In 2008 the democrats went all out and elected the biggest leftist they could find. He got into office and quickly (though barely) passed this Health Care bill. The outcome was Democratic losses in both parties and a standstill to the President’s agenda. That is in spite of having 2 years of a super majority and the Congress (to include the republicans) being more liberal than conservative.
Let’s consider Ron Paul. I have written plenty regarding my support of Ron Paul, but there is a reality that I haven’t yet spoken of. There are many supporters of Paul that think his presidency is the only one that would bring the change we need in this country. These are the most idealistic of his supporters who ignore the political realities of the time. Frankly, the Paulians who give him Messianic characteristics annoy me and remind me a bit of the Obama supporters of 2008. So, let’s get real.
If Ron Paul were to become president he would have to rely almost exclusively on the executive order to get things done. Many of his ideas are so idealistic that they abandon the political norms of Washington entirely. For me, this is his appeal, but it won’t help him get things done in D.C. Perhaps it isn’t because Paul is so far right, but because Washington has moved so far to the left. Either way, Paul would get along with congress about as well as he did when he was in congress.
We can assume that Paul would go on a veto spree in his first few months because he is unwilling to cave on his principles (which is admirable), but the outcome of this would be counterproductive. His unwillingness to work with Congress would create unholy alliances across the aisle and that would be working in contrast to the President – moving them further to the left. In the end, he would get little done but would create plenty of ammo for the democrats come November of 2014. Any republicans that were friends to the President would quickly abandon ship in order to save their seats – he would be treated as a lame duck within 2 years if not sooner.
Paulians would clamor about how there is a conspiracy against the President (as many do now) and call for him to push more with his executive power. Paul, again being an idealist, would refuse to abuse the power of the Presidency. In the end, like his predecessor, little would get done after the honeymoon. The only things that Paul WOULD get support on would be some of his “bring home the troops” agenda. Of course, his foreign policy philosophy doesn’t require congressional improvement, so that part of Paul would be free to reign.
In the end, what are the pros and what are the cons of a Paul presidency? It seems to me that the fiscal hawk (his best side) would be disarmed and his foreign policy (his weakest side) would be administered. This isn’t a very promising outcome and, of course, I could be wrong. The alternative is that his win would create a new fervor for principles of liberty; but given the foundational ignorance of the populous and the power it strips from congress, it is unlikely that this would prevail. Once again, Washington will reflect the people – and we aren’t ready for a Ron Paul.
Filed under: Uncategorized