Howard Fineman tries to analyze the Ron Paul phenomenon:
I have to admit that I kind of like Rep. Ron Paul. Partly it’s that we’re both from Pittsburgh, and both began our careers as paperboys for the Pittsburgh Press. More important, Paul is something unusual in politics. He appears to believe in something. His fundamental views have not changed since 1971, when he decided to run for Congress in Texas because President Nixon abandoned the gold standard.
I don’t like labels, but in this case I’ll use some. Paul, a Duke-trained physician, is an angry, apocalyptic, populist, hard-currency libertarian. He is against paper money, the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and most of the federal government’s role in our lives, from fighting in Afghanistan to printing Social Security checks. Paul never saw an establishment he didn’t loathe. Many of his ideas are unworkable, some are dangerous, and some of his supporters are conspiracy theorists so paranoid, they probably think this column is part of the Plot. But, as odd as it seems, Paul has become a player in Washington and at the grassroots. His emergence should be a lesson to rudderless Republicans. They don’t want to scare away independent voters, but they need to find a way to emulate Paul’s outsider’s anger and his commitment to conservative essentials.
How much of a condemnation of American politics is it that you can tar someone by alleging that they “appear to believe in something”? Politicians are often portrayed as believing in nothing — except that it is critical that they be re-elected — but when it’s a smear to say that they hold any philosophical belief at all? Perhaps we really do deserve the governments we elect . . . as punishment.
