The other day I caught a snippet of Frank Luntz' focus group on the Fox News program Hannity. Luntz's workshops are of great interest to me. It's a chance to escape the noise of the media and focus on what concerns real live Americans. In this focus group, Rand Paul was invited as a guest. He spoke regarding deficits, spending, the military, among other things.
While watching the video, you probably noticed that Rand Paul's 2010 advertisement polled extremely well, and he continued to poll well in the focus group.
I had to ask myself, "Why does this guy poll so well?"
He's not exactly a centrist. He opposes same sex marriage, opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest, wants to eliminate the federal reserve, wants to get rid of the Department of Education, and opposes all forms of gun control. He's about as right wing as they come.
I understand why he would poll well among strong conservatives, but why among people who are more centrist or left-leaning? I know the focus group was on Faux News, as some call it, but Frank Luntz's focus group's are designed to have a good spread of Republicans, Democrats and Independents. How could the democrats find him as appealing as the republicans do?
Now, I had to remember that the guy wasn't speaking about gay marriage or gun control, but about the economy and our military, and he polled especially well when speaking on the economy. So I decided to analyze that particular point (I'll open the can of worms that is the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lybia later). Apparently, Rand Paul's position regarding the budget appeals to a lot of Americans - Democrat and Republican.
So what is it that is so appealing about Rand Paul's economic view? I believe it is the fact that he appears to be without Sacred Cows. Rand rejects the proposition that there is any government program that is so great or so important that there is no way on earth that we can possibly afford to cut, modify, or eliminate it. He strikes the note that we all know in our guts - If we're to take serious steps toward deficit reduction and a balanced budget, then ALL spending must be put on the table.
While a conservative politician might think that a strong national defense is more important to our nation than food stamps, if he is to sound credible to the American people who are dead serious about deficit reduction and a balanced budget, he must be willing to put even his "pet programs" on the chopping block. Until he is willing to do that, he won't be seen as genuinely determined to get spending under control.
Today conservative radio host Mark Levin linked to an article in the Washington Post entitled: GOP Compromise on Debt: Cut Military Spending? When posting the link, Levin says: GOP debt reduction plan. Unilateral disarmament?
I have no problem with Levin saying that. He's a commentator. But if a politician had equated cutting wasteful military spending (it does exist, just ask anybody who has spent some time in the military) to unilateral disarmament, he might score points with some conservatives, but he would also succeed in alienating himself from the millions of Americans who know that wasteful spending can be found even in the defense budget.
As most warm-blooded creatures with a pulse know, we are entering campaign season. The politicians who are vying at the chance to become the leader of the free world can take a cue from little old Rand Paul. They might want to look at their fiscal policy and ask themselves, "Just how sacred are my cows?" If they find that they are unwilling to even have a conversation regarding cuts in spending in a specific program, whether it's social security, medicare, or defense spending, then they may have just uncovered a serious stumbling block to their campaign.
