Audio Posted: Ron Paul Tavis Smiley PRI interview (9 min)

[goldenequity]

Ron Paul Tavis Smiley PRI interview (9 min) June 22nd 2007

Ron is invited to a September NPR Republican debate hosted by Tavis Smiley

found HERE (http://www.ronpaulaudio.com)
click on most recent audio files

Good interview, good moderator, handles some tough questions, Ron shines once again!

Randy:)
www.ronpaulaudio.com (http://www.ronpaulaudio.com)

[BLS]

Ron Paul Tavis Smiley PRI interview (9 min) June 22nd 2007

Ron is invited to a September NPR Republican debate hosted by Tavis Smiley

found HERE (http://www.ronpaulaudio.com)
click on most recent audio files

Good interview, good moderator, handles some tough questions, Ron shines once again!

Randy:)
www.ronpaulaudio.com (http://www.ronpaulaudio.com)

He FAILED miserably when asked about Racism.

[findmemonkey]

He would have no job if there was no racism to boast about, he got bills to pay

[ksuguy]

He FAILED miserably when asked about Racism.

I thought he did ok, but Tavis was a little hostile towards him on that question.

[BLS]

I thought he did ok, but Tavis was a little hostile towards him on that question.

Yeah, but he smelled fear and went with it.
Point being....RP HAS to learn to address that better.

[Man from La Mancha]

BLS we meet again. Can you be more detailed on why you thought that Ron failed? I thought he was his consistent good self. He stated he wants people recognized by government as individuals and not as specific groups having more or less rights but equal rights. I feel that is correct and as individual we can have are own views but it is not the right of government to do that.

[goldenequity]

bump:)

[joshdvm]

We all realize how tough an interview this is. Tavis' tacit assumption is that the natural order of society is inherently and fundamentally flawed, in need of intervention--like a recalcitrant patient-- by the omnipotent state. So, obviously, the forum is biased: One who advocates individual freedom is a priori viewed as a 'radical' and put on the defensive, while the 'progressive'--the true radical--may espouse any manner of transgressions against self-determination--all in the name of 'social justice', of course--and get a free pass.

I used to second guess some of Ron's past judgments, but I have long since given this up since, in hindsight, all his decisions have furthered the cause so exceedingly well.

But if there's just ONE thing I'd like to see him do more, it would be always to emphasize the TANGIBLE benefits of less government intervention-- not just say reduce government, and leave it at that. The danger of not constantly emphasizing the tangible benefits of freedom is that the government-inculcated audience may regard 'less government' as a mantra--or worse, a fetish--and will feel someone is trying to take something away from them.

I think he did an outstanding job considering the circumstances and the one caveat. I do wonder how Ron was received by Tavis' regular audience.

[joshdvm]

Ok, I just listened to it again, and I thought he was pretty wonderful, even the race part. I note that Tavis' point regarding color that he seemed to be taking issue with Ron about was incoherent.

[Shmuel Spade]

Ron Paul (and frankly every one else) must acknowledge that Martin Luther King jr. cannot have all of his ideas and thoughts summed up in a quote from the "I Have a Dream Speech." Just because MLK jr. said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," doesn't mean that he rejected things like affirmative action, or reparations. Tavis caught him on this.

Paul should make his message of individual Liberty without reference to anyone else. He can perhaps mention an ideal of particular people, but he certainly can't mention some names as supportive of some ideas. I know he was tired during the interview, but he really needs to step this up, especially in light of the known dirt that enemies are going to throw at him.

[ThePieSwindler]

I thought it was pretty good actually. What happened at the end?

[Nash]

But if there's just ONE thing I'd like to see him do more, it would be always to emphasize the TANGIBLE benefits of less government intervention-- not just say reduce government, and leave it at that. The danger of not constantly emphasizing the tangible benefits of freedom is that the government-inculcated audience may regard 'less government' as a mantra--or worse, a fetish--and will feel someone is trying to take something away from them.


Agreed. A majority of people think that government intervention is good to varying degrees and I think they really have a hard time grasping why organizations like FEMA or the EPA or the DOE are actually bad things that are never worth the funding that is given to them and often harm more than help. In the end the results of any centralized government agency is usually worse rather than better. People don't understand this until they have to deal with them personally. On paper everything usually looks just fine. People really have no grasp that there indeed was decent public education in this country prior to the DOE, or that people actually took care of their own property before the EPA or that local communities helped rebuild their own cities without FEMA.

Most people on these boards realize all this, but the average voter has NO IDEA about this kind of stuff. They honestly translate "abolish the DOE" to mean "Ron Paul hates children".

There is a major disconnect and lack of understanding in the public eye about libertarians solutions to the problems that we face. It is up to the libertarian community to close this gap as quickly as possible.

[LibertyEagle]

But if there's just ONE thing I'd like to see him do more, it would be always to emphasize the TANGIBLE benefits of less government intervention-- not just say reduce government, and leave it at that. The danger of not constantly emphasizing the tangible benefits of freedom is that the government-inculcated audience may regard 'less government' as a mantra--or worse, a fetish--and will feel someone is trying to take something away from them.




I agree with this. People need to be painted a picture.

[Ron Paul Fan Club]

It's my understanding from what I've read in the past, by those who have studied the words of Martin Luther King, that he would have been opposed to things like affirmative action.

[Kaleb]

I too thought Ron did a good job, though he definitely sounded tired. I think that when it comes to racism, he should emphasize his opposition to the War On Drugs, especially from the angle of how disproportionately it affects minorities.

I was surprised RP hadn't accepted the PBS debate invitation yet. I'm definitely looking forward to that one.

[Erazmus]

I thought it was a great interview. As always, Ron speaks the truth. Love it.

[beermotor]

Agreed. A majority of people think that government intervention is good to varying degrees and I think they really have a hard time grasping why organizations like FEMA or the EPA or the DOE are actually bad things that are never worth the funding that is given to them and often harm more than help. In the end the results of any centralized government agency is usually worse rather than better. People don't understand this until they have to deal with them personally. On paper everything usually looks just fine. People really have no grasp that there indeed was decent public education in this country prior to the DOE, or that people actually took care of their own property before the EPA or that local communities helped rebuild their own cities without FEMA.

Most people on these boards realize all this, but the average voter has NO IDEA about this kind of stuff. They honestly translate "abolish the DOE" to mean "Ron Paul hates children".

There is a major disconnect and lack of understanding in the public eye about libertarians solutions to the problems that we face. It is up to the libertarian community to close this gap as quickly as possible.


Precisely - it is OUR JOB to spread knowledge. Paul has just gotten most of us excited about doing it again (likely we abandoned it previously in our idealistic youth).

[Broadlighter]

I think the biggest problem Ron faces comes down to something very simple - the principle that expanded government power reduces human liberty and small-limited government allows for more human liberty. Tavis brought that out and I think he wanted to test Ron Paul's understanding of that principle with regard to Racism.

Ron Paul agreed with Tavis that we ought to appreciate everyone for who they are and what makes people different - he just doesn't believe in using the force of government to make it happen. This is probably the thing that upsets people the most and will draw cries of Racism. The truth is, you can't force someone to like or appreciate someone else.

The same principle applies to everything in politics. Society has a problem like racism or poverty. We appeal to our politicians saying, "Do something about it." Politicians usually answer back, "Ok, let's create a new department to come up with policies and enforcement designed to end racism (or poverty)."

I think the most appropriate answer to questions like this is: "Okay, we have a problem. What ideas do YOU have to help solve the problem and how can we solve this problem without creating more government influence in our personal lives?"

This is what, IMO, we need to educate people about. I think Ron Paul is saying this in his own words and I hope the audience is catching it.

[Shmuel Spade]

It's my understanding from what I've read in the past, by those who have studied the words of Martin Luther King, that he would have been opposed to things like affirmative action.

This seems to be a common misunderstanding that conservatives and libertarians have regarding the work of King. This misunderstanding was spread purposely to piggy back on the success of the King movement, and somehow attempt to use some of his words to counter programs that his successors advocated. An excellent piece discussing just this thing was written by Marcus Epstein for the Lew Rockwell site called, Myths of Martin Luther King (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html). Excerpts:


Myth #1: King wanted only equal rights, not special privileges and would have opposed affirmative action, quotas, reparations, and the other policies pursued by today’s civil rights leadership.

This is probably the most repeated myth about King. Writing on National Review Online, There Heritage Foundation’s Matthew Spalding wrote a piece entitled "Martin Luther King’s Conservative Mind," (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-spalding012102.shtml) where he wrote, "An agenda that advocates quotas, counting by race and set-asides takes us away from King's vision."

The problem with this view is that King openly advocated quotas and racial set-asides. He wrote that the "Negro today is not struggling for some abstract, vague rights, but for concrete improvement in his way of life." When equal opportunity laws failed to achieve this, King looked for other ways. In his book Where Do We Go From Here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807005711/lewrockwell/), he suggested that "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." To do this he expressed support for quotas. In a 1968 Playboy interview, he said, "If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas." King was more than just talk in this regard. Working through his Operation Breadbasket, King threatened boycotts of businesses that did not hire blacks in proportion to their population.

King was even an early proponent of reparations. In his 1964 book, Why We Can’t Wait (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0451527534/lewrockwell/), he wrote,


No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law.

Predicting that critics would note that many whites were equally disadvantaged, King claimed that his program, which he called the "Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged" would help poor whites as well. This is because once the blacks received reparations, the poor whites would realize that their real enemy was rich whites.

None of this is surprising to anyone who's read more than a few representative samples of his thought, e.g. Tavis Smiley and myself. I'm not taking away from his real and lasting achievements, he is an American hero and the world is a better place in light of his struggle. But folks shouldn't embarrass themselves by resorting to MLK for support, as there may just be those who might know the truth and capitalize on it.

[Man from La Mancha]

Fact
Yes my INTERNET investigation has led me to the fact that King was for affirmative action and reparations. And people should stop misquoting him. I think he did a great job and it was only after he started to criticize the Vietnam war he was killed. Ron should not mention that uninformed statement, no body is perfect but the idea is there that we all should live together not better than some one else and not worse than some one else.

Constitution rights
In todays America I think a man should be rewarded by what can do. If you can't do it learn it. I accept that I can't do brain surgery but if I wanted to I better learn. If you have brain surgery who do want to operate on you the guy that had to prove he was the best or the guy that was promoted just because he belonged to specific group. Ron wants to give everybody an equal chance but no special benefits.