Last week, I asked whether the internet’s favourite candidate Ron Paul could win. Thanks to The Economist, The Chicago Tribune, USA Today and most of all Jon Stewart this is closer than ever to becoming a reality:

Certainly, Ron Paul has a lot of political views that alienate a lot of Americans. But today we ask: Could Independents and Leftists support Ron Paul? Let’s look at my reasons for supporting Ron Paul:

  1. Opposition to multi-trillion dollar warfare that destroys infrastructure, destroys America’s reputation, and burns money and resources, while enriching the military-industrial complex.
  2. Opposition to bailing out large corporations that instead of “stabilising the system” merely reinforces old systems that have failed and should be allowed to die.
  3. Opposition to surveillance, and strict obedience to the Fourth Amendment, that states that officials require a warrant, or probable cause to conduct searches. Commitment to liberty ahead of “security”
  4. Opposition to costly, wasteful and failed “war on drugs”

Now, in my view, anyone who shares those political positions with me could do a lot worse than supporting Ron Paul. But what about those of us who say “This guy is crazy! He wants to end the Department of Education! He wants to end Medicare and Social Security!” Undoubtedly, some aspects of the federal government are popular, and widely supported, and Ron Paul’s opposition to them is an obstacle.

But it’s not as simple as that. Ron Paul’s positions are widely portrayed as libertarian — or even as anarchistic — when really he is better described as a constitutional anti-federalist. Under the Tenth Amendment all powers not specifically assigned to the Federal government are left for the states. Under a Ron Paul administration the Federal government would gradually be rolled back, creating the opportunity for the states to take over in their constitutionally-defined role.

Want single-payer healthcare? Well now President Paul has drastically slashed (or eliminated) the income tax, your state can tax more and provide it, so long as you can get a democratic mandate. The same applies to gay marriage, education, and any amount of government services, infrastructure, or stimulus. Your state doesn’t legislate policies that you like? Well you can leave — move to another state that legislates for your views, whether that is big government or small government. States would compete for business and workers through the framework of government they provide.

Is there a model for this? As a British and European citizen, I speak from the fountain of personal experience. I know that government from the federalist centre — in our case, Brussels — is unpopular, ineffectual and lacks local accountability. I want accountable healthcare, services and infrastructure delivered by the state, in my case Britain — not by the federal European government. Britain has largely steered clear of many of Europe’s federalist impulses, while retaining positive aspects like freedom of movement, free trade, peace and a small shell of consumer protections and environmental regulations. The European nations who tried for deeper integration have run up against the rocks of budgetary discord and mayhem, just like the federal government in America. Meanwhile Britain sails on, largely immune to the problems in Brussels.

As the British economist E.F. Schumacher put it:

Man is small, and, therefore, small is beautiful.

We need government to be responsive to the needs of everyone. And that means government needs to be able to relate to people. It cannot be the humungous destructo-juggernaut that has spawned the budgetary pandemonium in Washington, and around Europe. Ron Paul’s anti-federalism offers a small panacea to America. True, there are things that Ron Paul gets wrong — specifically, environmental protection should be considered a form of national defence, and administered by the federal government, or even by a global institution. Ron Paul also needs to come up with a serious and politically viable time table for monetary reform, starting with an audit of the Federal Reserve. He also needs a specific and concrete plan for ending corporate welfare, ending the wars, and transferring welfare, social security, education and medicare from the federal government to the states.

He has made a good start, by placing so well in Iowa. But without a concrete, costed and viable plan — or manifesto — he will be continue to be labelled a no-hoper, and will not draw the independent and progressive votes that he needs to win the presidency. With a concrete, defensible and fully-costed plan Ron Paul can — and will — win.