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, > no need to look further – we've done your thinking for you. > How and why this happened exactly is a topic for another day. (Hint – Follow the money.) The important point here is that each of the Anointed Candidates has received regular, daily coverage since that time (and, in some cases, for several years now). Although Dr. Paul has benefited from a smattering of media attention since his "blowback" exchange with Giuliani in May, people who are curious about Paul's track record and platform must turn to the Internet. The conventional media is most unlikely to begin covering Dr. Paul on a regular basis, no matter how much traction he gains. Consequently, Ron Paul's supporters must assume the task of spreading the word. Fortunately, many of us are happy to do so, and when people first learn of Dr. Paul's track record, they typically want to know more. As regular readers of my blog know, Ron Paul challenges US foreign policy on a refreshingly honest and fundamental level – a level of inquiry wholly absent from most political forums. And Dr. Paul's forthrightness doesn't stop with foreign policy, as he applies the same intellectual rigor to issues involving civil liberties, health care, immigration, education, our fiat-money system, and so on.

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.