Ron Paul and the Role of the Republican Party

Ron Paul is probably not going to win the nomination for the Republican Party for president in 2012.

As a disclaimer, I’m an ardent Ron Paul supporter, and have been since 2006. I believe he is the best choice for our party and our country among the other choices in the field right now. So writing the above line was hard. But as much as I hate to say it, it’s probably true.

Even though Paul’s support has been climbing steadily in Iowa and New Hampshire in the past couple weeks, there is little evidence to show that the climb is being mirrored among all sects of the GOP. “Values voters” and “national security conservatives”, both of whom are perfectly comfortable with big government so long as a Republican on “their” side is in charge, will not give Paul their vote because of Paul’s libertarian leanings. If Ron Paul is not going to define marriage at the federal level or fight preemptive, aggressive wars against multiple nations around the world, then the above groups of Republicans will not support him.

Ron Paul’s supporters, on the other hand, lambast the other candidates for their flip-flopping on the issues (Gingrich, Romney), their questionable conservative bona fides (Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman), and/or their comprehension of the core facts of the issues (Cain, Bachmann).

This GOP infighting threatens to divide the vote and give Obama a second term if one of the non-nominees chooses to run as an Independent. Therefore, Ron Paul’s critics are quick to claim that Paul’s mere presence in the race threatens to give Obama four more years in office.

OK, maybe. But then what purpose does the Republican Party serve? Do Republicans stand for anything on principle anymore? Does it matter? Do Republicans exist only to oust Democrats from office? Is American politics really that much like a football game?

With these questions in mind, there are some worrisome contradictions coming from Paul’s detractors that need to be illuminated.

The main goal of this group of Republicans is to get Obama out of the White House. A secondary goal is to undo Obama’s main legislative victories, namely Obamacare. A large majority of American voters say that the most important issues in 2012 will be the economy and job growth.

Seeing as how Romney seems to be the national frontrunner still, this means that Republicans are supporting Romney because they believe that he’s the best chance the GOP has to retire Obama from his current post. When these people are questioned about Romney’s flip-flopping, they can look past it, saying basically that “he may not be perfect, but he’s a million times better than Obama.”

Well, fine; that may be true. But what would happen if Romney did get the nomination and beat Obama in the general election? Do these Republicans believe that a President Romney will actually govern completely differently than President Obama?

The evidence suggests that no, he probably would not. The evidence instead suggests that a Romney presidency would be extremely similar to George W. Bush’s. Seeing as how the past several presidencies have been back-and-forth between the Democrats and the Republicans, this would most likely mean that we’d have at least four years of the status quo in Washington, with the Democratic political machine rallying their rapidly-growing voter base to oust the Republican from the White House. And since a Romney presidency would not significantly alter the economic or social situation in the US, those Democratic efforts will work when people’s lives do not improve for the better.

Romney would not radically change tax policy. He will perpetuate aggressive wars abroad. He won’t touch the Federal Reserve or the power that institution has over our currency and American’s purchasing power. The border probably won’t be secured, and the 12+ million illegal invaders currently residing here will probably be given a “path to citizenship” (amnesty). Health care and education costs will continue to soar. When Romney makes good on his promise to stop Iran from (maybe) obtaining a nuclear weapon, America will enter one of the most destructive and horrifying wars the world has seen since World War Two, and Americans will be less safe at home.

But Republicans will still be celebrating the ouster of Obama. And to what end? So Republicans can put the bumper sticker that says “Don’t blame me! I voted for [the other guy]!” on their car?

Republicans have a lot of soul-searching to do. If they’re being honest that their main issue in 2012 is the economy and job growth, then Ron Paul is the clear choice, since his voting record on those issues has been stellar, especially considering the fact that Gingrich, Romney, and Rick Perry all supported TARP and the subsequent bailouts of the private industry by the Federal Reserve. And yet, many Republicans refuse to even consider Ron Paul as an option because Paul will not do “anything possible” to prevent Iran from (maybe) getting a nuclear weapon, which is a stance that automatically implies that they’ll go to war with Iran to stop this.

Translation: “I’ll support a candidate who is weaker on my most important issue because I support his stance on a lesser issue.”

So, Republicans, please ask yourselves this as 2012 approaches: Is the economy still the most important issue? If so, are you willing to sacrifice your most important issue for a lesser one? And if so, why? How do you explain this huge contradiction?

If the economy is the most important issue for Republicans, then Ron Paul is the clear choice, as many anti-Paul people will still admit that they agree with Paul on his economic stances. If you support any of the other candidates, not only are they weaker on the economic issues, but their penchant for perpetual war will dig us trillions of dollars deeper in the debt hole in which America currently finds herself.

It. Doesn’t. Make. Sense.

If the Republican Party’s only purpose is to keep Democrats out of public office, then there does not appear to be much hope for America. This is no exaggeration. The Democrats have shown that they have lofty Utopian left-wing principles that they can and will fulfill through the Legislature. If the Republican Party abandons all principles of limited government in favor of just beating Democrats, then the Party is soulless and baseless. We may see the rise of a third party as a serious contender in American politics, or we may see the complete domination by Democrats in public office.

So, Republicans: either put your money where your mouth is and vote for Ron Paul, the man most capable and willing to bring our country back on track economically, or stubbornly sacrifice your fiscal principles in favor of someone who may or may not respect the Constitution and who will almost certainly keep America in a perpetual state of war that will further drain our nation’s coffers and kill off more of my generation in needless police actions around the world.

The time for business-as-usual is over.