Is Ron Paul Too Economical When Discussing Economics?

I'm much more a saver than a spender at heart, so I'm quite reluctant to condemn anyone for being too economical. In Ron Paul's case, however, it isn't his frugality with money I'm concerned about, but rather instead his economical use of language. Paul is easy to understand when he talks about the war in Iraq and other wars like it. He expresses his ideas both forcefully and in terms most anyone can comprehend. Indeed, it is sometimes his opponents who are less clear in their language when they throw out phrases like non-interventionism in criticism of Congressman Paul. One of Paul's other favorite things to discuss is the economy and his idea of government's quite limited role in economic affairs. Given the gloomy economic outlook that many have right now, I think people are interested in hearing about alternative approaches to economic issues. Thus far, however, Paul hasn't seemed very effective at pushing forth his economic message in an easy to understand manner.

One of the things I like about Ron Paul is that he is a reader and a thinker. He has been quite good at appealing to the intellect of those who are willing to give him the time of day, and I think his lasting political legacy will be the interest in politics and economics that he has sparked in the minds of many people, including numerous young people and others who don't ordinarily pay much attention to elections. I doubt Paul relishes the role of teacher, but his unorthodox politics have essentially necessitated that he try to appeal to an audience that has not already been converted to his views (as Paul discovered in 1988, there simply aren't enough libertarians to elect a libertarian president on their own). In that sense, Paul has a much harder road to the White House than a religious conservative candidate whose supporters base their core political beliefs on their faith or a socially liberal candidate whose supporters have been voting for pro-choice, pro-education candidates their entire lives. Sure, Paul also has a base of true believers to call his own, but it's relatively small compared to the base of voters that will support a Mitt Romney or a Hillary Clinton. Paul has had no choice but to sway minds in order to win votes.

Swaying minds is much more difficult when one speaks above the head of one's audience, however, and I think this is a mistake Paul makes too often, especially during the debates when discussing economics. For instance, in the last Republican debate at the Reagan Library, Paul made a reference to the "guns and butter" tradeoff that governments must face when planning budgets and setting policies(the guns represent defense spending and the butter represents social spending). It is a classic dilemma that just about everyone who has ever studied economics is familiar with, but there are an awful lot of people who have never studied economics to any degree. Paul should realize that a lot of people have never given economics a chance; "guns and butter" is going to sound like gibberish to them, even though the concept being referenced is actually very easy to understand. Paul would be more effective if he went straight for the concept and left the confusing lingo behind. Talking like an economics textbook isn't wise in a country where economics textbooks rely on a captive audience of college students to account for most of their sales. Similarly, when Paul talks about monetary policy and the gold standard in vague terms he is also losing the attention of some of his audience. Some of the people who are listening to him have never even thought about what gives their currency value; some of them don't understand what the gold standard is; some probably think American money is still backed by gold and don't know what the big deal is about. To effectively reach a large audience with wide differences in education level and interests, Paul needs to do some explaining as well as expressing. That is hard to do during a debate, where speaking time is limited, but Paul needs as many people as possible to both hear and understand his message.

Although I've singled out Paul in this post, I think most politicians could probably be more effective if they avoided vague language and terminology that might be unfamiliar to much of their audience. For instance, I personally feel uncomfortable with the oft-repeated term "Islamofascism." My first thought on hearing that term is that Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists have formed a government that operates similar to how Mussolini's Italy did. The term is confusing to me because I primarily associate fascism with a certain time and place in history; I don't just think of it is as a political ideology. I was also taken by surprise by John McCain's recent attacks against the Alternative Minimum Tax, but only because I had no idea what that was until he started mentioning it. I was curious enough about the tax to google it, and I thus discovered that one of the controversies surrounding this tax is that a lot of people don't learn about it until after they start to owe it. What one politician thinks is a big issue is often something the people he or she is speaking to have never heard of; politicians sometimes need to inform before they can persuade.