Ron Paul Moves Into Iowa Lead
This should trouble Jews, and could cause a political maelstrom
The big political news this morning is that Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the third-time’s-the-charm Republican presidential candidate, has taken the lead in the latest PPP poll in Iowa, which hosts the first-in-the-nation caucuses on Jan. 3, 2012. Paul’s strength in the Hawkeye State has long been known (he scored 10 percent in 2008), as has the fact that he’s been gaining ground since Mitt Romney simply seems not to be catching on there and since the former front-runner, Newt Gingrich, who may formerly have resembled a blimp, now increasingly looks like the Hindenberg: His popularity began to plummet not long after he took the lead and everyone had to actually pay attention to him. Paul is in first with 23 percent; in second (and, given the 4 percent margin of error, in a “statistical dead-heat” with Paul) is Romney with 20 percent; and in third is Gingrich at 14 percent (he was at 27 two weeks ago). Our favorite elections-predictor, Nate Silver, has Paul winning the caucuses by three points over Romney. Congratulations, Dr. Paul, but is this good or bad for the Jews?
It’s hard not to answer “bad.” It’s not just that Paul, alone among the prominent GOP candidates, supports lowering foreign aid including to Israel, lessening the United States’ “entangling alliances,” and generally hoping for less U.S. power projection in the world—all the stuff AIPAC’s nightmares are made of. Reasonable Jews, after all, can differ on the subject of AIPAC’s nightmares. It’s that Paul kinda has a Jewish problem. About two decades ago, newsletters that were published under his aegis and ghost-written by a close adviser routinely engaged in a sort of neo-Southern Strategy—an attempt to unite “paleoconservatives” with coded (and sometimes uncoded) messages laced with fear and contempt for the Other, whether blacks, gays, or Jews. Moreover, Paul has yet to reckon with this or even, really, acknowledge it. This isn’t just a pedantic point: One newsletter headlined an article about the Adams Morgan neighborhood “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo”; another questioned whether the Mossad was responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. (Much of this reporting comes from frequent Tablet Magazine contributor James Kirchick.)
The second reason it’s bad for the Jews is that the institutional Republican Jewish community has shunned Paul, and when you get elected (or nominated), you tend to reward and look favorably upon the positions of the people who got you there and do the opposite to the people who tried to prevent you from getting there. The Republican Jewish Coalition does not endorse primary candidates, but when you invite six of the seven top candidates to your forum and refuse to invite the seventh, and then explain that this is due to the seventh’s “misguided and extreme views,” well, your message has probably been conveyed. A Paul nominee and, theoretically, President Paul is almost certainly going to be less receptive to the desires of the Jewish community than the alternatives. I am not sure this means the RJC was wrong not to invite Paul, but I certainly hope the possibility that he would become the nominee at least factored into its decision.
Paul is still considered a significant long shot. His views can be pretty kooky (although, as when he calls for ending the War on Drugs, sometimes they are kooky in a very welcome way), he’s not polished, he’s 76 (several years older than John McCain was in ’08), and he has never had the sun-bright glare of national media attention focused directly on him. But it was a similarly crowded field that, say, Sen. John Kerry emerged out of in 2004 when he won the Iowa caucuses and proceeded to wrap up the nomination in short order. Paul’s becoming the GOP standard-bearer was never outside the realm of possibility, and it is right now, perhaps, more likely than ever. Which means we need to start talking about what Jewish Republicans will do if he is the nominee. Which means we need to start talking about the potential for a third-party run, perhaps involving someone Jewish Republicans would find more palatable. I’m not saying, I’m just saying.
Plus Hamas concedes parameters, R.I.P. Havel, and more
Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180
WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.
I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at email@example.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.
We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.