Ron Paul represents some of the worst aspects of the Republican Party. He’s generally opposed to every bit of progress made since the Progressive Movement began having success roughly a hundred years ago. But he also offers one of few voices on the right that questions our foreign policy, our drug policy, and our ever-increasing surveillance state. Ideally, he would have less influence on the former issues and more influence on the latter ones. In the context of a Republican nominating process, it will be his heterodox views that come to the fore, and so we can expect the Republican Establishment to come down on him with both feet if, as now seems possible, he wins the Iowa Caucuses. Whether they tackle his foreign policy sins frontally or attack him for being kooky and racist, they will be most concerned to discredit his views on foreign policy.
I think Democrats are fairly united in the belief that Mitt Romney would pose the most dangerous challenge to Obama’s reelection, and it will probably help Romney if Paul wins Iowa because Romney can unite most of the party against Paul in a way that simply wouldn’t be possible against any of the other candidates. So, a Ron Paul victory in Iowa would be an unwelcome development because it would appear to make a Romney nomination much more likely. It would be better for Paul to emerge somewhat later in the process.
In an ideal scenario, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and some other candidate would each get enough delegates to create a deadlocked first ballot at the convention. At that point, Ron Paul could negotiate terms for shifting his delegates’ support to one or the other of the other candidates (or to a draft candidate). Some of those concessions would be of little interest to progressives, like minor changes to the Republican platform or cabinet positions in any future government. The wedge Paul would create would be the biggest benefit, as it would split the GOP into irreconcilable camps. But a dose of sanity on the Pentagon’s budget and drug policy could help our country move in a more positive direction. It’s hard to say if more influence from Paulistas could move the GOP in a saner direction overall. I think it more likely to just weaken the party’s cohesiveness and party discipline. But I’d see that as a major positive, too.
In general, I’d like Paul to do very well in the primaries, but I’d rather he not start out so strong that he wins Iowa. If he does that, he’ll wipe out all Romney’s other competition and find himself quickly marginalized and his message forgotten. Of course, since Paul won’t drop out (most likely), a prolonged two-person race between Paul and Romney could prove quite costly to the GOP, but only if Paul can withstand an incredible onslaught and still win some decent percentage of contests. I don’t see that as too likely.
