Ron Paul (right) has a chance to make big strides in 2012, if he follows his son Rand's lead. What Rand Paul could teach Ron

Rep. Ron Paul (R- Texas) found himself in an unusual position at the South Carolina GOP presidential debate. According to most polls, Paul was the frontrunner of the five candidates on stage. Though some big names were missing, it signals how far Paul has come in four years.

Consider that Paul registers more national support than former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is already running, and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who may soon enter. Pawlenty and Daniels are widely considered to have a chance at winning the GOP nomination.


Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is barely ahead of Paul in the Real Clear Politics polling average. With Donald Trump and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee not running, the only declared candidate who consistently runs ahead of Paul in national polls is former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Paul has a chance to make major strides in 2012 — if he can remember he is running a presidential campaign and not a seminar on Libertarianism 101. In 2008, Paul expected to do little other than inject libertarian and antiwar arguments into the televised debates. He ended up raising millions of dollars and finishing ahead of some presumed top-tier contenders.

The issue environment is more favorable to Paul this time around — and the GOP field looks weaker. Yet Paul still allows himself to be drawn into defending libertarian theory, when he could be winning votes.

For example, in South Carolina, Chris Wallace of Fox News listed a variety of “personal habits” — drug use, prostitution, gay marriage — Paul had said “should be legal if states want to permit” them. Wallace asked, “[W]hy should social conservatives in South Carolina vote for you?”

Paul made brief mention of the social conservatives’ right to pray without government interference before eloquently defending drug legalization and doing an amusing impression of a heroin addict.

He got a good crowd reaction. “I never thought heroin would get applause here in South Carolina,” Wallace quipped.

But in terms of gaining support, Paul should have spent his time answering Wallace’s question. “Social conservatives in South Carolina should vote for me,” he could have said, “because I’m pro-life on abortion and my bill would prevent federal judges from forcing gay marriage on their state.”

For Paul’s state’s rights position is unlikely to lead to making gay marriage, prostitution or even drugs legal in South Carolina — precisely because South Carolinians don’t want any of these to be legal.

Since then, Paul has, with varying effectiveness, suggested he wouldn’t have ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden (“Not the way it took place, no”) or voted for certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The problem isn’t that Paul puts his principles above politics. The problem is that by ignoring political considerations entirely, Paul argues for his principles less effectively.

However unfairly, the takeaway from these controversies is that Paul’s concern for the rights of terrorists and racists would take precedence over his willingness to defend U.S. national security or the rights of minorities.

Consider another South Carolina GOP debate, in 2007. Paul sparred with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani over the role U.S. foreign policy played in motivating the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Paul’s supporters were thrilled that their man stood up to Giuliani and defended the concept of blowback. But he failed to rebut Giuliani’s insinuation that the congressman believed the United States deserved to be attacked — putting a ceiling on how well he could do in a Republican primary.

When Paul’s son Rand ran for Senate in Kentucky, his Republican primary opponent released an ad alleging he blamed America for 9/11. The commercial even used footage of his father debating Giuliani. Rand Paul’s first reaction wasn’t to defend blowback but to defend himself from the charge.

He broadcast an indignant response: “[Y]our shameful TV ad is a lie, and it dishonors you.”

Rand Paul won.

His father wouldn’t have to remake himself as a slick politician to follow suit. The elder Paul initially noted that he had voted for going after bin Laden, and was “delighted” the terrorist was gone. He has articulated his opposition to racism and Jim Crow.

Yes, Ron Paul is running to expose more Americans to libertarian arguments. But there’s another way he can advance libertarianism.

It’s called winning.

W. James Antle III is associate editor of The American Spectator.