Palin rarely says anything worth listening to, much less remembering, but she's got an important point here.
A lot of Ron Paul's support is not based on real agreement with his positions, but from the fact that he offers clear vision. There are plenty of actual libertarians, those who've done their homework, and plenty of pseudo-libertarians, those who claim the label because they haven't thought it through, who support Paul. There are also plenty of people not terribly interested in libertarianism who support as well. Why? In a word, vision. He offers a view of the world in which government has failed the vast majority of people and thus should be removed from the field of play once and for all. He curses the hammer instead of the guy using it incorrectly. While this is poor reasoning and about as pragmatic as sticking a fork into a power socket, it resonates with a lot of people.
Americans have seen their incomes stagnate, their jobs migrate, their quality of life deteriorate, and their hopes evaporate. This has produced widespread anger that occasionally bubbles up to the surface and then dissipates. This anger has noticeably popped up with the election of Reagan, the campaigns of Perot, the Republican "Revolution" of 1994, and the Democratic capture of the Congress in 2006. The anger stems from the fact that they feel unrepresented by the political class. Social issues are frequently used as a sideshow to hide the fact that those at the top are either untroubled by or unwilling to engage the fundamental economic issues that produce this grassroots anger.
Is it a wonder people look to snake-oil salesmen like Ron Paul? Who is actually representing them? The American people today, much like the Grangers of the 19th century, look at the country and realize that government is the locus, if not the source, of their problems. Both then and now, government has adhered to a principle that business can do no wrong and that whatever is good for business necessarily must be good for the country. This is an insane position to take. Ron Paul has stature because he offers a solution, which is to completely remove government from the playing field. It would solve the problem of government favors to business, but it would not remotely touch the source of the people's anger. It would actually make the imbalance of power far worse. The problem is that nobody who actually gets on TV consistently talks about this. Good Lord, why are small government "conservatives" ever taken seriously? They have NO history on which to found their claims. We can point the mid 20th century as evidence that the philosophy of liberalism, when properly grounded, can actually work. They can point to what? Some book written by a deranged Russian chick who lived on government assistance? SERIOUSLY?
Palin's point is ultimately that the anger Ron Paul is tapping is valuable to whoever can actually address the concerns of his supporters. They're a potential source of votes that is beholden to the man, not a party. They represent the frustration of people in this country who've gone so long without anyone truly offering them a real alternative that they'll follow whatever Pied Piper happens to sleaze into town.
= new reply since forum marked as read
[/img]
