Ben
05-28-2010, 10:11 PM
Who are the real "crazies" in our political culture? (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/28/crazy/index.html)
By Glenn Greenwald
One of the favorite self-affirming pastimes of establishment Democratic and Republican pundits is to mock anyone and everyone outside of the two-party mainstream as crazy, sick lunatics. That serves to bolster the two political parties as the sole arbiters of what is acceptable: anyone who meaningfully deviates from their orthodoxies are, by definition, fringe, crazy losers. Ron Paul is one of those most frequently smeared in that fashion, and even someone like Howard Dean, during those times when he stepped outside of mainstream orthodoxy, was similarly smeared as literally insane (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/04/26/charles-krauthammer-the-perils-of-pundit-psychiatry/), and still is (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/12/has_howard_dean_lost_his_mind.html).
Last night, the crazy, hateful, fringe lunatic Ron Paul voted to repeal the Clinton-era Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy (or, more accurately, he voted to allow the Pentagon to repeal it if and when it chooses to (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59356)) -- while 26 normal, sane, upstanding, mainstream House Democrats voted to retain that bigoted policy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100528/ap_on_el_ho/us_rollcall_gays_military_1). Paul explained today that he changed his mind on DADT (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/ron_paul_constituents_changed.html) because gay constituents of his who were forced out of the military convinced him of the policy's wrongness -- how insane and evil he is!
In 2003, the crank lunatic-monster Ron Paul vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml), while countless sane, normal, upstanding, good-hearted Democrats -- including the current Vice President (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237), Secretary of State (http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=147), Secretary of Defense, Senate Majority Leader, House Majority Leader, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, and many of the progressive (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/11/the-trouble-with-extremists/46901/) pundits (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_11/012452.php) who love to scorn Ron Paul as insane -- supported (http://yglesias.blogspot.com/2002_05_26_archive.html#77102836) the monstrous attack (http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2003_02/000496.php) on that country.
In 2008, the sicko Ron Paul opposed (http://libertymaven.com/2008/06/25/ron-paul-denounces-the-new-fisa-bill/1207/) the legalization of Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program and the granting of retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecoms, while the Democratic (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168) Congress (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml) -- led by the current U.S. President, his Chief of Staff, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and the House Majority Leader -- overwhelmingly voted it into law. Paul, who apparently belongs in a mental hospital, vehemently condemned America's use of torture from the start (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst061404.htm), while many leading Democrats were silent (or even supportive (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html)), and mainstream, sane Progressive Newsweek and MSNBC pundit Jonathan Alter was explicitly calling for its use (http://www.newsweek.com/2001/11/04/time-to-think-about-torture.html). Compare Paul's February, 2010 emphatic condemnation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJZOq8NDFrA) of America's denial of habeas corpus, lawless detentions and presidential assassinations of U.S. citizens to what the current U.S. Government is doing (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/05/hbc-90007124).
The crazed monster Ron Paul also opposes the war in Afghanistan (http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-11-18/ron-paul-end-the-war-in-afghanistan/), while the Democratic Congress continues to fund (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/98305-dems-prepare-to-pass-war-spending-measure-without-gop-support) it and even to reject timetables for withdrawal (http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=29151). Paul is an outspoken opponent of the nation's insane, devastating and oppressive "drug war" (http://www.counterpunch.org/paul1.html) -- that imprisons hundreds of thousands of Americans with a vastly disparate racial impact and continuously incinerates both billions of dollars and an array of basic liberties -- while virtually no Democrat dares speak against it. Paul crusades against limitless corporate control of government and extreme Federal Reserve secrecy, while the current administration works to preserve it. He was warning of the collapsing dollar (http://www.nysun.com/editorials/ron-pauls-prescience/66303/) and housing bubble (http://ezinearticles.com/?Ron-Paul-Predicts-a-Collapse-of-the-Housing-Market&id=727686) at a time when our Nation's Bipartisan Cast of Geniuses were oblivious. In sum, behold the embodiment of clinical, certifiable insanity: anti-DADT, anti-Iraq-war, anti-illegal-domestic-surveillance, anti-drug-war, anti-secrecy, anti-corporatism, anti-telecom-immunity, anti-war-in-Afghanistan.
There's no question that Ron Paul holds some views that are wrong, irrational and even odious (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html). But that's true for just about every single politician in both major political parties (just look at the condition of the U.S. if you doubt that; and note how Ron Paul's anti-abortion views render him an Untouchable for progressives while Harry Reid's anti-abortion views permit him to be a Progressive hero and even Senate Majority Leader). My point isn't that Ron Paul is not crazy; it's that those who self-righteously apply that label to him and to others invariably embrace positions and support politicians at least as "crazy." Indeed, those who support countless insane policies and/or who support politicians in their own party who do -- from the Iraq War to the Drug War, from warrantless eavesdropping and denial of habeas corpus to presidential assassinations and endless war in the Muslim world -- love to spit the "crazy" label at anyone who falls outside of the two-party establishment.
* * * * *
This behavior is partially driven by the adolescent/high-school version of authoritarianism (anyone who deviates from the popular cliques -- standard Democrats and Republicans -- is a fringe loser who must be castigated by all those who wish to be perceived as normal), and is partially driven by the desire to preserve the power of the two political parties to monopolize all political debates and define the exclusive venues for Sanity and Mainstream Acceptability. But regardless of what drives this behavior, it's irrational and nonsensical in the extreme.
I've been writing for several years (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/print.html) about this destructive dynamic (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/04/crazy): whereby people who embrace clearly crazy ideas and crazy politicians anoint themselves the Arbiters of Sanity simply because they're good mainstream Democrats and Republicans and because the objects of their scorn are not. For me, the issue has nothing to do with Ron Paul and everything to do with how the "crazy" smear is defined and applied as a weapon in our political culture. Perhaps the clearest and most harmful example was the way in which the anti-war view was marginalized, even suppressed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58127-2004Aug11?language=printer), in the run-up to the attack on Iraq because the leadership of both parties supported the war, and the anti-war position was thus inherently the province of the Crazies. That's what happens to any views not endorsed by either of the two parties.
Last week in Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/25/is-rand-paul-crazier-than-anyone-else-in-d-c.html), in the wake of the national fixation on Rand Paul, Conor Friedersdorf wrote a superb article on this phenomenon. While acknowledging that Rand Paul's questioning of the Civil Rights Act (and other positions Paul holds) are "wacky" and deeply wrong, Friedersdorf writes:
By Glenn Greenwald
One of the favorite self-affirming pastimes of establishment Democratic and Republican pundits is to mock anyone and everyone outside of the two-party mainstream as crazy, sick lunatics. That serves to bolster the two political parties as the sole arbiters of what is acceptable: anyone who meaningfully deviates from their orthodoxies are, by definition, fringe, crazy losers. Ron Paul is one of those most frequently smeared in that fashion, and even someone like Howard Dean, during those times when he stepped outside of mainstream orthodoxy, was similarly smeared as literally insane (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/04/26/charles-krauthammer-the-perils-of-pundit-psychiatry/), and still is (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/12/has_howard_dean_lost_his_mind.html).
Last night, the crazy, hateful, fringe lunatic Ron Paul voted to repeal the Clinton-era Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy (or, more accurately, he voted to allow the Pentagon to repeal it if and when it chooses to (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59356)) -- while 26 normal, sane, upstanding, mainstream House Democrats voted to retain that bigoted policy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100528/ap_on_el_ho/us_rollcall_gays_military_1). Paul explained today that he changed his mind on DADT (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/ron_paul_constituents_changed.html) because gay constituents of his who were forced out of the military convinced him of the policy's wrongness -- how insane and evil he is!
In 2003, the crank lunatic-monster Ron Paul vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml), while countless sane, normal, upstanding, good-hearted Democrats -- including the current Vice President (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237), Secretary of State (http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=147), Secretary of Defense, Senate Majority Leader, House Majority Leader, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, and many of the progressive (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/11/the-trouble-with-extremists/46901/) pundits (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_11/012452.php) who love to scorn Ron Paul as insane -- supported (http://yglesias.blogspot.com/2002_05_26_archive.html#77102836) the monstrous attack (http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2003_02/000496.php) on that country.
In 2008, the sicko Ron Paul opposed (http://libertymaven.com/2008/06/25/ron-paul-denounces-the-new-fisa-bill/1207/) the legalization of Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program and the granting of retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecoms, while the Democratic (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168) Congress (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml) -- led by the current U.S. President, his Chief of Staff, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and the House Majority Leader -- overwhelmingly voted it into law. Paul, who apparently belongs in a mental hospital, vehemently condemned America's use of torture from the start (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst061404.htm), while many leading Democrats were silent (or even supportive (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html)), and mainstream, sane Progressive Newsweek and MSNBC pundit Jonathan Alter was explicitly calling for its use (http://www.newsweek.com/2001/11/04/time-to-think-about-torture.html). Compare Paul's February, 2010 emphatic condemnation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJZOq8NDFrA) of America's denial of habeas corpus, lawless detentions and presidential assassinations of U.S. citizens to what the current U.S. Government is doing (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/05/hbc-90007124).
The crazed monster Ron Paul also opposes the war in Afghanistan (http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-11-18/ron-paul-end-the-war-in-afghanistan/), while the Democratic Congress continues to fund (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/98305-dems-prepare-to-pass-war-spending-measure-without-gop-support) it and even to reject timetables for withdrawal (http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=29151). Paul is an outspoken opponent of the nation's insane, devastating and oppressive "drug war" (http://www.counterpunch.org/paul1.html) -- that imprisons hundreds of thousands of Americans with a vastly disparate racial impact and continuously incinerates both billions of dollars and an array of basic liberties -- while virtually no Democrat dares speak against it. Paul crusades against limitless corporate control of government and extreme Federal Reserve secrecy, while the current administration works to preserve it. He was warning of the collapsing dollar (http://www.nysun.com/editorials/ron-pauls-prescience/66303/) and housing bubble (http://ezinearticles.com/?Ron-Paul-Predicts-a-Collapse-of-the-Housing-Market&id=727686) at a time when our Nation's Bipartisan Cast of Geniuses were oblivious. In sum, behold the embodiment of clinical, certifiable insanity: anti-DADT, anti-Iraq-war, anti-illegal-domestic-surveillance, anti-drug-war, anti-secrecy, anti-corporatism, anti-telecom-immunity, anti-war-in-Afghanistan.
There's no question that Ron Paul holds some views that are wrong, irrational and even odious (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html). But that's true for just about every single politician in both major political parties (just look at the condition of the U.S. if you doubt that; and note how Ron Paul's anti-abortion views render him an Untouchable for progressives while Harry Reid's anti-abortion views permit him to be a Progressive hero and even Senate Majority Leader). My point isn't that Ron Paul is not crazy; it's that those who self-righteously apply that label to him and to others invariably embrace positions and support politicians at least as "crazy." Indeed, those who support countless insane policies and/or who support politicians in their own party who do -- from the Iraq War to the Drug War, from warrantless eavesdropping and denial of habeas corpus to presidential assassinations and endless war in the Muslim world -- love to spit the "crazy" label at anyone who falls outside of the two-party establishment.
* * * * *
This behavior is partially driven by the adolescent/high-school version of authoritarianism (anyone who deviates from the popular cliques -- standard Democrats and Republicans -- is a fringe loser who must be castigated by all those who wish to be perceived as normal), and is partially driven by the desire to preserve the power of the two political parties to monopolize all political debates and define the exclusive venues for Sanity and Mainstream Acceptability. But regardless of what drives this behavior, it's irrational and nonsensical in the extreme.
I've been writing for several years (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/print.html) about this destructive dynamic (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/04/crazy): whereby people who embrace clearly crazy ideas and crazy politicians anoint themselves the Arbiters of Sanity simply because they're good mainstream Democrats and Republicans and because the objects of their scorn are not. For me, the issue has nothing to do with Ron Paul and everything to do with how the "crazy" smear is defined and applied as a weapon in our political culture. Perhaps the clearest and most harmful example was the way in which the anti-war view was marginalized, even suppressed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58127-2004Aug11?language=printer), in the run-up to the attack on Iraq because the leadership of both parties supported the war, and the anti-war position was thus inherently the province of the Crazies. That's what happens to any views not endorsed by either of the two parties.
Last week in Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/25/is-rand-paul-crazier-than-anyone-else-in-d-c.html), in the wake of the national fixation on Rand Paul, Conor Friedersdorf wrote a superb article on this phenomenon. While acknowledging that Rand Paul's questioning of the Civil Rights Act (and other positions Paul holds) are "wacky" and deeply wrong, Friedersdorf writes: