Ron Paul and Barack Obama: More similar than you might think

2008. That was a good year.

I was a senior in high school and it was the first election I had ever voted in. I remember seeing my friends wandering the hallways, clad in those fashionable “Hope” t-shirts, talking enthusiastically about how Barack Obama was going to change the world.

I remember how, when I left the voting booth having just cast my vote for the Obama/Biden ticket, I felt like I was part of something historic. I felt like I had just voted for someone who was going to do something awesome.

Cut to four years later. “Hope” and “Change,” the words most synonymous with Obama’s campaign, never quite came to fruition. The youth movement that surrounded Obama’s election has simmered down, and this year voters will probably face choosing between two so-so candidates.

But this year, a new candidate has captured the imagination of the young voters out there. He has inspired a movement revolving around “Liberty,” “Common Sense” and “Revolution,” casting himself as a fringe candidate, someone who is finally going to create the change America desperately needs if he’s elected.

His name is Ron Paul, and while a first glance may tell you he’s the polar opposite, he’s nevertheless the kooky, hyper-conservative version of Barack Obama.

Yes, he’s an old white guy who lacks all of Obama’s popular support and electability, but when it comes to getting young voters excited, he’s more similar to Obama than anyone would like to admit.

Andrew Rosenthal, a blogger for the New York Times, describes the energy of Paul’s campaign stops as, “jammed with young people radiating an energy absent from any other candidate in the race,” adding that Paul’s supporter’s battle cries of “End these wars!” and “End the fed!” convey “a fury that is not transferable to any other politician.”

Paul’s supporters sport t-shirts with a “Revolution” logo, and consider his fringe ideas of returning to a gold standard and legalizing all drugs to be the radical sort of change that America needs.

He’s an intellectual, someone whom David Firestone, the opinion editor at the New York Times, describes as having “read so much obscure economics, and (having) absorbed so many forgotten thinkers, that he is overflowing with ideas that must be squeezed into his brief moment in the spotlight.”

While Obama’s campaign was characterized by seemingly brilliant proclamations about energy policy and a post-racial America — ideas radically different from Paul’s severely libertarian leanings — both candidates characterized themselves as intellectuals willing to use seemingly groundbreaking ideas to sweep the electorate, particularly younger voters, into a frenzy.

“… I believe Obama has a chance at greatness,” said one young voter in a 2008 New York Times article detailing Obama’s success in garnering the youth vote.

Compare that with the love Paul gets on Internet comment sections, and you get the idea.

Both are candidates who, during their campaigns, managed to become the “It” candidate among high school and college students. Both had ideas that, at first glance, seemed brilliant.

Obama, with his idea for boosting the economy by having all of us working in green energy, made something that is probably impossible almost seem tangible.

And Paul, with his libertarian views (but ironically un-libertarian views about abortion and illegal immigration) makes things that are utterly impossible — like ending the Fed, reverting back to a gold standard monetary system and taking all of the power from the federal government — seem downright logical and shockingly tangible.

But, in both cases, the truth is that these things that get us so excited probably won’t happen. And while Obama managed to enter office and prove that none of his changes were remotely feasible, unless there’s some miracle, Paul will never have the chance.

So while Paul’s voters chant about “Revolution” upstairs in the Lory Student Center Main Ballroom, a simple comparison between him and the last guy who promised a revolution, the last guy whom we young voters thought would change the world, proves that neither of them are too different after all.

You can talk a big game, but when what you’re proposing isn’t even possible, all that talk and all that excitement pretty much amounts to nothing.

Ideally, the youth will get the chance in 2016 to rally around a candidate who will actually make a difference. But given the evidence, it isn’t looking too good.

Content Managing Editor Allison Sylte is a junior journalism major. Her column appears Tuesdays in the Collegian. She can be reached at letters@collegian.com or on Twitter @AllisonSylte.