Why Did Ron Paul Fail and Barack Obama Succeed?

For me and I think for many other Americans interested in politics one of the most fascinating questions in this presidential election year was: Why did Ron Paul fail in his bid for the presidency while Barack Obama succeeded?

To examine this question I have had to reflect on what makes American voters in large numbers become passionate supporters of a particular presidential candidate.

Most intriguing for me was the early observation that Ron Paul represented himself as a genuine change agent and reformer. Anyone who paid any attention whatsoever to Paul would immediately grasp the indisputable fact that he was advocating public policies that the political system was not using, nor that any other presidential candidate was passionately advancing. Paul did not merely offer change rhetoric. In every opportunity, including televised primary debates, media interviews and published materials in print and on the Internet, he consistently offered specific and detailed policy proposals that would surely shake up American government and politics, through both domestic and foreign policies. Don't get me wrong. I did not support many of his specific policies, but I appreciated that his policies were authentic departures from previous US policies. He was, indeed, giving voters a very real choice between past and future.

In contrast, Barack Obama was more explicit in the way he positioned his candidacy by overtly marketing and selling "change." Yet to an incredible degree, the level of both detail and originality presented by Obama for the changes he would bring to American government and politics was nothing compared to what Paul offered. In terms of deep political reforms Paul could be graded as a solid 10, while Obama would be at level of perhaps 2.

Aside from the content of their policy proposals there was obviously a remarkable difference in the delivery of their messages. Though Paul had enormously greater political experience over many more years as a member of Congress, he was clearly not the polished speaker that Obama was. When it came to crowd-pleasing rhetoric and a charismatic personality for the media, Obama was a solid 10 while Paul was a perhaps a 2. Yet, most interestingly, Paul was, nevertheless, able to generate enormous and passionate support across a broad spectrum of Americans. And just like Obama much of that support came from younger people. In fact, what was so amazing was that despite his lack of eye-popping rhetoric and good looks Paul was able to generate remarkable national support in the primaries. It was the content of his policy positions that obviously appealed to enormous numbers of people. There was a genuine "movement" created for both Paul and Obama.

Moreover, it is fair to say that though Paul ran as a Republican he was clearly not a trusted party person. Indeed, his Libertarian credentials were always known and he was definitely no status quo establishment Republican. His credentials as a true maverick were also solidly supported by all his congressional activities. Not only was he the most maverick Republican candidate, far more than John McCain that got the party nomination, Paul was also far more of an outsider and change agent than Obama ever was. Needless to say, Paul was also far more of an intellectually impressive candidate than McCain.

So, on the basis of solid experience as an elected representative in Congress, bold policy positions and reforms, and being a non mainstream Washington, DC politician, Paul far surpassed what Obama was. Another important fact was that Paul showed incredible success in obtaining campaign contributions from a huge number of supporters nationwide, just as Obama accomplished. But one big difference was that Paul, unlike Obama, was never able to obtain large amounts of money from corporate and other special interests. Meanwhile, Obama successfully hid from public view that a large fraction of his financial support came from all the usual corporate and other big money interests.

So why did Paul fail and Obama succeed? What I see as the main explanation tells a lot about the American public and far less about the candidates. Obama won because he was the far better salesman. With his good younger looks, soaring rhetoric and - yes - minority status Obama pitched a far better story that sold better to Americans, just like some commercial products, from movies to electronic products to clothing to stores, are more successfully marketed on a mass scale through better advertising. If Americans were truly serious about wanting major political and government changes, then Paul offered far more serious and transformative policies. But in many ways change-hungry voters bought the Obama personality hook, line and sinker rather the substance of Paul.

Time will tell whether President Obama will show himself to be a true and effective change agent and reformer. Meanwhile, Ron Paul is still trying to convince the world that his more radical policy positions are the right ones.