Ron Paul Shakes Things Up

Those who tuned in to the recent Republican presidential debates were given a special treat when an unlikely contender bravely stood apart from the "moderate" posturing of the other candidates. Enunciating a strikingly original form of conservatism, Texas congressman Ron Paul -- who is a member of both the Republican and Libertarian parties -- denounced out-of-control spending, foreign adventurism, executive overreach, and the distancing of the Republican party from its libertarian roots.

Paul uncompromisingly outlined his plan for America, calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System and the CIA, as well as the repeal of the Federal Income Tax. Paul also outlined a new foreign policy vision centered around non-intervention and cessation of meddlesome military adventures abroad. While those who have advocated similar foreign policy ideas in the recent past have been shunned as "isolationist", the chaos in Iraq and the widely-perceived failure of president Bush's aggressive foreign policies may have given new life to Paul's libertarian plan.

Most controversially, Paul pointed to the relationship between America's meddlesome military practices abroad and the growth of Islamic extremism, saying that America's military presence in the Middle East and sanctions against Iraq (which caused the deaths of at least half a million Iraqi children) contributed to 9/11. While Rudy Giuliani and other critics have decried Paul analysis in this regard, Paul has pointed out that the 9/11 Commission and the CIA have both concluded that American military involvement in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East contributed to the popularity of radical Islam and the rise of al Qaeda.

Unsurprisingly, Paul's presentation of these challenges to the Washington "consensus" of big government and military aggression has been met with hostility from throughout the political spectrum. The left has decried his "extreme" plans to dismantle the wasteful welfare state, while the right has rejected his non-interventionist stance. Both sides of the aisle have joined in the bashing simply because neither of them can afford to have viable alternatives offered to a public that is increasingly fed up with the same old failed policies of the Washington establishment.

Paul's critics have gone so far as to attempt to have him barred from further debates, claiming either that his views are "offensive" or that he is somehow not a "serious" candidate -- all because his views go against the grain, calling into question the most sacred "truths" of Washington's entrenched political elites. The "mainstream" media has treated Paul as something of an irrelevant novelty, despite the fact that he emerged on top in numerous post-debate polls. This treatment clearly shows how the Washington establishment -- from veteran politicians and parties to think-tanks and the media -- work to silence any truly dissenting viewpoints that do not fit neatly into the Democratic/Republican mold of controlled "opposition".

One should not underestimate the power of the media to form opinions and exclude ideas from national discourse, nor should one neglect to recognize the interest of political and media elites in maintaining the status quo, even where Americans clearly favor new ideas. That Ron Paul was able to reach such a wide audience during the debates was something of a coup in itself, however there is much work to be done before libertarian ideas can be fairly presented to the public and judged on their merits next to the tired ideas of the big-government establishment.