Point/Counterpoint: Keller sticks to oversimplification, undervalues Paul

In last week's column, "Ron Paul not viable for 2012 election" (04.27.10), columnist Steve Keller contested that as Ron Paul's "first act as president," Paul would abolish the federal government. If this sounds extreme, it's because it is, and is never something Paul has espoused. Perhaps Keller was confused by Paul's "Abolish the Fed(eral Reserve)" movement, though a quick glance at Paul's Wikipedia page most likely would have eased Keller's misunderstanding. And perhaps Keller made other factual errors and attempts to throw out terms, such as Austrian economics, he clearly did not understand because it is quite a daunting thought that Paul, who has publicly stated he has no intention of accepting the Republican nomination if offered, and whom is often considered a "libertarian nut-job," is polling as well as President Obama—a man who would not have refused the nomination for the world, and a man Keller seems to find deliciously "nut-free."

Now, as a "cold, cold libertarian," I have a tendency to wax poetic about Ron Paul, though I do disagree with him on quite a few issues; however, I seem to be more realistic than Keller, who seems to think that after Obama turns out to be a neoconservative with liberal economics—apparently just what Keller wants, while many members of Obama's base might disagree—the Obama machine will once again be able to pull out a victory. The Ron Paul machine in 2008 was small, decidedly grassroots, and raised $6 million in one day. For a candidate that was marginalized by his own party, that is nothing to scoff at, and I would dare say rivals the power of Obama himself.

And his power will only increase with the onset of debates. Ron Paul is not a flip-flopper; he knows his facts, he "sticks to his guns," even when it is unpopular—like calling for investigation into Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae before the financial crisis or being against the Iraq war—and does not balk on his principles. With Obama participating in off-shore drilling, fighting quite the hawkish fight against terrorism and not fulfilling his promises on health care, can we say the same about him? Perhaps the centrists that Keller claimed would flock to Obama's camp might favor Paul's "stubborn" ideas of responsibility in all sectors of governance.

Paul is not a typical Republican, the likes of former President George W. Bush; he opposed the Patriot Act, he opposes federal bans on same-sex marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell, is for the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, and wants a more eco-friendly America.

Unlike Keller's claims, it is in fact big government that protects big corporations from facing their dirty deeds in the sphere of pollution. Paul, quite logically, believes that stronger property rights—which would extend to limiting negative externalities, such as the toxic chemicals Keller referred to, in air that belongs to other citizens—will raise costs of pollution and thereby deter it. If Keller wants to be further educated on the subject of natural capitalism—a concept even many liberal academics get behind—he may read the eponymous book and website .

So, perhaps Keller is right. Maybe the Tea Partiers will find themselves at odds with Ron Paul's philosophy if they "find out what he stands for," since Keller assumes they haven't looked into it, much like he didn't. But in the Tea Partiers' place, moderates will find a comfortable spot where "liberal" and "conservative" ideas are fused to protect both civil and economic liberties. Obama accepted insane amounts of money in donations from Goldman Sachs, a company that has come to incarnate Wall Street's excesses. Ron Paul has always called for responsibility, whether among individuals, Wall Street, or the government. This idea is not exactly radical or crazy, like if someone believed that aliens might have put down the pyramids. It is a sentiment that has been echoing on both sides, though they might not agree on the answer.

And thus is the beauty of the fact that Paul, as President, cannot change the whole game, but maybe can influence it in a direction we haven't seen since President Clinton. He will not abolish everything the government ever did ever in some made-up catastrophe Keller fretted about. Once a little research is done, there are some interesting alternatives to current federal programs.

For example, Paul proposed tax credits to allow parents to choose which schools their children attend, as well as to cover any school-related expenses. Per child, this system would be much cheaper, and if schools were privatized, they would undoubtedly be more efficiently run, as the schools would have to be held responsible for their budget instead of being able to demand seemingly endless sums of money from the federal government. The schools would have to adhere to federal regulations to ensure that students had their rights, but federal schooling as we know it would be abolish­ed—in my opinion, and in Paul's, for the better. Young students deserve a quality education without the inefficiencies that the current system has, and Paul's alternative gives some food for thought that Keller seemed to ignore in favor of proclaiming that the end of education in America comes with Paul's election. The fact of the matter is, Paul becoming president would create some minor policy changes, but the country wouldn't completely change­—except for perhaps being run more efficiently.

As for Paul fostering negative opinions overseas, please see the following blogs: French for Ron Paul, Holland 4 Ron Paul and Venezuela for Ron Paul are the most notable and interesting. Sure, they are just blogs, but I can guarantee you that former President George W. Bush didn't have people overseas writing blogs out of love for him. As I said before, the fact that Paul is not a media darling, does not have the biggest star power and, in general, is considered an "outsider" of sorts yet still has such a national and international following is very telling.

I think Keller will find that if Paul and Obama were to go head to head, it would not be as simple as they made it out to be in their column, as politics aren't as simple as Keller tends to pretend they are, especially when the opposing candidate hasn't even been researched carefully. And, in fact, it might be liberals such as Keller, who rage that Paul will "allow the hungry, ill-clothed, sick and poor to die for want of a basic standard of living," that will find themselves suddenly turning centrists against them, just as Tea Partiers turned centrists away exaggerating the evils of the health care bill with claims of death panels.
We have a long way to go until 2012, but I would caution against underestimating "the Doc" like the Republicans underestimated "Barry." You don't want to be wildly teabagged by the victors, do you?