Last Friday, I attended the Ron Paul rally with about 1,000 other people in Jewett Auditorium on the campus of The College of Idaho. (By the way, Ralph Smeed, the faculty of the College was not picketing outside the hall but many of us were inside to listen. We are open minded toward the views of almost anyone, unlike you). Though Paul is not the most eloquent speaker, he was able to get the crowd very excited based upon the ideas he put forth. His libertarian ideology does not fit cleanly into either political party’s platform. In order to understand Paul’s ideology, we must trace the history of American political thought back to the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

The ideological split at the time of the Constitution fell along classical lines with each side being lead by one of the founders. The supporters of the Constitution, as personified by Alexander Hamilton who founded The Federalists as a political party, saw the roles of the individual and society in a similar manner to the classic conservatives, as described by Plato.Society, or for Plato the city-state, was the focus for politics. One was virtuous if one led a life that supported the collective over the individual. Government’s role was to provide for the common, not individual, good. Hamilton supported an active executive, government intervention into the economy including public works projects and an interventionist foreign policy. Those against the Constitution, or Anti-Federalists, feared that a strong, active central government would threaten the rights of the individual. They took their lead from John Locke and are described as classic liberals. This ideology puts individual rights above the collective.

Eventually, Thomas Jefferson becomes the ideological leader of this movement and the Democratic-Republican Party that followed. You can see much of Jefferson’s views expressed in the Declaration of Independence and its call for the primacy of the individual. These rights, which Franklin had Jefferson change from coming from God to being more in the spirit of the Enlightenment as “self-evident,” and their protection are seen as the primary role of government. This dichotomy plays out until the 20th century in the guise of the Democratic Party following Jefferson and, eventually, the Republican Party following the ideology of Hamilton.

Ron Paul falls within the philosophy of the classic liberals and Jefferson but that is not where either of the two political parties currently reside. This consistent view of the role of the government got all mixed up. During the Great Depression, the Democrats began seeing that individuals could not fend for themselves and moved toward supporting an active role for the government in the economy. In economic matters, these New Deal liberals did not fear the government but saw the government as being able to provide a positive role in the welfare of individuals. They continued their view of need for a limited role for government in social issues. The Republicans eventually also moved away from the constancy of Hamilton by wanting to restrict the role of government in the workings of the economy. They continued their view of the need for government to play an active role in social issues.

Ron Paul’s speech in Caldwell was the strongest indictment of the current Bush administration I have heard, more so than Obama, Clinton or any Democrat. He criticized Bush in almost every policy area from No Child Left Behind to deficit spending but most importantly on the War on Terror. The best question I heard asked of Paul was posed by Don Nelson of KIVI Today’s 6 when Don pressed Paul on whether he will endorse John McCain. Paul clearly noted that his views are too divergent to allow him to endorse the Republican nominee. This does leave open a number of additional questions.

Will Paul, with his delegates, go to the GOP convention and demand a prominent speaking role? Will the McCain people allow Paul to speak at the convention and criticize the current president and their nominee? Will Paul decide to run as a third-party candidate in the fall? If so, will Ron Paul serve a similar role with the Republicans in 2008 as Ralph Nader did with the Democrats in 2000 (i.e. the difference maker in a close race)?

Everyone is talking about the split within the Democratic Party with Clinton and Obama but the Republicans may have their own problems at the convention and in the general election with Ron Paul.

Go Yotes.

Dr. Jasper M. LiCalzi
Professor
Department of Political Economy
The College of Idaho