Sure, the Sure, the Ron Paul campaign was a media spectacle (remember the blimp?), but I've long been skeptical of arguments that Paul's, er, impassioned, group of young supporters could be considered some kind of libertarian generation, or taken as proof that the marriage of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism somehow dominates in Generation Y. After all, when I chatted with young Ron Paul supporters in Iowa, they were skeptical of their candidate's free market health care reform plan and his anti-abortion stance, ignorant of his disturbing record of race-baiting, and sympathetic toward Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. What they adored about Paul was his ability, in every televised debate, to humiliate his Republican opponents when it came to the Iraq war. In this disgruntled, outsider, antiwar old man, young people found a mirror image of their own disgruntlement and outsider status -- and most importantly, their opposition to the war.
Now Tim Fernholz comes along at Campus Progress and really crystallizes my thoughts on Paul's candidacy:
Once it became apparent that Paul wasn't going to gain the support of the traditional GOP constituencies, and early primaries demonstrated that he lacked tangible support, people lost interest. And, despite the spin of his supporters, this wasn't even a moral victory; unlike former Democratic candidates John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich, Paul did not impact the tone of his party's primary. While Edwards and Kucinich pulled the front-runners to the left on issues of poverty, Iraq, and trade, the Republican leaders continued to remain in favor of the war and to ignore Paul's more abstract concerns about the federal reserve, the gold standard, and federalism.
--Dana Goldstein
