Ron Paul

I don’t want Ron Paul to be president. (I’d probably vote for him against Obama, but then I’d probably consider voting  for Boss Tweed, Boss Hogg, or Liberty Valance against Obama.) There are better candidates in the Republican race, and Paul has too much going against him to be a desirable candidate. Still I’m glad he is in the race.  He serves two important purposes by being there.

First he  performs the same tactical function for some libertarian ideas with his candidacy that Norman  Thomas did for some socialistic ideas with his years ago - that of  putting strong, ideological positions before large numbers of voters, getting  some attention from the press, and pulling some of the so-called mainstream politicians in his direction.  This is useful but less important  than it would have been if there were not a number of other ways to introduce libertarian ideas to a wider public (or if he had been a better, more sensible, and responsible spokesman).

The most important thing Paul has done in his run for the presidency is call attention to the hypocrisy of many of those in the political establishment. Washington is crawling with unclothed emperors, and he has been rude enough to point out the nakedness of  quite a number.  Conservatives who claim to revere the Constitution but want presidents to have the unconstitutional power to start undeclared foreign wars,  leftists  who sermonize against Wall Street bankers while feeding  those same fat cats from the public trough, “good government” types who speak earnestly  of a need for openness in government while supporting a secretive federal reserve,  a president who rhapsodizes about loving  the middle class while saddling it with massive annual increases in debt burden, traditional media people who want laissez faire for their business and command and control for everyone else,  and other assorted characters have had a bit of unwelcomed light shined their way by the Paul campaign.

That may be the main reason why he is held in such contempt by members of the establishment – not for what he proposes but for what he has had the  bad manners to say and reveal about them. By that alone  the man, odd as he is, is performing a valuable public service.  

Observing a Controversy

About this time two years ago Texas Tech fired its eccentric, successful football coach Mike Leach.  As would have been expected, there was lot of controversy, anger, and taking of sides at the time.  As would have been less expected, there still is.   People  are still agitated, still posting  to web sites, and still bitterly at odds. The continuing conflict is interesting apart from the events and merits of the case (which are instructive and worthy of study in themselves). It is interesting because of what  I think it illustrates  about the “sociology” of people in West Texas.  

 

In West Texas you have large numbers of  some of the most ornery, independent, tolerant, freewheeling,  and hard to control people you might find anywhere. The frontier spirit and the cowboy way are alive and strong. On the other hand you have - also in large numbers  - some of the most dogmatic, authority revering,  hierarchically minded, and obediently rule accepting people you might find anywhere. The notions that the people in charge and  the official version have to be right are also alive and strong.
  

The controversy over Mike Leach displays the two strains of thought fairly clearly.  Leach was a very unconventional college football coach. He ran a daring, innovative, and high speed offense, eschewed coach-speak, kept his religious opinions to himself, avoided suits and ties, had little or no interest is stroking bosses, boosters, or local big shots, often said what was on his mind, and reveled in the idea of representing the anarchic  spirit of a pirate.  The chancellor and regents  who fired him (and Craig James who provided the triggering event) were and are representatives and examples of order, authority, and publically proclaimed propriety.  

You can observe a lot just by watching it.