« Thank a soldier, whatever your first language may be | Main | Did you see that awesome sunset tonight? »
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
Ron Paul, wild and crazy fun guy
Had to laugh at this passage in this WashPost story about the Ron Paul phenomenon, which was brought to my attention by an e-mail from a libertarian organization:
More than at any other time over the past two decades, Americans are hungering for the politics and freewheeling fun of libertarianism...
It really said that. Go look. "Freewheeling fun." Maybe that's why I don't get libertarianism. I look at it and see a gray, dull, monotonous, seething, dispiriting resentment. Gripe, bitch, moan, especially about taxes -- that's libertarianism to me. That is, if you don't mind my using the "b-word" in its verb form.
I don't go to politics looking for a good time, but if I did, I'd probably pick the liberal Democrats. If I were looking to start a business, I'd hang with the Republicans. If I were looking to be an ideologically rigid, antisocial grouch who constantly told the rest of the world to go (expletive) itself, I'd be a libertarian. Not to cast aspersions or anything, or deal in flat stereotypes. I'm sure there's much more to libertarians than that, just as there is to everyone. But "freewheeling fun?" That cracked me up.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 08:01 PM in Elections, In Our Time, Kulturkampf, Marketplace of ideas, Out There, Ron Paul, The Nation
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/337487/23726736
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ron Paul, wild and crazy fun guy:
Comments
How is your complaining about the healthcare system any different than us Libertarians complaining about the intrusive and inefficient government
Posted by: Doug Ross | Nov 27, 2007 8:26:47 PM
"If I were looking to be an ideologically rigid, antisocial grouch who constantly told the rest of the world to go (expletive) itself, I'd be a libertarian"
Sheesh....isn't that what you just did?
Get over the anger!
Posted by: Christopher Thurow Sr | Nov 27, 2007 8:30:31 PM
"Gripe, bitch, moan, especially about taxes."
When 2.3 trillion dollars spent by the military cannot be accounted for, I complain.
After reading David Walker, there is no doubt in my mind why people are unsatisfied.
David M. Walker
Comptroller General
http://www.gao.gov/cghome.htm
Posted by: Alex | Nov 27, 2007 8:33:29 PM
Poor job of not dealing in flat stereotypes. Actually theres nothing else is in this posting.
What a waste of letters and bits.
Posted by: Jay | Nov 27, 2007 8:44:06 PM
Even as a Ron Paul supporter, that's actually quite funny. Good catch.
The liberal Dems can keep the "fun". I'll just settle for the individual freedoms that a Ron Paul presidency will bring. Oh yeah, I'll have more $$$ to have fun with too ... buh-bye IRS.
I'll leave you with a quote from Mark Twain.
"Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your HONOR. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse."
Posted by: Tim_Ohio | Nov 27, 2007 8:49:27 PM
What does this even mean? What is wild and crazy fun guy mean, and what is a libertarian?
Posted by: Name | Nov 27, 2007 8:56:46 PM
"Gripe, bitch, moan, especially about taxes -- that's libertarianism to me."
As opposed to being a complacent sheep.
Posted by: Brian | Nov 27, 2007 9:08:08 PM
What's fun about Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani? Ron Paul is attracting the votes of fun-loving, liberty-loving, patriotic young Americans. The theme of his campaign is "Hope for America."
Young people want hope, and a life filled with fun and possibilities -- not a future stunted by an overgrown government.
What's fun about the Democrats? The ones in Congress are afraid of their own shadow, and a 27%-popular President. They've done nothing to end the war or protect our basic freedoms.
What's fun about the Republicans? How could anyone turn to them who wants to start a business? They've grown the intrusive and expensive government faster than the Democrats did.
The free-wheeling fun of libertarianism? -- that pretty much nails it.
Posted by: Craig | Nov 27, 2007 9:17:28 PM
I don't understand how a blogger can be taken seriously if he calls someone else dull and anti-social. A blogger is not exactly the image of a freewheeling, exciting, social butterfly. Sounds like there's some projection going on.
Posted by: Shane | Nov 27, 2007 9:27:47 PM
Such pithy statements you make. It must be cool to be the lucky guy who gets to assign groups of people polarizing labels. Why stop there? Why not Democrats, Muslims, or Blacks.
Unless your attempt here is to pacify said dispirited resenters? Call me crazy but I don't think your doing a good job of it.
However, if your intention was to somehow ostracize liberals, why do a half baked job of it? Why don't you just paint degrading symbols on door fronts or pass out literature with overblown liberal cartoon people griping and complaining and being nuisances.
Oh, but you say I am making fun. Well I guess liberals can have fun then!!!
Actually I am long time Republican, who owns a business, who takes offense to pompous blow hards such as yourself.
My suggestion is to somehow get yourself some good old fashioned self respect so you won't feel the need to try and bring others down a few notches.
Posted by: bgodley | Nov 27, 2007 9:56:10 PM
Well, as I sit here in my pajamas, consuming coffee and Skittles -- actually, I just had a beer, and am contemplating having another, but I am, as it happens, in my PJs (a special flannel Valentine's Day pair, with hearts and pictures of Homer Simpson on them) -- I have to say that only Tim_Ohio (if that is indeed your name, sir) gets it. (And I love it that you quote Twain, but did they really use the term "media" in his day? Best double-check that provenance.)
As I've had to say here before, lighten up, folks. It was just a phrase that struck me as funny, and I was riffing on it. OK, I'll explain the joke to the irony-deprived among you (a group that I suspect is legion among Paul supporters, if you'll allow me a wee bit more fun at your expense). My references to stereotyping are quite deliberate, and intended to let you know that I realize what I'm doing, which is having fun with words. Seriously, think about it -- even if you believe that Ron Paul is the savior of the country, if you were to paint an overly simplistic, shorthand description of your movement, would "freewheeling fun" be the words you would choose? Doesn't it possess a tad more gravity than that?
I mean, with libertarians we're talking about people who look about them and see the big, bad authoritarian Mean Daddy world closing in on them! They're always going on about how their constitutional rights are being taken away -- although I have yet to meet a single one who has a convincing tale to tell of his own rights being trampled upon. If you are going to try to capture it in a word or two, it seems that "Chicken Little cult" would come closer than "freewheeling fun." (Not that "Chicken Little cult" would be fair either; I was being ironic again there -- using one absurd proposition to set off the absurdity of another.)
And I realize some of you are very young, so I'll provide a link for the "wild and crazy guy" phrase. In fact, here's some actual video. And here's some more. Or go look at the nice sunset. Because here at Brad Warthen's Blog, we are all about freewheeling fun.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Nov 27, 2007 10:05:32 PM
So, lets get this straight...this is a blog post about another post in regards to an article somewhere else?
Why did this come up when I did a Google search for news about Ron Paul?
I cannot believe I wasted my time reading it, much last actually posting a comment. I am about ready to stop using Google at all.
I wonder if this guy paid as much as "the spoof" does to get into those searches?
Posted by: jerry | Nov 27, 2007 10:14:25 PM
I dunno...these look kind of fun...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fxfE3dgCUO0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=udzKtJjF5Ys
Oh well, half the time we libertarians are accused of being utopians. Go figure.
Posted by: Kevin Parker | Nov 27, 2007 10:17:23 PM
haha excellent blog
Posted by: Dave the Libertarian | Nov 27, 2007 10:20:07 PM
Let me illuminate the inexplicable phrase "freewheeling fun" as it relates to libertarianism: libertarians are universally for legalizing drugs, prostitution, and gambling; they are universally against high taxes, welfarism, miltarism,and speech restrictions. In short they love freedom and are "freewheeling" in their tolerance of pot smokers and prostitutes. If you think liberal democrats are freewheeling how do you explain their support of the war on drugs, smut, gambling, and prostitution - that's hardly freewheeling and seems puritanical to me.
Posted by: jed | Nov 27, 2007 10:34:27 PM
Those DO look kind of fun there, Kevin.
But jerry raises a good point (and I won't even go into how cruising Google for "Ron Paul" references is the ultimate stereotypical behavior for a Ron Paul supporter) -- now that this has happened to me twice, you'd think I would remember that putting "Ron Paul" into a headline is an awfully cheap way to drive new traffic to a site. Like luring unsuspecting children with candy.
It's as lame as Will's pictures of ingenues. I will hang my head and resolve to go back to earnest, sober treatment of, oh I don't know, Mitt Romney's constant protestations that he is TOO a real conservative or some such, first thing tomorrow.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Nov 27, 2007 10:37:35 PM
Well here is some real Ron Paul news since there wasn't any in the original post.
I attended Ron Paul's speech tonight in Charleston South Carolina. There were hundreds in attendance and the speech was fantastic.
Before Ron Paul came out , the speaker let the crowd know they were all crazy and a bunch of kooks - they had to be to be supporters of Ron Paul. The crowd loved it. Then he told us about Sean Hannity telling everyone how we need to go bomb Iran - right away - the sooner the better-
It turns out the kooks- the crazies- are running the White House - ruining our once great nation.
Dr. Paul gave an excellent speech which was loved by the large enthusiastic crowd - I took my two older sons to see the great Statesman and to let them get educated on the meaning of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Ron Paul signs are everywhere in the Charleston area . Pro more war is going to be a tough sell come primary time .
Go Ron Paul
Posted by: truthseeker | Nov 27, 2007 10:44:31 PM
Libertarians are loving the piggy back ride on this campaign. I haven't decided yet if they help or hurt it.
But Libertarianism can be free wheelin' fun. Prostitution, Marijuana decriminalization, and legalized gambling.
Sounds like a good time to me.
Posted by: guerilla | Nov 28, 2007 1:43:21 AM
Brad -
You really need to get out more. You've had the opportunity to see first hand how much fun Ron Paul's supporters are over the past two days. The State again has failed to mention Ron Paul's visits to South Carolina, so I can see how you could miss them. Here are some links to coverage of the events.
http://www.wcbd.com/midatlantic/cbd/news.apx.-content-articles-CBD-2007-11-27-0012.html
http://www.abcnews4.com/news/stories/1107/475839.html
http://news.ccpblogs.com/2007/11/26/ron-paul-gives-students-alternative-to-afternoon-soap-operas-judge-shows/
If McClatchey is so bad off that you can't get gas money to go, drop me a line and we can carpool next time!
Steve
Posted by: Steve Hood | Nov 28, 2007 8:21:16 AM
If you are going to try to capture it in a word or two, it seems that "Chicken Little cult" would come closer than "freewheeling fun."
-Brad
This from someone who actually believes all this crap about the terrorists coming to get us? Really Brad, until you can see how you've been suckered into believing our occupation of Iraq is based entirely on fear you have no business accussing anyone else of "chicken little" behavior.
Posted by: bud | Nov 28, 2007 9:00:09 AM
Brad, I am sorry you had to explain yourself. Some of my fellow Ron Paul supporters have been responding to so many attacks on us and our candidate and smear jobs, sometimes the humor is missed. I got it. Some others did, too.
On the other hand, I still can't figure out why so many people on the left and right criticize libertarians. How can anyone criticize liberty? It is the purpose and reason for the existence of our country. Republicans and Democrats alike seem to only want freedom for their own thoughts and plans but no one else's. Libertarians want everyone to be free and all that means is to do as we please as long as we don't infringe upon the rights of others. If you disagree, then on some level you are OK with oppression.
You asked for someone who has actually had their rights being trampled on. Well, we all have because we could all be labeled as enemy combatants at the whim of the President simply for speaking out against him. Read the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. Everyone is a suspect and can be searched without cause, imprisoned without trial or representation (you've heard Habeas Corpus was suspended, right?), and never heard from again. This isn't just about brown people locked up in Gitmo, this is about all of us and our government's willingness to change the rules to make things easier for them. They are weak. Anyone who blindly follows them is also weak. Are you weak? Or, are you willing to defend yourself?
Posted by: Nick | Nov 28, 2007 11:47:38 AM
Nothing like a post on Ron Paul to bring out the crazies. It's like baiting a World of Warcraft nerd with a Hershey bar.
Posted by: Harden Gervais | Nov 28, 2007 1:17:57 PM
bud, I need to come back to the point you raise in a separate post. It's something that interests me; I just haven't figured out how to approach the topic. Here's the idea, as far as it goes: It interests me that people who oppose the aggressive pursuit of this war constantly talk about "fear." And it always strikes me as odd, because fear is not a thing I have ever felt with regard to these issues. And I can't think of when I've noticed anyone who advocates policies from the same perspective I do (that would be someone like Tom Friedman, for instance) who advocates those policies on the basis of fear. Certain policies simply seem wise under certain circumstances.
Part of it might be that I don't approach issues in a personal way. If I were feeling an emotion so powerful as fear, I would be inclined not to address the topic, because I would not trust my responses. I look at national security issues in terms of what seems the wisest policy to follow for the sake of the nation, or of the collective security of all nations. I don't think, "What will make ME feel better, or allay some uneasiness in MY mind." If I did, I would not trust my conclusions.
My health care column was a rare departure from that course, but a departure I thought was necessary. Because I am very different from the picture people have in their minds when you say "health care crisis" -- they tend to picture uninsured people going to emergency rooms for primary care -- I thought I had to get personal to make my point. I hoped to encourage more people who are among the six out of seven WITH insurance to step forward with their stories as well, and then maybe we can start changing this debate. But believe me, I was highly uncomfortable with doing that. It's much easier to write thoughtfully and dispassionately about the things that don't concern you intimately -- and of course, that's the orthodox journalistic approach.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Nov 28, 2007 3:30:03 PM
Thanks, Nick. And I'll try to explain. Some of us love liberty dearly, and know that we enjoy more of it than any large group of people in human history. We see ourselves blessed by liberty, and don't see it endangered -- or perhaps I should say (what with the need for eternal vigilance, etc.) that the endangerment of liberty is very far down on the list of things we need to be worrying about as a society.
Many of the solutions that we nonlibertarians come up with to deal with the ACTUAL threats that we see get nixed, time and again, by libertarians. And to some extent, you're playing a valuable role. We should always consider the burden that a new tax places on the public, no matter how good the use of that revenue might be.
But Nick, sometime back in about the 1980s we encountered a tipping point in this country, a point at which libertarianism became so dominant that it started preventing any solutions to anything. Particularly from the perspective of someone who lives in and cares about the state of South Carolina, libertarianism is an extremely destructive force. We have so many basic, fundamental elements of public infrastructure that are essential to what most of us consider a healthy civilization that have always been neglected and underfunded in this state. From crumbling highways to enforcing highway safety, from maintaining prisons to protecting public health, to the biggie that holds South Carolina back the most -- an inadequately trained work force -- there is a crying need to roll up our sleeves and solve some problems, working TOGETHER, and libertarianism militates very successfully against getting anything done.
You have to see it to believe it -- all these allegedly "conservative" lawmakers who are actually libertarians, walking around the State House moaning about the burden of high taxes and excessive spending and "growing government," when they have presided over an unprecedented dismantling and crumbling of what social infrastructure our state DID once have, and there hasn't been a general tax increase in the state since 1987.
Oh, wait, excuse me -- this past year they did increase the sales tax to pay for eliminating ALL of the property taxes that pay for school operation. And how did they do it? Did they then adopt a school funding mechanism that would eliminate the gap between rich and poor district, which would be the ONLY rational reason to shift from a local tax on property to a state sales tax? Of course not. And so now we have an overstrained, TOO-HIGH, increasingly unstable sales tax funding probably the most important function the state has.
And why? Because despite the powerful strain of libertarianism in the state's electorate, the sales tax is not hated as much as the property tax. And why is that? Because property owners actually believe the preposterous proposition that THOSE PEOPLE out there who don't own property (and we know who is meant by THOSE PEOPLE, don't we?) don't pay taxes at all unless you stick them with a higher sales tax, which of course takes a higher portion of the income of the poor since they have to all of their income to survive. This, amazingly, ignores the clear, obvious fact that the property tax on rental property has ALWAYS been higher than on owner-occupied property -- and of course that is passed on in the form of higher rent, making it harder for renters ever to become homeowners. And NOW, with this latest tax shift, the poor are trebly screwed, because there was no relief given to the property tax on rental property, while the entire burden of school operations was removed from owner-occupied property.
All of this, each step of the way, is driven by a politics of "what is good for ME" -- from the property owner to the politician -- rather than what would be good for the state as a whole. It's driven by "I've got MINE and I'm not sharing it with YOU" rather than by asking what we need to do to catch up to the prosperity and overall well-being of other states in the union. In other words, it is driven by libertarianism.
It's always I-me-mine, and never ever WE -- and a healthy society has a balance between the two, so that individuals can prosper in prosperous communities. The balance went out of our politics a long time ago.
When I hear libertarians, I hear people who want to make the imbalance worse, not better.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Nov 28, 2007 3:59:25 PM
And Nick, when you say "we all have" had rights trampled on, I have to say you're wrong. The danger you speak of is simply not a danger. You are far more likely to be struck by lightning -- twice, probably -- than to be labeled an "enemy combatant." That is, unless there are some things about you that you're not sharing. If you've spent half of the past year in a radical Islamist madrassah somewhere between London and Kabul being taught the finer points of IED manufacture, then I stand corrected. You might be in danger of being detained. Otherwise, I sincerely and very strongly doubt it.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Nov 28, 2007 4:07:56 PM
