Quantcast

Ron Paul Can Win

Teri- Oregon 2012/04/30 06:21:16
hope is still alive
go ron paul
All of the above
None of the above
You!
Add Photos & Videos

It's hard to tell if the idea that Ron Paul cannot win in 2012 is
more ignorant, in its complete lack of historical sophistication, or
more arrogant, in its claim to certainty amid all the complexity of 300
million lives and the myriad issues that affect them.



Sometimes, perhaps once in a few generations, a nation can undergo
what a mathematician or physicist would call a "phase change." The
classic example of such a thing is a pile of sand. Every grain you add
makes the pile slightly steeper and slightly higher without moving any
of the other grains inside the pile, until eventually one grain is added
that causes an avalanche of sand down the sides of the pile, moving
thousand of grains and changing the shape of the pile.



Such behavior can be exhibited by all complex systems, and a nation
-- it should be obvious -- is much more complex than a pile of sand.



The important point for those who would presume to make such grand
predictions as "Dr. Paul cannot win" is that no examination of the pile
of sand before the point of avalanche would tell you that, or when, the
avalanche will eventually happen.



But happen it does; indeed, happen it must.



And there are numerous examples of abrupt and dramatic phase change in the politics of great nations.



The U.K., the country of my birth, provides a compelling and closely
relevant example. As every schoolboy knows, Churchill led Britain to
victory in the Second World War. Indeed, he did as much as any man on
Earth ever has to save civilization as we know it.



Three months after the entire nation poured into the streets to cheer
this great leader (the man a few years ago voted by Britons the
greatest Briton of all time), Churchill went to the country in a general
election to retain his position as prime minister. There was simply no
way he could lose. The best slogan the Labour party, his opposition,
could come up with was, "Cheer Churchill. Vote Labour."



And amazingly, that is exactly what the nation did. Churchill was
defeated. No one anywhere -- including the people of Britain who voted
in the election -- had even thought about the possibility. No newspaper
had considered it. After all, the election was a foregone conclusion in
Churchill's favor. And yet an unseen, perhaps unconscious, will of the
people caused a cultural and political phase-change in the British
nation that they neither knew they wanted nor knew they had the power to
cause.



Many historians now say that the unseen sentiment that produced this
result that shocked not just the British but the whole world was the
idea that all the blood and treasure lost to maintain the freedom of the
British empire and the Western world demanded something more than
continuation of the old political settlement. After a huge crisis, the
people wanted a whole new system. In 1945, the Labour Party, with its
vision of state-delivered cradle-to-grave security of health and basic
material well-being (welfare state), in some way met that national
desire for a grand political change.



Following what was in fact a landslide victory for the
Labour party, the character of the nation changed massively, and more
change rapidly followed in the British identity, as an empire was lost
and the mantle of the world's greatest power was handed to the U.S.A.



Those who have noted that one of Ron Paul's greatest qualities is his
humility might also be interested to know that Churchill had put down
Clement Attlee, who defeated him, with the words, "A modest little man,
with much to be modest about."



Perhaps a more fanciful comparison, but nonetheless indicative: no
one in China was predicting that the Long March of Mao, which began in
defeat and despair, would end in Beijing with victory and the
proclamation of a whole new nation under a whole new political system.



And which newspapers were pondering the possibility of the First World War just a month before it happened?



We cannot see past a phase change. I don't know if the U.S.A. will
have undergone one at the time of the 2012 election, but the necessary
conditions for one are all in place, as far as I can tell.



One has to reach back a good way in American history for a time of
such rapidly rising sentiment that not only are our leaders unable even
to think of real solutions to the problems of greatest concern (rather
than just making expedient changes at the margin), but also that the
prevailing political and economic system is structurally incapable of
delivering any long-term solutions in its current form.



The sheer range and interconnectedness of the problems that the
nation faces are such that any permanent solution to any one of them
will require profound systemic change that will necessarily upset many
economic, political and cultural equilibria. And that is nothing more
than a definition of a national phase change.



The average American may not know what is to be done, but she can
sense when the system has exhausted all its possibilities. At that
point, not only does the phase change become reasonable; it becomes
desirable -- even if what lies on the other side cannot be known.



As anyone can find out just by talking to a broad cross-section of
Ron Paul's supporters, his base is not uniform in its agreement on the
standard issues of typical American party-political conflict. In fact,
Paul supporters vary significantly even in their views of what in the
old left-right paradigm were the "wedge-issues." Rather, they are united
around concepts that could almost be called meta-political: whether
left and right really exist, and, if they do, whether they are really
opposed; whether centralized government should even be the main vehicle
for political change, etc.; and whether there are some principles that
should be held sacrosanct for long-term benefit, even when they will
hurt in the short-run.



For those with eyes to see, such realignments and re-prioritization may even be glimpses of America after its next phase change.



If Ron Paul has committed support from 10 percent of the adult
population, and most of that 10 percent support him precisely because
they believe he represents a whole new political system, an entirely new
political settlement, then we may be close to critical mass -- just a
few grains of sand short of the avalanche.



Another piece of evidence that the nation is close to a phase change
and a gestalt switch is the very fact that the prevailing paradigm (from
which the mainstream media, established political class, etc., operate)
has to ignore huge amounts of data about Ron Paul and the movement
around him to continue to make any sense. The studied neglect of data as
"irrelevant" is invariably indicative that the neglected data are
hugely important. If information doesn't really matter, why go to all
the effort of ignoring it?



Specifically, on all the metrics that a year ago everyone accepted as
useful indicators of political standing, Ron Paul is not just a
front-runner but a strong one.



First, and most directly, he does extremely well in polls. The
organization of his grassroots support is not just excellent; it is
remarkable, by historic and global measures. His ability to raise money
from actual voters is second to none. His appeal to independents and
swing voters is an order of magnitude greater than that of his
competitors. Secondarily, he has more support from military personnel
than all other candidates put together, if measured by donations; he has
the most consistent voting record; he has the magical quality of not
coming off as a politician; he oozes integrity and authenticity, and, as
far as we know, he has a personal life and marriage that reflects deep
stability and commitment.



To believe that Ron Paul's victory is a long shot in spite of all
standard indicators that directly contradict this claim is to throw out
all norms with which we follow our nation's politics -- and that is a
huge thing to do. The only way it can be done honestly is to present
another set of contradictory reasons or metrics that are collectively
more powerful than all those that you are rejecting. I am yet to find
them.



If it is true that the studied neglect of data to hold tight to a
paradigm is the best evidence that the paradigm is about to collapse,
then the massive and highly subjective neglect of all things Paulian is
specific evidence that the country is moving in Paul's direction.



Of course, none of this means that Paul will definitely win. But it
does mean that a bet against him by a politician is foolhardy and by a
journalist is dishonest.



It is worth returning to Churchill's career for an even more
delicious example: just days before he became the great wartime leader,
his career had been written off as that of a kook, and he was being
discussed as someone who had extreme ideas and whose thinking did not
reflect the mood of the nation. The House of Commons was abuzz with his
decline and imminent fall.



And then, rather suddenly, something he had been saying for many
years -- that there was something rotten in the state of Germany --
became so obvious that it could no longer be avoided. Once the nation
saw that he had been right all along, he became the leader of the free
world in very short order. His career changed. Britain changed. The
world changed. No one had seen that coming, either. In fact, everyone
thought they knew what was coming: the kook was about to disappear into
political backwaters, if not the political wilderness.



Do I even need to draw the parallel?



If Paul wins, it won't be because he is the kind of candidate
Americans have always gone for. It will be precisely because Americans
have collectively decided on a dramatically new way of doing business --
a new political and economic paradigm -- and then he'll not only have
ceased to be a long shot; he'll be the only shot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/ron-paul-can-win_...

Read More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/ron-pa...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Arizona1950 2012/05/07 05:29:27
    All of the above
    Arizona1950
    +1
    Ron Paul 2012

    Politics 2012: Ron Paul raining on Romney's parade.

    Paul wins majority of Maine delegates
    Minnesota Delegates by a Landslide
    Missouri
    Nevada
    Louisiana
    Washington
    Colorado
    Massachusetts

    Can Iowa, New York, California be far behind?
  • dreamhippy 2012/05/07 05:21:37
    All of the above
    dreamhippy
    +1
    And he is already the only one getting my vote.
  • I am me 2012/05/05 17:04:20
    All of the above
    I am me
    +2
    His win in Louisiana showed that he can win. Paul has delegates coming out of the woodwork and can get to Tampa that way. There anything can happen.

    http://www.nola.com/politics/...
  • CMackley ~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2012/05/02 19:00:45
    None of the above
    CMackley ~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    Why do Ron Paul supporters still think he can win? Oh, that's right... ron paul stoners
  • nverumind 2012/05/02 04:50:13
    All of the above
    nverumind
  • niviongo R ☮ P ☮ 12-20 2012/05/01 17:04:40 (edited)
    All of the above
    niviongo R ☮ P ☮ 12-20
    +2
    Did not read article.
    Teri, Ron Paul and Steve Josh began in the 80'. Steve founded Apple, succeedded and die. Now Apple is being unethical in their taxes keeping 2 Billions afterJosh's death.
    Ron Paul is still going at it after 3 decades and this water drop has dented the steel of a putrid system. His perseveance and honesty will bear fruit in November, but as opposed to Apple, He will not drop his ethical principles and will reagain our beloved Nation back.
    Just remember the reelection of Harry Truman despite being in the trash can the night before.
  • *K'eim*h3reg' *Peh2u *Meg' 2012/05/01 02:24:52
    All of the above
    *K'eim*h3reg' *Peh2u *Meg'
  • tncdel 2012/04/30 15:26:07
    None of the above
    tncdel
    I like Ron Paul, and wrote in for him in 2008 as a protest vote against McCain. But I inadvertently helped hand Obama a win by wasting my vote.

    Although Romney is not my idea of a perfect candidate by a longshot, he is infinitely better than McCain was back in 2008. Among other things, McCain is rated an F minus, same as Obama is, on illegal immigration by NumbersUSA. Whereas, Romney is rated an A minus. Sadly Ron Paul is rated almost as bad as Obama: a D minus, because he is too soft on illegal immigration. Also much too soft on opposing Islamic encroachment.
    See:
    https://www.numbersusa.com/co...

    Ron Paul is needed as Secretary of the Treasury with power over the Federal Reserve. And I would like to see Paul broker a deal to get that post, along with Romney's promise to let Paul orchestrate the Romney administration's policy on government spending in return for Paul's support of Romney in a coalition to stop Barack Obama from getting a 2nd term.

    Romney should choose Allen West as his VP.
  • Teri- O... tncdel 2012/04/30 19:17:35
    Teri- Oregon
    +2
    All those who go a head and vote for Romney are just voting for Obama, more likely than not Obama will win regardless because Obama outsourced the election votes of 2012 to Spain any way. They are to be counted by a company owned by George Soreos who likes Obama. so you might as well vote your conscious because voting for Romney wont make a difference.
  • *K'eim*... tncdel 2012/05/01 02:28:05
    *K'eim*h3reg' *Peh2u *Meg'
    +1
    Would we be better off with McCain, even from a conservative POV?

    And on the immigration thing: part of Ron Paul's rating comes from his refusal to support e-verify, which violates the 13th Amendment by making business owners do the job of the border patrol, i.e., involuntary servitude.
  • Thomas 45 2012/04/30 13:58:37
    All of the above
    Thomas 45
    +5
    Ron Paul is our best hope to stop the Communist take over.
  • tncdel Thomas 45 2012/04/30 15:28:45
    tncdel
    Not really. Allen West is a lot stronger than Paul on DOMESTIC national defense. See:
  • Teri- O... tncdel 2012/04/30 19:19:36
    Teri- Oregon
    +3
    Not really, and he voted yes on cispa, he is the same globalist socialist idiot as Obama wanting to take away our rights as Americans, i'd shoot myself before i vote for this idiot stooge.
    cispa
  • *K'eim*... tncdel 2012/05/01 02:45:01
    *K'eim*h3reg' *Peh2u *Meg'
    +3
    The biggest threat to our national security is the size of the national debt, not a bunch of crazed minorities in a cave, and not a religious group, however malicious, buying property and using it as they see fit.

    Last I checked cutting 1 trillion dollars from the budget next year (Ron Paul's plan) solves that (our greatest national security threat) more than bemoaning puny cuts in the increases of defense expenditures (the typical conservative, though not fiscally, lawmaker's spiel).

    Our second greatest national security threat is the police state, brought to you by Bush, McCain, and Obama. The DHS buying 450 million rounds of ammo at the same time it shifts its focus from international terrorism to domestic terrorism (meaning tea partiers and gun owners), the House and Senate passing laws allowing the Feds to detain US citizens indefinitely, without trial, and Obama signing an executive order that allows him to seize all natural resources, are far more threatening to America than Iran, which has not threatened us nor is capable of delivering a nuke, which they in fact don't have and for which there is no conclusive proof that they will ever have or are even seeking it. Has Romney said anything about any of these domestic threats brought to us by our own government? Rarely. An...

    The biggest threat to our national security is the size of the national debt, not a bunch of crazed minorities in a cave, and not a religious group, however malicious, buying property and using it as they see fit.

    Last I checked cutting 1 trillion dollars from the budget next year (Ron Paul's plan) solves that (our greatest national security threat) more than bemoaning puny cuts in the increases of defense expenditures (the typical conservative, though not fiscally, lawmaker's spiel).

    Our second greatest national security threat is the police state, brought to you by Bush, McCain, and Obama. The DHS buying 450 million rounds of ammo at the same time it shifts its focus from international terrorism to domestic terrorism (meaning tea partiers and gun owners), the House and Senate passing laws allowing the Feds to detain US citizens indefinitely, without trial, and Obama signing an executive order that allows him to seize all natural resources, are far more threatening to America than Iran, which has not threatened us nor is capable of delivering a nuke, which they in fact don't have and for which there is no conclusive proof that they will ever have or are even seeking it. Has Romney said anything about any of these domestic threats brought to us by our own government? Rarely. And then, only in the affirmative. Why? Because he is part and parcel of this. Maybe it is ignorance on his part. He seems like a nice guy. But that is the only fundamental difference between him and Obama.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/...
    (more)
  • Dan ☮ R... tncdel 2012/05/01 19:50:16 (edited)
    Dan ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮
    +3
    Stronger on national defense? If you call national defense supporting the NDAA and indefinite detention (or perhaps even torture or death) of Americans without trial I suppose he is.

    He has no respect for our rights and no business in congress or the office of president.
  • Thomas 45 tncdel 2012/05/07 15:16:03
    Thomas 45
    West would make a good VP for R.P.
  • dreamhippy Thomas 45 2012/05/07 05:41:46
    dreamhippy
    Right. And if we sacrifice our priciples, morals, and ethics on the altar of the idol of apparent victory by voting for someone who has already demonstrated a willingness to compromise HIS principles, even if we acheive that victory would we not call it a hollow victory if we arrive there in victory denuded of everything creditable to our cause as Republicans? Ron Paul is the candidate who represents ME. Romney doesn`t.
  • CUDDLY BUT STILL CRABBY 2012/04/30 13:34:28
    None of the above
    CUDDLY BUT STILL CRABBY
    +2
    Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination. If he decides on an independent run, a vote for RP is a vote for Obama. Pure and simple.
  • tncdel CUDDLY ... 2012/04/30 15:31:58
    tncdel
    +1
    Exactly! That's why Ron Paul needs to make use of his political leverage, rather than date it, by brokering a deal with Romney in return for a coalition to beat Obama. Paul should tell Romney he wants the Secretary of the Treasury post with power over the Federal Reserve, and also power to orchestrate the Romney administration's policy on government spending.

    Paul and Romney are a lot closer politically than most folks will admit. Romney and Paul are not all that far apart on most issues.
  • CUDDLY ... tncdel 2012/04/30 15:37:11
    CUDDLY BUT STILL CRABBY
    There are also deemed to be very good friends as well. Not common knowledge.
  • I am me tncdel 2012/05/05 17:11:53
    I am me
    +1
    What?! Not that far apart? Romney supports the NDAA. That is the furthest from Paul that one can get.
  • Dan ☮ R... CUDDLY ... 2012/05/01 19:52:06
    Dan ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮
    +1
    And a vote for Obamney, with a record that virtually matches Obama's, isnt? The man even declared he'd sign the NDAA just like Obama.
  • I am me CUDDLY ... 2012/05/05 17:09:34
    I am me
    +1
    What a great strategy. Vote for the other puppet plant to fix this country. Why hadn't I thought of that? When did voting for people who stand for what you believe in become a bad thing and settling become heroic?
  • Christopher Kirchen 2012/04/30 13:26:26
    go ron paul
    Christopher Kirchen
    +3
    Go Ron Paul
  • concerned dude 2012/04/30 11:34:54
    None of the above
    concerned dude
    +3
    not a snowballs chance in hell
  • I am me concern... 2012/05/05 17:07:30
    I am me
    +1
    Even a snowball has a chance in hell if you believe it does. Maybe he won't get the nom but liberty and his message will carry on and grow like a snowball going downhill.
  • concern... I am me 2012/05/07 01:57:47
    concerned dude
    i agree. I like him in the mix but don't think he has a chance. I like to hear his message. It's good for the process.
  • I am me concern... 2012/09/04 15:04:53
    I am me
    Well, you were right. The Republican party cheated on 6 occasions to make sure that Ron Paul didn't win. Then they threatened him with a pat down at the airport for good measure. See if you can count how many instances of cheating were documented in this article. I found about half a dozen. I believe that some are felonies as well. The sad part is that there are people who will defend the behavior and look the other way.

    http://thenewamerican.com/usn...
  • concern... I am me 2012/09/05 10:53:19
    concerned dude
    Don't be bitter. RP just didn't have enough support to win. Neither did my candidates. We are a republic and that's how it works. You can believe what you want but nobody has been charged with crimes. Time to move on
  • I am me concern... 2012/09/05 11:25:19
    I am me
    I'm not bitter at all. I feel. Cheating may bring short victories but the war will be won with education. Here is how Romney pulled it off if you are interested. Toodles.

    http://thenewamerican.com/usn...
  • concern... I am me 2012/09/06 13:39:01
    concerned dude
    interesting point of view. The good news is that the American people get to vote. Unfortunately there is a good chance that Romney will lose and then we will have to suffer through another 4 years of Obamination. Then hopefully by 2016 if the country hasn't been officially been turned over to China for collections we can find a better candidate than both of them.
    It is what it is and to win you have to learn to play the game.
  • S and S 2012/04/30 11:25:36
  • I am me S and S 2012/09/04 15:08:15
    I am me
    +1
    Well, the elite fixed that problem by changing that pesky rule the day before the convention. Now popular votes determine the winner even though the change was voted down with a "Nay" they said it was a "Yay" all the meanwhile stalling half the Republicans who vote on the rules by blocking their bus during the vote.

    http://thenewamerican.com/usn...
  • S and S I am me 2012/09/04 22:04:33
  • I am me S and S 2012/09/05 00:13:15
    I am me
    How about the land of the free lobotomies? Free health care!!! Where is the line for microchips? I want to be first.
  • S and S I am me 2012/09/05 00:27:39
  • Michael=Constitution & Liberty 2012/04/30 06:35:14
    All of the above
    Michael=Constitution & Liberty
    +4
    except None of the above, lol.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/29 13:00:19

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals