In my first article on this website more than one year ago, I described how the stars were finally in alignment for Ron Paul to take the lead in the 2012 GOP presidential race. The economy tanked and Ron Paul had warned about it for years. Voters’ attitudes towards the wars was shifting and “isolationism” is no longer seen as the boogie man that it was in the 2008 election – indeed, polls now show that Americans believe the debt owed to China is a more serious threat than Islamic terrorists and this belief was shared fairly equally among independents, Democrats, and Republicans. One would think that Ron Paul, the only candidate with a serious economic plan that would cut 1 trillion dollars in spending the first year and balance the budget in year three, would be the perfect candidate to ride the wave of economic discontent to become a leading GOP contender.

Early results were promising with Ron Paul coming in at less than 4% behind first place in Iowa, followed by a solid 2nd place finish in New Hampshire. He’s had several good showings since then and received 41% of the Virginia primary vote and 35% in the Maine caucus, both times coming in behind Romney. And though Ron Paul won the popular vote in the Virgin Islands, he has yet to win a state and Rick Santorum is seen as the champion of the anti-Romney vote. Furthermore, Ron Paul has had a poor showing in the south even though the libertarian-Republican Barry Goldwater carried the southern states in the 1964 election.

Watered Down Tea

It doesn’t make sense. The Tea Party injected themselves into the political scene in 2010 and demanded limited government and stopping the debt and people like Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI) rode the wave to victory. Why is Rick Santorum, who voted to increase the debt ceiling 5 times, who voted to support the Bush Medicare D drug entitlement that U.S. Comptroller General David Walker referred to as “the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s”, and who “vocally and publicly” opposed the Tea Party movement, winning the Tea Party vote? Looking at Michigan, Santorum won 45% of the Tea Party support and Ron Paul got only 6%. And as pointed out by Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic:

to underscore the incoherence of the Republican Party these days, Santorum won not only the voters who most strongly supported the Tea Party — he also won the voters that most strongly oppose it. Also confounding: the 18 percent of Michigan Republicans who strongly oppose the Tea Party and voted for Ron Paul. Results like this make it difficult to believe that the Michigan Tea Party is a coherent expression of anything, and those who strongly support it shouldn’t be regarded as reliable allies for people who actually prioritize small government, the separation of powers, or constitutionalism.

Whatever good the Tea Party may have accomplished in the past, it has since been coopted and is effectively dead. The formerly anti-establishment Tea Party ideology now matches that of Rick Santorum: “When you’re part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team for the leader, and I made a mistake”.

The Greater Fool

When Santorum’s dismal record on limited government was questioned by a political activist, Santorum himself replied “Vote for Ron Paul, that’s what you should do“. Since most Republican voters don’t seem to actually care about limited government, why are they supporting Santorum? On February 14, 2012 CBS Evening News reported “asked what qualities they looked for in a candidate, they picked moral character and values. Those are Santorum’s strong points. Beating Barack Obama used to be the #1 thing people cared about, it’s now the fourth thing they care about“. That doesn’t seem to be a fluke because exactly one month later CBS News Political Hotsheet was reporting the exact same thing:

As has been the case in every Republican primary or caucus held this year, beating Barack Obama in November is the most important quality Alabama voters were looking for in a candidate. But when asked which candidate would be most likely to do that, 46 percent chose Mitt Romney, and just 23 percent said Santorum was best positioned to win in November.

Santorum’s appeal lay elsewhere: He won a large share of support from voters who said strong moral character was most important to them (getting 62 percent of their vote), and he won among those who were looking for a true conservative (with 51 percent of those voters’ support).

For further evidence to explain the inexplicable, ABC News reported on the recent March primaries that were strong for Santorum and poor for Paul:

Alabama and Mississippi voters, indeed, looked highly desirous of a cloned candidate built on the most appealing aspects of each of the top three contenders. (Ron Paul, not so much.) For Santorum there was very broad support among voters looking for the “true conservative” and for “strong moral character” in a candidate, the latter an especially poor group for Gingrich.

So there you have it. America’s economy has imploded, the federal government is running trillion dollar deficits, Social Security is running permanent deficits, and by 2025 the entire federal budget will be consumed by entitlements and interest on the national debt (leaving no money for even the most basic function of government – national defense), but Republican voters care most about picking the candidate that has “moral character” and “values”.

Becoming the Pied Piper

The good news for Ron Paul supporters is that not only is the Texas doctor the only candidate with a true conservative record and the only candidate that predicted and has solutions for the failing economy, he is also the candidate that is arguably the best when it comes to moral character and values. The bad news is that Ron Paul almost never brings up his personal acts of good will or talks about himself. He talks about ideas. In an ideal world, that’s the way it should be. But a few changes in his speeches and campaign style could easily propel Ron Paul as the #1 “moral values candidate”. You hear Rick Santorum talking about he was the son of a coal miner and and the importance of family in his life and likely this is why Santorum connects with voters. Ron Paul’s speeches on the business cycle and the evils of the Fed go over the heads of most people. Paul should should mention much more often his marriage, family life, upbringing, military career, and charitable medical work. Examples:

Ron Paul has 5 children and 18 grandchildren and has been married to the same woman since 1957

Worked on his family farm as a boy picking raspberries and retrieving milk bottles

Was a high school athlete that wrestled, won the Pennsylvania championship in the 220-yard dash, and was offered a full athletic scholarship to the University of Pittsburgh

hit the only home run over the fence in the history of the Congressional baseball series

Had a pilot’s license and served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force and U.S. Air National Guard

In his medical practice, accepted no federal money and delivered free health care to the poor for many years. Grateful patients would sometimes feel obliged to repay him with chickens or vegetables from their gardens

Delivered a baby at no charge for an interracial couple that was facing discrimination

Ron Paul is quite capable of talking about himself, as seen in the Candidate Cafe breakfast sit downs with voters. He should do so much more often.

Electability. Do you have any, sir?

And to wrap up the total package of economic & moral values conservatism, Ron Paul needs to prove that he is more electable than Santorum. Fortunately, Ron Paul is nearly the same or better than Romney when it comes to a head to head match against Barack Obama. The earliest known poll of Paul vs. Obama was conducted in April 2010 by Rasmussen and showed both candidates virtually dead even – 42% Obama, 41% Paul. More recently, a January 2012 CBS Poll was reported on Lou Dobbs that showed 46% Obama, 45% Paul – within the margin of error for victory. Said Ron Paul campaign advisor Doug Wead:

this is a secret that is hidden in plain view… You can go back over the polls for the last 6 months. The perception is he’s unelectable – it’ll be 9, 8 percent of registered Republican voters who think he can win. In those same polls, you pit him against Obama, he does better than all the GOP candidates except Romney and is within a statistical margin of error with Romney. And the CBS poll that came out on Monday showed that he beats everyone with independents including Obama and Romney

In Feb. 2012, a USA Today / Gallup poll showed that in a general election, Romney came in tied w/ Obama a 48% each, Ron Paul came in second at 49% Obama ~ 46% Paul, Santorum came in third at 43%, and Gingrich came in last at 41%. This poll shows that Paul is more electable than Santorum and again is within the margin of error to defeat Obama. A February 2012 Harris Poll showed that while all the GOP candidates would lose to Obama if elections were held today, Ron Paul actually did best with a slight advantage over Mitt Romney. Paul also did best among independents, not only outscoring Romney and Santorum but even President Obama. As Peter Schiff stated

Ron Paul is doing better against Obama than Mitt Romney? Why isn’t that the headline? That should be a huge story! The “unelectable” Ron Paul is the most electable Republican running for office? Where is that story? Why aren’t we seeing that on the evening news? Why wasn’t that the topic of discussion on the Sunday morning political shows? I barely heard Ron Paul’s name mentioned on the Sunday morning shows. In fact if it was mentioned at all, it was just to point out how irrelevant he was.

As the saying goes, “reality is usually scoffed at and illusion is usually king, but in the battle for the survival of Western civilization it will be reality and not illusion or delusion that will determine what the future will bring“. You wouldn’t know it from the mainstream media, but the reality is that Ron Paul is more electable than Santorum, has a far better record than Santorum when it comes to voting for limited government, and is at least as good as if not better than Santorum when it comes to moral character and values. But since the reality is that Republican voters insist on living in the delusion that moral character, not record or policy, is the best thing to look for in a president, Ron Paul needs to step into their delusion and show that he has outstanding moral character in addition to being the only true conservative in the race. Ron Paul has done a good job with his ads that show the other candidates to be counterfeit conservatives, but he has yet to connect with the voters on a personal level that reveals his moral character. He can do that by talking a lot more about himself, as Santorum did when he visited every county in Iowa and went on to win the state and gain momentum. It’s the one thing Ron can learn from Rick and his campaign.