Last night Ron Paul celebrated a second place finish in New Hampshire with 22.9% of the vote, a new high-water mark for his campaign. The supporters that filled his party were young—mostly in their 20s—and were buzzing on a surprisingly strong showing for their underdog candidate.
In the air was the sense that despite being written off as not viable for the mainstream establishment, their movement, built on idealism and passion, could harness the enthusiasm necessary to really move the needle in this election—possibly even change the world.
As Paul encouraged his supporters to believe—to never give up on their vision for America, the crowd broke out into a spontaneous chant, a phrase made up of three monosyllables that the candidate had coined.
No, it wasn’t “Yes we can!” It was “End the Fed!” But you’d have to be blind to not to see the parallels between Paul’s 2012 campaign and the one Barack Obama launched in 2008.
What made Obama’s campaign historic was in part the momentous outpouring of support he received from the youth vote. A disproportionate number of young voters participated in the election, and voters 18 to 29 went for Obama 68% to 30%, a 38 point margin. While Romney won in New Hampshire with 39% of the vote, Paul took 47% of the 18 to 29 vote, beating Romney by 22 points.
But beyond the numbers, there is a qualitative analogue between the two campaigns based on a fervent passion for changing the status quo. Of course the new world order envisioned by both campaigns couldn’t be more different: Obama is essentially a middling centrist who seeks incrementally progressive policies tempered with big compromises along the way. Ron Paul is an uncompromising libertarian idealist who seems to want limit government’s involvement in everything (except, apparently, abortion rights).
But the way Ron Paul fits into 2012′s political culture finds its closest parallel in Obama’s ’08 campaign. It’s hard to imagine a group of impassioned young voters chanting their vision for change in a three-word phrase with any other candidate. Paul’s “End the Fed!” rallying cry has no comparison elsewhere in the Republican field. Nor will it likely see one among Obama supporters this year.
This makes sense—beyond the inevitable disillusionment among many Obama supporters disheartened when the president didn’t fundamentally change American politics (like Matt Damon), there is also they way in which his various accomplishments robs Obama’s base of urgency. Despite the disappointments, Obama’s presidency has changed America in the way his supporters wanted: We are no longer the gun-slinging, cowboy country of the Bush years that shot first and asked questions later. We no longer make major policy decisions based on “gut,” and we don’t announce that we can trust foreign countries because we’ve looked into their leaders’ eyes and seen their souls, as Bush did.
To some extent, Obama’s supporters have achieved the worldview they wanted. To the extent that this is true, they are fairly satisfied with the status quo. Rather than “Change we can believe in,” a better motto for the Obama 2012 campaign might be “Let’s try to keep improving things as best we can.” In 2012, it’s Ron Paul supporters’ chance to demand change.
Of course, one area in which this parallel breaks down is that, statistically speaking, Ron Paul is not likely to win his party’s nomination, to say nothing of the general election. The same could have been said about Obama before ’08′s Iowa caucus, where his surprise win over establishment candidate Hillary Clinton made him suddenly viable and sent his famous fundraising through the roof.
It’s still early—who knows what will happen with Ron Paul? Perhaps the passion of the youth will spread as contagiously as it did for Obama in ’08. Last night Paul called for all the candidates who finished well behind him to drop out of the race and back him in the fight against Mitt Romney.
One thing Paul in 2012 shares with Obama of ’08 is audacity—Paul’s brand doesn’t seem to be so much the audacity of hope as just straight-up audacity. It’s unlikely that he’ll end up facing his ’08 cultural equivalent in the general election, but with no other Republican candidate willing to be so bold, you never know.
January 11, 2012 at 3:10 pm, Cmon said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_Law_of_Headlines
January 11, 2012 at 3:30 pm, Anonymous said:
He should have been the Barack Obama of 2008, but we are slow learners.
January 12, 2012 at 3:37 am, Jenny said:
{{-_-}} {{-_-}} ~~~~
If winter comes, can spring be far away?
My friend just met a cutest girl on –CasualLoving dot c’0m–. It’s where for men and women looking for intimate encounters.
It’s a nice place for people who wanna start a short-term relationship….no bounds or extremes in front of true love.
January 11, 2012 at 3:30 pm, Anonymous said:
You can’t stop an idea whose time has come. Ron Paul 2012!
January 11, 2012 at 3:42 pm, Anonymous said:
One huge difference… Paul is real.
January 11, 2012 at 3:44 pm, Liberty said:
Yes. He can get the youth vote and the votes of many other sane American demographics due to his consistency and his excitement for an America that uses the proper blueprint for this falling nation to thrive once more,… The Constitution.
January 11, 2012 at 3:47 pm, Guest said:
“statistically speaking, Ron Paul is not likely to win his party’s nomination, to say nothing of the general election.”
Why say nothing about it? In a recent CBS poll matching candidates vs Obama, both Romney and Paul were within the margin of error to win the election. Pretty good for Paul, considering that the media keeps telling everyone he would have the *worst* chance vs Obama of any GOP candidate. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57355518-503544/poll-among-gop-hopefuls-romney-fares-best-against-obama/
January 11, 2012 at 8:02 pm, Kicknitinca said:
I wouldn’t discount President Ron Paul just yet. I offer the following for your mental mastication:
I’m a 45 year old Latino, living in California. I voted for Obama in 2008. In fact, I’ve voted Democrat in every election since I turned 18. In Ron Paul wins the Republican Nomination, I will vote for him. That will give a vote to Ron Paul and take away a vote from President Obama.
January 11, 2012 at 11:31 pm, John Campanella said:
I wonder how many new Ron Paul supporters aren’t voting in the primaries to make Paul the nominee?
Kicknitinca: Register Republican you dolt. Your comment made me really angry.
January 11, 2012 at 11:47 pm, Kicknitinca said:
Thanks for the friendly nudge. I’ll be sure to re-register as republican.
January 12, 2012 at 12:39 am, So said:
It might hurt but we all have to do it :b
January 16, 2012 at 10:13 pm, Duck said:
I was a life long democrat that voted for Obama. I re-registered as a republican and occasionally donate money to Ron Paul’s campaign. The time is now, there might not be another opportunity to change the course that this country is on. I get frustrated also when I hear people saying that if he gets the nom they will vote for him. HELP HIM GET THE NOMINATION NOW!!!!
January 12, 2012 at 11:39 am, barefoot said:
hey kickin it;
dont NOT vote for ron because he didnt take the nomination. you can write him in. you are playing in to the mainstream medias hands with that attitude. dont let them steer your vote to whoever they decide you should vote for. dr. paul is electable if we elect him.
January 11, 2012 at 3:48 pm, kae skizzy said:
Obama brought lots of change! The US president can now assassinate american citizens that are not convicted or charged with a crime .
January 12, 2012 at 12:36 am, So said:
I know. I just don’t get how this newspaper can support him – well “news”paper …they didn’t quite mention the economy, jobs, Quality of healthcare when talking about how our lives are So Much Better.
January 11, 2012 at 4:07 pm, Ha09318 said:
You didn’t mention the most important parallel- it was end the war, bring the troops home. Restore civil liberties.
Obama started new wars in Liya, transfered the Iraq war to expanding Afghanistan, and Pakistan when the mission has been accomplished. Dropping drone attacks around the world, imposing sanctions on Iran.
Obama just expanded the Patriot Act with just signing indefinate detention without trial, and assassinations without trial for American citizens.
Is this the change we were waiting for, hoping for.
Obama’s voice is still a strong advocate for tolerance- but his policies have been disgusting. In complete conflict and betrayal of what we ran on. Might as well have remained with Hillary Clinton, at lwast we would have been holding her accountable for the same Bush policies.
Any commentary that doesn’t include Ron Paul youth support is due to wanting to end the wars and restore civil liberties that Obama dudn’t achieve is dishonest.
January 11, 2012 at 4:09 pm, George Carlin said:
The big difference: Ron Paul has a record to back up every word he says. Obama’s record neither backed up or refuted his words as it was a blank page.
January 11, 2012 at 4:10 pm, Charles Dalon said:
Dr. Paul would take a bullet for the Constitution!!!
Dr. Ron Paul 2012!!!
January 12, 2012 at 11:43 am, barefoot said:
sadly, that comment gives me chills.remember the kennedys, lincoln?
i hope his body guards are on their toes……..
January 21, 2012 at 3:40 pm, Zhart25 said:
Completly agree
January 13, 2012 at 3:09 pm, MerC said:
I agree, he would, but PLEASE don’t give anyone ideas.
January 11, 2012 at 4:13 pm, JuicyG said:
Some lies sneaked into this article.
“Ron Paul is an uncompromising libertarian idealist who seems to want
limit government’s involvement in everything (except, apparently,
abortion rights).”
This is a total lie. Ron Paul is for letting states decides on such issues. He`s against federal government interference.
In Ron Paul`s book, if a state wants to legalize marijuana, it should be free to do so and if a state wants to forbid abortions, it should be free to do so. He wants state rights and limited government interference.
Some bible belt state might want to go the route of forbidding abortions, while a state like California or Nevada might want to legalize marijuana. California was very close to legalizing it marijuana but federal gov opposed.
Of course would be very unlikely a state like NY or California will ever vote in favor or abortions, just like a bible belt state will probably never vote in favor of marijuana.
It basically lets people in that area decide, instead of letting Washington makes a one size fits all policy for everyone.
January 11, 2012 at 4:27 pm, George Carlin said:
Exactly! People seem to miss the fact that Ron Paul only speaks in terms of the FEDERAL government. The states make most of the decisions for their state while still adhering to the constitution (i.e. Bill of Rights)
The president is not a state dictator. He makes sure the states adhere to the constitution, allows for commerce and trade, and protects the nation as a whole from foreign aggression.
January 11, 2012 at 11:27 pm, gabe said:
And thats exactly how our government is suppose to work. Micro manage civil issues and it gives a more accurate consensus of what the people want. Let a central government occur aka the Federal government(like it is today) and then you have a power that can impose one size fits all laws over all the population. Could be on the wrong side or the good side of civil liberties….
January 11, 2012 at 7:11 pm, Anonymous said:
Please don’t call Ron Paul as Barack Obummer. One is sincere, a sincere messenger of change, and capable of independent thought, while the other is the exact opposite on all counts.
Ron Paul has already set the scene for the future. We know what the growing number of people in this world think, about their choices. This is the last generation, the last wave of the war mongerers, the hate spreaders, the banksters, the government robbers, the Big Brothers, the deceivers. Ron Paul may not win like Obama did, but he has released the future of liberty, equality, and independence. Too many people with the better part of their lives ahead of them now know the message, and have broken the mental shackles that grip those who will vote for Romney or Gingrich or Obummer. This election may be decided by those who have been conditioned by the usual suspects but the future is free.
January 11, 2012 at 7:11 pm, Anonymous said:
Please don’t call Ron Paul as Barack Obummer. One is sincere, a sincere messenger of change, and capable of independent thought, while the other is the exact opposite on all counts.
Ron Paul has already set the scene for the future. We know what the growing number of people in this world think, about their choices. This is the last generation, the last wave of the war mongerers, the hate spreaders, the banksters, the government robbers, the Big Brothers, the deceivers. Ron Paul may not win like Obama did, but he has released the future of liberty, equality, and independence. Too many people with the better part of their lives ahead of them now know the message, and have broken the mental shackles that grip those who will vote for Romney or Gingrich or Obummer. This election may be decided by those who have been conditioned by the usual suspects but the future is free.
January 11, 2012 at 7:33 pm, SupaHero said:
Its good Paul’s running this year because in 08 it wouldn’t of mattered who the republican challenger was they would have lost. Also, with the tea party movement and the occupy movement, Paul seems to be very appealing to the masses.
January 11, 2012 at 8:07 pm, Anonymous said:
”
possibly even change the world” Do you actually watch any of the news, the world is changing irreversibly, dictator after
dictator is failing, the human race is more enlightened now than ever before. This is about liberty and freedom. You will have to choose wisely which side you fall on.
Ron Paul 2012
January 11, 2012 at 8:48 pm, Mark said:
Obama was not change he was just another democrat , whilst different to bush
Still part of the establishment
Particularly as bill Clintons former staff now dominate Obama white house
January 11, 2012 at 9:23 pm, Anonymous said:
“Obama is essentially a middling centrist…”
Thanks for the laugh!
January 11, 2012 at 9:23 pm, Anonymous said:
“Obama is essentially a middling centrist…”
Thanks for the laugh!
January 11, 2012 at 11:25 pm, Fred said:
“Ron Paul is an uncompromising libertarian idealist who seems to want
limit government’s involvement in everything (except, apparently,
abortion rights)”
OUCH! you were so close, so close to having a great article. Yes. Dr. Paul is pro-life and believes life begins at conception, but that does not mean he will pass legislation banning abortions. He believes the states should decide, just like all his views.
January 12, 2012 at 12:33 am, So said:
How are we not gunslinging if we’re in 7 wars rather than 2?
January 12, 2012 at 12:39 am, Justanothercrusader said:
Romney’s level of enthusiasm reminds me of Kerry’s in 2004. they were enthusiastic only because they HAD to be. Didn’t turn out so well for the Democrats.
January 12, 2012 at 10:08 pm, Anonymous said:
Ron Paul rules!!!!! For peace, prosperity,and freedom- any other will not do.
January 12, 2012 at 10:43 pm, Adrian Macau said:
Plus now that people are awake they will make sure his policies come to light
January 13, 2012 at 12:03 pm, R Stone said:
Why do we pretend some superhero President will ever accomplish
even 10% of campaign promises for “change”. Really, what can one man/woman accomplish given the bought and paid for
Republicans and Democrats in Washington? Why should establishment minions be concerned one iota about Ron Paul … any more than they were concerned by Obama’s noise …
Obama: “I will
… close Guantanamo … investigate for war crimes … Withdraw US troops from Iraq
in 16 months … reform Wall Street …
undo Bush’s Patriot Act / restore habeas corpus / Constitutional
rights … impose higher taxes for the
wealthy… sell you my share of the Brooklyn bridge.”
Why the orchestrated mainstream media boycott of Ron Paul if not that their Advertisers fear he could fuel Americans to become even more invested and involved to take our country back? If you’re a schemer .. corrupt and you’ve been running the same plays for years (subsidies, fat government contracts, tax breaks) you want more of the same ol’ same ol’. It’s hard for con artists to pretend they’re on the up and up when confronted by someone who persistently withstands the personal attacks and keeps after the truth. Look, a lot of folks have made a great living out of being a con artist, and a schemers in Washington, and it’s no stretch to imagine they don’t want someone around who asks tough questions.
I have more research to do, but so far, it looks like Ron Paul has been consistent and asks tough questions. He also seems to have a lot of ideas about how to change the culture in Washington. So far, it looks like he withstand their attacks and changes the dialogue … sheds even more
light .. raises more awareness …. Maybe that’s it … Maybe there’s concern he could further fuel the flames to regain our freedoms and curtail the corruption burning brighter since OWS.
January 13, 2012 at 12:45 pm, Robert said:
You are not very well Informed. Dr. Paul voted to keep government out of abortion. He is actually the Only canidAte that Tried to repeal roe vs wade. But a repuBlican house and Republican president reFused to Support Dr. Paul. You Should hAve to be held accOuntAbLe for What you write aboUt stating as faCTs. Get informed!
January 13, 2012 at 6:36 pm, Blurg said:
The differences are that Ron Paul doesn’t have the overwhelming support of the media (case in point, this biased article) and he is actually going to follow through with his promises.
January 14, 2012 at 12:35 pm, celebs4truth.com said:
End the FED news by the Denver Conspiracy Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/tag/end-the-fed
February 10, 2012 at 11:59 am, Jenell Cendan said:
Look… I am convinced to the global financial doom-and-gloomers concerning the economic climate. Has someone found any ray of hope in this “dip”?
February 10, 2012 at 8:14 pm, Noreen Petronzio said:
Many thanks for the article, it was interesting and compelling. I discovered my way here through Google, I’ll return one more time
February 12, 2012 at 2:57 am, Morgan Galbavy said:
I understand the thing you suggest about the overall economy. This rising cost of living is not good and we also can tell it is going to get worse. oof.
February 12, 2012 at 6:47 am, Loren Paramo said:
When you hear more than half these call-in shows, most are promoting precious metals as a stop gap measure to the dilemma. Although, my experience has been that the sales agents under no circumstances quit dialing and pestering you, and the mark up is pretty bad if you don’t visit a local coin shop.
May 10, 2012 at 2:07 pm, Ron Paul’s revolution isn’t over yet | Death and Taxes said:
[...] and ultimately select the party’s nominee.But Ron Paul is different. Why? It appears that the massive enthusiasm Paul generated with his Libertarian vision has found a permanent spot in the hearts and minds of supporters, to [...]
May 11, 2012 at 8:44 pm, Patricia Neal-Moreno said:
You didn't touch on any of the important policies that make up Ron Paul's platform. For instance he wants to end foreign aid to all countries, because it's not the Federal Government's money to give away, he wants to bring home most of our troops, let them do here what they do over there (building schools, water treatment plants, hospitals etc. They'd be helping our own country instead of fighting in undeclared, unconstitutional wars. Ron Paul would hold the federal reserve accountable for all the money they print, instead of loaning out 16 trillion dollars in complete secrecy, a fact we only know because of his Audit the FED bill. Think of that 16 trillion dollars to banks both foreign and domestic, that's enough to pay off our entire national debt.