held a primary,I seriously doubt he’d be doing well at all.
Moreover, once you start running the numbers its fairly clear that Paul runs into a brick wall past Iowa and, maybe, New Hampshire. Partly this is because his campaign simply isn’t as well organized as, say, Romney’s. Partly it’s because he isn’t exactly in step with the GOP base on a lot of issues. Once we get to the big primary states, nearly all of which are closed to independent voters, it’s going to be pretty much over for him.
This isn’t bias against Paul. I’d say the same thing about Michele Bachmann or, if he were still in the race, Herman Cain.
Finally, I’d just repeat what Tommy says above. Paul is not necessarily his own best spokesperson, as his current handling of the newsletters controversy is showing us.
I agree with pretty much all of that Doug. What I was trying to point out is that all of those facts about the Iowa caucuses were just as true a couple months ago. Yet now that Paul is leading we have everyone coming out of the woodwork to insist they mean nothing. So in that sense it is in a way a reaction to the fact that he could win there.
I agree with the above commenter. Paul really took a cheap shot at Bachmann with his “she hates Muslims” remark.
“But it’s clear that he is challenging some very well-established ideas within the GOP - mainly, that America is always the good guy when it comes to foreign policy…”
Well, no. It’s clear that he’s trying to establish his own school of thought, that America is always the bad guy when it comes to foreign policy. It’s all our fault. And the Muslims are just nice people who want to be left alone.
Muslim Brotherhood? What’s that? Don’t know who they are, but we know that they won’t wield any power in the new Egypt.
Hahaha…wow. Actual hate speech. Nice job, there. I so rarely see it typed out like that in a serious manner.
I don’t see any “Paul derangement syndrome”. I have, of course, noticed that whoever is leading in the polls gets the most scrutiny. It wasn’t until Cain was the temporary frontrunner that we started to hear about his playing grabass with everything that moves. It wasn’t until Gingrich was the temporary frontunner that we started to hear about his Fannie and Freddie money.
And now Paul is at the top, at least in the Iowa polls, and we’re hearing about the newsletters again. He threw a hissy fit about them on CNN because he thinks that reporters should stop doing their job and stop asking him about them. After all, he’s already answered that question, right?
Well, yes. He’s been answering that question for about fifteen years. But it’s important that his answers have not always been the same, and they seem to have gotten more and more implausible over the years. Basically, he’s full of crap.
You haven’t seen all the talk about declaring the Iowa Caucuses irrelevant all of a sudden, now that Paul is in the lead? Really?
This post, FYI, is less about the newsletters than just the GOP declaring Iowa irrelevant.
I saw that interview as well and was quite shocked because he is usually very polite, then I read that they edited it to make it look like he walked off. I watched the whole video and they indeed played it around on him out of context to make it look like he was a jerk. This makes me more intrigued, why does the media dislike him so much? He is winning me over more and more mainly due to these endless wars…
This article was EXCELLENTLY representative of a normal American’s train of thought.
You rule dude.
I wrote this in regards to Paul’s racism, and yes, I am an avid supporter of Paul. However, I objectively gathered the facts for my writing… Objective gathering is the only way to be properly subjective, no?
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11147906-libertarianism-codena…
Please read, I hope it influences you about Paul’s context. I strongly believe he had nothing to do with those newsletters.
Thank you.
Thanks for the comments. I admit that “losers” was a poor word choice and was more a reflection of my profound personal dislike for Santorum. I should have used another term to describe what I was trying to say, which is that Santorum has never been more than a blip on the radar yet has been treated like he’s a serious candidate all along.
As for Paul Derangement Syndrome, I’d say it’s hard to miss. I’d expect that since he’s the front runner in Iowa but the level of hate towards him is really exceptional, from my perspective. In fairness I am more susceptible to noticing it since I am ideologically closer to Paul than Cain or Bachmann.
One thing I forgot to mention was that I agree with you that the idea of Ron Paul winning the Iowa Caucuses makes them meaningless is absurd. If he wins? It’s because he won. It doesn’t change anything. I’ll remind folks that Jesse Jackson won 11 contest in 1988 and none of those contests were suspect thereafter, and I think we can all agree that Jesse Jackson has a lot less in his tank than Ron Paul.
Stop this senseless discourse! Iowa has been officially declared an irrelevant zone. Return at once to chewing your cuds or we will be forced to cut your rations.
Post new comment