What does it take to win?
Ron Paul spoke on this to supporters recently at the Florida Liberty Summit 2011
“There’s two ways to define winning. To win liberty, a lot of people need to be more involved. It isn’t a numbers problem. We don’t need 51%, and the majority will rule, we don’t say a majority is all we need. Rather, we need a determined minority; they must be thought leaders, they have to be involved, they have to lead others, and they have to be in positions of teaching, in the media and in different places. We have lost that fight because Keynesianism and Interventionism and our foreign policy have been the prevailing attitude. So whatever you can do to change the prevailing attitude as a leader. You are a unique group, absolutely unique, because most people either don’t pay attention or they pay attention at the last minute before an election. So your responsibility is much different. The burden is on individuals like you because once you’ve discovered what’s going on, and are confident about it, you have a greater moral obligation. You are not capable of just dismissing it, you can’t dismiss yourself from the importance of this. If you understand it, you have this obligation to spread this message.”
“People ask, ‘What should I do?'”
“Do whatever you want. Do what you think is important. Everybody is an individual.
The most important thing is the responsibility of yourself and to study and read, and understand it, and how to explain it and convert people. Then, make a decision. Being a participant in Campaign for Liberty is pretty important, and keeping that going, and getting more groups, and more organizations…”
“Our efforts, should, in order to win, what we have to do is continue campaigning for liberty and get more people to agree with us.”
What it takes to win – Dr. Paul
Florida Liberty Summit 2011
Another piece of evidence that the nation is close to a phase change and a gestalt switch is the very fact that the prevailing paradigm (from which the mainstream media, established political class, etc., operate) has to ignore huge amounts of data about Ron Paul and the movement around him to continue to make any sense. The studied neglect of data as “irrelevant” is invariably indicative that the neglected data are hugely important. If information doesn’t really matter, why go to all the effort of ignoring it?
Specifically, on all the metrics that a year ago everyone accepted as useful indicators of political standing, Ron Paul is not just a front-runner but a strong one.
First, and most directly, he does extremely well in polls. The organization of his grassroots support is not just excellent; it is remarkable, by historic and global measures. His ability to raise money from actual voters is second to none. His appeal to independents and swing voters is an order of magnitude greater than that of his competitors. Secondarily, he has more support from military personnel than all other candidates put together, if measured by donations; he has the most consistent voting record; he has the magical quality of not coming off as a politician; he oozes integrity and authenticity, and, as far as we know, he has a personal life and marriage that reflects deep stability and commitment.
To believe that Ron Paul’s victory is a long shot in spite of all standard indicators that directly contradict this claim is to throw out all norms with which we follow our nation’s politics — and that is a huge thing to do. The only way it can be done honestly is to present another set of contradictory reasons or metrics that are collectively more powerful than all those that you are rejecting. I am yet to find them.
If it is true that the studied neglect of data to hold tight to a paradigm is the best evidence that the paradigm is about to collapse, then the massive and highly subjective neglect of all things Paulian is specific evidence that the country is moving in Paul’s direction.