Reason Magazine editor disses RP on Wisconsin Public Radio
Submitted by olafub on Fri, 11/09/2007 - 11:25Wisconsin Public radio blankets Wisconsin with its stations. This morning, Reason magazine Editor-in-Chief Nick Gillespie talked about Ron Paul on the Joy Cardin program at 7am Central Time. The hostess of the program said that WPR had to have a Ron Paul program because of popular demand.
Mr. Gillespie might as well have been Rudi's troll. He managed to work in disparaging terms including “odd, oddly, and conspiracy.” Mr. Gillespie said that Ron Paul was the biggest recipient of earmarks in Congress, had only provided a weak response to the racist remarks that once went out in his newsletter, and was “anti-immigration” rather than anti illegal immigration.
Most of the callers were confused or hostile to Ron Paul including the fellow who brought up the recycled racism charge. Wisconsin Public Radio will have this program archived and available for download by tomorrow 11/10/07. (WPR archives http://www.wpr.org/news/newsstories.cfm )
My suggestion is that requests be made to WPR to have Ron Paul be interviewed for an hour on WPR to balance Mr. Gillespie's inaccuracies and distortions. In lieu of having Ron Paul, I would suggest interviewing Wisconsin resident Ken Van Doren (as seen on YouTube "Ron Paul Fans Gather in Ames, Iowa" 2min 43sec and "the Man Who Should Be Ron Paul's Official Spokesman" 4min 37sec) Ken is an eloquent, passionate RO supporter.
WPR feedback http://www.wpr.org/forms/feedback.cfm
This is how Capitalism works
If he's the editor, and they're losing readership, they'll see that the editor isn't taking the publication in the direction the readers would like.
Good on those of you who dump your subscriptions. If Gillespie is attacking the "messenger" to sacrifice the movement, he deserves scorn.
Reason is our friend
Friends, be serious. Reason.com follows the Ron campaign closely and most of the staff supports Ron -- most notably Senior Editor Brian Doherty. Reason is covering the Philadelphia event today, for instance. I read Reason.com/blog for Ron (and other, related) info nearly daily. LewRockwell.com/blog and Reason.com/blog are my blogging staples.
Yes, Nick despises Ron, of this there is no doubt. I don't know why. But Reason is an institution that pre-dates Nick and will continue after he's gone. It is one of our movement's greatest tools. Movements don't succeed by purging but by building.
The proper response is not to dump Reason, but to politely let Nick know how you feel at Gillespie@reason.com. As libertarians and libertarian-leaning Republicans and independents, we are Reason's readership or at least potential readership. He has to be interested in what we say if, of course, we are reasonable and civil.
And by the way, even though he doesn't like Ron, he is no neocon and does not support the war. He's mostly with us on the issues, but not the messenger.
-pb
Is Nick related to closeted LogCabin,fmrGOP chair, Ed Gillespie?
Would explain a lot; one is a closeted neoCON parading as a libertarian, the other parades around like a neoCON, when he's actually a closeted homo. Not that there's anything wrong with it, unless your entire public persona is dedicated to destroying gay rights, like Ed Gillespie's was, as the head of the Republican National Committee from 2003-2005.
Wonder if the same applies with the Negropontes?? Nicholas is the head of MIT's $100, One Laptop per Child Project, for third world nations. The other, who apparently ended up with all the degenerate genes, is the IranContra neoCON convicted felon, John Negroponte, whom briefly held seat as Dir. of National Intelligence, now Dpty Sec.of State, who in his former illustrious career, resided over sanctioning deathsquads and murder of many Hondurans under his School of Americas prog. neoCON scums, through and through.
But who says, bad seed necessarily runs in the family, eh Nick?
Ron Paul Jan 20, 2009 - Jan 20, 2017!!!!!
B E L I E V E
shoot yourself in the foot
My son was getting that magazine sounds like a waste of money. Here I was thinking about joining. I just found out my state (Michigan) may not have primaries. Now I have to fight just to vote. If a illegal gets to vote and I don't would I have a right to be angry?
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
LewRockwell.com
All
a must read is lewrockwell.com. trust me...this site will be the first thing you read in the morning and you will jones for more...but check out the blog too. no reason to read Reason. ha!
Ellobo
Reason
Got my December issue of Reason yesterday. Front page, Rudy Giuliani. 10 page article (pg 25-33), wondering if he is the new Barry Goldwater or Bobby Kennedy.
Back of the mag we get McCain (pg 66,67) to find out how wonderful he is. Looks like Gillespie is looking for his membership in the CFR like Ed Crane.
Gillespie and Reason
I don't care for Nick Gillespie. I don't care for Reason. I cancelled my subscription sometime in the 90's for two reasons. They waffled on the 1st Iraq War (the one that never ended) and under Virginia Postrel, they seemed to be part of the phony '94 "Republican Revolution". Ms. Postrel was promoting or at least speaking favorably about Steve Forbes, who I consider a statist. She also bashed Pat Buchanan. As an anarcho-capitalist, I found Buchanan to be wrong about so many things. Even the things he was right about, NAFTA and the WTO, he was right for the wrong reasons. Free trade is great but you shouldn't add a layer of government to get it. I'd rather have Congress regulate trade than a world government that supports free trade. It won't last and you've have global managed trade.
But at least he was putting up some kind of challenge to the foreign policy consensus that so many so-called libertarians didn't seem to question. He was refreshing. Getting back to Gillespie and the Wisconsin PR interview, I found him to be arrogant and condescending toward Ron Paul. He portrayed himself as someone who had profound disagreements with Paul. In reality, he probably only disagrees with Paul about 10% of the time. Ironically, I probably agree more with Gillespie. As others have said, the main reason (no pun intended) most libertarian or free-market groups and individuals are supporting Paul is that they don't want to upset their nice cozy relationship with the Establishment. They can talk all day about ending prohibition, having gay marriage, and the like (all of which I support), but just don't question foreign policy. War is the central issue. It centralizes power in Washington and within Washington it centralizes power in the Executive Branch. Anyone who is pro-war and tries to call themself a libertarian is fooling themself.
An honor and a correction
Wait a minute: THE Russell Means? First, it is quite an honor to have some who has worked so hard for libertarianism over the years posting here: welcome. I assume you meant the main reason most libertarian or free-market groups and individuals are NOT supporting Paul is that they don't want to upset their nice cozy relationship with the Establishment.
It does appear, however, that Dr. Paul has drawn most of us, and I for one am setting aside my disagreements with Paul over minarchism and immigration (as I did in 1988) because of the profound difference he could make just implementing what he has proposed, and because this is an extraordinary opportunity for libertarians to put our ideas into the public arena as I have not seen in the near 30 years laboring in obscurity.
reply
It is refreshing to hear commentary from someone of Russell Means stature on this site, he has been in the trenches for true Constitutional Republican/ Libertarian ideals and knows what he is talking about ... WELCOME!
Surprised
First, it's a pleasure to hear from you.
Gillespie's behavior surprised me because I think that Reason has improved since he took over. A few years ago, I was ready to let my subscription lapse because the content was rarely interesting, but then things picked up. I hope this isn't a sign of worse to come.
You're right about some of these self-styled libertarians wanting to get cozy with the Establishment. That's definitely my view of Cato, which I stopped supporting several years ago for that very reason. But what's their motivation? In the case of people like Gillespie, maybe going on to more lucrative careers in mainstream media. That has certainly happened with other Reason and Cato alumni.
A belligerent foreign policy and wars always seem to be the last things that conservatives let go before becoming libertarians. Sadly, some of them never figure it out, that war is just another massive, failed government program, the one that's the most immoral, most wasteful, most intrusive, and most fraught with unintended consequences.
Online here
http://www.wpr.org/cardin/index.cfm?strDirection=Prev&dteSho...
Subscription has been cancelled.
Its a good magazine overall, but there is a distinct air of superiority that has always rubbed me wrong, and they also have a tendency to see the glass as half-full. More than once, I've read a lengthy article full of positive news, only to arrive at a conclusion that rejects everything prior due to a minor, petty grievance.
They adhere to an all or nothing ideology, and are more than happy to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
For this simple act of subterfuge and betrayal, I have cancelled my subscription and written a fairly scathing letter to the editor.
"Reason" magazine... hmmm.
I've not listened to the show in question, but I get the jist of it from reading some online stuff from the mags website.
Petty, narcisitic, jealous come to mind. Add in a bit of deconstructionist wackiness and you've got a publication that gives the Libertarian movement a really bad name- at least for me. They and the Libertarians of their stripe seem to be more committed to rebellion for rebellions sake, than any kind of coherent set of beliefs? Feel free to chime in, I'm still evaluating.
Although I'm moving in the Libertarian direction, I'm not sure I could become an orthodox one if this magazine embodies the true blue beliefs and attitudes.
Maybe it comes down to this, they seem to want ot believe in absolute freedom apart from a government that can actually provide that structure and protection. It's a bizzarre abstraction. I dunno, maybe they are more anarchist, globalists than Libertarian.
Maybe I'm a constitionalist Republican... don't need a label, just trying to get a lay of the land.
I generally LIKE reading
I generally LIKE reading Reason, although they don't spend enough time talking about economic policy as I'd like, it is still (for me) worth reading.
However, I'm not happy at all about the editor dissing Dr. Paul. It seems that the magazine (a supposed bastion of libertarian thought) is hesitant when it comes to supporting a candidate that agrees with a lot of what they have to say -- strange.
----
Registered Republican
Federalist Society Member
REAL Conservative for Ron Paul
If you're moving...
If you're moving in the libertarian direction, I'd like to encourage you to think about something:
It's about individualism. Leave me alone, and I shall grow, learn, and realize my capacities (Hoffer.) There are no true "leaders" in individualism, because there are no groups to which we can be conveniently ascribed at the general level.
We may find ourselves voluntarily associating with groups, but they do not define us. They are a mere portion of our interests.
Which leads me to a central tenet of self-organizing systems (like individuals in society...) They're messy!
if you're looking for a central controlling (or organizing, or representing) entity, you will be frustrated. It doesn't exist. However, order does emerge at the macro level, despite all the messiness at the micro (individual) level.
Gillespie is not the leader of libertarianism. He's just one dude with an opinion.
here's something interesting
http://quaylargo.com/rkm/ND/jan01Manifesto.shtml
I may have read something by Gillespie, I don't remember.
EotS,
Thanks for the reply.
I read a number of articles by various authors and read a number of threads. The characteristics I mentioned previously seemed to be rather consistently distributed among threads, articles and forums. Many opinions to be sure, but a consistent representation of particular sentiments as well.
I'm not looking for a Libertarian leader, I read Reason to get a guage of Libertarian thinking, nothing more. It may be a good idea to read other publications to get a sense of what other threads of Libertarian thinking and mentalties are out there. I'm open to any suggestions. I've read listened to two Murray Rothbard books, and will listen to them again in the near future. The case for the gold standard is excellent.
Libertarianism appears to be a good number of steps beyond the constitutional basis for our country, and the founding fathers intent- however indebted they were to Libertarian principles. Greatly indebted to be sure.
I don't believe that associating with groups in and of themselves define us either, but shared beliefs do have a determining affect on us. Those shared belifs range from the non-essential to those having an essential and defining effect on us. By virtue of those shared beliefs, we are in a group(s). Collective committments and identities are essential to preserving our status as individuals. For example, our freedom, liberty and the protection therof, comes from collectively acknowledging certain truths and beliefs. The refusal to collectivley consent to those beliefs, will ultimately result in the dissolution of those individual liberties and freedoms. This is paradox that the Libertarian orthodoxy doesn't appear to acknowledge or accept. I welcome any info that would suggest the contrary. Group identity by virtue of belief not race, has it's place.
I suspect that I may never take the leap to Libertarian orthodoxy due to these and other issues- although I'm still open to being persuaded. In the mean time, I gladly and passionately consent to the wisdom and rule of the constitution, in spite of the increasing obsolescence that many of our politicians and fellow citizens regard it with.
Thanks for the dialogue.
Individualism and groups
I came full circle on individualism when I started studying complexity science and self-organizing systems. The first principle of my philosophy is that order emerges as the result of millions of individual actors acting in their own self interest.
We freely move in and out of our associations with others, and the healthy individual only maintains relationships so long as they contribute to his own well being.
When I read your statement about individual liberties and freedoms, it reminded me of the philosophical split in the framers of the Constitution.
Adams and Hamilton argued that we derive our rights from the consent to be governed. Because we, as a society, decide that these should be our fundamental rights, we establish these rights and now *get* these rights from our association with society.
Jefferson and Madison disagreed vehemently. They argued that our rights are given us by our creator, that we have inherent rights by virtue of being born a human being.
I always like to say that a child born today in Pakistan, for example, is born with the same rights you were born with. Your rights didn't get assigned to you because you happened to be born here and he was born there. You have the same inalienable rights as human beings. The only difference is the degree to which society and governments violate your rights as an individual.
P.S.
I'm a big Rothbard fan. "EotS" is a tribute to Rothbard, Enemy of the State.
Check out this vid of him from 1989. It's a great glimpse at his personality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwz0BYqOhMI
"For a New Liberty" is a great audio book by Rothbard available on Mises.org
no subscription
Thanks, I almost was going to subscribe to Reason. I won't now.
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
Free Borders/Close Minds
I believe Ron Paul would support open borders, if the system of entitlements was eliminated. He's hinted at this. However, with our Fed/State largess he wants borders secure.
Nick comes off as a jerk. I like Reason magazine, but I am greatly disappointed in his interview. I think most of us disagree with Paul on some issues, however; overall Paul has integrity and a sound philosophy. If you are libertarian minded, you should support the man cause he's as close philosophically as you're gonna get.
I have my doubts.
"I believe Ron Paul would support open borders, if the system of entitlements was eliminated. He's hinted at this. However, with our Fed/State largess he wants borders secure."
Without parity between the U.S. economic and political system- both needing to be Libertarian, this will only result in more of what we have now, feudal capitalism and more oppression. Even then, there are some serious weakness's with these assumptions, both economically and politically. More corrupt nations and corporate/state entities and those not subscribing to the same Libertarian principles, would still encourage a flood of immigrants that even the most robust of economies would not be able to absorb. This may be heresy, but economies have limits and ceilings. To entertain the notion of open borders without consideration of the larger global context is problematic, to put it very mildly.
I'm also dubious of this assertion, because all of the governments in the world would need to be Libertarian in order to have the true free market that this paradigm asserts. That ain't gonna happen. Ironically, this thinking in my view results in global one world government scenario- all the while forgetting that the institutionalized governing principles of liberty came from one country, not out of a vacum.
As our government is predicated upon the division of the three branches of government to protect against the monoplolization of power- that principle is even more crucial among nation/states in preventing global tyranny. Separate, soverign and free countries with free currencies is the ideal for me.
The notion that a global Libertarian utopia is possible is a big big leap in my opinion. Just my two cents.
Unfortunately one of the
Unfortunately one of the problems of the libertarian movement is jealousy. Having subscribed to Reason Magazine for 20 years they have always managed to disparage people or organizations who seem to get more headlines than they do. Althouth no one in their organization would admit it, they are envious of all the attention placed on Dr. Paul these days. Like so many others in the movement, they want the credit. Dr. Paul admits he has shortcomings, but the message, "has no shortcomings."
Jealousy
Exactly, Liberty805. I've been in the movement for decades, too, and that word is what popped into my mind when I saw this. Nick Gillespie for President, 2012??
JMR
You've Hit the Nail on the Head
There's a lot of "big fish in a small pond" in the libertarian movement, and those people will do anything to keep their "big fish" status. The Libertarian Party is one of the worst piranha, eat-you-own organizations in existence (and, until I re-registered Republican a month or so ago, I'd been in the LP for 20 years).
Exactly right -- what about Stossel?
Reason was my homepage for a couple of years until this 'pirahna' mentality showed itself to me. Same for the Cato institute. As bright as some of these people are they are 'above everything except pettiness and jealousy. Nick was a jerk on that interview. I won't read him anymore.
One straight shooting libertarian I've not heard mentioned is John Stossel. I wouldn't be surprised if he's already talking to the campaign about an interview for 20/20.
The first 5 million supporters of Dr. Paul are 'early adopters.' The next 10 million will require a modified approach.
I Was Thinking About That the Other Day
It seems to me it's time for one of those "reporter hangs with the candidate for a week or so"-type features on Ron Paul, and my thought was John Stossel would be the perfect guy to do that. He's one of the very few reporters in the MSM who would understand instinctively what Ron Paul is saying, and he could communicate that effectively.
I canceled my Reason subscription...
about a month ago... also cable, Fortune, Business Week, Barron's, WSJ, Forbes, WIRED... I'm done with mainstream media... saving myself a bunch... more money for the campaign... You Tube and alternative news sources for me from now on...
Plano TX
"about a month ago... also
"about a month ago... also cable, Fortune, Business Week, Barron's, WSJ, Forbes, WIRED... I'm done with mainstream media... saving myself a bunch... more money for the campaign... You Tube and alternative news sources for me from now on..."
I'm with you- saving money, less wasted paper and so many free resources on the internet. And of course more $$$ to the good doctor.
non MSM source
great newsletter writer Richard Maybury
www.chaostan.com
will be more expensive then the other sources but is really good and will help open eyes, and is worth the money
and he supports Ron Paul
Thanks for the tip
Did a quick perusal, interesting stuff, I'll check it out further.
Thanks