Flyers for the Republican presidential candidate from Texas, Ron Paul, periodically cover campus, asking us “Who is Ron Paul?” and making it seem like the ardent pro-life anti-immigrationist is the second coming of the 1960’s. After reading about Ron Paul’s record-breaking fundraising day a couple of weeks ago, then seeing it touted in a recent Daily op-ed, I was concerned. Paul and his views lie on the fringe; it’s never a good sign for social stability when fringe candidates get so much support.

Then, after thinking about how Mike Gravel, D-Alaska, was actually at some of the early Democratic debates, and how Dennis “I want to try to impeach Cheney and make the Democrats lose in 2008” Kucinich, D-Ohio, is running yet again, I was less worried. The Democrats have their share of loonies as well. The Republicans, for their part, have a long tradition of quixotic campaigns from fundamentalist types. Isolationist xenophobe Pat Buchanan made a serious grab for the Republican nomination in 1996. Best of all, Pat “God speaks through me” Robertson, R-Va., captured 9 percent of the vote at the 1992 Iowa caucuses.

We think of the nominating processes as well-funded Senators and governors pandering to farmers and local legislators drunk with power for their endorsement. But there has always been room for fringe candidates.

Ron Paul is no different, but he has one advantage that he’s leveraged extensively: the Internet. His videos, with 5.9 million views, are tops among Republicans. Romney, R-Mass., is second with just 2.58 million. Paul has about 82,000 MySpace friends, compared to just 38,000 for John McCain, R-Ariz., who is second. This is for a man who is polling just 2.7 percent in recent aggregate polling, according to Pollster.com. His supporters (as Wonkette calls them, “Paultards”) swarm any blog posting or news article about him and dominate the comments. My article last week about Barack Obama, D-Ill., which did not mention Paul at all, still had several comments supporting Paul. They will likely comment excessively on this piece as well.

The Internet allows him to have a much more active campaign than he would’ve had otherwise. He would best be advised to remember the 2004 candidacy of Howard Dean, D-Vt., which also broke fundraising records before spectacularly imploding in Iowa. Until Paul can get significant support on the ground and a real organization, all that Internet money will translate into nothing.

Ron Paul’s views are a contradictory hodgepodge of conservative and libertarian positions. He opposed the Iraq War but supported Afghanistan. He’s strongly pro-life but vaguely pro-gay-marriage. It seems that he wants to withdraw from most international organizations, including the WTO and the U.N. Despite being “free trade,” he opposes NAFTA, CAFTA and every other free trade agreement the U.S. has signed. He is anti-tax, anti-government spending and wishes to return to the gold standard. Paul distrusts the Federal Reserve, blaming it for causing inflation. His view of the separation church and state is worrisome, arguing that a “rigid separation...has no basis.” What is most concerning is that he’s content to let genocide, wars of aggression, and human rights violations occur abroad with nothing more than a “moral statement” from the U.S.

Paul seems to have struck a nerve amongst a certain voting bloc: disaffected young white males wanting to stick it to the Man, even at Stanford. This generation’s burgeoning, so-called “libertarianism” seems to have found an outlet in Paul’s candidacy. But what, really, are these men (and women) revolting against? His massive fundraiser was styled as a modern-day equivalent to Guy Fawkes, the legendary would-be suicide bomber of British Parliament who was overshadowed by Natalie Portman in “V for Vendetta.” It’s clear that Paul would take away many of the institutions and values that have brought the United States to where it is today, and it’s unclear whether his own supporters really want to see a Ron Paullian dystopia.

It seems that his views share a similar thread with the other fringe candidates from recent presidential elections: they reject, largely, what America is today. Kucinich wants to abdicate American leadership in the world, which may at times require the use of military force. Buchanan wants to seal the U.S. off from any external influence. Robertson wants to regress on two centuries of secularism and make the U.S. a Christian version of Iran. Paul is in some way all of these things, and in doing so, wants to go back to an earlier idea of the U.S. that never really existed. For two centuries, the United States has prospered by being a secular, welcoming, internationally engaged country, supportive of allies abroad like Japan and Britain. What our allies fear even more than American unilateral aggression (which Paul detests) is America turning inward. And our economic prosperity is dependent on free markets and modern central bank policy. The mainstream candidates, on the other hand, seem to think we’re generally on the right course, with some modifications. Postwar America has worked pretty well so far, and Paul hasn’t given us a clear reason to change.