From the Inside: the Grassroots Ron Paul Campaign

Two organizers instructing the group on how to do precinct walks.

IRVINE, CA - Wednesday, November 7th, I had the opportunity to attend a Ron Paul Meetup group meeting. This was not like any other meeting, however; this time, the members spoke to Ron Paul over a live teleconference. Members asked about his positions on issues from the Iraq war to the federal reserve, how he should portray himself in the national debates, to whether the campaign should be more centrally organized than it currently is. This is my report on what Ron Paul had to say, and more importantly, the true nature of the Ron Paul campaign.

True to the campaign's reputation, anyone could attend this meeting and teleconference. I am not an active member of the Ron Paul campaign, but a supporter. So, to attend, I just RSVPed on their meetup group page, and that was it.

The teleconference was held at an upscale apartment complex, in the movie room. The movie room holds some forty-five people, and the room was filled to capacity; several people stood. The room is complete with a ten foot projector screen and HD projector; very nice equipment. The people that attended ranged in age from seventeen to sixty-five, mostly middle-aged men and women. All are upbeat and motivated about Paul's chances in this election. There is no defeatism among his supporters; they all believe strongly in him, and in his candidacy.

A Different Campaign

Soon after I arrived, the teleconference began. The first question Paul was asked was if he is elected, how quickly he would pull the troops out of Iraq. Paul said, "I think 3-6 months is a reasonable timeframe," and "definitely within a year." This answer intrigued me; his public position on Iraq has been very reactionary, that "we marched into Iraq and we can simply march out." This answer, along with his calm and relaxed tone, suggested that his Iraq position is more detailed than he and his supporters let on. Although foreign policy is a topic I strongly disagree with Paul on, his statements in regard to Iraq assuaged my problems somewhat. He clarified his position to be less radical than the public assumes.

Just as his statements on Iraq helped reassure me, his discussion of Iran pulled his position away from the center once again. He said that the "first thing that should be done is we should withdraw the aircraft carriers near Iran" so we can assure them we do not intend to attack. That sounds nice, but let us not forget that those carriers also act in support of our troops in Iraq. To remove them would be to unilaterally destroy our largest advantage in Iraq, leaving our soldiers still there wide open for attack.

Regardless, though, this meeting showed the difference between his campaign and the "first tier" candidate's campaigns. This meetup group operates with little or no direction from the central campaign; they are entirely self-organized and self-funded. Some of these members have worked in past campaigns, but most have not. Indeed, most of the people there were new to politics entirely; they say that Ron Paul's principled stance on issues, whether they agree with him or not, and his manifest honesty are what draw them to the campaign. This is the defining characteristic of Ron Paul and his motley campaign: regular people joining together for a common purpose. Holding a teleconference with Ron Paul only re-enforces this; the Paul campaign is a unified and inclusive one, with everyone in it together.

This self-organization was clear last night. The group is in the final stages of doing precinct walking and phone banking across Orange County. Each member is assigned a precinct, some along with another team member, to walk. The group is endowed with excellent campaign literature. I was happily surprised just how organized this group is; they are prepared to make a dent in Orange County for Ron Paul, door to door.

While everyone is unified in purpose, not everyone is unified in reasoning. While Ron Paul's message of small government and Liberty is a powerful one, resonating strongly with his libertarian and conservative supporters, that is not why the entirety of his supporters are a part of his campaign. Unsurprisingly, much of his support is derived from his unequivocal anti-war position. This attracts Democrats and Independents that are turned off by the Democrat candidates' fence-sitting on the topic, and disaffected Republicans. These supporters, though, do not conform to his libertarian ideology. Indeed, they either intentionally or unintentionally ignore his small government ethos.

Rise of Radicalism

There is one bloc that is more vocal than the others, and that is the radicals. They are a diverse group: some are right wing, believing that the U.S. government and economy is co-opted by elites who are plundering the nation for their own benefit; some are leftist and of the same bent; some are "9/11 truthers," who believe the September 11th attacks were a conspiracy (by who, though, is widely disagreed upon); some are 1960s-vintage products of the counterculture. I call it the age of radicalism.

This current of the Ron Paul campaign was clear last night. The apparent leader of the group stated very seriously that, "Many people don't realize it, but if Ron Paul does not win in 2008, within three months the U.S. will devolve into a feudal state. The plans are already in place." Many nodded along, agreeing. This is a new theory for me, and I am sure for most of you. The dominant conspiracy theory, or at least the dominant one that I can deduce, is that plans are being put in place to turn the U.S. into a police state. Nonetheless, though, many seemed to agree with this statement.

I do not think everyone who falls into this bloc is, through and through, a conspiracy theorist. This "normalization of radicalism" phenomena (an apparent contradiction of terms, which makes this period even more surreal) has only happened within the last year or so in the U.S. There is a strong sense of frustration with the status quo, born mostly out of the Iraqi war. People are fed up, I think, with our continued presence in Iraq, and this anger is being channeled into radicalism. This explains why there is no real coherent "conspiracy theory" that has emerged; indeed, instead of coalescing into one grand theory, only more contradictory and unrelated theories have popped up. People are angry, and are grasping for reasons why we find ourselves in this situation.

Unfortunately, this negatively affects the Ron Paul campaign. Because these voices are so dominant (due in part to Paul's own ambiguous statements in regard to the federal reserve), this becomes the face of the campaign. Paul's campaign is quickly becoming a frontrunner in the 2008 campaign, and this more than anything else is going to be a hindrance in expanding his group of supporters. While I am a professed libertarian, I also hold centrist leanings. For many centrists, center-right, or center-left individuals, this radicalism is very disconcerting, and plays a large role in why Paul has so little support in national polls thus far. If he is going to transcend his current second-tier status, his campaign will have to deal with this somehow.

But they really have little choice. From attending these meetup group meetings, it is quite clear that much of the enthusiasm for Ron Paul is born out of this radicalism. Without it, he would not be anywhere near as successful as he is. They must placate the radical current within the campaign, while assuming a more moderate stature.

Conclusion

Ron Paul's grassroots campaign is, at once, both incredibly exciting, and worrying. His campaign has re-defined grassroots in politics; these self-organizing groups assemble themselves entirely on their own, based upon strongly held beliefs. This is how politics should be.

The nature of this campaign, though, and the reasons many supporters are involved, is emotion. Paul's libertarian outlook is one rooted in enlightenment thought, and thus in strong reasoning and logic, and not in emotion. It has taken on an air of pure emotion in the reactionary position that there are groups working to destroy America, and unless they succeed in electing Paul, the U.S. will collapse into a failed state within months, or become a police state. There are some nuggets of truth in these beliefs, but it is clear that they are born less out of careful research and thought, than out of pure frustration.

This duality of pure emotion and reasoned position and thought is not new, however; one only needs to look to the American Revolution, where many supporters did so out of unadulterated hatred for the British rather than pure reasoning. This emotion, though, was tempered by strong leaders who used history, philosophy and their own experiences as a means to deciding a course of action and how to assemble this new nation. They went by names like Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and Jay. My only hope is that in this campaign, such reasoned leaders rise to the top.

Back To Top

	Ron Paul's tin-foil hat	Handshake	Tue Nov 6	155
	Could Ron Paul Be the Ralph Nader of 2008?	contentions	Wed Nov 7	3
	Guy Fawkes Day Helps Raise Millions for Paul -- New York Times Blog	The New York Times	Tue Nov 6	1
	A Revolution (Ron Paul) Goes Matrix - Political Machine	AOL	Wed Nov 7	0
	How a Third-Tier Candidate Wins the Primary by Kathryn Muratore	LewRockwell.com	Sun Nov 11	0