The Ron Paul Phenomonon

On July 15th,
>

the Federal Election Commission announced the 2nd-quarter fundraising
>

totals for each presidential candidate. In the Republican field,
>

Ron Paul's $2.4 million placed him:
>

• 
  
  3rd
  >
  >
  
  in total receipts for the quarter
  >
• 
  4th
  >
  
  in total receipts to date
  >
• 3rd
  
  in total current assets (ahead of former front-runner John McCain,
  >
  
  and just $800,000 behind Mitt Romney)
  >

Thus far,
>
47%
>

of the contributions
>
made to Ron Paul's campaign are donations
>

of under $200 from individuals (John McCain's 17% is the second-highest
>

percentage
).
> This is a telling statistic, as it highlights the fact
>

that most other candidates rely heavily upon donations from corporate
>

interests and political action committees (PACs) (i.e. moneyed, influence-seeking
>

sources who can readily afford to contribute large sums). Since Congressman
>

Paul has always voted against special favors and privileges for
>
anyone
>,

special interests know they have nothing to gain by stuffing Ron Paul's
>

campaign coffers. As one member of my local Meetup group put it on
>

a home-made sign, "Ron Paul is thin because he won't let special interests
>

buy him lunch."
>

Among
>
all
>

candidates, Dr. Paul is now
> first

in total donations from military personnel and veterans. While this
>

may come as a surprise to some, Tom Engelhardt identified the primary
>

reason when he asked rhetorically, "
why
> should (military personnel)
>

want to be endlessly redeployed to a lost war in a lost land?" (see
>
Why

the US Military Loves Ron Paul
>).

On July 15th,
>

the Federal Election Commission announced the 2nd-quarter fundraising
>

totals for each presidential candidate. In the Republican field,
>

Ron Paul's $2.4 million placed him:
>

• 
  3rd
  >
  
  in total receipts for the quarter
  >
• 
  4th
  >
  
  in total receipts to date
  >
• 
  3rd
  >
  
  in total current assets (ahead of former front-runner John McCain,
  >
  
  and just $800,000 behind Mitt Romney)
  >

Thus far,
>
47%
>

of the contributions
>
made to Ron Paul's campaign are donations
>

of under $200 from individuals (John McCain's 17% is the second-highest
>

percentage). This is a telling statistic, as it highlights the fact
>

that most other candidates rely heavily upon donations from corporate
>

interests and political action committees (PACs) (i.e. moneyed, influence-seeking
>

sources who can readily afford to contribute large sums). Since Congressman
>

Paul has always voted against special favors and privileges for
>
anyone
>
,
>

special interests know they have nothing to gain by stuffing Ron Paul's
>

campaign coffers. As one member of my local Meetup group put it on
>

a home-made sign, "Ron Paul is thin because he won't let special interests
>

buy him lunch."
>

Among
>
all
>

candidates, Dr. Paul is now
>
first
>

in total donations from military personnel and veterans. While this
>

may come as a surprise to some, Tom Engelhardt identified the primary
>

reason when he asked rhetorically, "why should (military personnel)
>

want to be endlessly redeployed to a lost war in a lost land?" (see
>

Why
>

the US Military Loves Ron Paul
>
).
>

No candidacy
has generated more buzz than Ron Paul's, and the following statistics
prove the point:

• "Ron Paul"
  recently topped Technorati's
  search-term rankings for an unprecedented stretch – current
  rank #2 (Technorati is
  the leading authority on Internet media usage).
• RonPaul2008.com
  draws more traffic than any other candidate's Web site.
• On YouTube.com,
  the Internet's most popular video site, the Ron Paul channel has
  over 22,000
  subscribers, which is 13,000
  more than the second most popular candidate (Obama).
• And on Meetup.com,
  more than 25,000 people comprise 560 Ron Paul Meetup groups, which
  makes the Good Doctor the most popular
  Meetup source in the political category. The next candidate,
  Obama, is a distant second with 5300 members in 68 groups.
  

  
  

  Notes:
  All statistics reflect current numbers as of July 23, 2007.
  Also, for those who don't know, Meetup.com is the most popular
  Internet site for people with common interests who want to organize
  events and activities with one another – consequently,
  it's the most commonly used online resource for coordinating
  political activities.

  
  

Some commentators
say this interest and support is illusory, perhaps even the product
of a centralized Internet effort led by the Ron Paul campaign. Yet,
the Paul campaign has only spent $600,000 to date, while other candidates
have already burned through tens
of millions. Although Paul's campaign staff is growing, it doesn't
even have the resources to provide timely responses to the flood of
incoming e-mails (I speak from personal experience here), much less
oversee such a sustained, widespread, technologically-sophisticated
endeavor.

The skeptics
also ignore an obvious question – if it's so easy to jerry-rig
Internet statistics, why haven't other, better-financed campaigns
done the same? (Answer:
It's not easy and, in many cases, it's simply impossible.)
While I personally don't know of anyone who spends their time spamming
online polls or repeatedly Googling their favorite candidate's name,
I have no doubt such people exist in the ranks of most political
movements. And given the evident enthusiasm of Ron Paul supporters,
it's quite likely that a greater percentage of his backers might
attempt to do such things.

That said,
I believe there are more plausible reasons for Ron Paul's "online
success" – most importantly, the Internet is the primary source
of information about Dr. Paul. As early as last fall – two
full years before the election – the conventional media
and major-party establishments had already anointed the top six
Republican and Democratic candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Romney,
Clinton, Obama, & Edwards).
Since then, countless opinion makers
>

have informed Americans that these six politicians complete the
>

list of "viable" Presidential options. In other words,
>

politicians are not supposed to have power over us – we're
supposed to be free. We seem to have forgotten that freedom means
the absence of government coercion. So when politicians and the
media celebrate political power, they really are celebrating the
power of certain individuals to use coercive state force.

Remember that
one's relationship with the state is never voluntary. Every government
edict, policy, regulation, court decision, and law ultimately is
backed up by force, in the form of police, guns, and jails. That
is why political power must be fiercely constrained by the American
people.

The desire
for power over other human beings is not something to celebrate,
but something to condemn! The 20th century's worst tyrants were
political figures, men who fanatically sought power over others
through the apparatus of the state. They wielded that power absolutely,
without regard for the rule of law.

Those who hold
political power, however, would lose their status in a society with
truly limited government. It simply would not matter much who occupied
various political posts, since their ability to tax, spend, and
regulate would be severely curtailed. This is why champions of political
power promote an activist government that involves itself in every
area of our lives from cradle to grave. They gain popular support
by promising voters that government will take care of everyone,
while the media shower them with praise for their bold vision.