Ron Paul: The Populist Libertarian

Ever since running for President in 2008, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has emerged as an icon among a broad political spectrum. His rigid isolationism underscored by his opposition to the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, made him a darling on the far left and the isolationist far right. His radical free-market philosophy endeared him to libertarians. Ron Paul somehow managed to build a coalition so diverse that during the 2008 campaign, numerous callers into C-SPAN's Washington Journal enthusiastically recommended that Ron Paul select Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), one of the most left-wing elected officials, as his running mate.

Now Ron Paul appears to be going after another constituency--a far more numerous and powerful one than all his other allies combined. This time, Congressman Paul has his eyes on the Populists. The populist-wing of the American electorate is so powerful that most successful politicians tailor their talking points to address some populist concern in some part of the country. Populist themes range from anti-free trade to anti-illegal immigration to anti-Wall Street. Populists don't like Big Government, Big Labor, or Big Business. They don't like Big. Nuance is not factored into the populist equation. Neither are economic principles, empirical evidence, or history.

Populists frequently shift their allegiances between Democrats and Republicans, although they tend to be more receptive to left-wing talking points that scorn Big corporations and lament the "outsourcing of American jobs." Although many populists are centrists or independents, populists make up a much larger base than just the unaffiliated Independents or self-described moderates. Populists are, in short, ubiquitous across the political landscape.

Because populist sentiments are so prevalent, one of the most effective political tactics--especially during times of political or economic unrest--is to engage in what I refer to as populist demagoguery. If manufacturing jobs are being lost, blame free trade. If incomes are dwindling, blame banks and their big bonuses. If gas prices are going up, blame Big Oil. Neat and somewhat intuitive slogans trump facts and basic economic principles in elections. This is understandable, since most people are not trained economists, and therefore do not have the knowledge to understand how importing cheap sugar from Brazil or outsourcing labor to a factory in Malaysia can actually have a highly positive economic effect across the board. Politicians prey on these misconceptions to get elected.

Populist appeal only wears of when populist policies are actually implemented and inevitably fail. See protectionism under Herbert Hoover, wage and price controls under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, and virtually every conceivable populist measure under Jimmy Carter. But such is human nature that as time passes and new economic concerns surface, people tend to forget about the folly of populism and are once more enamored with populist rhetoric.

Which brings us to Ron Paul. I was never particularly fond of Ron Paul , mostly because I could not bring myself to support a politician whose coalition consisted of libertarians, socialists, white supremacists, and 9/11 Truthers. If a libertarian politician could not repel socialists, neo-Nazis, and psychotics from his campaign, I didn't think he could be an effective leader. But until recently, I could not fault Ron Paul's sincerity. His philosophy was for the most part consistent and unwavering. He didn't engage in cheap populist demagoguery to win popular support.

But recently, Ron Paul has started to do just that. Last Monday on Larry King Live, Ron Paul declared that "the Stimulus obviously helped Wall Street. Wall Street is doing very, very well." I'm certainly not a fan of President Obama's now infamous Stimulus, but to say that the Stimulus (not to be confused with the bail outs) either directly or indirectly helped Wall Street is ludicrous. In fact, in the months after the Stimulus was signed into law, the stock market plummeted. The Stimulus was not designed to help Wall Street, nor did it.

Congressman Paul's claim is quintessential populist demagoguery, pitting Wall Street against "Main Street," a cheap and largely meaningless variation of class warfare, which itself is a favorite populist tactic. Ron Paul is suggesting that what is good for Wall Street is bad for Main Street and in doing so, he is positioning himself as the champion of Main Street.

As an informed free-market politician, I think Ron Paul knows that the Wall Street, Main Street dichotomy is tripe. Stock markets rise and investors make money when businesses are profitable, or at least look to be profitable in the future. This leads me to believe that Ron Paul is engaging in populist demagoguery in an effort to appeal to a broader constituency. This is a far cry from a politician who built his reputation by saying things that are unpopular, but true.

I worry that Ron Paul's flirtation with populism is a bad omen for free-market advocates. If those who admire Ron Paul's philosophy begin to imitate his rhetoric, then all hope might be lost for diminishing the insidious influence of populism on American politics any time soon.