Posted by Joe Dirte on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 11:55 AM:
Ronverts: Breaking Up with Obama, Rebounding with Ron Paul
In 2008, Moses Caballeros was a 21-year-old activist in New York City who couldn't wait to cast his first presidential vote for Barack Obama. He canvassed around Harlem, he proselytized to his friends, he attended rallies and meetings downtown. Coming from a family of hardcore Puerto Rican and Brazilian-American Democrats that voted for Charlie Rangel every election cycle, he "really couldn't give a **** about a Republican." He was happy that Obama planned to get our troops out of Iraq. He liked the sound of making government more transparent.
"I really loved the idea of finally becoming part of the political process," he says. "Like it mattered what I thought about government issues." The fact that Obama was biracial topped it off. For his Harlem neighbors and family members, having a president of color "was monumental," Moses says. "It felt important for us to back him. I thought he would support us."
Fast-forward to 2012. The best way Caballeros can describe the way he feels is "heartbroken." Betrayed and lied to. "I haven't felt this pain about any other politician," he says. He began to lose his faith in Obama when the president waffled on the wars, after he reaffirmed the PATRIOT Act, and especially when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act back in December. "He conformed to what the puppets on Capitol Hill wanted him to be," Caballeros says, with disgust. "He didn't care about his constituents."
Then one day a friend suggested he look into Ron Paul. Caballeros watched hours of Paul videos on YouTube. He learned as much about Paul as he could, and agreed with almost everything he read and heard. He didn't tell any of his Democrat friends, partly because he didn't fully understand what was happening.
"It was kind of like a culture shock, to hear all that stuff about the Constitution," Caballeros explains. "He seemed like the only candidate that was being absolutely and utterly honest. It was almost like I was falling in love."
Young people have been Ron Paul fans since the mid-2000s. They list reasons that echo Caballeros': He's anti-war, he's anti-surveillance, he's pro-"liberty." Post-recession, some Millennials are indignant that so much money has been spent (on social welfare, on wars) without us reaping the benefits of it, so Paul's anti-spending language resonates. They usually don't share his conservative social beliefs, but give him a pass because Paul supports the rights of states to decide on their own. They also love his consistency--"just look at those videos of him from the late 80s," Caballeros suggests. "He's saying the same things." He won't trick us like those other guys will, they think. He won't lie to us.
In 2008, a lot of young people trusted Obama the same way. They saw him as someone who would go to Washington and shake things up rather than become part of the machine. Now, a lot of previously energized young voters like Caballeros are breaking up with Obama--and, to mend their broken hearts, they're rebounding with Paul.
Ron Paul's base of young supporters has grown impressively this primary season. In Iowa, Paul won 18-to-29-year-olds with 48 percent of the vote, compared with 23 percent for Rick Santorum and 13 percent for Mitt Romney. In New Hampshire, he got 46 percent of the youth vote. Even in South Carolina, a state far less welcoming to Paul's libertarian brand, he surpassed Newt Gingrich's share of the youth vote with 31 percent. Still, it's been hard to get specifics on these numbers--how many of his supporters are conservatives sick of toeing the party line, how many are newly politicized college kids going through their Ayn Rand phase, and how many are former Obama supporters for whom the honeymoon is over?
The moment I decided to stick my toe in the pool of the last group, I was pulled in headfirst. After my tweet asking for Obama-turned-Paul fans was eagerly retweeted by more than 50 Paul advocates, the responses I got were emotional, confessional, and passionate. Like Caballeros, they described a love affair gone awry: "I donated my hard earned $8-an-hour income to [Obama's] campaign when I was 19," one woman wrote me, "only to have more of my money snatched and donated to TARP, and my poor American heart broken. I CRIED for the guy when he got elected." Or else they described a conversion experience, a sense of feeling lost, then being shaken to the core. I read email after email from people who admitted to becoming "obsessed" or "addicted" to watching Ron Paul YouTube videos after feeling disappointed with Obama. One guy told me that he was "consumed" with listening to Paul speeches in his car and had started secretly reading libertarian literature at work.
Matthew Stanford was one of the Obama voters whose mind was blown by Paul. In 2008, he was a 25-year-old hippie who was in the habit of wearing a tie-dye T-shirt that proclaimed "Deadheads for Obama." He was appalled by the war in Iraq, and he watched with horror as people lost their jobs and homes while the cost of living rose. "If you're going to spend money outrageously, might as well spend it on the people here, like on health care and stimulus packages," he reasoned.
When the Republican primary race began last year, he thought it was a big joke. He watched it mainly for "entertainment purposes," observing the antics of Rick Perry, Michele Bachman, and Herman Cain. That's when Stanford accidentally got introduced to Ron Paul.
Stanford found himself nodding his head along to Paul's debate rebuttals. It freaked him out--he'd always been a liberal, but Paul was speaking with a matter-of-factness he'd never seen before in politics. He started researching, eventually becoming fixated on absorbing all things Ron Paul. Every night he'd lie in bed watching YouTube videos on his iPhone with his headphones on, his girlfriend sleeping by his side.
"I started to think, 'Just because Obama is spending money on the people doesn't make it right and doesn't make it a good idea for this country, because we simply can't afford that, either,'" he says. Plus, Paul was against the war. He was against the PATRIOT Act and SOPA and NDAA. And, unlike Obama, Stanford felt like Paul was keeping it real. "His whole M.O. is that he's not full of it," he says.
It's tempting to pit a truth-teller against a "liar" when we've had four years to evaluate the relative honesty of our current president. Dave Weigel, a political reporter for Slate who closely followed Ron Paul supporters in 2008, thinks part of the reason Paul is getting so many props from former Obama supporters is because Paul is running on some of the same promises that Obama failed to deliver.
"Obama talked about reducing military spending in 2008," says Weigel. "He said during his campaign that he would cut the deficit in half. He said he would close Gitmo...in general, there are a lot of people who think the guy lied to us." Back in the Bush era, Weigel says, libertarianism was concentrated on protecting civil liberties. Now that Paul is talking about reining in spending for wars abroad and drug enforcement, framing it in a recession-based isolationism, it appeals to Obama supporters who feel duped.
"The focus has shifted to an 'old right,' much more fundamental, America-first patriotism," says Weigel, a patriotism that fits with the urgency of an economic crisis.
Other "Ronverts" are exchanging one outsider for another. Part of the reason why young people rallied around Obama is because he seemed to sidestep politics as usual. Alfredo Rios, a 32-year-old former Marine from Milwaukee, volunteered to canvass for Obama not only because he was against the war in Iraq but because, after seeing him on television, he thought, "Dude looks cool, and he doesn't look like any of the other presidents we've ever had." For Rios, who started looking into Paul shortly after Obama's victory, Obama became just another acquiescent, robotic politician.
Groups like Youth for Ron Paul and Blue Republican (former Democrats who switched party affiliations to vote in the primary) abound on Facebook and Twitter. But Paul's young supporters aren't just hunched over their computers. Stanford, for instance, was so moved by Paul that he booked himself a hotel room in Concord, NH for few days and volunteered at Paul's campaign headquarters. He had been impressed by the Occupy movement, but wanted to do more than "sit there and complain." Going to work for Paul, he explains, "was my way of occupying something."
Many of Paul's events and groups are organized by young people. Caballeros is wrangling supporters for a New York City rally on February 25. Several other groups, including the Blue Republicans, are organizing a rally in D.C. February 20. Rios started the Ron Paul 2012 Milwaukee Area Activists; out of 200 members, he says he's recruited about 40 of them personally.
Paul has quenched the thirst of young people looking for a grassroots movement they can own; if you ask them, the Paul buzz is more authentic than even Obama's ascension. As one 28-year-old, self-proclaimed feminist named Erin Monda put it, Obama was "generic"-- people were "espousing this kind of 'change is good!' rhetoric without knowing what they were supporting," she says.
Obama was a big-media darling, after all; Paul material mostly lives on YouTube, Facebook, and message boards, where people can choose their level of involvement. Most of the supporters I talked to came to understand Ron Paul through some sort of private evangelic moment, or had a person they trust convince them of his greatness. It's a more deliberate--and contrarian--process than getting caught up in the collective fervor of Obama. Even Paul's suggestion of settling social issues among states opens up opportunities for activism.
"I'm pro-choice," Monda says. "And if a state outlawed abortion, I would be extremely active in my community to get that overturned. I would speak out against it and petition. I think it would feel good to be able to wield that kind of power."
Several other people told me switching from Obama to Paul was their way of proving they could think for themselves. Ronverts aren't necessarily the stereotype of those college kids searching for a libertarian demagogue; in a way, they're rejecting that model altogether. With Barack Obama's re-election campaign, their effort would get swallowed up by SuperPACs and euphemisms. With Ron Paul, they're on their own--and they like it that way.
I see many people on both sides who are sick of politics as usual. I see many who want a canidate who "brings people together" I see many who are tired of out of control spending. I see folks who are tired of loosing personal freedoms or having government intrusion in their lives.
So the question for people on both sides is, if those things are what you are looking for, why does Ron Paul not get a second look from most voters?
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 11:59 AM
Rick,
The last line of your post pretty much sums it up.
I am not here to say Ron Paul is the answer to all of this countries problems. I am not saying people should agree with him on every issue.
Many Republicans want claim to want a smaller, less intusive government. Of all the candidates out there today, who would be most likely to deliver on that.
Many Democrats are anti-war. They don't believe we should be involved in much of the military action we have been in in the last few decades. Who would be the most likely person to stay out of others wars unless it is tuly necessary and formally declared.
Many people seem to have problems with his stance on social issues. While he does not agree with abortion, gay marriage, etc, he also knows it shouldn't be the federal governments job to legislate it. If Missouri banned gay marriage and Illinois allowed it, gays would be free to go to Illinois, in a place they are accepted. Also those who live in Illinois who are appaled by the thought of gay marriage would be free to move to MO to be away from a policy they do not agree with.
The USA is to big and to diverse to have a one size fits all type of government. Many of the founders saw this all those years ago and drew up the constitution to reflect such. Over the years, many who believe themselves smarter, have taken away states rights and personal rights in order to feed their own hunger for power.
If powers to rule on such issues where returned to the states, the real problems of the federal government as set by our constitution could be dealt with. We may not have to have 40 televised debates to determine Romneys opinion on abortion or Obamas stance on school lunch nutrition. Maybe our federal elections would be focused on problems that were intended to be federal.
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 2:24 PM
I believe that this article begins by dicussing a young man who was 21 at the time Obama was elected and who remarked that he has not felt this pain with any other politician. I suggest he give it a few years.
Ron Paul may fill a lot of thinking voters' needs, but he draws far too small a bloc to be a viable candidate against Obama. The state's rights issue is a huge one, but people are unwilling to move to the state that supports their beliefs and may be unable to do so because of lack of jobs in a location that agrees with them politically.
Also, you have the older citizen who owns a home in an area that might see a drop in housing prices in his own area wanting to move to an area where housing costs are going up because of political appeal. What would be his/her option?
There are many things to consider when determining where to put one's faith and on whom to place one's vote.
-- Posted by InReply on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 3:50 PM
InReply,
You are at this point in time correct about candidates such as paul or others like him not being viable in a general election. To me that is the problem.
I do wonder and sometimes worry, will the people of this country ever figure out that the Bush,Gore, Obama, Romney clones are not the answer.
Rick is right IMO. Generally, people are just dumb. They can be lead around by their noses, vote for who the media, campaign ads, etc, tell them to.
As far as states rights comment. You are correct. many will not move. That is their choice and if they do not continue to stand and fight, it shows the issue may have not bothered them as much as they let on.
As far as the ones who cannot move, they can choose to stay and fight as well.
I heard on a movie one time, "you can't fight city hall." You can bet your boots it is easier for a group of people to be heard at city hall or the state capital than in DC.
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 4:07 PM
For the record, I was at one time among those that let media/party lines and all that choose who I cast my ballot for.....No more will that happen, I dont need a R or D to do my thinking. National politics today being what they are, flip a coin. Its gonna come up tails on either side.
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 4:11 PM
Oh, Joe Dirte, I agree. I gave up voting for the lessor of two evils long ago. However, in today's clime, I can't help but beat myself up while trying to figure out who is actually best for my country as a whole and who will come the closest to getting the job done. In my mind, I only see us continuing down the the path to gradual destruction because our population is such that too many would suffer too much during a precipitous overthrow. Even then, we might only end up as so many countries have....no better than they were before.
I truly believe that we must find a new party with a new platform and build from outside the system before offering a candidate for national election. I don't believe that radicals on either side of the current dilemma should be allowed to continue however, so I only hope that everyone will vote for the most moderate candidates of whichever party they choose to back.
-- Posted by InReply on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 4:27 PM
Welcome to the libertarian bandwagon (so to speak). I left the republican party beginning with the 2004 elections. Voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 and 2012 primaries. Voted straight libertarian in the general elections of 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and will be voting straight libertarian in 2012 general election. D & R? Never again. D & R equally put this country in the situation it is currently in, yet "the people" will only vote D or R election after election after election. I believe it is said that doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Obviously the vast majority of U.S. voters are insane.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 7:17 PM
I would be more likely to endorse a national party based entirely on the constitution. Hopefully, those who are trying will soon find willing allies.
State parties have more opportunity to base their platforms on what they see as individual needs. That would give them a chance to draw the folks who believed in their doctrine.
-- Posted by InReply on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 9:38 PM
Well, just reread what I wrote. Of course, I knew exactly what I meant. My post was based on the dream that states rights begin to mean just that with the individual states having parties for their own elections and then electing federal officials in a pyramidal manner. President and Vice President could, of course, be from a country wide field as they are now.
-- Posted by InReply on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 11:57 PM
I have thought about it. So have many others in this country over the last 20 years or so.
That article is no different than the fairytale op-ed stories written about Obama's birth certificate/muslim faith or GW being behind 9/11.
Why do so many beleive federal government has a better grasp on how people should act or live their lives? The article Theorist posted makes it sound as though chaos would overtake society if federal government is holding your hand at every step of life. It fails to mention the fact states have their own laws regarding such things as civil rights, public assistance programs, etc.
The point Paul and others like him are making is we should not blanket the entire nation with laws in a one size fits all way. There are things written into the constitution such as the bill of rights that are meant to be followed nationwide. Everything else should be left up to individual states or legally ammended to the constitution.
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 8:32 AM
In other words, folks, people are PO'd...as usual. Ho hum.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 9:08 AM
Joe,
It is obvious that Theorist buys the Leftist Socialism Agenda hook, line and sinker. There are a minority out there who have bought it, but they are a noisey minority and are picking away at the country piece by piece to turn it into fullblown socialism. That much I sincerely believe. I have a couple of relatives with the same inclinations.
Hopefully we don't go the way of Greece before we wise up. We are getting closer everyday.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 9:53 AM
Wheels,
You are right, there are some out there who dream of full blown socialism. There are some who do not mind giving up small bits of personal liberties here and there if it helps them feel more secure.
In the article Theorist posted the author jumps on Pauls personal stance against abortion. Reality is unlike other politicians, Paul and like minded thinkers do not feel it is the federal governments business to legislate on such issues at all. It should be up to states to decide on such things as their citizens see fit. It should be the feds job to carry out duties prescribed by the constitution.
For a group of people who claim to be pro-choice, they dont seem to want any choice given but their own. Also, to be fair, I feel the same way about conservatives who put party over freedom as well.
With Romney as the Repub nominee, they may very well beat Obama this fall. Romney may run things slightly better than Obama. That being said we ALL still loose in the end by not standing against this foolishness.
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 10:20 AM
That being said we ALL still loose in the end by not standing against this foolishness.
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 10:20 AM
Yes!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 10:52 AM
Theorist,
Understood, you should not support someone you do not believe in, which is really my point. With a few exceptions, alot of people who will vote this fall for Obama/Repub nominee, do not believe in their candidate, they just vote for the lesser evil in their mind.
As far as the 2 issues you list above, I personally no longer will base my votes on personal opinions, only on the positions a candidate can actually do something about.
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 12:41 PM
I think Paul opposes seperation of church from state.
I have yet to hear his views that endorse doing away with civil rights legislation.
Theorist, here's your chance to show my ignorance.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 12:45 PM
A lot of people throw up the Civil Rights Act of 64 as a reason to not return to a more sane form of government. Had the Constitution been enforced from the getgo and every man (using the definition that says man means human being) was created equal we could be working on a better country instead of fighting the same old battles over and over. We would have no need of a Civil Rights Act of '64. Instead of admendments, we should have enforcement.
Health care is a personal issue. Covering abortions and birth control needs arising from life threatening issues might be one thing. Covering them because women and men fail to accept personal responsibility is entirely another matter and forces unreasonable premiums onto people who may or may not need such services.
-- Posted by InReply on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 1:17 PM
As far as the 2 issues you list above, I personally no longer will base my votes on personal opinions, only on the positions a candidate can actually do something about.
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 12:41 PM
It's almost scary how much you are thinking like me.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 6:34 PM
It's almost scary how much you are thinking like me.
-- Posted by Live & Let Live on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 6:34 PM
Don't get scared. I think it is a good thing if more people question the direction our county is being dragged by many in the D and R establishment. The more people that seriously question all of their motives, the sooner we may get back on track as a nation.
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 8:42 AM
Lotteropoly...
-- Posted by Hugh M Bean on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 4:22 PM
BC, The big spending is easily solved with 40% inflation in 4 years. No tax hikes, no spending cuts. Problem is, inflation won't cure the 40 cents borrowed for every dollar spent.
You sure you got enough covers?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 6:41 PM
Big spenders all.
-- Posted by BCStoned on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 6:16 PM
That's no doubt. The bad thing about BO is the regulations he is chocking the wheels of the economy with. I like Ron Paul but he scares to many voters to get elected.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 8:50 PM
BC, "The New World Order is fascism."
As someone I know likes to say, "I think we're on the same sheet of music here."
People should ask. Is it still free enterprise if government runs it?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 9:02 PM
I'm still not sure of my father's politics. An often heard family recall is that Mom cancelled his vote to spite him telling her how to vote. I do know he got a kick out of Hubert Humphrey as a man never without an answer or rebuttal. I also know he was not of clear mind in his last days.
Politics was never important to me although I did have a brief and profound interest when I was subject to the draft.
As are so many of like rearing, most of us I think were too busy working long hours to keep watch on government. That may be the root of the national woes we face today.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 11:51 PM
I like Ron Paul but he scares to many voters to get elected.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 8:50 PM
To hear it told Obama and his policy scare many in this country. Also hear alot of talk from people who are scared of a country with Romney/Santorum/Gingrich at the helm. Why is it that they are deemed electable and Paul is not?
Over half of the voters in 2008 bought in to the message of change. I do not see the last 3 years as change. I see it as going down the same sorry path only at a higher rate of speed. I personaly would rather take the car in a different direction.
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Wed, Feb 15, 2012, at 8:20 AM
This election is not as as bad but in the last one people got the Paul supporters shown of TV acting like the Occupiers. Older people don't like smart *** kids and will not vote for who they are supporting.
Hopefully the working people have had enough of BO but we still have the leeches to worry about.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Feb 15, 2012, at 8:31 AM
Right on Rick.
A person like Paul may not be "electable" according to media or establishment party members. At the very least he is getting the message out to more and more people that the big spending party needs to be over. He is showing people that their rights are being taken away one by one. If that means that the time is drawing near where people will take a look beyond the party stooges put in front of us every election, thats a good thing in my book.
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Wed, Feb 15, 2012, at 10:07 AM
All the EU problems will be ironed out as soon as Hillary is head of the IMF. In the meanwhile we will continue to send borrowed money to those that wish our demise.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 17, 2012, at 12:47 PM
Menu
Ronverts: Breaking Up with Obama, Rebounding with Ron Paul
In 2008, Moses Caballeros was a 21-year-old activist in New York City who couldn't wait to cast his first presidential vote for Barack Obama. He canvassed around Harlem, he proselytized to his friends, he attended rallies and meetings downtown. Coming from a family of hardcore Puerto Rican and Brazilian-American Democrats that voted for Charlie Rangel every election cycle, he "really couldn't give a **** about a Republican." He was happy that Obama planned to get our troops out of Iraq. He liked the sound of making government more transparent.
"I really loved the idea of finally becoming part of the political process," he says. "Like it mattered what I thought about government issues." The fact that Obama was biracial topped it off. For his Harlem neighbors and family members, having a president of color "was monumental," Moses says. "It felt important for us to back him. I thought he would support us."
Fast-forward to 2012. The best way Caballeros can describe the way he feels is "heartbroken." Betrayed and lied to. "I haven't felt this pain about any other politician," he says. He began to lose his faith in Obama when the president waffled on the wars, after he reaffirmed the PATRIOT Act, and especially when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act back in December. "He conformed to what the puppets on Capitol Hill wanted him to be," Caballeros says, with disgust. "He didn't care about his constituents."
Then one day a friend suggested he look into Ron Paul. Caballeros watched hours of Paul videos on YouTube. He learned as much about Paul as he could, and agreed with almost everything he read and heard. He didn't tell any of his Democrat friends, partly because he didn't fully understand what was happening.
"It was kind of like a culture shock, to hear all that stuff about the Constitution," Caballeros explains. "He seemed like the only candidate that was being absolutely and utterly honest. It was almost like I was falling in love."
Young people have been Ron Paul fans since the mid-2000s. They list reasons that echo Caballeros': He's anti-war, he's anti-surveillance, he's pro-"liberty." Post-recession, some Millennials are indignant that so much money has been spent (on social welfare, on wars) without us reaping the benefits of it, so Paul's anti-spending language resonates. They usually don't share his conservative social beliefs, but give him a pass because Paul supports the rights of states to decide on their own. They also love his consistency--"just look at those videos of him from the late 80s," Caballeros suggests. "He's saying the same things." He won't trick us like those other guys will, they think. He won't lie to us.
In 2008, a lot of young people trusted Obama the same way. They saw him as someone who would go to Washington and shake things up rather than become part of the machine. Now, a lot of previously energized young voters like Caballeros are breaking up with Obama--and, to mend their broken hearts, they're rebounding with Paul.
Ron Paul's base of young supporters has grown impressively this primary season. In Iowa, Paul won 18-to-29-year-olds with 48 percent of the vote, compared with 23 percent for Rick Santorum and 13 percent for Mitt Romney. In New Hampshire, he got 46 percent of the youth vote. Even in South Carolina, a state far less welcoming to Paul's libertarian brand, he surpassed Newt Gingrich's share of the youth vote with 31 percent. Still, it's been hard to get specifics on these numbers--how many of his supporters are conservatives sick of toeing the party line, how many are newly politicized college kids going through their Ayn Rand phase, and how many are former Obama supporters for whom the honeymoon is over?
The moment I decided to stick my toe in the pool of the last group, I was pulled in headfirst. After my tweet asking for Obama-turned-Paul fans was eagerly retweeted by more than 50 Paul advocates, the responses I got were emotional, confessional, and passionate. Like Caballeros, they described a love affair gone awry: "I donated my hard earned $8-an-hour income to [Obama's] campaign when I was 19," one woman wrote me, "only to have more of my money snatched and donated to TARP, and my poor American heart broken. I CRIED for the guy when he got elected." Or else they described a conversion experience, a sense of feeling lost, then being shaken to the core. I read email after email from people who admitted to becoming "obsessed" or "addicted" to watching Ron Paul YouTube videos after feeling disappointed with Obama. One guy told me that he was "consumed" with listening to Paul speeches in his car and had started secretly reading libertarian literature at work.
Matthew Stanford was one of the Obama voters whose mind was blown by Paul. In 2008, he was a 25-year-old hippie who was in the habit of wearing a tie-dye T-shirt that proclaimed "Deadheads for Obama." He was appalled by the war in Iraq, and he watched with horror as people lost their jobs and homes while the cost of living rose. "If you're going to spend money outrageously, might as well spend it on the people here, like on health care and stimulus packages," he reasoned.
When the Republican primary race began last year, he thought it was a big joke. He watched it mainly for "entertainment purposes," observing the antics of Rick Perry, Michele Bachman, and Herman Cain. That's when Stanford accidentally got introduced to Ron Paul.
Stanford found himself nodding his head along to Paul's debate rebuttals. It freaked him out--he'd always been a liberal, but Paul was speaking with a matter-of-factness he'd never seen before in politics. He started researching, eventually becoming fixated on absorbing all things Ron Paul. Every night he'd lie in bed watching YouTube videos on his iPhone with his headphones on, his girlfriend sleeping by his side.
"I started to think, 'Just because Obama is spending money on the people doesn't make it right and doesn't make it a good idea for this country, because we simply can't afford that, either,'" he says. Plus, Paul was against the war. He was against the PATRIOT Act and SOPA and NDAA. And, unlike Obama, Stanford felt like Paul was keeping it real. "His whole M.O. is that he's not full of it," he says.
It's tempting to pit a truth-teller against a "liar" when we've had four years to evaluate the relative honesty of our current president. Dave Weigel, a political reporter for Slate who closely followed Ron Paul supporters in 2008, thinks part of the reason Paul is getting so many props from former Obama supporters is because Paul is running on some of the same promises that Obama failed to deliver.
"Obama talked about reducing military spending in 2008," says Weigel. "He said during his campaign that he would cut the deficit in half. He said he would close Gitmo...in general, there are a lot of people who think the guy lied to us." Back in the Bush era, Weigel says, libertarianism was concentrated on protecting civil liberties. Now that Paul is talking about reining in spending for wars abroad and drug enforcement, framing it in a recession-based isolationism, it appeals to Obama supporters who feel duped.
"The focus has shifted to an 'old right,' much more fundamental, America-first patriotism," says Weigel, a patriotism that fits with the urgency of an economic crisis.
Other "Ronverts" are exchanging one outsider for another. Part of the reason why young people rallied around Obama is because he seemed to sidestep politics as usual. Alfredo Rios, a 32-year-old former Marine from Milwaukee, volunteered to canvass for Obama not only because he was against the war in Iraq but because, after seeing him on television, he thought, "Dude looks cool, and he doesn't look like any of the other presidents we've ever had." For Rios, who started looking into Paul shortly after Obama's victory, Obama became just another acquiescent, robotic politician.
Groups like Youth for Ron Paul and Blue Republican (former Democrats who switched party affiliations to vote in the primary) abound on Facebook and Twitter. But Paul's young supporters aren't just hunched over their computers. Stanford, for instance, was so moved by Paul that he booked himself a hotel room in Concord, NH for few days and volunteered at Paul's campaign headquarters. He had been impressed by the Occupy movement, but wanted to do more than "sit there and complain." Going to work for Paul, he explains, "was my way of occupying something."
Many of Paul's events and groups are organized by young people. Caballeros is wrangling supporters for a New York City rally on February 25. Several other groups, including the Blue Republicans, are organizing a rally in D.C. February 20. Rios started the Ron Paul 2012 Milwaukee Area Activists; out of 200 members, he says he's recruited about 40 of them personally.
Paul has quenched the thirst of young people looking for a grassroots movement they can own; if you ask them, the Paul buzz is more authentic than even Obama's ascension. As one 28-year-old, self-proclaimed feminist named Erin Monda put it, Obama was "generic"-- people were "espousing this kind of 'change is good!' rhetoric without knowing what they were supporting," she says.
Obama was a big-media darling, after all; Paul material mostly lives on YouTube, Facebook, and message boards, where people can choose their level of involvement. Most of the supporters I talked to came to understand Ron Paul through some sort of private evangelic moment, or had a person they trust convince them of his greatness. It's a more deliberate--and contrarian--process than getting caught up in the collective fervor of Obama. Even Paul's suggestion of settling social issues among states opens up opportunities for activism.
"I'm pro-choice," Monda says. "And if a state outlawed abortion, I would be extremely active in my community to get that overturned. I would speak out against it and petition. I think it would feel good to be able to wield that kind of power."
Several other people told me switching from Obama to Paul was their way of proving they could think for themselves. Ronverts aren't necessarily the stereotype of those college kids searching for a libertarian demagogue; in a way, they're rejecting that model altogether. With Barack Obama's re-election campaign, their effort would get swallowed up by SuperPACs and euphemisms. With Ron Paul, they're on their own--and they like it that way.
http://www.good.is/post/rise-of-the-ronverts-break-up-with-obama-rebound-with-ro...
Replies (28)