Little of it is schtick. I will occasionally argue a point to an end to play devil advocate (this is a very rare occasion). I don't love attention, but I do love discourse and debate. It is nothing about ego, but the art of the argument. I maintain that Hype debate has sharpened my intellect more than the entirety of class work.
I never claimed Ron Paul would be the next President. I think the closest I have said was that a win in Iowa would change the landscape. I may have once said he had a chance (which I would stick to, though this would require the perception that he has a chance - which Iowa could provide - and for him to improve his ability to message - which I find far less likely). I did say that I thought Gary Johnson had a shot, but that was before Paul entered the race. I believe that Gary Johnson, though less attractive in Iowa, would have had a much better shot nationally (especially in Florida and New Hampshire) over Ron Paul. His campaign, however, is competely incompatable with a Paul presence. If Paul had not entered, at least half of Paul's 8-12% would have gone to him, which would have qualified him for debates and forced the media to at least acknowledge him. I think his record of experience is better than Paul's, and I think being a new face would have helped with the media. He does have far less charisma in debates, however, than he does speaking to a small audience, so that was an unexpected weakness.
But again, no, "current Norm" is not a schtick - it is the product of intellectual growth. In 2008 my chief interest was winning and losing elections. Watching 9/11 in 7th grade, my chief policy interest, when I decided to look at the issues, was foreign policy - with my views changing as the true nature of war and military adverturism played out in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. I think you will see very little difference in my opinion on war, immigration, the Patriot Act, etc. (I am still slightly more hawkish than Paul in this area, as I am not morally opposed to waterbording a known Al Qaeda agent - but intellectually opposed due to its ineffectiveness. I am similarily not morally offended by the assassination of Al-Awlaki - though acknowledging the need for checks and balances I would have a chief military officer go through a military trial using the defense that Awlaki was an enemy combatant).
This changed, however, when the economy fell apart and no one in the mainstream had answers.
I have been accused of arrogance but it was actually an acknowledgement of my intellectual limits in the subject of economics that really changed my course. I had not, for years, felt remotely outgunned by anyone in the Political Forum on issues in my wheel house - but it was clear Paradoxium was leagues beyond me in economics. So I asked him for help. He pointed me to Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lessonwhich eventually moved me to Austrian Economics. The rest is history.
Now as far as the soap box and "fight the man bull****", it is what I genuinely believe. I think the world is heading towards crisis. And I don't mean 2008 crisis, but one of an unprecedented scale. I think both parties are dominated by faulty economic thinking (Keynesianism, Monetarism or, more typically, economic agnostisism). No one in Congress cares about Monetary Policy (Literally. My Committee deals with monetary policy and we are lucky if four members show up for a hearing on the subject.) Meanwhile Monetary Policy is driving the economy. We have the Fed waging a currency war against the world (causing inflation in China, while we have the gaul of accusing them for currency manipulation, and rising food prices across the world - resulting in Arab Spring). We have Geithner demonstrate a complete lack of tact in trying to dictate to other countries. It's all ****. Best yet? Both Obama's and Romney's economic advisers are Keynesians (google Greg Mankiw for Romney) while Newt has had so many positions that it is impossible to tell what he stands for. So we have no real chance of substantive change on that position.
And my position does not come from an Austrian cocoon. Outside of Paul's hearings, none of the economic experts that testify before my committee are Austrian (and my position requires me to attend every one). I have read books by Krugman and other non-Austrians. I daily read blogs from across the pantheon of economic perspective. My conclusions remain, and increasingly confirmed.
So think of it from my position, I am a 22 year old kid who is kept up all night with visions of a catastrophic collapse in civilization's economic structure who doesn't just think the government doesn't understand the problem but has first hand knowledge that they don't. And instead of discussing the real subjects that matter, the Political Forum is more concerned about rolling their eyes at a Rush Limbaugh quote or similar partisan dribble. Similarly I am working in DC, where anyone who is remotely associated with Ron Paul is laughed at behind their back (which is peculiar since I have many people come to me with economic questions...), so I have few places (outside of Ron Paul's staff) to vent to.
I have never denied being an *******, though I will deny the validity of several specific fractions. But my actions are the result of frustrations and a need to vent. They are genuine, not schtick.
But I also recognize that my behavior has served to deprive me of one source of venting, so I am trying to work on that. I hope I will eventually be readmitted to the Political Forum and hope to avoid infractions for a while after that. Hopefully that aspect of "current Norm" is temporary. But we shall see. I think if people look at my past posts, they will notice that my style hasn't really changed - simply the substance has.