I recently came across a Youtube video from 1988, in which Ron Paul appeared on the Morton Downey program. Mr. Downey ranks among the rudest and most grotesque television personalities of all time. Compared to him, Joe Pyne was mild-mannered, and Jerry Springer a paragon of good taste. Over much ranting and raving from Downey, Ron Paul eloquently calls for an end to the war on drugs, at that time a much more controversial position than it is now. At one point in the program, Downey runs up to Ron Paul and says. “If I had slime like you in the White House, I’d puke on you!” (This appears around 5:30 in the video) Ron Paul, unfazed, continues to argue for liberty.
-RW
Ron Paul getting lectured on the war on drugs from a coke addict.
ReplyDeleteA vitriolic shouting, name calling match. Pathetic. Throwing pearls before swine. Ron's learned a lot since then. Now he would not allow himself to be drawn in to this kind of nonsense.
ReplyDeleteIt's ok. While Morton what's-his-name has long since been forgotten by many, Ron Paul and his message has entered the public consciousness via numerous conduits and will continue to.
ReplyDeleteIt's impressive to see the improvement in Ron Paul's delivery by the time he was on the stage with Rudy.
ReplyDeleteI was a liberal until I saw Ron Paul on Bill Maher's show. Bill Maher spent his first interview trying to ridicule every view that Ron Paul had as too extreme, but Paul did a great job of rooting his view in terms that a liberal viewer of the show could appreciate and agree with. Then, he drew his explanation into libertarian territory. It worked like a charm on me. He did not do this well on Morton Downey, Jr's show. He was far too confrontational and was insulting others. The high road is always better.
A liberal, to me, is really just a libertarian who doesn't understand or doesn't want to accept how economics works. A lot of that obstinacy is born out of simple intense hatred of the Republican party. The antidote to that is the knowledge that the Republicans never follow their talking points when it comes to economic freedom.
Downey and his audience seem to have the same deficiency in understanding basic economics, but it's hard to counteract that when every other source of information in their lives tells them the opposite of what appears to be the truth.
There is also often great social pressure for uniformity in views. I've actually alienated friends when my views on economics changed.
I enjoy a good ramble.
I recall Ron in 1988 being much more Rand-like than he is now. He ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket that year. He came to Michigan to give a speech which I attended. Then, like now, I did not like how our opposition to the drug war was being explained. Private neighborhood bylaws could and would ban drugs and druggies from most neighborhoods and schools. Much fewer drugs and druggies plus little crime sounds a whole lot better than the drug war plus gangstas. It’s the drug warriors would must love drugs and gangs.
ReplyDeleteI always fear that average people, being practical and non-ideological, will think that if all drugs were “legalized” without more that this would result in meth cookers and their kids living next door and their kids going to your kids’ schools. Which may actually be the case.
After the speech, I told Ron he should explain our position as one of private neighborhoods where drugs are banned by contract without the problem of black markets. He looked at me with disgust and said that he knew how to explain the drug war and then he walked away.
Well he seems to have worked it out now anyway, even if he was stubborn then.
DeleteI believe that Bob. Let's hope Rand comes to his senses sooner rather than later.
DeleteBtw, do you have a link to your PBS interview from years ago? I've looked and have never been able to find one, but I'd love to see/hear it.
It's interesting to consider pre-1900 or so America when considering liberty. There was no Prohibition or drug war and private property was relatively secure. Yet, there was not a rampant "HOA" type society declaring this or that banned by decree and enforced by private police. In the context of pre-1900 America, the idea of one drug, say meth, being worse than another drug, say, alcohol, and those that produce and sell it somehow more undesirable than bartenders or liquor store operators, would, in a society where the State does not arbitrarily fight "wars" on some drugs, probably appear rather ludicrous.
DeleteObviously, your private property society inserted into todays cultural mores would be sound from a libertarian perspective in any number of contexts. Whether it would be any more successful then the gov't's "war on (some) drugs at reducing the supply and demand for drugs or avoiding the problem of black markets for the banned substances is debatable. Unfortunately, most of your practical, non-ideological folks would probably prefer not to "reinvent the wheel" by creating your private property only society and simply hew to the status quo of using the legitimate "in their simple minds" monopoly on violence employed by the gov't in order to "keep drugs out of their neighborhoods." That doesn't work either but that fact alone hasn't been able to destroy their illusion to date. Plus, it fits into their worldview that gov't is necessary and benevolent.
Unknown: That was the 1982 Michigan attorney general debate done by the evil Tim Skubick on the statewide PBS stations. Lucky for me, the recording is in my attic on a betamax tape and my last two used beta machines (which I bought for $100 each in the last five years) have died.
DeleteI was just thinking about the evil Tim Skubick and wondering how someone with a face for radio and who talks like Goofy could be successful on TV.
Deletehttp://wkar.org/programs/record
Then I went over to LRC and read Rothbard’s explanation:
“It is important to realize that the establishment doesn’t want excitement in politics, it wants the masses to continue to be lulled to sleep. It wants kinder, gentler; it wants the measured, judicious,mushy tone, and content, of a James Reston, a David Broder, or aWashington Week in Review. It doesn’t want a Pat Buchanan, not only for the excitement and hard edge of his content, but also for his similar tone and style.
“And so the proper strategy for the right wing must be what we can call ‘right-wing populism': exciting, dynamic, tough, and confrontational, rousing and inspiring not only the exploited masses, but the often-shell-shocked right-wing intellectual cadre as well. And in this era where the intellectual and media elites are all establishment liberal-conservatives, all in a deep sense one variety or another of social democrat, all bitterly hostile to a genuine Right, we need a dynamic, charismatic leader who has the ability to short-circuit the media elites, and to reach and rouse the masses directly. We need a leadership that can reach the masses and cut through the crippling and distorting hermeneutical fog spread by the media elites.”
Funny part towards the end where Ron suggests the government makes the chubby guy go on a diet. Now government is banning big gulps in some places and transfats in others.
ReplyDelete