by: Faris Al-Hashmi
The recent rise in popularity of American Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has given way to a possible re-orientation of the 2012 election paradigm. What his rise represents is the willingness of American voters to support an anti-establishment candidate in opposition to years of reliance on mainstream politicians. It shows that no longer a minority, but a serious block of the American people have given up on traditional party politics and are seeking a truly independent president. And it could remake the 2012 election into one that truly represents class struggle.
Ron Paul is not a new face in American politics. He ran for president in 1988 and 2008 and has been serving in Congress for decades. His ideas are not new. In fact his remarkable trait has been his consistency and willingness to put principles ahead of what seems ‘popular’. But what is so unique about the year 2012 is that world circumstances and American attitudes have joined together to demand exactly what Paul has stood for all along. The American people have finally come to him.
To trace this alignment, one can start with the Iraq war. American skepticism of government leading the nation to war began in Vietnam but then relapsed in the following decades. Especially after 9/11, Americans put faith in the government to protect the nation against terrorism. But Iraq started to change that again, as anti-war sentiment was reflected in the 2006 congressional elections that saw anti-Iraq war Democrats win. Suddenly an anti-war stance in the post-9/11 world was feasible as the people saw through the government’s lies and manipulation of the terror threat.
Ron Paul ran in the 2008 elections but was still seen as too radical for his anti-establishment, anti-war and anti-corporatist stance. He gained somewhat a name for himself, but the likes of McCain, the traditional big defense, main-stream Republican was still preferred. And then came the financial crisis of 2009. The government bailout of large corporations the major car companies, as well as the leading financial institutions. The government-instituted health care reform bill- so called Obama-care. A movement was born.
The Tea Party was a very conservative movement, but also very anti-establishment. At least elements of it were more libertarian than Reagan conservative. They took economic frustrations and blamed it on the government. They resented the bailouts, the economic stimulus plans that seemed just like a lot of misused taxpayer money. The healthcare bill symbolized a government expanding its reach. Most importantly, the Tea Partiers represented a move within the Republican Party against the main-stream establishment.
The liberal mistrust of government was strengthened after Obama took office, due in large part to the campaign that got him their vote. The emphasis on ‘change’ created expectations that haven’t been fulfilled. Obama did not close Guantanamo, has escalated the Afghanistan War, as well as the drone war in Pakistan. His ‘liberal’ healthcare bill arguably ended up benefiting pharmaceutical companies. His macroeconomic policies have not resulted in hoped for gains.
In the latest show of liberal anger, the Occupy movement protested against economic inequality in addition to the traditional anti-war stance. Most significant about Occupy Wall Street was a dissociation with the Democratic party, and in fact association based more on class lines than party ones. The liberals became anti-establishment just as the Tea Party had. They are both angry. Angry about the economic situation, angry about the establishment. The Tea Party is angry about the government’s role, the Occupy movement is angry about the upper elite and inequality. They both hated the bailouts.
So, on the one hand a liberal anti-war, mistrust of government was renewed following the Iraq War. On the other hand a conservative mistrust of government’s involvement in the economy was born following the financial crisis. The Tea Partiers and now Occupy Wall Street have each given up on the establishment. What’s left is the Republican and Democratic institutional elite, that alliance between government, Wall Street, and defense.
Where does Ron Paul come in? Paul represents all the Tea-Party stands for domestically in reducing taxes and limiting government. What his rise within Republican ranks and the Tea Party represents is a willingness of Republicans to rethink the big defense establishment after years of wars. Now, they have become warm to a Ron Paul Republican. On the other hand, he stands for liberal issues as anti-war and anti-bailout, as well as championing civil liberties. Indeed, Paul’s positions cross party lines and instead unite both Republicans and Democrats on an anti-establishment line.
The question becomes, are voters willing to identify themselves according to their class, or will they stick to their party? Rather, how many would? Is the 2012 election going to be anti-establishment vs. establishment? Trust in government vs. lack of trust? How many Independent Democrats would look at Obama not as a Democrat, but as an institutionalist, and thus prefer Paul as representing the anti-establishment? How many Democrats would back a ‘conservative’ domestic policy and how many Republicans would back a ‘liberal’ foreign policy?
Rather, how many Americans would identify positions on foreign and domestic policy not as ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, but as ‘establishment’ and ‘non-establishment’, ‘institutionalist’ and ‘non-institutionalist’, ‘elitist’ and ‘non-elitist’?
If Ron Paul were to be the Republican nominee, it certainly could shape up to be a race determined along those lines: Paul representing the anti-establishment, lower classes, and Obama representing the mainstream establishment - the government bureaucracy, the financial elite, the Pentagon. If Americans do identify themselves along those lines, it could be an election of mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans backing Obama vs. anti-establishment Democrats and anti-establishment Republicans backing Paul. This could be the first class-based election since at least Jimmy Carter. There is an anti-establishment movement in America and it could determine the outcome of the elections.
