Why Are Ron Paul Supporters So ________?

Why are Ron Paul supporters so (insert adjective here)?  Some of the adjectives commonly used to describe Ron Paul's supporters in the media are "fervent", "die hard", "dedicated", "loyal", and "enthusiastic".  For those wishing to deride Dr. Paul and his fans, the most commonly used adjective is "rabid", implying that his supporters are mentally ill and need to be put down.  If you type "Ron Paul supporters are " into Google, you'll be offered the suggestions "crazy", "idiots", and "terrorists".  Why do Ron Paul supporters have so many strong adjectives applied to them?

The answer lies in what happens when you substitute any of the other Republican candidates into the above Google experiment.  Entering "Mitt Romney supporters are " gives no suggestions whatsoever.  I think this is because there are no Mitt Romney supporters.  There are only the great masses of people who are willing to live with him because they find him the least offensive of the bunch.  For Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry, there are no suggestions because there are no human supporters to which we can apply adjectives.  Bachmann and Perry are manufactured candidates, produced by the party, lobbyists, and media, but enjoying no support whose energy originates with people.  People like Ron Paul, and people have personalities.  What kind of supporters should a candidate have?  "Luke warm"?  "Unoffensive"?  "Bored"?  If a candidate doesn't have enthusiastic supporters, what business do they have running for office?

I believe the reason Ron Paul supporters are so different from other candidates' supporters is that Ron Paul is different.  All of the others are just run-of-the-mill slick politicians.  They say what they think will get them elected.  When they are speaking, the are acting the part of candidate.  Ron Paul does not act; he is himself at all times.  Love him or hate him, his genuineness and sincerity are beyond doubt.

Many people believe that politicians are generally self-serving liars, but they are willing to live with this because they feel they have no choice.  The TV show South Park is generally too low-brow offensive for me, but I recently agreed to watch an episode my wife said would explain why she doesn't get involved in politics the way I do.  The episode centered around the election of a new mascot for South Park Elementary School.  The candidates jokingly offered by students were "Big Douche" and "Turd Sandwich".  Despite the obvious offensiveness of the candidates and the resulting meaninglessness of the race, the episode revolves around the community's efforts to show how important voting is to the one student who refuses to participate.  The accuracy with which this fictional scenario mirrors our actual presidential elections is frightening.  Is Romney "Big Douche" and Perry "Turd Sandwich", or is it the the other way around?  Why do we get so worked up about elections when these are the choices offered to us?  Well, I guess only some of us get worked up about it.  The rest stay home and watch the latest home improvement shows on TV.  Which group is more realistic about the effects of our elections?

Once in a while, however, a candidate comes along who appears to be different from the constant stream of bad choices our two-party system offers us.  Barack Obama appeared to be such a candidate, and that's why he had so many enthusiastic supporters who helped get him elected.  This is not an Obama-bashing essay, but I'll make the prediction that the enthusiasm and dedication of Obama's supporters in 2012 will be a pale shadow of what it was in 2008.   The main reason?  Obama has shown himself to be just like all the rest.

So why do pundits and party operatives commonly use scary adjectives to disparage Ron Paul supporters and their candidate?  I believe this is because so many people who make their living and form their identities from the status quo of our adversarial two-party system are afraid Ron Paul will upset the apple cart.  Ron Paul differs from the other candidates when he behaves like a grownup who wants to get down to the boring, difficult, and drawn-out process of governing.  The media and the public, understandably, feel more interested in the political theater of horse races, dramatic showdowns, and "us vs. them" proselytizing.  What we need to ask ourselves is, would we rather be entertained by our political system, or would we rather have it work for safety and prosperity in our everyday lives?  We can't have it both ways.  Running a country like the United States has a million technical details, all very important.  It feels good to listen to inspiring speeches, but in the end, these don't make good government.

Ron Paul supporters are...different.  They believe that substance matters much, much more than style.  They are not willing to vote for Big Douche or Turd Sandwich, and they can't understand why everyone else is content to do so.  They are trying to wake us up, saying "look, this one really is different!", and he can help us out of the mess we're in.  Sounds like something worth shouting about to me.  If a candidate's supporters are so loyal and active that this enthusiasm is itself worthy of commentary, shouldn't we all be curious enough to find out what's got them so worked up?