FROM THE NATIONAL JOURNAL

NJ: Judging from how the Tea Party movement has grown, has the Ron Paul revolution been a success?

Paul: I’m not sure they’re absolutely related. A lot of people would say the Ron Paul revolution has been very successful, but in the very early stages, because we have a long way to go to reverse the trends of this country. But as far as getting the attention of a large number of people, I think that’s been done.

The Tea Party movement has expanded, it includes more people, and it’s not precisely a Ron Paul party movement. So they’re not directly related, but I would say that both have gotten the attention of the American people. Whether it’s the people who go to Tea Parties or the people who go to our rallies, all of us are pretty upset with what we see in Washington.

NJ: What stirred the activists’ fervor now?

Paul: I think it’s the failure of government. People are recognizing that government…. made promises, and yet now people are recognizing that they can’t fulfill their promises. They know about the debt, they know about the entitlements that can’t be paid. They know about the problems that we have around the world, they know about the corruption dealing with Goldman Sachs and others.

NJ: Can the Tea Parties continue to gain steam nationally while maintaining energy at the local level?

Paul: I’m not sure I could separate the two. If it’s a national organization, it’s usually the local people who have to do it. It’s independently organized, and there’s no one person or one group that controls them all, because they’re spontaneous. It reminds me a little bit of how our meet-up groups were formed in the campaign…. It wasn’t like the campaign went out and found people to start a meet-up group. They just spontaneously started meeting, and for the same goal. And I think the Tea Party movement is somewhat similar to that.

NJ: How will Republicans like Michele Bachmann or Mike Pence leverage their connection to the movement? Is it a useful tactic for establishment candidates to try to use some of that energy?

Paul: It’s very useful for somebody like Mike Pence or Michele to make use of the Tea Party movement. They’re smart enough to understand that there’s a lot of unhappiness, and they want to capture that…. They’re doing what is wise politically, but that doesn’t mean that they endorse what the Tea Party people believe….

When it comes to foreign policy and civil liberties, some of the conservatives who are getting involved in the Tea Party movement really don’t want to hear about that. For instance, the majority of the American people now are pretty tired of the fruitlessness of the war on drugs. And yet that’s still not accepted by mainstream, status quo politicians, especially if you’re on the conservative right.

NJ: You said the Tea Party movement isn’t likely to revive the Republican Party. But clearly it’s learning some lessons from the Tea Party. What should it take away?

Paul: The Tea Party movement can affect the Republican Party. But it can affect the Democratic Party as well, because politicians in Washington are politicians. And they are responding. I think they already have from the election in Massachusetts; even though that’s not a classical Tea Party candidate, it was people who were unhappy with the status quo….
But I don’t foresee that all of a sudden the Tea Party movement will own the Republican Party. I think the Republican Party will acknowledge it and come over and try to be friends with the Tea Party people, and that association will have to be worked out.

NJ: The Tea Party has evolved largely through citizen groups. But you also have the Nashville convention coming up, where Sarah Palin will be a central figure. How do you feel about her role in sort this movement that often prides itself as leaderless?

Paul: The question of a leaderless movement, I think that’s hard to totally conceive of. I can see an amorphous movement, where there’s not one single person that owns the movement. But I think there’s always a leader.

To me, the real leadership has to come philosophically in what you believe in, and certain individuals represent those views. But when it’s a philosophic movement, it can be amorphous. It can be spread out. To me, it’s sort of like asking, “Who’s the leader of the Keynesian economic philosophy?” Everybody’s a Keynesian in Washington because they believe in government intervention in the economy, but there’s no one single leader.