It’s one thing if you’re an anti-war conservative with no other place to go, so you decided to vote for Ron Paul in the primary because you think that’s the more principled thing to do, but over at NRO, Todd Seavey actually tries to make the case for Paul as a viable general election candidate:
And for those who say it can’t happen, here’s the beauty part: Get Paul through the primaries, to the Republican nomination, and he has the tools to take on Hillary. He plainly gets the libertarian swing voters that the Republicans lost in 2006, he should garner most conservative votes when contrasted with Hillary, and — here’s the clincher — he gets a huge share of the bourgeoning antiwar vote to boot. Think about it: Clinton has already alienated the substantial antiwar faction of the Democratic party, while Ron Paul has inspired a supportive banner even at an anarchist rally full of hippies and punks, urging people to join the Ron Paul “love revolution.”
This just has a boatload of assumptions that aren’t based on any emprical evidence. I don’t think it’s right to assume that he would get most conservative voters. Those of us who consider national security the most important issue and oppose his neo-isolationism would actually be put in the odd position of being closer to Hillary on foreign policy. Also, I’m not so sure that he’d get “a huge share of the bourgeoning antiwar vote.” A banner at “an anarchist rally full of hippies and punks” seems like a rather slender to lean on, evidence-wise.
And how much of a constituency is there for this?
And think of the undeserved riches that would then be ours: Paul is an across-the-board libertarian on economic issues. He wants to abolish most Cabinet agencies (aside from State, Justice, and a radically whittled-down Defense). He has tried (unsuccessfully) to return the U.S. to the gold standard and has made clear his desire to dismantle the IRS immediately.
I applaud the enthusiasm of Paul supporters, but they should try not to lose their grip on reality.
