I really want to like Ron Paul.
For disaffected independent voters like me, the possibilities of the 2012 election loom large and ominous on the horizon.
Next November, America must choose between a politically impotent Barack Obama, who has all but given control of policy to congressional Republicans, or one of several grievously-flawed Republican candidates.
Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann attributed the recent wave of natural disasters to God’s anger over America’s failure to balance the budget.
Long-time Texas Gov. Rick Perry dabbles in government-sponsored prayer rallies and amateur secessionism.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has trouble escaping accusations that the health care plan he implemented in his state is a dead ringer for the dreaded “Obamacare.”
Scattered among a number of minor candidates is Paul, a dogged libertarian representative from Texas. Paul harbors many policy positions one might consider radical. He supports the abolition of the Federal Reserve, as well as FEMA. He decries government interference in the personal affairs of citizens and, as a result, runs the gamut of unconventional positions for a member of either party.
He supports drug legalization but opposes federal involvement in health care. He opposes the death penalty, preemptive war and, somehow, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women.
Paul’s somewhat disparate policy positions make him, if nothing else, the most interesting candidate in the race. But his appeal does not lie within his policy positions.
Paul is charismatic, confident and largely willing to answer the questions asked of him. It appears Paul has actually given many of these issues careful consideration and has the ability to effectively explain his position. He displays a sense of conviction that is sorely lacking in Washington today.
Therefore, I struggle with Ron Paul. If the nation were striding up to an important impasse, could Paul be stubborn enough to stand his ground when Obama could not? Perhaps he would become frustrated enough to eschew pursuing another term for the purpose of making a stand. Whatever the case, the possibilities are intriguing.
Paul’s earnestness, though, can also stop a potential supporter in his tracks. A video of Paul at a campaign rally in 2007 surfaced recently, wherein Paul said of evolution, “I think it’s a theory.”
Paul was once a practicing gynecologist, but apparently the scientific theory which serves as a basis for modern genetics, microbiology, biochemistry and countless other scientific disciplines eluded him during his studies.
Unfortunately for Paul, his position on evolution detracts from the qualities which separate him from the field of Republican candidates for president. Perry and Bachmann have both assailed evolution in an effort to energize their evangelical base.
Paul’s answer, while regrettable, at least shows a proper respect for scientific discourse. Paul did not declare he “does not believe” in evolution, because one’s evaluation of evolution is not a matter of belief. Either one accepts evolution and attempts to understand it, or one chooses to remain ignorant of it.
Paul does not disparage evolution for no reason — a sizeable proportion of crucial primary voters also choose to remain ignorant of evolution. If Paul fancies himself a serious contender for the Republican nomination, he has to court these voters as well.
Paul’s desire to lead America in a divergent direction demanded my attention, even though I disagree with many of his policy positions. Paul’s leadership qualities are readily apparent, but his antagonism towards an uncontroversial cornerstone of science makes him a candidate I simply can not support.
I’m sorry, but it’s over, Ron. I just cannot be one of those privileged few — and I mean few — who casts a vote for you on Nov. 6, 2012.
 
Chris Seemann is a 21-year-old mass communications senior from New Orleans. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_CSeemann
 
—-
Contact Chris Seemann at [email protected]
  Click here to read Chris Seemann’s response on The New Spin Zone