This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ron Paul Can Win
This piece was written by Robin Koerner and originally appeared on HuffPo. Robin also writes for the Daily Capitalist and it was published there as well.
It's hard to tell if the idea that Ron Paul cannot win in 2012 is more ignorant, in its complete lack of historical sophistication, or more arrogant, in its claim to certainty amid all the complexity of 300 million lives and the myriad issues that affect them.
Sometimes, perhaps once in a few generations, a nation can undergo what a mathematician or physicist would call a "phase change." The classic example of such a thing is a pile of sand. Every grain you add makes the pile slightly steeper and slightly higher without moving any of the other grains inside the pile, until eventually one grain is added that causes an avalanche of sand down the sides of the pile, moving thousand of grains and changing the shape of the pile.
Such behavior can be exhibited by all complex systems, and a nation -- it should be obvious -- is much more complex than a pile of sand.
The important point for those who would presume to make such grand predictions as "Dr. Paul cannot win" is that no examination of the pile of sand before the point of avalanche would tell you that, or when, the avalanche will eventually happen.
But happen it does; indeed, happen it must.
And there are numerous examples of abrupt and dramatic phase change in the politics of great nations.
The U.K., the country of my birth, provides a compelling and closely relevant example. As every schoolboy knows, Churchill led Britain to victory in the Second World War. Indeed, he did as much as any man on Earth ever has to save civilization as we know it.
Three months after the entire nation poured into the streets to cheer this great leader (the man a few years ago voted by Britons the greatest Briton of all time), Churchill went to the country in a general election to retain his position as prime minister. There was simply no way he could lose. The best slogan the Labour party, his opposition, could come up with was, "Cheer Churchill. Vote Labour."
And amazingly, that is exactly what the nation did. Churchill was defeated. No one anywhere -- including the people of Britain who voted in the election -- had even thought about the possibility. No newspaper had considered it. After all, the election was a foregone conclusion in Churchill's favor. And yet an unseen, perhaps unconscious, will of the people caused a cultural and political phase-change in the British nation that they neither knew they wanted nor knew they had the power to cause.
Many historians now say that the unseen sentiment that produced this result that shocked not just the British but the whole world was the idea that all the blood and treasure lost to maintain the freedom of the British empire and the Western world demanded something more than continuation of the old political settlement. After a huge crisis, the people wanted a whole new system. In 1945, the Labour Party, with its vision of state-delivered cradle-to-grave security of health and basic material well-being (welfare state), in some way met that national desire for a grand political change.
Following what was in fact a landslide victory for the Labour party, the character of the nation changed massively, and more change rapidly followed in the British identity, as an empire was lost and the mantle of the world's greatest power was handed to the U.S.A.
Those who have noted that one of Ron Paul's greatest qualities is his humility might also be interested to know that Churchill had put down Clement Attlee, who defeated him, with the words, "A modest little man, with much to be modest about."
Perhaps a more fanciful comparison, but nonetheless indicative: no one in China was predicting that the Long March of Mao, which began in defeat and despair, would end in Beijing with victory and the proclamation of a whole new nation under a whole new political system.
And which newspapers were pondering the possibility of the First World War just a month before it happened?
We cannot see past a phase change. I don't know if the U.S.A. will have undergone one at the time of the 2012 election, but the necessary conditions for one are all in place, as far as I can tell.
One has to reach back a good way in American history for a time of such rapidly rising sentiment that not only are our leaders unable even to think of real solutions to the problems of greatest concern (rather than just making expedient changes at the margin), but also that the prevailing political and economic system is structurally incapable of delivering any long-term solutions in its current form.
The sheer range and interconnectedness of the problems that the nation faces are such that any permanent solution to any one of them will require profound systemic change that will necessarily upset many economic, political and cultural equilibria. And that is nothing more than a definition of a national phase change.
The average American may not know what is to be done, but she can sense when the system has exhausted all its possibilities. At that point, not only does the phase change become reasonable; it becomes desirable -- even if what lies on the other side cannot be known.
As anyone can find out just by talking to a broad cross-section of Ron Paul's supporters, his base is not uniform in its agreement on the standard issues of typical American party-political conflict. In fact, Paul supporters vary significantly even in their views of what in the old left-right paradigm were the "wedge-issues." Rather, they are united around concepts that could almost be called meta-political: whether left and right really exist, and, if they do, whether they are really opposed; whether centralized government should even be the main vehicle for political change, etc.; and whether there are some principles that should be held sacrosanct for long-term benefit, even when they will hurt in the short-run.
For those with eyes to see, such realignments and re-prioritization may even be glimpses of America after its next phase change.
If Ron Paul has committed support from 10 percent of the adult population, and most of that 10 percent support him precisely because they believe he represents a whole new political system, an entirely new political settlement, then we may be close to critical mass -- just a few grains of sand short of the avalanche.
Another piece of evidence that the nation is close to a phase change and a gestalt switch is the very fact that the prevailing paradigm (from which the mainstream media, established political class, etc., operate) has to ignore huge amounts of data about Ron Paul and the movement around him to continue to make any sense. The studied neglect of data as "irrelevant" is invariably indicative that the neglected data are hugely important. If information doesn't really matter, why go to all the effort of ignoring it?
Specifically, on all the metrics that a year ago everyone accepted as useful indicators of political standing, Ron Paul is not just a front-runner but a strong one.
First, and most directly, he does extremely well in polls. The organization of his grassroots support is not just excellent; it is remarkable, by historic and global measures. His ability to raise money from actual voters is second to none. His appeal to independents and swing voters is an order of magnitude greater than that of his competitors. Secondarily, he has more support from military personnel than all other candidates put together, if measured by donations; he has the most consistent voting record; he has the magical quality of not coming off as a politician; he oozes integrity and authenticity, and, as far as we know, he has a personal life and marriage that reflects deep stability and commitment.
To believe that Ron Paul's victory is a long shot in spite of all standard indicators that directly contradict this claim is to throw out all norms with which we follow our nation's politics -- and that is a huge thing to do. The only way it can be done honestly is to present another set of contradictory reasons or metrics that are collectively more powerful than all those that you are rejecting. I am yet to find them.
If it is true that the studied neglect of data to hold tight to a paradigm is the best evidence that the paradigm is about to collapse, then the massive and highly subjective neglect of all things Paulian is specific evidence that the country is moving in Paul's direction.
Of course, none of this means that Paul will definitely win. But it does mean that a bet against him by a politician is foolhardy and by a journalist is dishonest.
It is worth returning to Churchill's career for an even more delicious example: just days before he became the great wartime leader, his career had been written off as that of a kook, and he was being discussed as someone who had extreme ideas and whose thinking did not reflect the mood of the nation. The House of Commons was abuzz with his decline and imminent fall.
And then, rather suddenly, something he had been saying for many years -- that there was something rotten in the state of Germany -- became so obvious that it could no longer be avoided. Once the nation saw that he had been right all along, he became the leader of the free world in very short order. His career changed. Britain changed. The world changed. No one had seen that coming, either. In fact, everyone thought they knew what was coming: the kook was about to disappear into political backwaters, if not the political wilderness.
Do I even need to draw the parallel?
If Paul wins, it won't be because he is the kind of candidate Americans have always gone for. It will be precisely because Americans have collectively decided on a dramatically new way of doing business -- a new political and economic paradigm -- and then he'll not only have ceased to be a long shot; he'll be the only shot.
»
- Econophile's blog
- 13920 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
tru dat. Lobbying needs to be criminalised for democracy to recover.
Unfortunatley I think chances are far greater that entropy and a new dark ages will play out for centuries - or millennia - before democracy's green shoots sprout again
U R RIGHT! SIGH!
Better to stay home and whatever you do DON'T VOTE! LOL
U R RIGHT! SIGH!
If Ron Paul wins he will be at the helm of a sharp deflationary depression and Bernanke will be his Biddle. The good doctor will take all the blame for the years to come because no one wanted to take their medicine, especially not WallStreet and the MIC who will do everything to make it worse. It would take 20 more years for people to come around that he saved the Republic, instead of the crooks sure to follow his presidency -- as they would ride the benefits of an actual recovery. I hope beyond hope he wins but feel the American people do not deserve his sacrifice, because that is exactly what he would be.
Wanting to be President, if you understand what it entails, is IRRATIONAL. The salary and perks do not balance the hellish responsibility, endless hours, life-and-death decisions, provocations, etc.
Obama is proven IRRATIONAL. He believes in Keynesian economics, big government, the power of govt. to improve lives, etc.
All in his administration (incl. Hillary) are the same.
The current Republican field is covered with similar IRRATIONAL personnel. Romney, Perry, Huntsman, most are confirmed as followers of big government, economic central planning, or similar.
Ron Paul is the LEAST IRRATIONAL of the lot. As such, he is the most appealing of a swine fest, or the best-looking horse in the glue factory. The only thing that disturbs me is, he WANTS the job.
Perhaps he has some martyr complex or masochistic tendencies. But that is not a reason to vote against him, rather a reason to be grateful that SOMEONE RATIONAL wants it. Individual positions of his, maybe I'm not so hot about. But overall, he is the best of a sad lot of pretenders, scoundrels, thieves and charlatans of both parties.
He may need to run as an independent to break the hold of the insiders on the Republican side of the razor. I'd vote for hom over all the others then, too.
Least bad is still best. Go, Ron, go!
I'll do it for free.
to encroaching darkness
thanks for swine fest...............now thats good
I think that Paul has made it quite clear that he is doing this as a service, and a sacrifice, for his country. He has repeatedly said that he doesn't want to run anyone's life- and that separates him from all the rest.
His educational efforts have changed the country. Even if he loses, the next person to take on his mantle (Judge Napalitano, Rand, Kwiatowski, Tom Woods?) will have a large and passionate base to build his/her candidacy.
Thanks to the author. That's a very encouraging and lucid article. The populace is pissed, and wants REAL change. They've seen Obama's "change" and found it lacking.
As the recent scientific article pointed out, once 10% of people hold a belief firmly, the adoption of that belief throughout society is rapid and overwhelming. The elite are scared of Ron Paul, but they don't know how to proceed. They hope and pray that he will go away, and that if they (and their apparatchiks in the media) ignore and denigrate him, then his influence will be diminished. Too bad the internet has changed the game, while they've lost the plot.
GO RON PAUL!
I'm surprised Econophile wrote this. Re. RP won't be allowed to end the corruption oligarchy. His election would be a positive step in the right direction.
Does anyone believe that a true threat to the current banking-corporate-political-media cabal will voluntarily cede control, even through an election???? Children, please......If Ron can't be bought off, then Congress will. If they can't be bought, then the courts will. If they can't be bought, then the regulators will, and so on and so forth. Please don't make me have to give you examples. No way will the corruption cease. It's too entrenched and much too powerful. I hate being negative, but blogs are supposed to be the last bastion for truth. And we can handle the truth.
Ron Paul as President would be a healthy start.
I would gladly name my firstborn after Ron Paul. Even a girl. Ronetta Paula or something. But the sad fact is, if by some miracle TPTB forgot to rig the electronic voting machines, the CIA didn't bump him off beforehand ('heart attack' or 'stroke' maybe) and he wasn't killed by 'terrorists' ('Syrian'? 'Iranian'?) they'd do a Reagan on him. Injure him, get him into hospital, dope him up, keep him doped up.
Reagan was fiercely independent until he left the the military hospital 'treating' him for his gunshot. Poor ******* was a doped-up, micro-managed puppet after that.
George Bush Snr. just gave me a negative vote.
Ron Paul - Yes He Can -
Ron Paul is my favorite living human.
Ron Paul the High Tide
he has to or we are doomed
+1
rescue not going to come through the political system. Ron Paul is controlled by the banker cabal. Sure he seems opposed to the cabal, but is he really? what has he ever really done, other than talk? and oddly, they let him get away with talking that he does do.... hmmm.... In short, its a set up. He is either just there to keep thinking people believing in a (failed) system, or worse still.... they will use him to push through whatever horrors they have in the future playbook....
Are you for real? A real moron it appears.
Meet me here and bring $:
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=669534
I think anyone who intends to do all the right things could not even get away with enumerating them. If they did, they would be DOA - literally.
If Ron Paul is the real deal he has to be very careful to not declare too much and then do whatever he is capable of within the system to move things incrementally in the right direction.
The last President who accomplished anything like Ron Paul speaks of was Andrew Jackson who also was the first POTUS who experienced an assassination attempt. And in those days the forces arrayed aganst him were not anything like those today.
I fear if Ron Paul is elected and pushes to hard he'll quickly end up like Kennedy.
No, I've read about and heard from Ron Paul for many years and he is definitely sincere. They allow him to talk because, first, how could they stop him without drawing more attention to him and, second, he's no real threat to them as I have said elsewhere here. And for what he's done other than talk, his consistently principled votes in Congress for one although I don't feel he's done nearly enough in his new position as Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee.
In Ron Paul we trust!
Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies
What is interesting is that on Intrade Ron Paul odds of being elected President are higher at 3.3 pct than those of him winning the republican nomination...
Arbitrage or is the market trying to say something ?
It only says something about the people betting on Intrade.
interesting - presumably accounting for the possibility of him running as an independent?
Paul doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning! You all are dreaming!
If you want another dumb shit liberal in office vote for Paul because one vote for Paul will probably be one vote less for the conservative candidate and America desperately needs a candidate who is business friendly.
From one Grunt to another.....please change the name you use for this site. You give the other Grunts here a bad name.
You might also read the article again, if you actually read it the first time.
"If Paul wins, it won't be because he is the kind of candidate Americans have always gone for. It will be precisely because Americans have collectively decided on a dramatically new way of doing business -- a new political and economic paradigm -- and then he'll not only have ceased to be a long shot; he'll be the only shot."
Like I said you all "believe in the IDEA of Ron Paul" and the IDEA of this article is summed up in it's last paragraph specifically "It will be precisely because Americans have collectively decided on a dramatically new way of doing business".
One thing for sure it won't be Paul that changes the tide.
Also, what does the writer mean "A dramatically new way of doing business"? The old way of doing business is what made America great. A deviation from basic moral principles and a delusional collectivist regime is causing America her problems especially in the small business communities of this great nation.
I think we all long for that old way to return. It has not been that way for a long time....as in 3 decades plus.
Along the way, America as we knew it was hijacked and turned into a multi-national corporate state. Our cancer spread around the world as our "financial community" reached into the bowels of other countries to exploit them as well.
In rough numbers, 30 years ago the the financial sectors equalled roughly 15% of our economy. it is now over 40%, while manufacturing has declined dramatically, and continues to decline. This is the bandwagon Ron Paul has been on for years....a lne wolf howling in the wilderness.
This has not been the work of the "Republicans" or the "Democrats", but both parties working in collusion at the behest of their "campaign contributors". Our government no longer works for the common good (for us). It works for the multi-nationals who could care less about America as they pack up factories and send them to foreign lands. Meanwhile, we are lead into eternal war for the military-industrial complex as our treasury is drained further.
As far as Main Street goes, nobody in either party is doing squat for us. I have been making a payroll for over 30 years as a small business owner, and it just gets worse all the time. Bigness is killing us, and we have no power to protect ourselves. Even our Lobbying organizations are co-opted by big business. All the laws, rules, regulations, interpretations, zonings, etc., are controlled by the biggest bankroll.
So, yes, we do need "A dramatically new way of doing business". It is not the "old" one that is the problem....it is the current way that is the problem and will kill this country if allowed to continue much longer.
Now, I gotta go outside the wire & hump the boonies to see if I can shake out some orders. Happy trails.
"In rough numbers, 30 years ago the the financial sectors equalled roughly 15% of our economy. it is now over 40%, while manufacturing has declined dramatically, and continues to decline. This is the bandwagon Ron Paul has been on for years....a lne wolf howling in the wilderness."
Yep, it's mind blowing how high the service sector for countries, ours included, worldwide vs. industry to GDP...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_sector_composition
One can get a pretty good idea who the welfare states are indeed!
Funny, IMO you're avoiding the key take-away.
Along the way, America as we knew it was hijacked and turned into a multi-national corporate state. Our cancer spread around the world as our "financial community" reached into the bowels of other countries to exploit them as well.
Why is that?
Shouldn't you be jacking off to pictures of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck instead of posting on here?
"Shouldn't you be jacking off to pictures of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck instead of posting on here?"
Don't care much for Beck, however I like Limbaugh because he has a way pulling the covers of most liberals with surgical precision.
This is fight club holmes and if you post here thinking only Paul lovers are allowed you are living in an alternative reality like the fantasy where you pin your hopes on him winning when reality will prove the unequivocal contrary.
All you Paul nuttards believe in the idea of Ron Paul but haven't the sense to recognize he doesn't have a "snowballs chance in hell of winning". Your vote for Paul can potentially cost us the lesser of 2 evils come election day.
"Lesser of two evils." Your aspirations explain all there is needed to know about you.
It's none of my business what you think of me. The fact remains Paul doesn't have a prayer.
Hey Retard -who's the 'truly conservative" candidate you suggest we vote for--Rick Perry? Ha! Ha!
Sounds here like another carl Deninger retard being ordered to go forth and disparage Ron Paul -or else be banned from carl's board. I crack up everytime think of that assclown (who endorsed Obama) telling us the greatest threat to America and humanity -is Ron paul.
Meet me here and bring $:
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=669534
Somebody is watching too much MSM...all the other conservative candidates are RINOs. Mr Paul is a true conservative and this is proven by the fruits of his labor over the last 30 or so years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohKz9OeiI0g
You sir, are a compleat moron. Please go to ace of spadeshq and find your ilk.
If you had read the article in it's entirety you would not have posted this response. I would suggest you go back and read it.