"There used to be an organization for people who believed in a truly limited government--limited taxes, limited spending, limited interference in individual lives and limited intervention in foreign affairs," Michael Grunwald writes in Time. "That organization was known as the Republican Party. But the only one of those beliefs that still motivates the G.O.P. establishment is limited taxes. In 2008, people who still hold all of them joined the Ron Paul Revolution." Grunwald argues that Ron Paul scares the GOP. Perhaps he does--not as a harbinger of its future but as a conscience-nagging reminder of its past.

If the intensity rather than the quantity of votes won elections, Ron Paul would be awaiting his coronation in St. Paul. Alas, the number of votes is what matters and in no state did Paul win even a plurality. Ron Paul lost because his campaign failed to effectively channel the energy of his volunteers, because the candidate was easily baited into discussions on the periphery, and because his supporters harbored many people who hang out atop the grassy knoll, in Roswell, and outside Area 51. Above all else, though, Ron Paul lost because--and this is a hard pill to swallow--restraining government is not very popular with voters right now.

Dr. Paul, a veteran, an obstetrician who delivered thousands of babies, a man of principle who refused medicare/medicaid for his patients, student aid for his children, and a congressional pension for himself, is an attractive and articulate candidate. His message, unfortunately, is not attractive--at least not in the times we live. We are a long way from Ronald Reagan, even longer from Calvin Coolidge.

When a candidate airs a culturally conservative message, as Mike Huckabee did this year and Pat Buchanan did in 1992 and 1996, voters rush to the booths. Talk about federalism, limited government, and a Washingtonian foriegn policy, on the other hand, and voters rush to the other candidates. This is depressing but true. How else to explain Paul's failure to attract the level of support that Huckabee or Buchanan did? In other words, one can present a hard-core conservative message on cultural matters and win the allegiance of hordes of voters. But a candidate who focuses on a traditional American foreign policy of minding our own business or who calls for drastically reducing the size of government faces the abuse of not only liberals in the media, but of fellow Republicans as well.

In research for A Conservative History of the American Left, I came across an amazing editorial from a farmer's periodical from more than a century ago. It counseled populists to not get discouraged by political defeats. It triumphantly noted that "the cranks always win." Initially ridiculed as cranks, cooks, and extremists, contrarian political movements often succeed by virtue of the tenacity of activists and the power of ideas.

More than a hundred years ago, that Kansas editor wrote: "The cranks are those who do not accept the existing order of things, and propose to change them. The existing order of things is always accepted by the majority, therefore the cranks are always in the minority. They are always progressive thinkers and always in advance of their time, and they always win. Called fanatics and fools at first, they are sometimes persecuted and abused. But their reforms are generally righteous, and time, reason and argument bring men to their side. Abused and ridiculed, then tolerated, then respectfully given a hearing, then supported. This has been the gauntlet that all great reforms and reformers have run, from Galileo to John Brown." The rhetoric is inspiring, even for one who disdains economic populism.

On the Right, "crank" Barry Goldwater lost the presidency in 1964 but won it in the 1980 recount. The "Buchanan Fence," roundly condemned as a xenophobe's pipedream in 1992, is being constructed sixteen years after it was initially proposed and ridiculed. It's not even controversial any longer. What idea of Ron Paul's will take hold? An honest currency? Fidelity to the Constitution? A restrained foreign policy? All of them? You can't blame a crank for hoping.

Any discussion of Federalism is always rebranded as a "states rights" argument, which in turns makes one an honorary member of the KKK. That might have something to do with it.

Any editorial canonizing John Brown is not conservative or worth reading.

An honest currency?.

If you mean a gold standard, what would be the purpose of re-instituting it?

Fidelity to the Constitution?

Conscientious observance of law is a good thing. A committment to do so differs from a well-considered conception of what the distribution of power between central and provincial units should be given the circumstances in which we live. What should be the law which we conscientiously observe?

A restrained foreign policy?

What are the points of continuity between Mr. Goldwater's advocacy, Mr. Reagan's, and Dr. Paul's?

A. The purposes of reinstituting an honest currency involve morality, utility, and Constitutionality. 1. It's immoral for to sell an ounce of hamburger as if it were a pound of hamburger or to sell cup of beer as a pint of beer. In other words, weights and measures are fixed definitionally and not by a bureaucrat. 2. In the first 125 or so years of the republic (before the Federal Reserve), the currency devalued by about six cents. In the 95 or so post-fed years, that 1914 dollar is now worth about a nickel. 3. The Constitution requires that Congress coin money. They can no more pass off this responsibility without amending the Constitution than they can adjourn and decree that subsequent legislation passed by the Canadian parliament will henceforth be considered American law.

B. The Constitution is a limitation on federal power. It governs what the federal government can and can't do. Other than Dr. Paul, most in Congress believe the federal government's powers are unlimited, or perhaps limited only when federal power rubs them the wrong way. The Constitution should be followed and not treated as a relic, a la the English monarchy. If parts of the Constitution don't work well, amend it.

3. Dr. Paul's foriegn policy views mesh better with George Washington's than Reagan's or Goldwater's, but I think there are certainly similarities between the three men (mostly between Goldwater and Reagan). All three valued American sovereignty above international institutions beholden to no elected body. Reagan and Goldwater would have ridiculed the idea of nation building, as Paul does. They all evaluated foreign interventions by whether they served the just interests of the United States. When Reagan fumbled into a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, it came back to bite us and he regarded it as the biggest mistake of his presidency. I think Paul differs from Reagan and Goldwater--Paul was an early supporter of both men (one of four in Congress who endorsed Reagan in 1976)--in that they would be for robust military budgets whereas he would be for ones much smaller than what we have now. Though there are differences between Paul and Reagan/Goldwater, they are not nearly so great as the differences between Reagan/Goldwater and G.W. Bush, who resembles Woodrow Wilson/Jimmy Carter in his foreign policy (see his 2nd inaugural or the human rights/democracy babble justifying the Iraq venture).

I like him! How do I vote for him? ;-(

Hope you're right and days are coming for him and his ilk because what we have now for choices is a f'ing disaster waiting to happen.

Dr. Paul...is an attractive and articulate candidate. His message, unfortunately, is not attractive...

Dan, you couldn't be more wrong. Paul was most definitely not an attractive candidate.

From the start he was cast as a crank and a complainer. Nothing he did ever fundamentally changed that image.

His whiny tone during the debates. The "discovery" of the newsletters bearing his name. The appearance of coddling 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Etc, etc, etc. Almost everything in the campaign reinforced this unattractive image of Paul.