The invisible man – challenging bipartisan orthodoxies of thought

Conor Friedersdorf has an illuminating OpEd on the difference between press coverage of “protest candidates” like John Huntsman and coverage of Ron Paul/Gary Johnson.

Huntsman is challenging orthodoxies of thought that afflict the GOP alone, and taking positions that reflect the conventional wisdom in the media […] In contrast, Johnson and Paul are challenging orthodoxies of thought that are bi-partisan in nature and implicate much of the political and media establishment. […]

For questioning America’s aggressive, interventionist foreign policy and its failed War on Drugs, policies that are tremendously costly, consequential, and executed in ways that are immoral and demonstrably damaging to our civil liberties, Paul and Johnson aren’t given points for speaking uncomfortable truths, shining light on evasions, or affecting the political conversation for the better. […]

But a protest candidate that challenges the bipartisan consensus on foreign policy, the war on drugs, or civil liberties is ignored, no matter the substantive quality of their arguments on those issues. And if their fans complain, it is pointed out that they don’t have a chance of winning. The salutary effect that protest candidates can have on political discourse even if they don’t win is completely forgotten.

I think he’s nailed it pretty well.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The invisible man – challenging bipartisan orthodoxies of thought

  1. Ben says:

    The thing is, Ron Paul has crossed that critical mass threshold where he has so much support that he CANNOT BE IGNORED. And if he is ignored, it actually becomes a story that he’s being ignored.

    I’m just praying that Ron Paul a) Continues to run his campaign throughout the primaries, picking up delegates along the way even if he does not win the nomination, and b) decides to FINALLY run as an independent.

    If Ron Paul participates in the national presidential debates, we’re going to see change accelerate dramatically as millions more voters actually hear the position of personal liberty and personal responsibility. He’s not the best speaker, and not the best debater, but he gets his point across when he needs to!

  2. chuck says:

    am i supposed to think that a different president would be an answer? until the money is taken outta the system, nothing significant will change. what garbage! keep wishing… u give people hope, while good on the face, is just merely a hoax that invariably leads to despair.

    • Plant down Babylon says:

      Considering everyone…..WHY not Ron Paul?!!!

      Then we’ll see what happens could only be better than anyone else!

  3. DdC says:

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich Stands in Opposition to Permanent War and National Security State
    Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the leading advocate for peace in the Congress, today offered a broad critique of the National Defense Authorization Act which continues our disastrous policies in Libya, allows for permanent, global war and reauthorizes harmful provisions of the Patriot Act.

    Ralph Nader Will Organize 2012 Primary Challengers Against Obama

    Ralph Nader is convinced that Barack Obama will win reelection in 2012, but that won’t stop him from trying to organize a slate of Democrats in the coming months to challenge the president in party primaries next year.

    Nader told POLITICO on Wednesday that he is working on bringing together about half a dozen presidential candidates who could “dramatically expand a robust discussion within the Democratic Party and among progressive voters across the country.” Each would focus on a specific issue where the far left says Obama hasn’t done enough, including the environment, labor and health care.

    In an op-ed published Wednesday morning by Bloomberg News, Nader laid out the argument that…Obama is “really in a very, very powerful position” to win reelection, Nader told POLITICO, and the slate of candidates wouldn’t be meant to give Obama a serious challenge for the Democratic nomination, but instead to “structurally pull him in the opposite direction” than he’s taken since his 2008 campaign.

    If there was a group of people from the president’s own party geared up to debate him in Iowa and New Hampshire, “it is harder for him to say no,” Nader said. “His strategists can say, ‘Don’t fight it, Barack; use it, revel in it; you’re good on your feet.”
    Read more.

    Ralph Nader, Ted Turner and Peter Lewis
    Billionaires Against Bull, Going from Charity to Justice
    Posted on July 17, 2011
    In his novel Ralph Nader imagines placing seventeen billionaires in one room to solve the country’s problems, from the redevelopment of New Orleans to a reassessment of corporate citizenry and a plan to address environmental issues. Ralph Nader discussed his political novel with two of the billionaires depicted in his book, businessmen and philanthropists Ted Turner and Peter Lewis.

    Mainstream media continues to call out RT for our journalistic practices, yet the rest of the news world is neglecting to cover the real news in lieu of sensational scandals. Lauren Lyster shares viewer feedback and compares RT with the rest of the MSM.

Comments are closed.