Matt Welch on What Polite Society Calls Crazy in Politics

The Washington Times asks Reason's Matt Welch about the strange, would-be marginalization of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) by mainstream Dems and Republicans alike:

"Polite society has agreed on a set of actually pretty insane policies that are christened as the status quo, and people who talk and insist on talking about stuff that is outside of that are treated as crazier than they actually are," said Matt Welch, who co-authored with [Nick Gillespie] "The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What Wrong With America."

The WashTimes continues:

"Although the rhetoric might vary, they've been one party," Mr. Paul said. "They both support the same foreign policy, the same monetary policy, the same domestic welfare policy—regardless of what they claim they believe."…

"The issues…have come in my direction," Mr. Paul said. "People are tired of the war. They understand the financial situation is dire, and those are things I have been talking about for so long. Now they have become mainstream issues, and even the Federal Reserve is something that a lot of people are talking about."

Bonus quote from same article:

"He is John the Baptist in that he is founding the call for what will be fulfilled in American politics within the next decade for sure," said Nick Gillespie…"And for God's sake, it is horrible to talk about political candidates as John the Baptist or Jesus for any number of reasons, including that one ended up with his head on a platter and the other nailed to a cross."

Whole thing here.

Comments

[Old Mexican]

“He [Paul] is John the Baptist in that he is founding the call for what will be fulfilled in American politics within the next decade for sure,” said Nick Gillespie…”And for God’s sake, it is horrible to talk about political candidates as John the Baptist or Jesus for any number of reasons, including that one ended up with his head on a platter and the other nailed to a cross.”

And this one being derided by the MSM from both sides.

[Old Mexican]

“Polite society has agreed on a set of actually pretty insane policies that are christened as the status quo, and people who talk and insist on talking about stuff that is outside of that are treated as crazier than they actually are[.]”

“Look! The Emperor is naked!”
“Quiet, foolish child! He is clearly sumptuously dressed, can’t you see?”

“The Debt debate is a farse. Looking to place ourselves into more debt will not save us from the fiscal mess we’re in right now.”
“Quiet, silly man. Can’t you see we’re in for a ‘Great Depression’ if we don’t spend more?”

[BakedPenguin]

NO! We’re going to spend our way to prosperity! It has to work!!

[MJ]

“Although the rhetoric might vary, they’ve been one party,” Mr. Paul said. “They both support the same foreign policy, the same monetary policy, the same domestic welfare policy – regardless of what they claim they believe.”…

Both parties are trying to capture the same supporters in the mushy middle. The problem being that the middle (as a group) wants contradictory things. They do not necessarily like taxes, but they alos don’t want the programs they benefit from to be cut. Anything that challenges the Way Things Are Done in government is branded “insane”. It is the auto-immune response of the political esatblishment, including the major media outlets who are angsting that conservatives are throwing monkey wrenches into the works.

[fresno dan]

hard to beat something for nothing.

We will have to raise taxes to pay for all this stuff
NO!
OK, OK, we will have to cut some programs a tiny amount percentage wise
HELL NO!!

2 + 2 is 6
Yea!!!!

[squishua]

Who are these people who get “benefits” from the government? I mean, other than SS/Medicare/Welfare.

I think we need to bring back the 3/5 clause for anyone who receives more in direct benefits than they pay in taxes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and “government contractors.”

All four groups of recipients can go take a flying leap off of a short balcony.

[R C Dean]

Dang, Nick. Couldn’t work in a plug for the book?

[Quetzalcoatl]

Wait, Nick wrote a book?!

[Wise Ass]

Alt text runner-up for clowns-in-costumes photo: “Why won’t anyone take us seriously?”

[Brandybuck]

Overheard at Ron Paul meetup:

“I know how we can get our message out! We dress up like a character in a bad movie that tanked at the box office about a crazy guy who blew up parliament but never slept with Natalie Portman when he had the chance. That’s PRECISELY the message we need to send!”

[RyanXXX]

V for Vendetta was a good movie, and it didn’t tank, so go fuck your mother

[Wise Ass]

I guess he told you, Brandybuck!

[Brandybuck]

I am humbled by his keen logic and erudite rhetoric

[Wise Ass]

If I were Episiarch, I would totally devastate you with “HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!”

[Tulpa]

Revenge of the Sith didn’t tank at the box office.

[fresno dan]

“…and people who talk and insist on talking about stuff that is outside of that are treated as crazier than they actually are.”

Crazier than they actually are?!!? They’re just howl the moon crazy, not batsh*t insane!! Wow, thats a backhanded compliment.

Really, the money that the Fed gives to the banksters, (criminal stupid people who gave loans to 15K a year strawberry pickers for 800K houses)and people say Ron Paul is crazy???

[Quetzalcoatl]

Anyone else notice that WaPo’s annoying autolinks direct the word “John” to their page for Boehner?

[Just Dropping By]

Are you implying that John Boehner is not a living prophet heralding the soon-arrival of the Messiah?

[CrackertyAssCracker]

I like how Tom Woods puts it(paraphrased):

If you disagree with both Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton, then you are an extremist. You are outside the respectable bounds of opinion, and we (elite coastal dooshbags) don’t even really need to consider your ideas at all.

[Charles 3E]

“Polite society has agreed on a set of actually pretty insane policies that are christened as the status quo, and people who talk and insist on talking about stuff that is outside of that are treated as crazier than they actually are,”

That is exactly spot-on

[Anonymous Coward]

“Polite society has agreed on a set of actually pretty insane policies that are christened as the status quo, and people who talk and insist on talking about stuff that is outside of that are treated as crazier than they actually are,” said Matt Welch

Collectivists prefer a mutually agreed upon delusion than to have their worldview challenged, or worse, shat on.

…the other nailed to a cross.”

He got better.

[Christopher]

I’m new to Libertarianism and have a few questions.
-Why is Ron Paul running as a Republican?
-Why is he never, ever, never interviewed or given time on either conservative or liberal media outlets? Is it because they are all owned by the same corporate giants and the same corporate giant advertisers in bed with the bankers and the Fed system?
-Since we do have a Fed, why is regulation of the bankers bad? Wouldn’t it be better to keep them limited in the amount of damage they can do when they are working with elastic money?
-Why have countries with large social programs and high taxes like Canada and New Zealand and Australia NOT fallen on as hard times as the USA? Or have they?

In the end, its not so much that R. Paul is portrayed as insane that upsets me but the fact that he is made almost invisible.

Pre-thanks for any answers to my questions.

[Croesus]

To answer a few of your questions:
-Ron Paul is running as a Republican because it gives him a greater chance at winning and a lot more exposure. It’s been more than fifty years since a third party candidate won a single electoral vote, so it is much easier to change the system from within the existing power structure than from without.
-I’ve seen Paul interviewed on TV before (although the exact channel escapes me), and he was included on Fox’s Republican debate and CNN’s Republican debate, so that’s some airtime on the big news outlets.
-Reason had an article about Canada and New Zealand fighting their debt problems a while back, which they both did primarily through cuts (Canada had a 6:1 cuts to revenue increases ratio if I remember correctly).

[Croesus]

Here is the article I mentioned.

[Christopher]

excellent article.
I was incredibly impressed with the Canadian adjustments. It seems as though our government in the States could never act in such a way. Perhaps we’ve moved so far from being the Constitutional govt originally founded that we’d be better off moving towards a parliamentary system, not that I know much about it.
What is strange to me is that these appear to be big-government states that achieve a modicum of success in adjusting to economic signals. Am I wrong?
Also, it simply reinforces my conspiratorial feeling that crony-capitalism and corporate interests continue to conquer through division – the kind-hearted liberals will never understand the free-market conservative’s reasons, or vice-versa.

Anyway. Thanks for the response and the link to a great article.

[cynical]

“Also, it simply reinforces my conspiratorial feeling that crony-capitalism and corporate interests continue to conquer through division – the kind-hearted liberals will never understand the free-market conservative’s reasons, or vice-versa.”

You should probably amend that understanding to recognize that a lot of non-businesses interests are in bed with the system as well (look at wealthy developer Ratner and “community organization” ACORN working together with the corrupt state of New York to screw property owners, as an example).

The system is a nasty, corrupt merger of wealth and power, and while the latter predominantly means “government”, it also gives ostensibly public-spirited NGOs a role to play as long as they can create political cover for business and government, helping them disguise their corruption as something more noble.

[Christopher]

thanks for responding.

– I know RP was on the debates but missed them. I still think their appears to be a consensus effort to bury him from sight. I’ve seen Tim Pawlenty on Meet the Press twice in a 3 or 4 week span and Tim Geithner on every Sunday News show in one day. At least Gillespie got on RealTime and I discovered Stossel’s show with NG and Thomas Woods just last week.
Really, I don’t care what network Ron Paul goes on, but he needs more exposure be it on Maddow, Hannity, Meet the Press, or even Colbert or Stewart.
He has an appeal independents need exposure to.