Ron Paul: The new Goldwater? – Tarentum Valley News Dispatch

Ron Paul’s steadfast adherence to his libertarian principles has created an unusual political phenomenon.

Paul may be the Republican Party’s latest incarnation of Barry Goldwater. Like the 1964 Republican Presidential nominee, Congressman Paul has been an election cycle or two ahead of public opinion. His presidential campaigns, however, may pave the way for a new wave of conservative Republican victories.

The Texas Republican has run for president twice before, once each as a Libertarian and a Republican. His libertarian views, however, distinguish Paul from the current pack of GOP presidential candidates.

For years, his views were considered outside the mainstream of even conservative Republican policy. But with unemployment remaining stubbornly high, the economy in the tank and the federal deficit at record high levels, suddenly the congressman’s views on fiscal matters have gained traction.

Rep. Paul is a vocal opponent of the Federal Reserve Board and the nation’s central banking system. He blames the Fed for the boom-bust cycle that characterizes our national economy. Four years ago other candidates largely shied away from attacking the Fed, but now — with public frustration over the economy reaching the boiling point — the Fed has become a whipping boy.

Paul’s steadfast adherence to his libertarian principles has created an unusual political phenomenon. The 75-year old physician has attracted a loyal cadre of support among the nation’s college students.

Voters have largely not yet developed an emotional attachment to the other candidates. Mitt Romney inspires support, not passion. Social issue voters have several candidates from which to choose, as do tea partyers, leaving many less committed to a specific individual. The Ron Paul supporters stand out in their intensity of support.

These advantages aside, Paul is unlikely to emerge as the eventual Republican nominee for president. It is axiomatic that for a Republican to win the presidency, a candidate must have the united support of economic, social and foreign policy conservatives. Paul’s position on the economy puts a check mark in the first box. But in the other two areas, he fails the test.

With foreign affairs conservatives and mainstream conservatives, Paul’s opposition to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the military action in Libya do win him support. But by suggesting he would sit idly by while Iran develops nuclear weapons capabilities, he goes too far.

There is a rising tide of voter sentiment that America is overextended in our role as the world’s policeman. With Osama bin Laden’s death, support for the Afghanistan war is dropping. Paul could capitalize on this if he didn’t eschew U.S. military involvement under virtually any circumstance short of a direct attack on our homeland.

Paul also has problems with social conservatives, who welcome government involvement in areas like the right to life. And they oppose the legalization of drugs, including marijuana.

At this early stage in the 2012 campaign, Ron Paul’s dedicated supporters are numerous enough to keep him the race. Like Barry Goldwater in 1964, Paul has developed positions that speak to a certain base, but his beliefs on foreign affairs are short-circuiting his candidacy.

If he hopes to break into the top tier, he is going to have to do a better job of explaining his foreign policy positions. Otherwise he’ll go down in history for breaking ground that others successfully build upon.

Lowman S. Henry is CEO of the Lincoln Institute in Harrisburg. Contact him at lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.