Kelefa Sanneh on the end of Ron Paul’s career in electoral politics, and his son Rand, who has recently sounded “more than a little bit Paulish”: http://nyr.kr/QifX3f

Photograph by Lauren Lancaster.

Amy Davidson reports from the Republican National Convention: Ron Paul passes by, and Mitt Romney is nominated http://nyr.kr/PpK3vW

Amy Davidson on the Republican Convention’s clumsy start: http://nyr.kr/OEWMvG

Ron Paul’s Fan Base

In the magazine this week, Kelefa Sanneh writes about the Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul—his campaign, his “unique brand of libertarianism,” and his political career. No story about Paul would be complete without at least something said about his devoted supporters. For more of Lauren Lancaster’s photographs of Paul supporters: http://nyr.kr/z6l2OM

In This Week’s Issue

Kelefa Sanneh on Ron Paul’s unique brand of Libertarianism; Dorothy Wickenden on Debbie the Secretary and Joe the Plumber; David Denby on Michael Hazanavicius’s “The Artist” and the lost art of silent films; Julia Ioffe on Mikhail Prokhorov’s bid for Russia’s presidency [sub. req.]; and more.

Party Crasher: Ron Paul’s Libertarian Roots

There is only one politician whom Paul regularly praises in his speeches—a man he coyly refers to as a “senator from Kentucky.” If Paul sees a future for himself in the Republican Party, it is through his son Rand, who might have an easier time than his father in attracting traditional conservatives to his cause. (During his campaign for the Senate, for example, Rand Paul declined to rule out using force to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.) Unlike most politicians on the verge of retirement, Paul can’t accurately claim that he has nothing to lose by breaking with the party that has been his home for all but one of his years in politics. Hope for his son’s prospects—and a disinclination to put him in an awkward position—might be enough to keep Paul from ending his political career with another third-party campaign. If he split the vote, indirectly helping to reëlect Obama, it might be a long time before Republicans were willing to get behind anyone named Paul.

In the meantime, Ron Paul seems content to stoke the discontent of his acolytes. He doesn’t know exactly when the implosion will occur, but he knows it’s forty years closer now than it was when he first sounded the alarm.

- In this week’s issue, Kelefa Sanneh writes about Ron Paul’s Libertarian roots and his quest to capture as many Republican delegates as he can; the question is: what is he going to do with them? http://nyr.kr/z2e81V

Comment: God and Man in Iowa

But as we get to the playoffs, the protestations and pandering may turn into a discussion of God and man and the electorate that is far more intense, and potentially ugly. It could also be illuminating. Even in the dingiest bar, in an urban ruin or a hotel in New Hampshire, there is always, at least theoretically, the possibility that one might, suddenly and unexpectedly, hear a joyful noise, or at least a few, stray, rational words from one of the candidates. And yet that prospect seems remote: it would mean a different campaign, with a far different tone than we have seen and heard so far.

Closing Arguments

Last week, as today’s Iowa caucuses drew near, the major Republican candidates took to the airwaves, releasing ads in which they made their closing arguments to the voters. In a campaign where no one has been able to hold a lead for very long, and in a state where a significant amount of caucus-goers tend to make their decisions about whom to support at the last possible moment, these spots could end up having a real impact on the outcome tonight, and on the race as a whole.

So we put together the video you can see above, in which we took a close look at ads from Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich, evaluating them and their potential impact on the candidates’ prospects.

For a look at some of the other interesting ads that the candidates—and the Super PACs that support them—have put out over the past week: http://nyr.kr/yCSiSM

(Source: newyorker.com)