Could candidates pall against Paul?

The US presidential primaries always make good copy and this time is no exception. A merry-go-round is under way as Republicans jostle to settle on a candidate. There's a guy who seems to be named after baseball equipment (Mitt Romney), another with two first names (Ron Paul), yet another who should probably be institutionalised (Rick San(a)tor(i)um) for his extreme views on private rights, and one who sounds like a small, aquatic animal (Newt Gingrich). US politics are increasingly polarised just when compromise between the parties has become critically important. 2011 saw unseemly stand-offs on the debt ceiling and the extension of unemployment benefits and payroll tax reduction. Last-gasp compromises did materialise but to the outside observer the system is dysfunctional, with the political class apparently incapable of addressing long-term issues. The great American democracy doesn't work anymore. Sure, the economy is now coming out of its dip last year at quite a robust pace but the fiscal situation remains dire. At some point this must be confronted. On many issues Ron Paul is an attractive candidate to an economist like me. He is for small government and against US military intervention abroad. He has an Austrian school approach to the Federal Reserve i.e. dump it. The question of course is that, with the US society so layered with distorting incentives and vested interests, how likely is it that Paul could ever take Congress with him? Ironically, the Tea Party doesn't really like him precisely because of some his liberal views e.g. on the military and religion. This week's primary is in New Hampshire. The business card attached is from Frank Fontaine at WSMN, Nashua, NH on AM 1590 with 5kW, heard in Sheigra, Scotland in 1996. Frank was on the air at the time and sent a nice letter.