By Peter Spaet
He may be the most adamantly endorsed person whose supporters know so little about him. Since the early primary debates of the 2008 Presidential Election, Texas Congressman Ron Paul (R-14) has developed a small, but dedicated (and vocal) base of voters, most of whom would consider themselves to be aligned with the left wing of the Democratic Party. Support for Ron Paul has turned up among liberal American youth; on left-wing political talk-shows; and among the most liberal organizations on predominantly left-wing college campuses. This support has grown out of Paul’s support for a narrow, yet important set of issues (particularly with regard to foreign policy) important to these voters.

Despite their strong and conspicuous support however, these groups may not fully recognize for what they are advocating. While every indication (including his voting record) suggests that the Congressman is sincere in his espousal of the views which have gained him this support, his positions throughout the political sphere are in conflict with those of his current supporters to such an extent that many of them might be advocating just as strongly against him if they were more aware of his overall positions.

“They [Al-Qaeda] don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there.” It was this statement, made by Ron Paul during the May 15th Republican Presidential Debate, which shot him into national attention, as well as the support of many anti-war, anti-military voters not satisfied with the Democratic candidate field to whom they had previously looked. The comment resonated so strongly with the anti-war left, not only because of their continued dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, but also because of the venue in which this was stated – a televised Republican debate, provoking disdain from a particularly pro-war candidate field.

Despite their legitimate agreement on this one issue however, the political positions of these same voters would stand in stark contrast to those of Congressman Paul, if considered in their full substance:

One critical breaking point between Congressman Paul and many of his current supporters is found on the issue of separation between church and state, on which Paul has historically favored strong ties between the two: While serving as a Congressional Representative, Ron Paul has introduced legislation, which would have restricted the Federal Courts from interjecting in cases brought on the basis of the Constitutional Establishment Clause – effectively allowing state and local governments not only to sanction religiously oriented displays, but also to determine which religious displays were permissible, and which were not. (Without federal restriction on these government-sponsored religious programs.)

Congressman Paul has gone so far as to suggest that “The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian America….with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.” Given the strong separation between church and state which has been supported by the anti-war left, (many of whom have protested ‘religious’ influence in the Bush administration,) many of these supporters would be far more hesitant to back Paul, if made aware of these positions.

A claim which has resulted in ostensible agreement between Paul and his supporters is that of limited government power. While those supporting Paul do have an overwhelming interest in this objective relative to the enhanced governmental authorities instituted during the Bush administration, they would again be alienated by Paul’s specific policy goals, once made to realize what - in practice - would be their result: Congressman Paul favors the elimination of any government involvement in matters of education, energy consumption, and healthcare, proposing to remove the Executive Branch departments addressing each of these three. (The Department of Education; the Department of Energy; and the Department of Health and Human Services respectively.)

These goals would not only represent a lack of progress to those voters currently supporting Paul, but would in fact be seen by these constituents as a disastrous setback. To the political left, governmental advancement on energy consumption, education, and healthcare are all of monumental importance in the upcoming election. Progress towards a universalized (or at least reformed, government-intensive) healthcare system have been exceptionally popular issues among left-wing voters this election cycle. While Ron Paul continues to enjoy unquestioned leftist support, due to his foreign policy issues, the most recent Democratic Debate saw John Edwards booed by a crowd for not having a universal healthcare policy until recently. (He opposed such a plan during his 2004 campaign.) Essentially, the Democratic field is castigated for not being liberal enough on these issues, while Congressman Paul has thus far been given a free pass to ignore the issue entirely.

Of the set of issues on which Congressman Paul would alienate his base of supporters, the most stark contrast of any issue is on that of abortion. A consistently divisive issue for decades now, Paul has not only opposed the availability of abortions, but has been one of the champions of this cause in the House of Representatives. Ron Paul’s pre-Congressional background may be his quality, with which the nation is least familiar: Prior to entering Texas state government in 1974, Paul’s background was not in law or government, but rather in medicine. Paul had practiced as an ob/gyn for several years and during this time, developed his fervent pro-life stance. While this would certainly be of aid to Paul in attracting certain supporters, (as a consistent pro-life stance has aided Republicans Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson,) these are not the supporters Paul currently has. The anti-war support currently enjoyed by the Congressman is adamantly pro-choice and would be further estranged from his camping if made aware of these views.

As a candidate, Ron Paul may have a strong, grassroots effort behind him at the moment, but as the Primary Elections approach and his supporters become more aware of Ron Paul’s collective arsenal of policies, one can expect that his popularity and ultimate primary vote totals will decline from current levels, eventually forcing him to drop out of the race. The key effect which Paul may have on the race will depend on when he chooses to withdraw from the race and to whom his supporters will shift. With the similarly non-conformist Mike Gravel now out of contention, this percentage of votes would most likely go to either John Edwards or Barack Obama across the aisle, (particularly in the growing number of states, which allow registered independents to vote in the primaries,) possibly assisting either of these two candidates in a final push, come election season.