Agreed. I guess I just find it interesting how certain issues play so big in US political debate, namely abortion, God, sexuality... that sorta thing. Stances on these appear to be the vote clinchers, and the meaty stuff such as war, economics, and the role of Government seem almost secondary (though that's not to say that Americans don't recognise them as hugely important also). So when Ron Paul makes a tangible break from the pack by clearly defining his opposition to war and imperialism it's no wonder he attracts support, because he's treading on a different sort of political territory and people find this refreshing. And rather than attacking him on these grounds or through an ideological critique of Libertarianism itself, Democrats are instead deploying the social issues I mention above (racism, homophobia etc). I'm not saying these aren't legitimate grounds for criticism, I'm just noting the parameters of the discourse.

I reckon the reason is because Libertarianism is the defining aspect of American politics. A heady brew of the Founding Fathers, Hayek, and Rand infuses all mainstream US politics to a significant extent. I've been chatting to a lot of Americans online lately from both sides of the political divide and it's the social issues that grab them. When you get down to it, most are in agreement that small government, low taxes, and individual freedom are all a priori good things. Ron Paul seems like a living embodiment of these ideas taken (almost) to their logical conclusion and since the ideas are already a part of everyone else's US political discourse one could almost say that Ron Paul is a suicide-virus, exposing the limits of US politics itself!