The Revolution's Future Ron Paul

Make no mistake about it, we in the revolution will find a new Ron Paul for the 2012 presidential race. But what have we learned?

One thing that I have learned is that there are two ways that people go about deciding who they like as a "leader".

Since time is always in sort supply, spending lots of time mulling over your decision as to who to support is very unproductive and from a self -interest perspective, foolish.

Second, since our individual vote is so very small, infinitesimally really, to the final out come ...an natural thought occurs to most people which is how can I make my vote have some impact, and at least count some?

Those two factors, (1) the vote counts so very little in the end and (2) time devoted to thinking about who to support can be a big waste of time, gives rise to the general BS we so much despise: how his hair looks, likes baseball, loves babies, his intentions on anything, etc. So TIME matters and having DEEP KNOWLEDGE takes too much TIME. Making ones vote count means we must get to "Who is relevant" quickly. Why? Again because having DEEP KNOWLEDGE about a possible candidate takes way too much TIME.

Lets look at it from another angle. Here is another way to look at the average voter. To support Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, or McCain, how much do they know about their voting record? Answer: Next to zero. That is why platitudes every election year win. Both Hillary and Barrack have not taken a vote up or down on a bill that could end US long term base occupation in Iraq. They will both wisely abstain. Give your opponent nothing to peg you with, and the voting public will be in the dark as to your voting record.

Again, viewed from another angle. Any voting public, "naturally" wants to make their decision on who to support by using what psychologists call PRIMARY Leadership signals. Thus a persons tone and style is looked at closely. Is he/she too old, too short, too young, too mean, too unfriendly, too cranky, too weird, too strange, ...etc as if we have a deep psychological Leader archetype...and indeed many evolutionary psychologists say we humans do. Furthermore, evolutionary psychologists have provided us an answer to why we get the Country = Family analogies, the President = Father analogies, the Government = US analogies. They have also provided us the reasons why we like to hear proposed leaders speak of their altruism to the country, to the people, to the nation. Indeed, John Edwards out did himself this election year by calling on "America to educate the world's children". This line received applause, not blank stares or shock at the financial meaning of this statement. Instead they all talked about his sincerity, his vision, his compassion and washed it around in their collective mouths like some wine tasters trying to pull minute flavors out that may be hidden before spitting it out. Unfortunately for John Edwards, he was spit out.

Still being sampled in this way is Obama and Hillary.

Now why, why would the voting public choose their leader in this way? Because it is very simple, saves TIME and speaks to them "naturally". The other contenders can be eliminated quickly as too short, or old, or not nice. It saves on TIME and DEEP KNOWLEDGE about the leader.

Some evolutionary psychologists have even suggested that the formula is for gaining leadership is universal, not cultural.
Step one, speak in an altruist voice of concern.
Step two, be confident and positive for yourself and the group you are leading.
Step three Act the Part of Leader already.
Then comes the factors you cannot control,...age, height, temperament, personality, etc but ideally you are 10 years above the average population age, above average in height and appearance, and have a "natural" commanding presence.

Given these traits, your future as leader is secured. Few will have the TIME or the DEEP KNOWLEDGE about you and your positions to make the other kind of judgment about you, the kind that the Political INSIDERS use.

The political insiders are the individuals that do the exact opposite. They take lots of TIME, develop a DEEP KNOWLEDGE of potential leaders positions.

So lets get back to our future 2012 Ron Paul and ask ourselves, will the voting public need to know about the any or all of the following in order to vote for him/her? Will the American public need to know about the CFR, NAU, INCOME TAX, CONSTITUTION, FREE MARKET, the UN, NATO, the AMERO...etc. If you answered yes, then the voting public will not be on board with our future Ron Paul.

But if you answered no, then you are thinking like myself. We are beginning to see that there really is a TWO step human process in choosing a leader. Lets jump back to Ronald Reagan. Reagan lead with charm and wit and humor and changed his speeches to fit his audience. He was looking be trusted based upon these characteristics, not just his DEEP KNOWLEDGE. Indeed, George Bush Sr never understood Supply side economics or his passion for small government. Most people did not agree with Ronald Reagan's ideas, but they agreed with Ronald Reagan. That is the key. They agreed with Ronald Reagan the Man, not Ronald Reagan's ideas. Why has the GOP strayed from the Reagan Revolution? Answer, they never believed in his ideas, just the man.

And this is the way leadership is. I myself have a little taste of this phenomenon in the wide world of Little League politics. We have Little League Constitution that no one reads. We have a disinterested inactive parent base that complains but does nothing. We have a few wildly self interested individuals who become board members --because they wish to become the Coach, make sure their kid wears a Yankee uniform for picture day with dad, or get the best equipment from the storage locker (not the old stuff). The self interested REAL reasons some parents become little league board members varies, but the Rhetoric is ALWAYS the same come election week. Altruistic Concern for the Game and the Children. Parents then take a few minutes TIME to choose who (LOOKS & ACTS) like a good board member President (LEADER).

My point here is that the process of Choosing a leader is the same, for Presidential Contest or the local little league board presidency.

How can and how does the local disinterested parents be SURE that the President that they are choosing is a good one, not a child predator who knows next to nothing about running the league or baseball? They wait for the political insiders to vet the contestants.

Scandal and hearsay is used against those that may do the little league harm. Possible Little League presidents RUN from possible Scandal as they "instinctively" know that the voting baseball parent will invest little TIME to gain DEEP KNOWLEDGE about the issues.

So with this, lets get back to our cause, the Revolution back to the Constitution and keeping the integrity and sovereignty of the USA. First we must do what we political junkies do, vet out the possible leaders with our thorough idealogical comb. But then, we MUST put on the Publics eyeglasses, and see our candidates as the they will see them. Why? Because the 2nd half of the race, which takes up most of the campaign time, will be on nothing but these SURFACE issues. We can look at the 2012 campaign as one big political Cat Walk for our Revolutionary Candidate.

Will our Revolutionary Candidate need to talk like Ron Paul? No absolutely not. In fact, hopefully not. Will our future Revolutionary Candidate be a Revolutionary Candidate, of course he/she will because we will have vetted them long ago, prior to the race.

Does this mean that Substance takes a back seat to style during the 2012 presidential campaign? Yes, that is exactly what it means. Lecturing and requiring your general public to have DEEP KNOWLEDGE about the subject is not what one does to win votes.

Can we find this person? Yes we can, if we know what to look for and how to look for it. Will this person know how and when its appropriate to speak directly to us and how to speak to the public? Yes its imperative. Will our guy have to lie or cover up his or her positions? Absolutely not. Ronald Reagan was the master of both laying out the position --just enough--and working the other angle on how most people choose their leaders.

Ron Paul, to his credit is very consistant. But Ron Paul to his discredit, cannot write a new speech. He has been saying the same speech the same way since January 2007. It is now 2008 and he still is saying the same thing the same way.

Yet look at Ronald Reagan. He was the master at as saying the same thing, in a thousand NEW ways. Ron Paul and us should learn from Ronald Reagan. One of the best places to start is a book called, Ronald Reagan, From His Own Hand. Here we can see how he constantly looked at his audience as new and different from the last. No two audiences was the same. Look at Ron Paul. He said the same thing in Iowa about Cuba as he said to Miami Republicans about Cuba. It is refreshing and full of integrity, but it also failed to sway BOTH his audiences to his point of view. Again, Reagan worked audiences on TWO levels, making sure that the level of likability stays very high. The result, Reagan enjoyed himself because he could both stick to his positions yet had the speech making flexibility to work a different audience. Each audience came away seeing Reagan as a natural Leader, who they liked, but may or may not have agreed with his position. For us in the Revolution, that is the BEST we can ever hope for. We will never teach every American about the meaning of a Free Society, the Constitution, the trouble with NAFTA, CAFTA, the UN, CFR, etc. Those require DEEP KNOWLEDGE from the voter and he/she has zero TIME and wants to make their vote COUNT ie go to a "real" leader.

Deep Knowledge is not a general voter requirement. If you doubt me just look at the supporters for Obama or Hillary or even John McCain. Few have any grasp as to where these guys really are on the issues. They have evaluated them with OTHER GLASSES.

So, lets keep this in mind.... long live the Revolution.

Treg