Tom Woods Has Still Got It
Holy cow Tom is amazing in this interview with Dennis Miller. If some of you up-and-coming libertarians wonder, “Why is Tom such a big deal, and I’m stuck arguing with people on Bob’s blog?”, here’s your answer.
I am not even going to spell out all the subtle nuances in how he managed to intrigue Miller without coming off as a “Paultard.”
Beyond the expert sense of persuasiveness, Tom also exhibits courage. I have to confess, I think I would have been afraid of having Dennis Miller not think I was a cool kid at the end of the interview. But Tom was willing to risk it…and hence Dennis Miller thought he was a cool kid.
Hey Tom, “What’s it like?”
(I’m trying to be funny of course in this post, but really, I am going to listen to this interview again tomorrow and study it. Tom might not even have realized why it “worked,” but I noticed several things that he did to lead to the climax.)
We need to get Tom Woods to teach a How to be a Cool Kid class at the Mises Academy. First lecture could be How to Call Mitt Romney a Plastic Man to a Republican and Get Away With it. Great interview.
I couldn’t even wait until tomorrow. I put off the article I had planned on writing tonight, and listened to the interview again. I am still amazed.
(And yes, Daniel Kuehn: I know what your response will be about “if a private insurer funded things like this, we’d throw them in jail.” C’mon, say your zinger.)
Huh? You mean this will be my response to the article tomorrow?
Woods is actually better here than I think he is in a lot of places – he’s actually focusing on the entitlements, which is precisely where we need to focus on the budget. I would disagree that of the two, Social Security is far, far less of an issue, but that’s not such a big deal for me. I’d rather have people focuson both programs and somewhat over-hype the Social Security threat than not pay attention to either of them.
DK do I have to show you how to be a better progressive? 🙂
I think if Dean Baker had been on the show, he would have chimed in, “Oh, so Dr. Woods, you’re saying that if a private insurance company held Treasury securities, and listed them as assets, we would throw them in jail?”
(Of course Tom’s general point was an insurance company referring to its own bonds as genuine assets, above and beyond incoming revenues. But still it would have been a good zinger for people who already doubted the neo-Confederate.)
Am I a progressive?
Sometimes I refer to myself as that I guess… fair enough.
I just get happy when budget talk actually covers entitlements.
So, have you realized why it worked?
Great interview.
As for how he did it, one thing I noticed was that Tom always spoke as if he and Dennis were on the same team. He didn’t get defensive about liking the Pauls, nor did he go on the offensive and attack Miller for not seeing the evil of Mitt Romney.
That, and he was funny, which is like kryptonite for Dennis.
Tom Woods does an excellent job of exposing the poverty-inducing murderous warmongering Keynesian Kleptocracy in “Rollback”. His writing style is the same as his speaking style which makes his books easy and enjoyable to read while at the same time being chock-full of facts, analysis and anecdotes. It’s good that he has such a cheerful writing style because in the first chapter he grapples with the sad fact that the American people are almost completely disingaged from our impending economic doom and actually want the government to spend even more than it does.
I just stored the inteview on my iPod and noticed that the title of the file (as given to it by the Miller show) is:
“Like saving ten cents on a trip to the moon”.
Also see:
http://tinyurl.com/4vy5lpy
They clearly liked Tom Woods’ joke.
See, you really CAN bring an Austrian to a party.
Wow, you’re right. That was brilliant. He must have those same superpowers that you’re still hiding.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/01/murphy-on-freedomwatch-the-myth-of-the-myth-of-big-government.html
Will Dr. Murphy write review of Rollback soon?
One reason for Tom Woods’ success was that he was uncompromising without coming across as kooky or shrill. He spoke as if libertarian ideas are common sense — and, of course, they are. I think it is important for libertarians to be uncompromising. The socialists got most of their programs passed in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries not by pretending to be moderates but by refusing to compromise on the road to a communist utopia. Using this strategy, the socialists failed to enact their entire program in most countries, but they achieved much more success than if they had been moderate. The defenders of liberty should use this tactic to defeat socialism.
I’ve been telling people for a couple years about Tom (and you too Bob), but until it’s presented on an acceptable platter, interest is tough to come by.
I give Dennis all the credit in the world (although I gave up on him about the same time I embraced the Austrian camp) for admitting his deficiency and wanting more – isn’t that how we got to this blog in the first place? It makes it so much easier for the rest of us to avoid the “crazy” stigma attached to liberty and pass it onto our more hesitant brethren…obviously thanks to Tom as well.
I don’t think there’s a crazy stigma attached to liberty – I think there’s a crazy stigma attached to libertarianism. There’s a big difference between the two, although even that stigma is substantially overstated by libertarians themselves. I’ve heard lots of libertarians say things to me like “I’m sure you’re worried we’re a bunch of crazies”, etc. It’s always kind of strange – lots of the thoughts cross my mind w.r.t. libertarians, but that one never does – and yet it’s something they’re always very worried about.
Overstated?
Don’t know what circles you run, but anarchists that run down the fightin’ heroes of Merica get the “crazy” tag rather sharpish in mine.
I witnessed Glen Beck, who many consider the true looney of libertarianism, call those that believe the way we do “nuts” with a backhanded flip. I now take that as the highest of compliments, but the fact remains that our point of view is considered insane by a vast, vast majority.
When a bright bulb and highly respected voice from that neck of the woods (nice pun eh?) praises a voice from ours while simultaneously reconsidering his entire philosophy, holy significant cuss word batman, the dam has been breeched.
Ha – well Beck is a genuine kook and he calls everybody else “nuts”. Just be glad he doesn’t call you a Nazi. I wouldn’t take Beck all that personally.
I just recall that great coverage in the New York Times of the intellectual influences on the Tea Party, and what was the reaction?
“Oh they think we’re crazy – they’re mocking us”.
“Where did they call you crazy or mock you?” I asked
“You have to read between the lines it’s dripping with contempt”
Ohhh… read between the lines…. it’s implied… OK
Sure some people are going to end up thinking you’re crazy. That’s inevitable. I think much of it is imagined.
Yeah you have to read between the lines when MSM calls us Paultards and Tea baggers.
Watch this video. You’ll have to look deep within the lines to see the insult but it’s there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV_Q8WFB9Bw
You have to dig real deep in these two articles to find the crazy stigma but it’s there.
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/17/ron-paul-is-a-vicious-anti-semite-and-anti-american-and-conservatives-need-to-wash-their-hands-of-him/
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/17/the-anti-semites-who-swarmed-us-at-cpac-and-the-future-of-the-right/
Beck calls those he believes are supporters of big government crazy quite often. But when he looks over his shoulder at those that say he’s one in the same and calls them crazy as well, then you find yourself in his super crazy upper division.
But, alas, I don’t need some media outlet or self aggrandized pseudo intellectual radio personality, I’ve got my wife, some friends and family, and plenty of acquaintances that have used “crazy” or “nuts” or “get the tinfoil off your head”. It could be my presentation that helps them to draw the curtains, but it is the content that raises the crazy flag.
I generally pass over your posts in this blog because they’re quite thick and the above two are great examples.
Don’t worry DK, I’ve got this one:
Dan, whatever do you mean? Horowitz is just in favor of handwashing. It cuts down on disease. As a medical doctor, Ron Paul should favor conservatives washing their hands. Don’t you? Are you against vaccinations too?
Dan –
I’m not sure what you’re missing here. I said some people do call libertarians crazy, did I not? I said “that’s inevitable” in fact. My claim is that libertarians tend to think it is far more expansive and suspicious than it really is. What I’m floored by is that your ace in the hole is thoses two guys saying Ron Paul is a nut because he agrees with Assange. You seem completely insulated from the media if you think that that is some sort of excessive, notable attack. Liberals get called worse in the comment section of this blog, much less in the media itself!
I don’t understand you, Dan. I say libertarians exaggerate animosity towards them and you think I’m saying there is no animosity ever expressed towards them.
As for the Horowitz links – that man is a hate-monger. How is the fact that he says hateful things about one more person in any sense a refutation of what I’m saying here? Again, you seem to think I’m saying “nobody says anything bad about libertarians” or “Fox is just fine with Ron Paul and never treats him unfairly”. All I’m saying is that libertarians imagine an insurmountable wall of bad pressand unfairness facing them, when (1.) the substantially exaggerate it – their biggest problem is that the press isn’t aware of them, and (2.) if they actually paid attention to the media they’d realize the abuse they get is dwarfed by the abuse heaped on liberals by conservatives and on conservatives by liberals.
DK, you said,
“I don’t understand you, Dan. I say libertarians exaggerate animosity towards them and you think I’m saying there is no animosity ever expressed towards them.”
Yes, it would be hard to understand me if you put your own words in my mouth.
I put up two articles and a video that would seem to punch a whole in saying we exaggerate the animosity. I didn’t claim that you said there was NO animosity. So I guess you’re saying you haven’t seen enough evidence at this point? How many articles or videos do you need to see?
you said,
“(2.) if they actually paid attention to the media they’d realize the abuse they get is dwarfed by the abuse heaped on liberals by conservatives and on conservatives by liberals.”
Libertarians understand fully that the MSM pits you guys against each other. We just find it sad that it works.
You don’t seem to argue that MSM is right in their insults of Paultard, racist, anti-semite, etc. but just that libertarians don’t get it as bad as R’s and D’s. Here’s what I find disturbing. I would join you in condemning the MSM in an unjust attack on a R or a D. I wouldn’t make excuses for them like you are doing when they attack libertarians. I find the Obama gets it worse defense of their actions to be very weak.
re: “Yes, it would be hard to understand me if you put your own words in my mouth.”
Well then try to make the words coming out of your mouth more clear because I have no idea why you think what you’re showing me as if it refutes any claims I’ve put out there. The fact that bad stuff has been said about libertarians and that some people think libertarians are crazy doesn’t refute the claim that you all exaggerate it.
re: “I wouldn’t make excuses for them like you are doing when they attack libertarians.”
I haven’t been making excuses – stop using smears and insults as counter-arguments. I’ve said there is no excuse for every single example of a low-blow that you or Bob has furnished me with. And there was one case that seemed so inconsequential I raised doubts about whether it was intentional. But there’s nothing you’ve provided that struck me as being intentional that I have “excused”. So don’t accuse me of that. I deal very fairly with libertarians.
DK said,
“The fact that bad stuff has been said about libertarians and that some people think libertarians are crazy doesn’t refute the claim that you all exaggerate it.”
How exactly would you like for me to refute your opinion? Apparently linking to people in the MSM calling us Paultards, anti-semite, nuts, racist, etc. isn’t going to cut it for you.
you said,
“I haven’t been making excuses – stop using smears and insults as counter-arguments.”
I don’t know why I would assume you were making excuses when you said,
“I mean, it’s creepy I guess but it’s Fox. This is not the first time they’ve shown the wrong video or spliced it in misleading ways.”
I thought the excuse was Fox always does this kind of stuff. I think I might have thought you were making excuses because every time you agree they did something wrong you follow it with but….
Dude – noting something didn’t seem to be an intentional insult is not excusing insult. When I see insult I don’t excuse it.
You are confusing excusing Fox News with refusing to indulge you.
I don’t excuse them and I don’t indulge you. Get over it.
I’m not asking you to indulge me but since you made the claim that we exaggerate the animosity we get in MSM I thought I would respond since I disagree. I’m just not sure what kind of evidence you would want to see to change your opinion because when I put up a link that specifically calls Ron Paul a nut you said,
“What I’m floored by is that your ace in the hole is thoses two guys saying Ron Paul is a nut because he agrees with Assange. You seem completely insulated from the media if you think that that is some sort of excessive, notable attack. Liberals get called worse in the comment section of this blog, much less in the media itself!”
If they call us a nut, anti-semite, Paultard, etc. you say it’s no biggie because liberals get called worse. Seems like it is heads you win, tails I lose arguing with you.
1. I never said calling you a “nut”, a “Paultard”, or an “anti-Semite”. Was “no biggie”. I never said that Dan. Not once.
2. You are welcome to disagree with me. You are not welcome to accuse me of “excusing” inappropiate attacks.
Can you explain the difference between saying the attack was not excessive or notable and no biggie?
Dan, I’m saying it (this whole CPAC 2011/2010 thing) didn’t constitute an attack!
You can’t say I excuse it when bullies punching people in the face if a bully never punches someone in the face and I simply note that no attack has occurred.
Now you were giving a list of examples and at the time we were discussing whether the media has a bias against libertarians. I said that a hand ful of media cases doesn’t prove that claim – that libertarians are still exaggerating the problem. But just because it doesn’t prove that claim doesn’t mean that what does go on is appropriate. I said it wasn’t.
To bring it back to the bully analogy. If a kid came to me and said “everybody at school is a bully and punched me”, when in actuality only one bully punched the kid, I can simultaneously claim that (1.) the kid was exaggerating the situation, and (2.) it was inappropriate for that one bully to punch him.
“What I’m floored by is that your ace in the hole is thoses two guys saying Ron Paul is a nut because he agrees with Assange. You seem completely insulated from the media if you think that that is some sort of excessive, notable attack. Liberals get called worse in the comment section of this blog, much less in the media itself!”
They called him a martian and a nut for saying when truth is treason you’re in trouble. You are the one that said it wasn’t excessive or a notable attack. Don’t pretend you were talking about the CPAC video when you said that. Either defend your statement above as is or retract it but don’t act as if you were talking about some other video.
Dan –
You were offering the CNN clip as evidence that the MSM has a substantial animosity towards libertarians. I was simply countering that one instance of insult that’s more tame than a lot of other things said in the MSM is not evidence of that. I never once said it was OK for CNN to make those statements – only that it was not proof against my point that libertarians exaggerate the animosity.
If you can find me a place where I said it was OK for them to mock libertarians, by all means share it. But you’re not going to find a place where I say that. What I will say is that the mocking that does go on is vastly exaggerated by libertarians, and that’s all I said in response to your link.
I didn’t say you defended the attack as justified. I said you said it was no biggie. Your response was that you never said no biggie so I asked what the difference was between not excessive or notable and no biggie?
Dan, I’m sick of explaining myself to you. You clearly want to be downtrodden or oppressed. You’re going to continue to think I’m turning a blind eye to that no matter how many times I clarify, so there’s really no point in me doing this anymore.
Read the conversation. I said that the mocking that went on at CNN was in no way a demonstration that the MSM is ganging up on libertarians. If you think I said anything more than that, or if you think I approved of what they said, then you’ve misinterpreted me.
I just quoted what you said. You were the one who called the CNN attack not excessive or notable. I didn’t put words in your mouth. I even acknowledged that you weren’t condoning the attack but you did say it was no biggie. What is the difference between saying not excessive or notable and no biggie?
I also would love to counter your position that we exaggerate our claims but you don’t offer what you would need to see for me to change your opinion. Obviously linking articles and interviews where we are called nuts, Martians, etc. isnt going to cut it for you so what will?
Dan, are you being purposefully obtuse? You quoted my explanation of why that one incident on CNN (and its nature as a relatively mundane insult) is not proof that libertarians are accurately representing the extent of the abuse. You seem to think saying that is saying that that incident doesn’t matter. Could you explain why you think those two are the same thing? Could you explain why you keep accusing me of this when I keep clarifying over and over again (and refer you back to the context of the discussion).
Let’s bring it back to the bully example. A kid says every single student at schools is a bully and is beating him up. I would counter that that is not the case. The kid counters with bruises from an incident with one bully. I suggest to him that that is relatively minor compared to the initial claim that everyone at school is a bully and beating on him. I add that it was not good that that single bully beat on him.
Clear?
Get over this Dan. The more you come at it the more convinced I am that you are not discussing this with me in good faith.
If you think I am saying that insulting libertarians is OK, then you are misinterpreting me. I have never said that.
I clearly said you weren’t condoning the attacks as justified. I’m not sure why you can’t see that but you did say that it wasn’t excessive or notable which to me meant no biggie. Can you explain the difference between what you said and no biggie?
I also have asked you repeatedly to tell me what you need to see as evidence we aren’t exaggerating our claims since linking articles where they call us nuts and Martian isn’t good enough for you?
These aren’t trick questions but since you won’t tell me the difference between no biggie and not excessive or notable or what you want to see as evidence, I’m going to keep asking.
re: “Can you explain the difference between what you said and no biggie?”
I’ve addressed this repeatedly, Dan.
You are right that I have not discussed what evidence would be required. I’m not sure what evidence there could be. It’s not like either of us can provide a comprehensive census. It’s an impression I have. And it’s an impression you have too. What evidence would you provide to prove your position? It’s a tough thing to prove with evidence.
I can reiterate what has lead me to this impression, though. I see great reviews of the intellectual background of the Tea Party in the New York Times and in The Economist, but then when I see the libertarian reaction to it on blogs they’ve interpreted these articles as hit pieces. You see it in things like the Keynes vs. Hayek rap where the Hayek character is being portrayed as the guy nobody knows at the same time that he is #1 on the Amazon best sellers list and featured on several mainstream media TV programs. Its hints of things like that that suggest to me a certain degree of a persecution complex. It’s posts and comments like I see on here outraged at a relatively minor problem in the Fox News coverage of CPAC. I get the impression of extreme excess. In the midst of Keynesians and liberals being called fascists and communists, many libertarians are preoccupied with extremely minor stuff like this or completely imagined insults (like the NY Times article). My assessment is that there is a lot of paranoia.
html FAIL
I’d appreciate it if you answer my question now.
I only find it fair that if I demand answers to my questions that I address yours but I’m not sure what question or questions you would like me to answer. If you post them again I will give an answer.
This from earlier: “You quoted my explanation of why that one incident on CNN (and its nature as a relatively mundane insult) is not proof that libertarians are accurately representing the extent of the abuse. You seem to think saying that is saying that that incident doesn’t matter. Could you explain why you think those two are the same thing? Could you explain why you keep accusing me of this when I keep clarifying over and over again (and refer you back to the context of the discussion).”
I don’t understand how you get from “X example is not proof against my claim that libertarians exaggerate because it is isolated and not especially harsh or commonly heard relative to other things in the media” to “X example is no big deal and thus I excuse it”.
Those seem to be two very different claims and I am unclear why you are repeatedly attaching the latter to me when I am repeatedly telling you I have said the former.
First, let me say a couple things. I’m not trying to agitate or be obtuse. I am trying to find common ground with you here. I disagree with you on many things but I don’t think you are evil or stupid. If what I write comes off that way it is not intentional.
Ok, so I am not saying that you are saying that the CNN is no big deal and thus you excuse it. I am saying that I understand you don’t condone the attack but you think it is no big deal because it’s commonplace. I think this is where we are going in circles.
So here’s why I take exception to that view. When someone in the MSM calls a defense of Assange leaking truthful documents as nuts and calls him a Martian, I find it to be a big deal. If the MSM said that about Glenn Greenwald, a progressive, I would think it is a big deal. They aren’t making an intellectual argument to counter Ron Paul’s position, they are just slanging insults. I take exception to our ideas being labeled as nuts whether it is common place for the MSM or not. To me, the fact that it is common place shows that the media is just a propaganda machine.
I’m not claiming that libertarians are the only ones who get this kind of treatment either. I feel any position that is held that doesn’t conform to what the MSM sees as acceptable discourse is derided and minimized. If you stand against war, you are crazy and dangerous. If you stand against foreign aid, you are an anti-semite. If you are against the minimum wage, you are heartless. If you are for nullification and secession, you are a neo-confederate and racist.
Libertarians tend to be on the opposite side of mainstream opinion on most of their views. When we are, I don’t see an attempt to go toe to toe with our ideas in the MSM. They usually just throw some stupid label at us as if that is sufficient to discredit our ideas.
But again, it’s not just libertarians that get this treatment. Glenn Greenwald is a perfect example of this kind of treatment. He touches the third rail on foreign policy and Israel and look at the treatment he gets. Look at this article
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/11/campaigns/index.html
I think we should be able to come together and say that the MSM uses derogatory labels against any nonconforming view they don’t like. I think it should be easy for both of us to say that kind of treatment is a big deal because it limits the ability of the public to make informed decisions. The MSM was able to use lies and half truths to get the people behind these awful wars that we are still in. They derided all the people who were speaking the truth as unpatriotic and such. This behavior is a big deal no matter what the topic is under discussion. They are putting the shuck on the rubes, as Gary North likes to say, when they use this tactic. The tactic is offensive and should be shouted down any time it is used.
As far as the accusation that we exaggerate our claims, I’m not sure we can move forward in that regard. If there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise then it would be a pointless exercise to try.
On the exaggeration point – yes, I doubt there’s anything you could do. Do make me change my mind on that I would have to have a completely new set of life experiences, which is not within yout power to provide. I imagine it works the same the other way. There is nothing I could do to change your mind that libertarians are embattled as you suggest they are.
I personally don’t see calling someone “nuts” as a big deal. Liberals do that to libertarians. Libertarians do it to liberals. Conservatives do it to both and both do it to conservatives. It’s background obnoxiousness for me – not acceptable, but not a big deal either. If I thought it was more than just snide short-hand for “I disagree with you and dismiss your point”, I might be more worried. I get more concerned about accusations that (1.) all secessionists are racist, (2.) all liberals are statists, etc. Those are actual substantive attacks. The idea the libertarians get a disproportionate amount of these attacks relative to their share of the population involved in the discussion is not a claim I find credible. Of course, when it does happen its not a good thing. I think DiLorenzo is sloppy and wrong on a lot of points, but I’d be concerned if someone called him a racist – there doesn’t seem to be evidence that he is a racist. There does seem to me to be evidence that he is very confused.
When people dismiss libertarianism, though, I think in a lot of cases it’s because they’ve thought about it and rejected libertarianism. I would openly say I don’t think libertarianism is a viable or intelligent position to have. Is that an “attack”? I don’t think so, because I’ve spent some time evaluating it.
A couple final notes because I think we’ve taken this as far as its going to go. I could be convinced to give up any view I hold. It would take a compelling argument to do it but I always change my view if someone convinces me I was wrong. I used to be a die hard liberal and I’m now an anarchocapitalist so I can clearly be swung to change a position I hold.
I think we are closer on our opinions of the tactics used by MSM. I find them to be more offensive though. I don’t have a problem with it in the real world because I think a lot of people are just confused. I had a coworker call my views communist before so I don’t take it seriously in that regard. When the media does it though, even if just to say “I disagree and dismiss your point”, I find it to be dangerous. I feel it is the responsibility of all media to vigorously debate ideas and avoid ad hominem attacks. If they disagree and just dismiss an idea then don’t bring it up at all. If they can’t put up an intellectual defense then they have no business discussing the matter. It only helps to divide the country when they go down that path (I believe this is intentional). I find it to be a big deal anytime the MSM uses ad hominem attacks. I can’t for the life of me see what their intent is when they do this other than to squelch debate on a topic they feel is beyond acceptable discourse. That is dangerous.
Lastly, I don’t have any problem with calling Horowitz nuts when he calls Ron Paul an anti-semite. I don’t feel that all positions that people hold must be rigorously discussed. It is pointless to try to have an intellectual discussion with someone who doesn’t make intellectual arguments and just uses ad hominems. I think Gary North makes a good case for how to deal with these people in this article.
http://www.garynorth.com/public/7665.cfm
Well, at least one person thinks libertarians-are-insane is a well deserved stigma;
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/02/empirical-proof-that-americas-libertarians-are-completely-insane.html
Although, he does only mention American libertarians.
He also uses colorful adjectives for a wide swath of people… with boy who cried wolf implications, in my mind 🙂
Daniel,
Right. Guess I should have read between the lines. ;-).
Thanks for the link, that volokh post was hilarious.
Dr. Woods always comes off as very thin skinned and defensive to me. I know he means well but it is there, perhaps it is his catholicism or being the odd man out so often.
You want to give an example or are you just firing insults from the hip with nothing to back up your claims?