With much disappointment today, I read the list of those considered likely to be named Person of the Year by TIME magazine  for 2009. Though not a political story per se, the bulk of the figures named hold public office, or are otherwise in the employ of the United States government. Those considered to be in contention include Barack Obama, who won last year, Nancy Pelosi, Ben Bernanke, and General Stanley McChrystal. Outside the government, Apple CEO Steve Jobs, Olympic runner Usain Bolt, and “the Chinese worker” are regarded as possible contenders. It will be a real disappointment if any of these seven win this rather irrelevant distinction for 2009. Indeed, none of these choices best characterizes the past year in news and politics.President Obama won last year, presumably for whatever won him the Nobel prize he accepted earlier this month. As much as TIME and President Obama may wish for him to be the second Franklin Roosevelt, the current administration has achieved little good despite an ambitious and persistent policy agenda. Indeed, the stimulus package, arguably the most significant policy achievement of the present administration thus far, has been such a dud that the White House has been unable to show its impact in concrete terms.

Nancy Pelosi has now been the Speaker of the House since January of 2007. Getting that far is a noteworthy achievement, but in her present capacity, promises of a more ethical and transparent Congress have diminished. When not narrowly winning policy votes in her chamber for President Obama’s agenda, Speaker Pelosi has continued her trend of making unsupported political pronouncements and going after her critics. Pelosi’s controversy with the CIA alone should bar her from being “Person of the Year”.

Ben Bernanke similarly makes little sense for the title in question. Like it or not, the recession occurred on his watch, and even with the support of the White House, his reconfirmation to the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve for another term is uncertain. His is a big job, but he knew that when he took it. However, in his defense, the job description for his position has grown since he first assumed the leadership of the Fed. There is no practical reason for him to be Man of the Year.

Among the seven on the “short list”, General McChrystal is perhaps the most deserving. The problem is that I’m not sure that he has done the most to influence the events of the past year. If all goes well in Afghanistan over the coming months, then perhaps next year would be more appropriate. Generals are important to any military force, but in a civil society, they are limited in their actions. In the case of the United States particularly, this means that far fewer people would know the name Stanley McChrystal if President Obama had decided that a swift withdrawal was the right approach to addressing Afghanistan.  

Usain Bolt would be noteworthy due to his skills as an athlete. However, as with McChrystal, I’m not sure that he has been the deciding influence on the events of this year. Bolt is a nice change as he would be a selection from outside the United States. Such a justification would presumably explain the potential choice too of the Chinese worker for the TIME magazine honor this year. Steve Jobs, whose achievements are noteworthy, span several years; it is unclear to me why 2009 of all years should be his.

From start to finish, 2009 witnessed the burgeoning of a movement on the American right seeking redress to the excessive and irresponsible spending practices of the federal government. Of course, President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have earned the ire of this nascent movement, but neither can be credited with its emergence. That distinction instead belongs to Congressman and medical professional Ron Paul.

Those who know me know that I’ve never been a big fan of the U.S. Representative presently serving Galveston and the surrounding portion of Texas due in large part to his conduct in the 2008 presidential campaign. However, it is precisely that campaign which, arguably, has done the most to influence the domestic politics of 2009 in the United States. Much of the legitimate angst and frustration among the American populace has been manifest in rallies and demonstrations across the country. The whole Tea Party movement has its roots in the 2008 Paul campaign and the excitement it generated on the libertarian right.

If the tax protests and townhall meetings were not enough to demonstrate this point, then perhaps Dr. Paul’s success on the policy front will. A bill he championed to audit the Federal Reserve appears likely to make its way into law as part of broader Democratic legislation aimed at addressing reform in the financial markets. Even in 2008, this effort on the part of Dr. Paul seemed silly to most observers. Yet, in 2009, his effort 20 years in the making will be coming to fruition in no part due to the activism he has inspired.

Despite a poor electoral performance nationwide and a primary challenge for his congressional seat, the Paul presidential campaign had its successes. The fundraising prowess of the Paul operation has left its mark on the American political lexicon. Who, before 2007, had heard of the term “moneybomb“, for example?

Both the mainstream media and the blogosphere latched on to Ron Paul last year. MSNBC broadcaster Christ Matthews compared the Texas member of Congress to former Arizona senator Barry Goldwater. There are numerous reasons by the comparison is an invalid one. However, as was the case with Goldwater, the success of his campaign was not felt right away. George Will has in the past alluded to the victory of President Reagan being in no small part due to the movement Goldwater inspired and helped to shape.

Already, the Paul campaign has factored into the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Kentucky, where his son, Randall Paul, is a candidate. Arguably the efforts of the older Dr. Paul and his Campaign for Liberty inspired the conservative revolt in New York 23 earlier this year that derailed the Scozzafava congressional campaign. Dr. Paul will never be, and should never be, President of the United States, but it’s hard to doubt that he has left his mark on 2009. Thus, there is no better choice for Man of the Year this year than the physician from Texas.

Last 5 posts by James Kane

• A November to Remember - November 8th, 2010
• On hope and fear - October 18th, 2010
• Expecting Different Results - September 12th, 2010
• A glaring omission on Iraq - August 31st, 2010
• Employing a losing strategy - August 7th, 2010