posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 10:14 PM
Looking back, Paul vs Kuchinch
A question I have been pondering since the 2008 election, is that of why did Ron Paul's campaign work so well, where Kuchinich's didn't? As more
of a leftist myself, especially on economics, I would have personally preferred Kuchinch or Nader to be the one who built a movement and got some
traction, but I do respect Paul, and agree with many of his other ideas also.
Of course the men are quite different in many political views, but to me both had the opportunity to capitalize on their runs and build a movement,
due to the areas they are similar in. Some similarities I see in the men are:
They both are outliers of their party, who will generally take a stand if they disagree. For example Paul went against the party on issues such as
war, and Kuchinich went against the party on issues such as the bailout.
They both have an air of honesty and integrity around them, partly for the reason I stated above.
They both have fairly consistent voting records matching their espoused views.
They both appeal to populist ideas at times, favoring the 'people' over the 'elite'.
This were both mostly anti-war at a time when the war is unpopular.
I don't think it's as simple as something like "Oh, but Kuchinich is a gun grabber, so of course no-one will get behind him", as many
democrats/progressives do believe in this, but didn't get behind him. So I don't see it as a particular policy issue. Where they differ on
policies, so do the public, so they could have still drawn people to them. I also don't think that it is because Kuchinich is seen as a bit of a
buffoon at times, as Paul can suffer from the same effect, with his currently unorthodox, and to those unfamiliar with his way of thinking, strange
policies, and poor speaking manner. (The 'crazy old man' effect)
My personal opinion, is that Paul won out, because many of his followers had come in from various conspiracist movements and tax protester movements,
and the like, who were much more used to activism, especially on-line, and already had systems in place, such as good knowledge of and ability to
access and use well various blogs, forums, and radio shows, and the willpower to take it to the streets.
Perhaps it was also in part down to things as simple, but important, as choosing the right staff.
But my mind isn't made up on 'why?' at all yet, and I would like to hear others opinions on why Paul was the one to get the momentum and end up
building a useful movement for his aims.