Christopher Caldwell has an insightful article about GOP presidential contender Ron Paul in tomorrow's New York Times Magazine. Aptly titled "The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul," it provides a pretty interesting look into Paul's life and politics (and the fact that he didn't know of The Daily Show or GQ until he was featured by them, the former being obvious when he made the Out Of Touch Politician's Mistake of leaving the chair as soon as the interview was over).
As Caldwell notes, "Paul’s combination of radical libertarianism and conservatism is unusual. Sometimes the first impulse predominates," like when he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment or talks about how much he despises the war on drugs (apparently Timothy Leary held a fundraiser for him in the 80s). "Sometimes he is more conservative," Caldwell writes, like when he opposes "amnesty" and opposes abortion.
On the topic of abortion, Caldwell provides an insightful anecdote from the Congressman's earlier life:
He remembers seeing a late abortion performed during his residency, years before Roe v. Wade, and he maintains it left an impression on him. “It was pretty dramatic for me,” he says, “to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”
But of course, Paul's opposition to the war is what he is most famous for nationally, which attracts "every wacko fringe group in the country." Far-left Democrat-leaners often lump him in with Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, but compared to Kucinich in particular, the comparison is remarkably poor. Ron Paul is anti-war not for hippie-dippie Kucinich reasons, but because he's a staunch isolationist. He would oppose real humanitarian intervention on precisely the same principle. As such, the far left's love affair with Dr. Paul is either evidence of their simplicity, or -- perhaps more troubling -- a suggestion that they no longer trust the U.S. military at all, even when it might do good things. While to some degree understandable after 6 1/2 years of George Bush and Dick Cheney, I think this is incredibly unfortunate.
The entire article is really fantastic. Give it a look. Andrew Sullivan -- a sort of desperate Paul sympathizer -- was concerned the NYT would make Paul look like a fool. But after reading it, he writes, "I take back all my fears about the piece. It's a fair, superb account of Ron Paul's history, ideology, character and significance, including completely relevant material about some of the kooks his campaign has indeed attracted." In the end, whether it makes you think Paul is crazy or not mostly just depends on whatever you already thought. Either way though, you'll learn some good stuff.
