Ron Paul is crazy. He’s also been consistently crazy for many decades, and he’s sincere. He believes in Libertarianism, which is sorta like the Objectivism that inspires Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan only without the teenage wet dream empowerment nonsense. This means voters can not only tell from where his opinions derive but, when he says something that sounds nutty, it’s not particularly surprising.
And it's why he might win the Iowa Republican caucuses. While the news media focus on why he can’t be President, I think the real story is about how he might be a role model for other Republican candidates who could be. And I think everyone underestimates him, because they miss the inherent strengths of his brand.
Consider these qualities worth emulating:
- His philosophy and values are transparent, so we know how he gets to his positions. Contrast that with what we suspect (or worry) that Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry believes, or the fact that we really don’t know what Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich believe. There’s almost this cat-and-mouse routine underway that involves vague references and code words when Bachmann or Perry talks about their policies, as if they know that mainstream voters would be shocked by their theocratic beliefs. Conversely, without a basis in established beliefs other than political necessity, we’re always left missing something from Romney or Gingrich. Rick Santorum comes the closest to Paul in the transparency department. I think every candidate would benefit from full disclosure of their guiding beliefs, however nutty. Think about it...do we know President Obama’s? As he has ‘found his voice’ these past few months, he’s been articulating a strident, progressive government principles that one wonders were hidden all along behind his timidity.
- His statements are consistent, even when they are wacky. Because we all know that Paul believes in government the size of a pea (and societies run on so few rules that they border on anarchy), what he says makes sense even when he’s spewing nonsense. The other candidates’ comments fail to fit into patterns similarly determined by substance, so they come across as one-offs and often times get cited for their inaccuracies. Ron Paul can’t make a gaff even when he spouts off that we should have multiple forms of currency (not just legal tender issued by the government), or that people who choose to skip health insurance should be denied emergency care. The rest of them seem pretty garbled, which rightly translates into perceptions of inauthenticity. Paul is also able to deliver statements that are surefire vote killers, like ending Social Security and Medicare, which means he’s willing and able to talk about them when the others can’t (or won’t). This gets the entire pack somewhat closer to addressing the real issues that face our country, if only momentarily. Again, imagine if they all did that (or if President Obama didn’t speak in such measured and sometimes guarded tones).
- He doesn’t have to be scripted. They guy wouldn’t know an applause line if he coughed one up unexpectedly, and it’s obvious that he thinks about questions and then answers them sincerely. Nobody else does that, Republican or Democrat, except perhaps Gingrich, and his pauses of contemplation are frighteningly brief, and only seem to allow him to dip into his vat of scapegoats or victims to focus his next statement. This quality can backfire, as Herman Cain’s ill-fated run evidenced, but Cain’s deal didn’t work out because he had no underlying coherent philosophy (see above). The script the candidates should be following is their beliefs, not some plan that calls for delivering practiced zingers or attacks intended to obfuscate those principles (or lack thereof).
It isn’t a great leap to apply these qualities to brands, is it? Can you name one that is transparent about its principles and purposes, consistent in its communication, and authentic in its participation in conversation?
I can’t. No wonder politicians don’t have a clue. Except for Ron Paul, who is cluelessly clued in. Or something like that. Come to think of it, why couldn't he be a viable candidate for President (and why is the Republican establishment trying to blow him up in favor of Mitt Romney, who lacks everything Paul possesses)?
What do you think?
(Image credit: the most authentic candidate in the race)
