The Accidental Congressman

The surprising success and strict constitutionalism of Georgia Rep. Paul Broun

David Weigel from the February 2008 issue

(Page 2 of 2)

And that leads us to the second reason Broun’s career deserves our attention. His victory kicked off a season of angry voting.

Consider the case of Greg Ballard, a Republican ex-Marine who in November defeated Indianapolis’ Democratic mayor, Bart Peterson, with one-tenth his money. Everyone expected Peterson to win, despite the city’s high crime rate and property taxes. But he lost to the underfunded Republican, and GOPers took the city council majority from safe-seeming Democrats.

Then there was the unexpectedly competitive congressional campaign of Massachusetts Republican Jim Ogonowski, another first-time candidate. The farmer and retired Air Force officer came within six percentage points of winning an open House seat in a district that had voted for John Kerry and Al Gore by better than 14 points. The candidate’s ads were crayon crude: “The problem: Congress is broken. The solution: Jim Ogonowski.” But voters were angry, and for 46 percent of them a Republican who had opposed the Iraq War (but said we now had to win it) became the vessel of their anger. For Broun, it was yet more evidence that his victory was part of a wave of anti-Washington, anti-establishment voter outrage.

Even if Broun is wrong and his victory was a fluke, his beliefs resonate in a year when Ron Paul, initially dismissed as a fringe candidate, raised more money and held bigger, more enthusiastic rallies than his party’s less libertarian front-runners. Barry Fleming may start this campaign as the favorite, but there is substantial, enduring support for a congressman who shares the voters’ contempt for Congress. Party leaders won’t be able to wish that sentiment away.

David Weigel is an associate editor of Reason.

Comments

Brandybuck|1.24.08 @ 3:50PM|#

That's all well and good, but what us Reasonoids want to know, is he a True Tolerant Cosmopolitan?

|1.24.08 @ 3:51PM|#

Damn, I thought we might have found the elusive libertarian Democrat.

jj|1.24.08 @ 4:03PM|#

I'll probably be campaigning for Broun closer to the elections.

|1.24.08 @ 4:04PM|#

They have to be moral (according to the Bible), constitutional (according to the version he keeps in his suit pocket), ....

Nice. The Bible comes first -- above the Constitution. That says everything that needs to be said about this person, regardless of whether or not he has other sensible policy positions.

If you are an elected official who has taken the oath of office, the Constitution should always be your #1 considerations

stephen the goldberger|1.24.08 @ 4:07PM|#

Beggers can't be choosers. This guy at least has the constitution SOMEWHERE on his radar screen.

highnumber|1.24.08 @ 4:09PM|#

Ron Paul, Paul Broun, who's next - Ron Brawl? The Libertarian Latino Raul Pon?

Wasn't there an LP candidate Jerry Kohn?

javier|1.24.08 @ 4:10PM|#

my porn name (middle name and name of street) is Charlie Norwood. awesome!!

Sean W. Malone|1.24.08 @ 4:13PM|#

I guess that would make my porn name

Bill La Cienega... how odd.


In other news, libertarian ideas are represented in congress by approximately less than 2 whole people. Sweet. We're movin on up!

|1.24.08 @ 4:15PM|#

Constitution-toting freshman Congressmen are a dime a dozen.

Constitution-toting Congressmen who've served several terms, they're impressive. Though I don't know if the plural pronoun is appropriate in this case.

Colin|1.24.08 @ 4:17PM|#

The wrong Dr. Paul, it seems, ran for president.

I wonder if he's ever written a newsletter.

|1.24.08 @ 4:28PM|#

Ron Paul, Paul Broun, who's next?

Broun Tron?

Danny|1.24.08 @ 4:33PM|#

@ChicagoTom

The article said that it had to match ALL of the criteria. It didn't say that if it was at least moral that it would be okay. All four criteria must be met, so they are equal. Who cares what order he checks them in.

|1.24.08 @ 4:36PM|#

In poking around, it looks like what did Whitehead in was the joke about bombing everything in Athens but the football team (and presumably UGA [the dog not the school]). It seems like a lot of people who live in Athens and would probably not vote in a Rep vs Rep run-off, went to the polls to make sure that Whitehead lost.

|1.24.08 @ 4:39PM|#

no thread about the crisis with gaza
or the hole blown in the fence?
nor the egyptian president's reaction?

jj|1.24.08 @ 4:40PM|#

ChicagoTom:

For me the Bible comes first. Way, way before the constitution. For me, the Bible clearly states that God gave people the freedom to choose how to run their lives, and that theft of freedom violates his commandments. 1 Samuel 8 is one of the first explicitly anarchist, anti-tax, capitalist documents. Well worth a read.

I find much in the constitution to like. But I am more of the Lysander Spooner persuasion that it is at best a mild form of tyranny.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.24.08 @ 4:43PM|#

Damn, I thought we might have found the elusive libertarian Democrat.

Let us know how that search goes. :-)

The Cosmotarians|1.24.08 @ 4:46PM|#

I guess that would make my porn name

Bill La Cienega... how odd.

Racist

Jesse Walker|1.24.08 @ 4:47PM|#

no thread about the crisis with gaza
or the hole blown in the fence?

Matt posted one yesterday.

LarryA|1.24.08 @ 4:53PM|#

For me the Bible comes first. Way, way before the constitution. For me, the Bible clearly states that God gave people the freedom to choose how to run their lives, and that theft of freedom violates his commandments.

I may agree with you. Unfortunately most folks who say, "The Bible comes first" think that God made a terrible mistake in giving individuals free will. They want to rewrite the laws to force everyone to follow their brand of "Christian" dogma.

All who disagree will be burned at the stake. To save their souls, of course.

Brandybuck|1.24.08 @ 4:57PM|#

It's not the Bible *or* the Constitution. It's the Bible *and* the Constitution. They are not antithetical to each other. If you put the New Testament in the context of superceding the Old Testament, it's very libertarian anti-legalist document.

I blame the Religious Right for the distorted view many people have of Christianity. There's nothing hostile in Christianity to liberty.

Seer|1.24.08 @ 5:00PM|#

So our count is up to one and a half decent Republicans in all of Congress? (Half off for pro-war positions).

|1.24.08 @ 5:08PM|#

If you put the New Testament in the context of superceding the Old Testament, it's very libertarian anti-legalist document.

Depends on your flavor of Christianity. To those who believe that the New Testament did not entirely supercede the Old, then reconciling to the Leviticus laws could get a little dicey.

Monkey Of Fear|1.24.08 @ 5:11PM|#

My prefered Christianity is of the vanilla variety.

R C Dean|1.24.08 @ 5:23PM|#

constitutional (according to the version he keeps in his suit pocket),

Is his "version" different from the official one?

Danny|1.24.08 @ 5:26PM|#

Why can't I own a canadian?

|1.24.08 @ 5:33PM|#

>>I guess that would make my porn name

Dick Kumquat. Beat that!

Scott Elmwood|1.24.08 @ 5:51PM|#

No thanks, Dick!

Bill Cooke|1.24.08 @ 5:52PM|#

So is he in the pocket of the NAB or is he just a retard for opposing the Sirius/XM merger?

|1.24.08 @ 5:59PM|#

My porn name is James 55th.
What the FUCK?

Brandybuck|1.24.08 @ 6:00PM|#

Maurice 44th Street?

|1.24.08 @ 6:04PM|#

I go with the "name of first pet you remember" formula, so I'm Brutus Calhoun.

I like it!

Danny|1.24.08 @ 6:08PM|#

If I use your method, de stijl, that would be "Sweetie-Pie Thomas"... Yikes.

Danny|1.24.08 @ 6:09PM|#

What was this article about, again?

|1.24.08 @ 6:10PM|#

Why can't I own a canadian?

Simple. These days we're too expensive.

(Richard Slater. Charmed, I'm sure, ladies.)

|1.24.08 @ 6:27PM|#

I thought your porn name was the name of your first pet and the street you grew up on.

Ladies, I'd like you to meet HERCULES BARBARA.
*schwing*
Yeah, you wanna touch it.

|1.24.08 @ 6:39PM|#

I thought your porn name was the name of your first pet and the street you grew up on.

Irving Washington?

Heh, it's not even intentional. I knew there was a reason I gave my guinea pig such a stupid name.

Muffit Whitby|1.24.08 @ 6:44PM|#

I like the other porn name rule better.

Seer|1.24.08 @ 8:34PM|#

Liam Pebblefield

Brandybuck|1.24.08 @ 8:37PM|#

Biscuit Route 66?

satan|1.24.08 @ 8:48PM|#

Dear Reason:

This probably sounds unrelated to the current article (I didn't read the whole thing) but YOU GUYS SUCK. I mean every single member of the Reason team. If you are pretending that non-support for the real Dr. Paul is some kind of true, intellectual game (he really isn't good enough for you) than you are slowly losing the support of all libertarians.

I very rarely talk in online comment sections but GOOD GOD you guys are worthless. The one single libertarian worth mentioning is ignored because he's an LRC libertarian, not a Fred-Thompson-supporting Cato libertarian. (Fred Thompson??? Didn't you guys write an article calling him a libertarian?) I used to like this website and magazine but if you are not unequivocally supporting Paul you are either controlled by the Kochtopus or not real libertarians.

Screw you guys, I'm going home.

charlie|1.24.08 @ 8:56PM|#

So this Broun guy is a real stickler for the constitution... just not the part of it that says only Congress can declare war (see: Iraq war). *Sigh*

Predicting the "next Ron Paul" sounds to me an awful lot like predicting the "next Michael Jordan." Usually the one making the prediction ends up looking like an asshole.

alisa|1.24.08 @ 8:59PM|#

Going by the pet rule...
Moonbeam 53rd.

|1.24.08 @ 9:39PM|#

Reggie Jackson Clay, motherfuckers.

Not being a tolerant cosmopolitan, my boyhood pet was a little black poodle I named Reggie Jackson, after his resemblance to local hero Reggie Jackson's head.

I'm sure all those good white people across the bridge would have been offended, if I knew any. But they seemed confined there somehow.

|1.24.08 @ 9:50PM|#

Here is the link to see his voting record.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b001262/votes/

I'm not sure if he's a fan of the Bill of Rights.

|1.24.08 @ 10:45PM|#

I come up (erm, so to speak) as either Alan Chestnut or Alan Lobo.

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|1.24.08 @ 10:48PM|#

Porn Star name (apparently the true purpose of the thread):

Tazwell Airport

(or Okes Airport, depending on the rule)

I think I may bear the odd distinction of having an even less marketable porn name than those with numbers (i.e. 44th Street) in theirs!

Brandybuck:

If you put the New Testament in the context of superceding the Old Testament, it's very libertarian anti-legalist document.

I think Christianity and Nietzche have pretty much the same relation to liberty. Both can be read pretty easily in one way to support individualism, or in another way to support authoritarianism.

de stijl:

In poking around, it looks like what did Whitehead in was the joke about bombing everything in Athens but the football team (and presumably UGA [the dog not the school]).

I haven't yet forgiven Whitehead for his work on the Principia Mathematica.

OK I started late, but I finished fuckin' strong. Plus I'm drunk! Good night, motherfuckerrrrrrrs!!!

The Wine Commonsewer|1.25.08 @ 12:39AM|#

Raymond Bentley. Yeah.

Has a nice Bondish ring to it.

Shaddup, James Bondish.

|1.25.08 @ 3:34AM|#

my porn name (middle name and name of street) is Charlie Norwood. awesome!!

Is that current street? If so, my porn star name is Christopher Tributary.

Sounds kinda British and way too classy for porn. (But maybe just right for British porn ...)

I thought your porn name was the name of your first pet and the street you grew up on.

In that case, my porn name is Bingo Swan.

That has a bit more of a porny zip to it.

ce|1.25.08 @ 8:29AM|#

The king of pork, Robert Byrd, D-WV, also carries a constitution in his pocket.

And don't listen to those Brandybuck hobbits, with all their nonsense about going around on boats.

|1.25.08 @ 10:48AM|#

Heidi Centuri by one rule. Carl Upper by the other.

|1.25.08 @ 10:49AM|#

Stevo: Christopher Tributary might work for some of the really weird stuff.

economist|1.26.08 @ 12:00AM|#

satan
Here, here! I'm still voting for the good doctor on Super Tuesday. However, he will not be nominated, and during the general election I will probably not even go out to vote. Still, fight the good fight.

Mitch|1.26.08 @ 8:40PM|#

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with Reason? I'm really starting to wonder why I subscribed to this.

They continue to post glowing coverage of people like Paul Broun and Fred Thompson who claim to be libertarian-leaning when it suits them, but they ignore any Libertarian Party candidates and write unfavorable opinions about Ron Paul. I understand that Ron Paul isn't perfect and I understand that Libertarian Party candidates have no real chance at election, but I fail to see how it helps anything to voice support for idiots like Fred Thompson and bible-toting Paul Broun.