"Who are the real crazies in Political Culture?" by Glenn Greenwald

[doctor jones]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/28/crazy/index.html

We need more journalists with the mentality of Glenn Greenwald in the media.

How do you define crazy?

[Anti Federalist]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/28/crazy/index.html

We need more journalists with the mentality of Glenn Greenwald in the media.

How do you define crazy?

Thanks for posting that.

The money quote:


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

There are more than a few here who, sadly, fit that description.

Ron Paul 2012

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks for posting that.

The money quote:



There are more than a few here who, sadly, fit that description.

Ron Paul 2012

True that. That's one reason I rarely come here anymore. :(

[CCTelander]

True that. That's one reason I rarely come here anymore. :(

Same for me. I kinda miss the old days when it wasn't so much like that.

[RM918]

The fact Greenwald writes on the same site as Plex Aareene is a mystery. Everyone else on that site is pure crap.

[georgiaboy]

Salon again, interesting. Been agreeing with the sentiment of this article for some time now. A few parts I liked:


The crazed monster Ron Paul also opposes the war in Afghanistan, while the Democratic Congress continues to fund it and even to reject timetables for withdrawal. Paul is an outspoken opponent of the nation's insane, devastating and oppressive "drug war" -- 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 and housing bubble 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. 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.


Thus, for the two parties to ensure that they, and only they, are recognized as Sane, Mainstream voices is to ensure, above all else, the perpetuation of status quo power. As Noah Millman insightfully pointed out this week, those on the Right and Left devoted to civil liberties and limitations on executive power find more common cause with each other than with either of the two parties' establishments. The same is true on a wide array of issues, including limitations on corporate influence in Washington and opposition to the National Security State.

That's why the greatest sin, the surest path to marginalized Unseriousness, is to stray from the safe confines of loyalty to the Democratic or Republican establishments. To our political class, Treason is defined as anyone who forms an alliance, even on a single issue, with someone in the Crazy Zone.


Just to preempt non sequiturs, this isn't a discussion of Ron Paul, but of the irrational use of the "crazy" accusation in our political discourse and the effects of its application.



UPDATE: I'll try this one more time: for those wanting to write about all the bad things Ron Paul believes, before going into the comment section, please read and then re-read these three sentences:

There's no question that Ron Paul holds some views that are wrong, irrational and even odious. But that's true for just about every single politician in both major political parties . . . 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."

This is a comparative assessment between (a) those routinely dismissed as Crazy and (b) the two party establishments and their Mainstream Loyalists who do the dismissing. Assessing (a) is completely nonresponsive and irrelevant without comparing it to (b).



UPDATE II: One other point: intense, fixated mockery of marginalized, powerless people has the benefit of distracting attention from the actions of those who are actually in power.

[georgiaboy]

How do you define crazy?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

I'll never forget at a 2008 convention, a loyal GOP'er who didn't know me from anybody but knowing my support for Dr. Paul, making the point to walk right up to me and say, with a smile, "you're guy is crazy", and that was it. I was honestly stunned.

I often wonder what that person is thinking these days after having likely voted for John McCain. I hope the definition of insanity is not lost on that person.

Wonder what it must feel like to be one of the establishment fearfully grasping to keep hold of power, marginalizing others so you can keep your fragile ego puffed and retain title as prom king/queen, and one day look in the mirror and realize what you've become?

[doctor jones]

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

That's crazy, and that's what both party's answer is to every problem, status quo.

[dr. hfn]

shared on facebook, great article

[KramerDSP]

Gotta love Greenwald. He's one of the few liberal/progressive bloggers I enjoy reading.

[KramerDSP]

The comments on that site are really good. Here are a couple I liked.


I totally agree. I also think the notion of a unidimensional political spectrum is a tool to keep people captured in their places. The alternative would be tribal aggregations which would be more diificult to unify. As others have pointed out the real tool to power consolidation is winner take all elections which force a choice between two unacceptable offerings.

Great article! 0 SunWalker


@Cuchulain2007

I suggest you should throw in the towel immediately rather than continue to debate Mr. Greenwald on this point, because it's only to your discredit that you do so. You point out that the body of his post lauds Mr. Paul - but that can only be the case if you're in favour of the measures that he supported, and that the majority of politicians in Washington didn't.

You also write that Ron Paul supporters can't see the forest from the trees. Actually, shouldn't it be the other way around? You consistently malign one of the politicians most staunchly opposed to the military industrial complex and the drug war - two ENORMOUS issues - on the basis of his 'neo-Confederate' views...as if the United States and its culture would suddenly revert to 1950s-era bigotry if it weren't for the constant force of the Feds, maintaining the people in a hypnotic anti-racist trance. Actually, even the application of Paul's views on private property and the Constitution (both father and son's) would probably have very little effect on people's attitudes.

At any rate, this is a minuscule point compared to the ones that Mr. Greenwald so ably brings up, which is why Mr. Paul deserves to be taken at least as seriously as any politician in Washington...WHICH WAS THE POINT OF THE POST!
—Philippe BS

[rprprs]

I'm gonna come at this from a slightly different perspective.
This:

Just to preempt non sequiturs, this isn't a discussion of Ron Paul, but of the irrational use of the "crazy" accusation in our political discourse and the effects of its application.
Preempt? Did he REALLY think that would stop them? How naive. He even had to provide an update specifically spelling it out:

UPDATE: I'll try this one more time: for those wanting to write about all the bad things Ron Paul believes, before going into the comment section, please read and then re-read these three sentences:

There's no question that Ron Paul holds some views that are wrong, irrational and even odious. But that's true for just about every single politician in both major political parties . . . 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."

This is a comparative assessment between (a) those routinely dismissed as Crazy and (b) the two party establishments and their Mainstream Loyalists who do the dismissing. Assessing (a) is completely nonresponsive and irrelevant without comparing it to (b).
I haven't ventured into the comments section - I don't have the stomach for it - but I'll betcha even the update didn't stop the venom they were chomping at the bit to spew. And, all the while, oblivious to the fact that, with every word, they were only proving Greenwald's point.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Hi,

If any of you want to distribute the article or read it sometime when you're not online, I converted the document into a simple PDF:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/10/7/1489425/Greenwald_crazy_political_culture.pdf

Have a great evening.

Cheers,
Omphfullas Zamboni

[KramerDSP]

I'm gonna come at this from a slightly different perspective.
This:

Preempt? Did he REALLY think that would stop them? How naive. He even had to provide an update specifically spelling it out:

I haven't ventured into the comments section - I don't have the stomach for it - but I'll betcha even the update didn't stop the venom they were chomping at the bit to spew. And, all the while, oblivious to the fact that, with every word, they were only proving Greenwald's point.

The comments section is surprisingly positive. I would say 75% of the posters are at least admirers of RP, even if they disagree with his take on specific issues. The other 25% bash him, and then Glenn and a bunch of other people start defending the intention of the article, which is summed up best by this comment on page 9. I think this article just may wake up a lot more people on the left.


"Glenn

Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive Dissonance

It's layers thick. The deeper you try to cut into it, the more reactionary the response.

For me, This is a column that needs to be sent all over Left Blogistan. I really can't think of one A-List blogger who doesn't need to read it and ponder (hard), save Jane Hamsher. Because, contrary to your contrarians, this isn't a column extolling the virtues of L/libertarianism or lionizing the father/son Paul. This is a column about how to marginalize, about how to discredit, about how to make taboo, out of bounds, untouchable, radioactive any individual (to include progressives, liberals, conservatives, in addition to libertarians) who is perceived as a threat to the status quo. This is how the sphere of deviance gets populated.

It's a great column, Glenn. And, I deeply appreciate your writing it.
—bystander"

[Jace]

There's no question that Glenn Greenwald holds some views that are wrong, irrational and even odious.

But this was a great column. Thanks for posting it.

[Imperial]

This is what keeps me in the liberty movement. Sure, on some issues I may stridently disagree with Dr. Paul. But where it matters, he isn't "crazy" at all. He may be one of the few sane ones left in a world lacking sense.

[Old Ducker]

This is what keeps me in the liberty movement. Sure, on some issues I may stridently disagree with Dr. Paul. But where it matters, he isn't "crazy" at all. He may be one of the few sane ones left in a world lacking sense.

Ron Paul is the last hope for those who think the US can be transformed into a peaceful and prosperous republic through electoral means, and has dedicated half of his life to that end.

[catdd]

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein

[akforme]

YouTube - Ron Paul: To The 'Crazy' Ones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXPOQnUhd7M)

[Anti Federalist]

ron paul is the last hope for those who think the us can be transformed into a peaceful and prosperous republic through electoral means, and has dedicated half of his life to that end.

+1776

[tremendoustie]

Ron Paul is the last hope for those who think the US can be transformed into a peaceful and prosperous republic through electoral means, and has dedicated half of his life to that end.

He's a great hope and encouragement to anyone who believes in liberty.

[axiomata]

Given the recent left-wing attack on Rand's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, my main criticism of Greenwald's article is his claim that the Pauls' position on the 14th Amendment is "odious".

By that logic the original writer of of the 14th Amendment took and odious position since Senator Jacob M. Howard, stated, in reference to the Amendment, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

[MN Patriot]

Here is my crazy opinion, shared by few even in these forums: We need a legitimate credible third party. Trying to take over the Republican Party is probably more difficult than getting enough people to join and participate in a third party. I know, third parties are guaranteed failure, as the political experts from the two old parties have brainwashed us to believe.

[RM918]

Here is my crazy opinion, shared by few even in these forums: We need a legitimate credible third party. Trying to take over the Republican Party is probably more difficult than getting enough people to join and participate in a third party. I know, third parties are guaranteed failure, as the political experts from the two old parties have brainwashed us to believe.

It has nothing to do with two-party brainwashing and everything to do with how the Republicans and the Democrats fucked over third parties in election law in order to purposefully keep them out.

[MN Patriot]

It has nothing to do with two-party brainwashing and everything to do with how the Republicans and the Democrats fucked over third parties in election law in order to purposefully keep them out.

Kind of the same thing, isn't it? Screw the third parties with ballot access laws and a mainstream media that treats third parties as crazies. Then use third party failure as a reason not to start a third party to take power from the two Establishment parties.

[angelatc]

Here is my crazy opinion, shared by few even in these forums: We need a legitimate credible third party. Trying to take over the Republican Party is probably more difficult than getting enough people to join and participate in a third party. I know, third parties are guaranteed failure, as the political experts from the two old parties have brainwashed us to believe.

Ron Paul says you're wrong. The fact that there are already about 1,000 other third parties says you're wrong. The fact that several of those of us live in areas where the local GOP is now run by liberty lovers says you're wrong.

I'm going with that.

[BenIsForRon]

There's an incredible article in Newsweek along the same vein as Greenwald's:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/25/is-rand-paul-crazier-than-anyone-else-in-d-c.html

This is a question everyone needs to ask themselves... "Who are the real crazies?"

[Anti Federalist]

There's an incredible article in Newsweek along the same vein as Greenwald's:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/25/is-rand-paul-crazier-than-anyone-else-in-d-c.html

This is a question everyone needs to ask themselves... "Who are the real crazies?"

Actually Greenwald was expanding on that article which appeared first, thanks for posting.

Frustrating even in "favorable" pieces is the assumed position that "a return to the gold standard" is "kooky".

Never explained is why, even though it's obvious why other "mainstream" positions really are nuts.

[low preference guy]

Actually Greenwald was expanding on that article which appeared first.

Frustrating even in "favorable" pieces is the assumed position that "a return to the gold standard" is "kooky".

Never explained is why, even though it's obvious why other "mainstream" positions really are nuts.

What do you expect? Greenwald understands economics as much as a squirrel does.

[Captain America]

very good article. even some of my progressive rand hater friends enjoyed this article. this might help them realize what they are saying.

[Anti Federalist]

What do you expect? Greenwald understands economics as much as a squirrel does.

To be fair to Greenwald, I just used that as an example. There were other examples that were non-economic.

[RM918]

They always bring up the gold standard, when what they actually want is competition in currencies.