This year's Republican presidential race has already produced numerous surprises: John McCain's resurgence, Mike Huckabee's emergence as a viable political force, Rudy Giuliani's decline and Mitt Romney's inability to win any of the primaries thus far. Each exemplifies the volatility within the Republican party. None of these, however, are as surprising as the relative success of Ron Paul's campaign. The surprising thing about Paul, is not that he came out of nowhere, it's that a large portion of his policies do not jibe with the Republican party's policies. Paul is a libertarian. That is, most of his policies revolve around the quasi Lockean principle that government exists simply to protect individuals' liberties. Many readers may recognize the term "libertarian." Indeed, it seems this particular philosophy has begun taking root among college students. This past semester, my colleague Michael Schouest wrote in these pages that he had, in fact, converted to libertarianism. Several of my close friends sympathize with Paul's policies. The problem is that not all of his biggest proposals and pet issues are practical or feasible. Others are just conspiracy theories. Prior to the loyal base of Paul supporters bombard me with e-mails and criticisms directed at the above assertion, I must clarify. I do not intend to claim that his ideas are absurd. No, in many contexts I would wholeheartedly support Paul's ideas. Take, for instance, his stance on monetary policy. Paul argued in a Feb. 15, 2006 statement, before the House of Representatives that Richard Nixon's abandonment of a gold standard on Aug. 15, 1971, gave the government the power to work with the Federal Reserve to control and expand the money supply. In a Sep. 17, 2007, debate Paul said, "This is the reason our government gets so big, because we give them license to steal, license to inflate, license to tax and license to borrow and politicians will always do it." No doubt fiscal conservatism has its benefits, but the gold standard had major drawbacks. On his Web site, University of California-Berkeley Economics Professor J. Bradford DeLong argues, "The gold standard [kept] governments from fighting the Great Depression, and was a major factor turning the recession of 1929-1931 into the Great Depression of 1931-1941." At the heart of Paul's proposal to return to the gold standard is the desire to have a currency regulated only by the "invisible hand" of the free market and unfettered by government involvement. With the decline of the dollar's value in the global market (despite what McDonald's ads may tell you), voters are rightfully losing confidence in the ability of the federal government to provide for a stable, growing economy. But a complete loss of faith in the Federal Reserve is unfounded, and Paul's proposals to abolish the Federal Reserve and reimplement the gold standard are too radical and impractical to be realized. Another of Paul's pet issues is the alleged "NAFTA superhighway," a behemoth freeway slicing through our country and extending from Mexico to Canada. This past semester I satirically mocked in these pages Paul's belief in such a road. The response was a slew of e-mails and comments directing me to the Web site of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transportation of Alberta, Canada. In particular, I was directed to a map portraying the alleged "superhighway." However, superimposing this map across a map of the U.S. interstate highway system reveals this superhighway is, in fact, the already existing I-29 and I-35 highways. Paul's pet issues and policy proposals do not end here. He is fervently against raising taxes, a federally maintained "war on drugs," United States involvement abroad, strict gun control and federally funded healthcare. That is to say, Paul is against federal involvement in countless endeavors. He believes states should have the final say on abortion and gay marriage. Many of these stances are laudable and practical - such as the end of the war on drugs and his opinion on states' rights for abortion and gay marriage. Others are simply impossible to accomplish in the foreseeable future, such as fully-privatized healthcare, social security and relaxed control of the sale of firearms. It must be recognized, however, that Paul's candidacy is certainly not irrelevant. In the Iowa caucuses, 20 percent of caucus-goers aged 17 to 24 supported Paul. In the New Hampshire primary, 19 percent of voters in that age group voted for Paul. His support among this traditionally-apathetic age group should signal to the GOP's major candidates that Paul can galvanize the youth vote. Paul should drop out of the race and pledge support to a candidate devoted to reducing taxes such as Giuliani and Romney. His support for a major candidate could draw more support among young voters to that candidate. As such, Paul can keep himself from becoming irrelevant by swinging a large number of votes. Just don't let him control monetary policy.
---- Contact Jack Collens at jcollens@lsureveille.com
Be the first to comment on this article!