I’m an avid reader of the Economist. I feel like it makes me smarter and I find their arguments persuasive. So it is with a sad heart that I recently read Lexington’s analysis of Ron Paul’s campaign:
Even if he wins in quirky Iowa, Ron Paul will never be America’s president.
I should have included this in an email I sent to a friend trying to express my frustration at how the media treats Ron Paul. It was simply a list of references to articles where the author makes sure to note that regardless of what happens, Ron Paul will not be the next president. At the end I suggested that Ron Paul should possibly change his name to “Ron Paul, who will not win the presidential race” since that is how I see his name spelled every time I see it.
As you probably know by now, Ron Paul did not win Iowa, thus making the Iowa caucus relevant again. Rick Santorum is now significant because he tied in the caucus that wouldn’t have mattered if Ron Paul had won. So we need to talk about him. If Paul had won we’d be spending our time talking about why Iowa doesn’t matter, but when it anoints a new “not Romney” other than Paul it’s big news.
Is it really so hard to believe that the entrenched status quo is using their megaphone (the press) to make sure one of their preferred candidates wins? When did the press, who is notoriously terrible at predicting anything, get into the business of telling me who will and won’t be the next president? How many voters in Iowa voted for someone else, because they were told that Ron Paul was “un-electable.”
The bigger question I always have to ask is — Why does a populace so disenchanted with the current power brokers allow those same power brokers to tell them who is and isn’t a real candidate? Do you expect your current rulers to do anything besides tell you that a revolution is impossible?
Ira Mitch 