In the 1988 presidential election, Ron Paul ran on the Libertarian ticket. While in 2008 and in 2012, he ran in the primary election as a Republican. It's now down to the final four candidates for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul. Paul being the only GOP candidate who is NOT a Republican. Oddly enough, results for the Washington State Republican Caucus show Paul in second place with 24.8% of the vote. Romney is in the lead with 37.6%. So why is Ron Paul vying for the GOP nomination as a libertarian?
Hope for Change
Our government primarily follows a two-party system. Every so often a third-party enters the foray in an attempt to foster change. Well, the voters voted for "change" in 2008. How's that $16 trillion national debt, $4.00/gallon gas and >8% unemployment working for you? This wasn't the "change" we were hoping for. Maybe Ron Paul isn't running again as a Libertarian because America has all of the change we can take...for now. Maybe he knows that he doesn't have a chance becoming the President of the United States running on a Libertarian ticket. Or, worse yet, he would pull votes away from the Republican party that are desperately needed to redefine what America really means by "Voting for Change." What could a Republican or an Independent voter possibly see in Paul?
Maybe Paul's popularity is his unwavering honesty in presenting his views--atypical for a today’s GOP candidate. Libertarians, as their dogma states, are liberal constitutionalists. They fervently believe in the principles of the Constitution on the one hand (our country's foundation), but then aggressively pursue individuals' rights (our country's focus). Consequently, they aren't Republicans nor are they conservatives. "Libertarians believe in free markets, private property, and capitalism. Anarchists who believe in these things usually call themselves libertarians." Seriously, anarchists believe in NO government and libertarians promote a limited government. However, they both believe, to a certain extent, in a "free-for-all." This is definitely not consistent with the ideology of the Republican Party.
Legalize FreedomRon Paul's platform of limited government is exactly what has gained him popularity in the polls, especially with young voters. During his Iowa caucus speech, Paul spoke out against the Patriot Act, "There's a serious attack on our personal liberties -- your right, your privacy, passing bills out of a panic mode and passing things like the Patriot Act. It does not help your personal liberty. I'd like to get rid of the Patriot Act, to tell you the truth." In contrast, Santorum stated, "[The] right to privacy...doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution." In my opinion, it is impossible to achieve "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" --which are "unalienable rights" under the Declaration of Independence without PRIVACY.
I have to admit the downside of Ron Paul is his claim to uphold Judeo-Christian values appears contradictory. When his concept of foreign policy is to "mind our own business," how can America support Israel? How can we protect our own nation? Paul stated in Iowa that he wants to "get back to a sensible foreign policy and say a foreign policy ought to be for giving us a strong national defense--mind our own business and start bringing all our troops home from around the world." Bringing troops home is a great idea but we can't tuck tail and run. "There is an Arab proverb that says: 'When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.' This "strong horse" view of power is dominant in the Islamist world." Picking a fight is one thing but not helping a friend in the time of need is something entirely different. An isolationist foreign policy will never work.
It appears that Americans have some serious thinking to do.
