Ron Paul Meets ... Some Guy

Once upon a time, Meet the Press was a panel program. That format seems to be dying out in favor of star interviewers whose greatest ambition is to bring down a politician by asking the embarrassing question that forces the disqualifying answer. I hadn't watched the show in a while before last week, when I was appalled at Tim Russert's treatment of Mitt Romney, a candidate I dislike. Instead of asking what Romney wanted to do as President, Russert continuously brought up old quotes and comments from Romney's competitors, forcing the candidate into a purely reactionary mode. No doubt Russert feels he scored a victory by eliciting the now-refuted remarks about Mitt's father marching with Martin Luther King. Russert is even happy to see himself sent up, proudly displaying this weekend a cartoon portraying him as a small child badgering Santa Claus over a gift promise from 1957. As long as people know his name and know his game, as long as he has his fame, Russert has done his job. Today was Ron Paul's turn.

It's probably a mark of accomplishment that Paul was on the program. It means that he's risen from the nether realm of Duncan Hunter and the departed Tom Tancredo into the zone of credible candidates, even if he's really only been successful in monetary terms. It also means that Russert's research team was ready with his battery of embarrassing comments and accusatory newspaper clippings. A lot of this was unsurprising. Russert's line of inquiry on Iraq made me check the logo in the bottom corner of the screen to make sure I wasn't watching Fox News. Perhaps for this occasion only, Russert could not fathom that al-Qaeda could have a motive for attacking America apart from their own self-sufficient evil. He even used the term "moral equivalence" on Paul, who parried it passably by acknowledging that "some" might see it that way.

When the topic turned to domestic politics, however, Russert scored some solid points. He hit Paul hard consecutively on the issues of earmarks and term limits. How is it, he asked, that Dr. Paul voted against spending bills that included earmarks he had personally inserted to benefit his district? It seemed as if Paul was trying to eat his cake and have it too, retaining his "Dr. No" reputation of voting against spending bills, but with full knowledge that the bills with his earmarks would pass and his district would benefit. I understood Paul's explanation, but I don't think it will help him in the long run. He argued that he inserted the earmarks at the behest of his constituents, and that he and they regarded them as a way of getting their tax money back. In practical terms, it means exploiting the existing system while hoping to replace it with a more "constitutional" one in which he wouldn't have to play such tricks. But it can't help but look tricky to the passing glance, and as he struggles up the rankings in New Hampshire, he won't always have the time allowed him today to refute the simple argument that Ron Paul is a hypocrite.

On term limits Paul's explanations were even less convincing. While he demurred that the issue wasn't really part of his platform this campaign, Russert reminded him of his past advocacy of limits, then asked him why he remained in Congress after many years. Paul's problematic answer was that term limits are okay as a general rule, but of no use as a mere personal preference, as if there was no good to him quitting his post while everyone else stayed on. In other words, the libertarian lion appeared to prefer the coercive power of law to individual expressions of principle. It reminded me of my own attitude on taxes vs. charity: if giving to the needy is the right thing to do, I say, why shouldn't it be a duty? On analogy, Paul seemed to be saying that term limits are okay only if everyone has to do it. Obviously I don't find my own position objectionable, but when a libertarian Republican reminds me of me, something is wrong with the picture. Again, Paul's rivals are going to run with this and hit him for hypocrisy all the rest of the way.

I don't doubt that many of Ron Paul's people, like the guys on the Colonie corner (see below), are already rationalising their responses to the interview or damning Russert. Everyone apparently gets their turn to curse him, and the friends of Huckabee and Obama will have their turns next week. But Paul was not supposed to squirm or equivocate or rationalize. His appeal, I presume, is based on his iron integrity and unswerving fidelity to American principles as he understands them. But Russert showed that there is room for light to shine between the ideals Paul espouses and his practical conduct as a full-time politician. For better or worse, I suspect that today's interview will be the high-water mark of the Ron Paul Revolution. The fundraising may go on, but despite the candidate's disclaimers today, I suspect that much of it will go to purposes other than winning the Republican presidential nomination.

It's still a shame that Russert goes about his business in the way he does. The interview ended without our getting any solid idea on how the Ron Paul economy might work, or how the poor and displaced will fare in it, apart from the usual libertarian expression of faith in fees as an alternative to taxes. I would have thought it would be enough for many fresh followers of the antiwar firebrand to jump from the bandwagon simply to hear how Paul expects the economy to work. That test didn't come today because Russert isn't that clever. His prosecutorial style is oriented toward the past, the public record and the paper trail. As a result, he can only contribute toward eliminating people from consideration, but offers nothing to help us actually vote for someone. The question for the long term is whether Russert's style of inquiry, which is really representative of the TV media as a whole, eliminates people ahead of time, before the public can begin to figure the future out for themselves.