The question after the latest Republican presidential debate is why Ron Paul keeps winning them. MSNBC has been widening the margin by which its own survey is showing that the congressman from Texas did the best job; it’s now up to 57%. One can imagine there might be non-substantive explanations; Dr. Paul, say, has so many followers on the Web, who may be primed to respond to these polls. Our guess, though, is that more than the other candidates Ron Paul gives the impression that he is animated by a clear and coherent set of principles in which he deeply believes. His sense of principle is his source of power, his secret weapon.

This was evident in the way he eclipsed the others, starting with Michele Bachamann, in respect of gasoline prices. Mrs. Bachmann was right to bring up the price of gas; it’s a bitter symptom of . . . of what? Not only our policy of restricting the development of our own energy resources, as Mrs. Bachmann argued, but more fundamentally of our system of fiat money. Dr. Paul jumped in after Mrs. Bachman to point out that gasoline hasn’t become more valuable. One can still get a gallon for a silver dime. It’s the dollar that has collapsed. Governor Perry has warned darkly of how Texans would deal with Ben Bernanke. But neither he nor any of the others at the Reagan Library approaches the issue in the principled way that Ron Paul does.

Dr. Paul was the only candidate who kept referring to the Constitution, the principles behind which he has clearly thought about for a long time. He talked about enumerated powers in laying out the grounds on which he’d take the federal government out of education and health care and other “mandates” for which Congress lacks an enumerated power. We understand there is a debate about the extent of Congressional powers; some of them, such as regulating interstate commerce, are enormous. But while the other candidates are driving themselves crazy over policy, Dr. Paul is standing on principle.

It’s clear to readers of these columns that this newspaper doesn’t agree with Dr. Paul in respect of the war. The hawks on the war have every bit as much constitutional principle behind them as Dr. Paul’s libertarian view. War, whatever else it is, is one of the enumerated powers of Congress. Even while we disagree with Dr. Paul’s position on the war, though, we respect it. Declaration, after all, is only one of the two war powers given to Congress. The other — the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal, which are licenses to private parties to conduct war — is also a bright line enumerated power. Dr. Paul is the only candidate who’s proven he’s prepared wield that constitutional sword.*

Dr. Paul startled us by being the only individual to speak in opposition to idea of a border fence against Mexico. He did so in principled terms, warning that fences can cut two ways. It’s not as if he’s from a congressional district a long way from Mexico; he’s from the gulf coast. He just looks at things in libertarian terms, a strategy that sets him apart and allows him to sweep aside the pettifogging. He did this in respect of a question about the minimum wage. “Mandate, mandate, mandate . . .” he exclaimed at one point. “Everything we do is a mandate . . . that’s why you have to look at this as the cause of liberty.” It is a wonderful phrase, “the cause of liberty.” The polls keep showing that when a candidate sticks to it in a principled way, he wins the debate.

________

* Within days of September 11, 2001, Congressman Paul introduced a bill to grant letters of marque and reprisal against Osama bin Laden.