Why some social movements succeed?

A behind-the-scenes alliance between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

My comments:
1. This is a smart policy on Romney's side, since, as the article correctly notes, Ron Paul's supporters are a significant and loyal group within the Republican electorate.

2. Let's give some credit to Ron Paul - he is willing to engage with those who are more likely to win the presidency, for the sake of achieving his goals. This puts him apart from the typical fringe parties which put their ideological purity above any compromise needed to implement their ideas in practice. This is how democracy works - by compromising interests of different groups.

3. Ron Paul also shows a way for social movements to actually achieve some of their goals. Recently, there have been too much excitement about the spontaneous shows of unity, such as the Arab revolutions, as well as the social movements such as the Tent City and the Occupy Wall St. In the aftermath one recognizes that the failure of these movements to achieve substantial results stems precisely from their lack of leadership and their reluctance to engage in politics. The successful examples are the Tea Party, which influences politics via many low-rank elected representatives in the US Congress, as well as the Libertarian movement, represented by a charismatic high-profile politician, such as Ron Paul. 

Libertarianism

This article is discussing the conservative ideology represented by Rick Santorum, the new favorite of the Republican primaries. I post it however in order to give a clear definition of libertarianism (aka Ron Paul and von Mises Blog):
"Libertarianism is an extreme form of individualism, in which personal rights trump every other social goal and institution. It is actually a species of classical liberalism, not conservatism — more directly traceable to John Stuart Mill than Edmund Burke or Alexis de Tocqueville. The Catholic (and increasingly Protestant) approach to social ethics asserts that liberty is made possible by strong social institutions — families, communities, congregations — that prepare human beings for the exercise of liberty by teaching self-restraint, compassion and concern for the public good. Oppressive, overreaching government undermines these value-shaping institutions. Responsible government can empower them — say, with a child tax credit or a deduction for charitable giving — as well as defend them against the aggressions of extreme poverty or against “free markets” in drugs or obscenity."

A comment:
Libertarianism, represented by Ron Paul, is a curious ideology: On the one hand, in its staunch anti-war, anti-interference stance it is very similar to the extremely left ideologies, such as the extreme wing of the Democratic party in US or Meretz and Hadash in Israel. On the other hand, applying consistently the same pro-individual position to the economy, libertarianism advocates wild capitalism with minimal government regulations and totally free international trade (no tarifs, in particular) - a position antithetical to the traditionally pro-welfare left.

Ron Paul under a microscope

A well-respected Washington Post columnist attacks Ron Paul. While Paul is unlikely to win the Republican presidential nomination, the attack is probably motivated by the candidate's high chances of winning the primary in Iowa, which will make him the subject of the media discussions for the next few weeks and may be potentially dangerous for the other candidates (What matters is not only the possibility that Paul wins the nomination, but also reshuffling of the other candidates, depending on how close their numbers in Iowa will be in respect to his.)

I do not support Ron Paul. I do think that many of his positions on foreign policy and economics are extreme, and that the accusations of racism against him are not completely ungrounded. In my opinion, the real problem is not the views of the particular person, but the huge gaps in the Republican political spectrum, which are seriously damaging the political discourse in the United States: the gaps between the ridiculous positions of Paul, those of "social conservatives", represented by Bachman, Perry, Palin, and Santorum, and the moderate-and-therefore-unpopular figures, such as Romney, Gingrich and Huntsman (all three have the records of supporting openly Democratic positions on healthcare, abortion etc.)