A Reason For Ron Paul Supporters to Vote For Romney?

If Romney wins at least Ron Paul won’t get blamed for the coming financial crisis, and it might lead to more converts to Paul’s message than if Obama stays in office.

Trust me, I’m no closet fan of Mitt Romney, but barring acts of God and alien invasions Ron Paul will not be the next President of the United States. Not that winning elections was ever the most important thing. What non-supporters of Ron Paul have never seemed to understand is that we Paul supporters never saw the election of Ron Paul as an end in itself, but merely the means to an end. What is the end goal? Liberty. The freedom to do what I want, unmolested, as long as I’m not physically hurting anyone else nor doing damage to their property. A step on the road to that goal is to change peoples’ opinions about the role government should play in our lives. I saw a Ron Paul presidency as a great teaching opportunity. I never harbored illusions that Paul would sweep into office and suddenly fix everything. But I believed it would be a great opportunity for him to explain the principles of liberty to the world, and perhaps one day, decades down the road, this would lead to real change. But is this a simplistic view of the situation?

The other day I had lunch with a friend. My friend works for one of the largest ecommerce companies in the world. The CEO of this company is a certifiable genius, especially when it comes to math. Even those who don’t like him would never claim he’s a dunce. This CEO recently made the prediction to my friend that whoever wins the White House in 2012 is going to preside over the collapse of the dollar and the American economy. Peter Schiff has been saying as much for at least this year if not longer. So here’s the question–if the economy is going to collapse, do we want Ron Paul as President?

I’m leaning towards no. First, Paul would not be able to fix things unless he had a 100%  compliant Congress and a good percentage of the US population on board, and then it’s still kind of iffy. Second, who would listen to or understand Paul’s explanations of what’s happening? Sure, more than are listening and understanding now, but how many more? Double, triple, quadruple? That’s not enough. It’s almost certain Paul get the blame, especially since the media and both major political parties would see it as an opportunity to make sure someone like Paul never gets elected again. Nothing gets fixed, hardly anyone gets educated, and Paul’s message gets a bad rap. Not exactly a panacea for Paul supporters.

On the other hand if Romney gets in nobody can blame Paul for ruining Romney’s candidacy by writing in Paul’s name, voting for Gary Johnson, or staying home. When things go bad, Paul will look prescient. Sure, the left will blame Romney, and Romney will blame Obama just as Obama blamed Bush. But for many Republicans it will be too much of a stretch to believe that Obama could have caused all this in just four short years without some help. And they’ll be wondering why Romney, the supposed numbers guy with the good business acumen, never warned them. The Republican and conservative laity will be searching for answers, and they’ll find them as they are reminded that Ron Paul told them this was coming. It will be a teaching moment like never before.

If Obama gets in, the opportunity isn’t there. The economy will fail, Obama will get blamed, and Republicans and conservatives will assume that had Romney been elected everything bad could have been avoided. And they’ll blame Paul supporters along with Obama. So, if our goal is to convert people to Paul’s message, and assuming a financial crisis will happen prior to 2016, should we perhaps be relieved Romney won the nomination, and not only that but support his bid for the presidency?

  • Jake

    I’ve thought about that reason to vote for Romney, but similar reasoning is also a good reason not to vote for Romney. If the crash happens with Romney as president, then people will blame free market capitalism and deregulation and such because, even though it is far from the truth, Romney is marketing himself as someone who supports those things. If the crash happens under a second Obama term, more people on the left will see the failure of leftist policies.

    If Romney doesn’t win, many Republicans will blame Ron Paul and his supporters, but they will also realize that they cannot marginalize liberty mined people and expect to be in power. If the Republican party is going to change they will have to feel the pain of not being in power.

    At any rate, I decided a while ago that I wouldn’t vote for strategy, only for principles. Neither Romney or Obama have good principles so I cannot, in good conscience, vote for either. I will write in Ron Paul because I want Republicans to see it. I still believe that voting on principles is the only way to change the type of candidates that we have to choose from.

  • Nick

    It’s a catch 22.

    Hard core liberals almost never get converted straight to the Ron Paul-Constitution-Liberty message. It’s almost as if mainstream conservatism is a stepping stone towards real freedom and constitutional principles.

    So the question is:
    Would blaming Romney for the crash bring more conservatives to the liberty movement, or would blaming Obama for the crash bring more liberals to the conservative movement?

    Which would have a bigger effect?

    I don’t know the answer to that question.

  • Janssen

    Sorry, I don’t agree with your argument. If I understand you correctly, you start with the premise that whoever will be president within the next four years would preside over the inevitable destruction of the dollar. From that you deduce that Ron Paul supporters should vote for Romney, since the GOP “laity” would recognize Romney as being as destructive as Obama. That doesn’t follow. At all. If Obama remains president, Paul would still have been prescient about the collapse. If the collapse happens after an election of Romney, the damage in 2016 would be much greater: The GOP career politicians who are now gathering around Romney would still control the GOP and the Dem career politicians would just take over. However a GOP defeat in 2012 would be recognized as a self-defeat of the GOP careerists and may offer the chance of their purge together with the GOP’s return to conservatism. The more resounding the GOP careerists’ defeat, the better this chance. Why not help?