I'm not criticizing the method, subversion was probably more of a loaded word than I should've used. It just serves as a reminder of how ridiculously convoluted our system is, between the caucus delegates and Electoral College and all.
You're right on a lot of points. I used to be pretty gung-ho Paul, but have always differed on social policies. I still think that the "states rights" diversion when discussing abortion and gay marriage is cowardly at best, especially since delegating something like gay marriage to the states essentially means that you don't think the 14th Amendment should apply to issues of sexual orientation.
As far as the big ticket Paul issues, though, what've we got? Ending the Federal Reserve? I agree in principal that it's an institution that should not exist, but it's just not going to happen on a political level, and I don't think any of his proposed alternatives are really that great. Barter systems are too inflexible and "local tender" setups are almost as bad. Gold and silver as tender would require either huge deflationary measures or the entire world to take on the same system at the same time. Inflation is low and more or less easily predictable, so I'm not sure what problem it would solve at this point. Credit unions/state banks and interest-free treasury loans to eliminate the veritable middleman would work, but not well enough in our current system to make the change worth it without other huge reforms.
I'm onboard with his foreign policy, drug policy, and desire to greatly reduce the deficit, but not with the amount of social programs he wants to cut along the way.
I don't remember saying I love Obama's policies, although there are many I've been in support of. The man is still anti same-sex marriage, pro war on drugs, pro war in Iraq, and the forced-buy-in Obamacare system is bullshit. That said, the banking reforms he's instituted and a lot of the regulations on health insurance that were associated with Obamacare have been a step in the right direction IMO.
I still do think that the concept of a free-market health care industry would be very interesting to explore, but I don't think that it's worth diving into unchartered territory when there are known and proven examples of single-payer, national healthcare systems around the world, especially when the most successful ones were implemented with books virtually as unbalanced as ours are currently. There's nothing about our current system that I find defendable or worth mentioning in debates about health care - it's the most expensive and isn't even close to providing the highest level of health care (throwing millions upon millions of dollars might get you the best care in the world, but that's not limited to the US or our system by any means).
As far as what caused the change, I think it's twofold.
1. Living in and traveling extensively around Europe and experiencing first-hand how utterly ridiculous and inaccurate the concerns and complaints from the general right of US politics are.
2. Moving out of my parents house, and not just in a 'off to college' way. Actually being financially responsible for the first time and not being coddled by my parents was a huge slap in the face and reality check for me, and to this day I've still never met a staunch neocon/libertarian who wasn't an raised in a predominately white, upper-middle class household. I can only imagine the position I'd be in if I weren't given that advantage in life (I was definitely raised in that setting).
It definitely wasn't a course or professor that made big government seem more appealing (the courses I took while abroad were really a joke as far as academics were concerned), but two specific books I have read since being back and realizing how much my views have changed have definitely solidified the idea in my head. Jeff Madrick's 'The Case for Big Government' presents and extremely well thought out and reasoned argument for big government, specific social programs, and how they'd be funded/why they're necessary, and David Schweickert's 'After Capitalism' is an attempt to outline an economic model that goes against the current assumption that there isn't a viable alternative to capitalism. It's still a market economy, but it's a fairly socialized one. I think you'd find that one in particular quite interesting because of the system of banking and capital investment he outlines - it eliminates the Fed (and fractional reserve banking) and sets up a series of local/state banks in its stead.
As far as voting for Obama in November, it'd be hard to say that I'm not going to vote for him. I honestly believe and expect that Romney will get the GOP nomination, and there's no way in hell that I'm voting for a self-hating, Democrat cult-member who decided to run in a Republican primary.
If (and this is a huge if) Paul gets the nomination, I'd most likely vote for him. Not because I agree with his social or fiscal policies, but because I think what he actually could get done in 4 years would be beneficial in the long run.
And no, Bernanke is still most definitely not one of my heroes. As you've said before, I've made money by betting against what he says will happen, but I'm not regretting my decision to sell my gold shares at $1880 last year.
