This would be funny if it wasn't so sad and uncomfortable...
I suppose it's pretty obvious Wenzel knew exactly what he was getting into, and that's in fact why he wanted the interview.
[I recommend listening to the interview first before reading on....]
As he said, he's referred to Johnson as "Ron Paul-lite" before, and here he reproduced to a nice writeup showing how clueless Johnson is on foreign policy as well. And if you look at his blog at all, you'll see how well-acquainted he is with the whole Cato fiasco. Johnson obviously knows nothing about that outfit, and Wenzel knows basically everything...all the history and all the dirty details. Just do a search on his blog for "cato" and you'll get an incredible history.
I just wish Wenzel was better versed on the history of boom/busts before the Fed, so he could have sounded at least somewhat articulate, as opposed to just as clueless as Johnson but with a different point of view.
Ultimately though I just feel so bad for Johnson, being put on the spot like this, exposing his actual depth (or lack thereof) of libertarian reasoning and economic understanding. The closing question was so uncomfortable, it was hard to bear. Johnson's obviously just an average joe who happens to identify as a "libertarian". He knows about just as much as the average Democrat or Republican or self-identified liberal or conservative. Just, instead of leaning on The NYTimes, or TownHall.com, he leans on Cato.org and kinda sorta reads that every now and then.
By the end it was almost just cruel...Wenzel smelled blood in the water and just kept on. Guy couldn't even name a single book he liked. Now I'm not sure if it was just because he was afraid of being exposed as a total ignoramus like he was in the beginning, or if he honestly just doesn't read books. My guess is a little of both, but mostly the latter.
And it just gets worse and worse. Wenzel keeps digging the sword in deeper...asking him his favorite Rothbard book? Poor bastard. Ironically it's a lot like what happened to Wenzel when he was interviewed by Peter Schiff. (Although I think Schiff wasn't being vindictive, he was actually trying to force an answer out of Wenzel. In this case with Johnson, I honestly think Wenzel knew Johnson didn't have an answer and in fact it was Wenzel's goal all along to expose him. I honestly think that was Wenzel's whole purpose with setting up this interview...show everyone what a limp libertarian the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson is.)
I do however just wish Wenzel would have ventured on to other Austrian scholars more. He definitely knows and has read them, but the way he harped almost entirely on Rothbard throughout the whole thing makes him sound pretty obsessed (which, I suppose he is, but it would be nice if he at least feigned an interest in other scholars (even if he only kept it within the Austrian School).)
Ultimately, I think it's pretty obvious Wenzel is an old codger who just doesn't give a shit, and it's nice that he's willing to expose people and be blunt with recommendations...I just hope he didn't turn Johnson off to actually looking into these things.
How libertarian is Gary Johnson? Not very. 'Nuff said.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
That was honestly painful. I didn't think Gary Johnson was that uninformed.
That's what I mean. I'm basically positive Wenzel did that interview for you.
Just for me?
Yeah, well, I admire his balls. I have trouble putting people in that uncomfortable a position unless they're leftists.
John James:Ultimately though I just feel so bad for Johnson, being put on the spot like this, exposing his actual depth (or lack thereof) of libertarian reasoning and economic understanding.
I feel bad for his supporters who have had their parade rained upon and are now in denial.
Guy couldn't even name a single book he liked. Now I'm not sure if it was just because he was afraid of being exposed as a total ignoramus like he was in the beginning, or if he honestly just doesn't read books. My guess is a little of both, but mostly the latter.
I was suprised that he couldn't even name Hayek. I say this because of Hayek's influence on the Catonians.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I'm reading through the comments in the YouTube page; OMG! People act as if Gary Johnson is some idiot savant who just "gets it." But this begs the following questions, did Gary Johnson never bother to read a book on economics aside from those of Friedman?; did GJ never bother to go beyond the articles of Reason and dig into the publications of the people whose ideas that were being referenced in those articles? For Pete's sake, there are over 1,800 search hits for "Hayek" on Cato.org.
See I think he hasn't read any Hayek either. I thought it was pretty obvious he really hasn't read basically any books. And you don't want to be sitting live on the aire claiming you've read stuff you haven't. Not a very safe thing to be doing. Especially if you're running for office.
Daniel Muffinburg:I'm reading through the comments in the YouTube page; OMG! People act as if Gary Johnson is some idiot savant who just "gets it." But this begs the following questions, did Gary Johnson never bother to read a book on economics aside from those of Friedman?; did GJ never bother to go beyond the articles of Reason and dig into the publications of the people whose ideas that were being referenced in those articles?
Actually yeah, I think that's exactly what happened.
For Pete's sake, there are over 1,800 search hits for "Hayek" on Cato.org.
So what? That doesn't mean he did any actual real reading or research of his own. So he read one (admittedly) really short book in the 1970s on what a libertarian is and figured out he was "always a libertarian", and that's that.
I mean honestly, if you really do listen to his policies and reasonings (when he can actually give any) it's quite obvious his views are incredibly inchoate and as I said he basically amounts to a typical (mostly) ignorant American who just happens to lean more libertarian instead of "liberal" or "conservative". But he seems to know about just as much as any other average joe.
Seriously check out the link I gave on his foreign policy assessments.
I honestly don't believe he's really looked into anything much at all. He just thinks abortion is fine, marijuana is fine, and people should pay their own bills. He doesn't really understand economics, he hasn't really studied political philosophy; he just happens to lean toward more individuality. It's interesting considering the thread that we've had going on it, but in thinking more about Gary Johnson, the term "left-libertarian" starts to make more sense to me. He's like a hippie who just happens to think people should be more fiscally responsible. Maybe we should invent the term "libertarian-Lefty". That's kind of how Johnson strikes me.
He hiked mount everest and lost an interview to a fatass. Big deal. Not a bad trade.
You guys just need a Libertarian candidate who isn't either 1) naive and idealistic, 2) an academic, or 3) a paranoid conspiracy theory schitzo. Your only option is to raise George Washington from the dead. Or put up someone from this forum.
This is not uncommon. Theres many republicans who decide there "libertarians" one day even though they remain statist. They just side more w/ Dr. Paul then w/ most of the other GOPers and assumes that makes them libertarian by default.
mustang19:You guys just need a Libertarian candidate
Why do we need a Libertarian candidate?
Just listened to it.
Man, that's bad.
what happened to "Ron Paulites > Ron Paul lite"?
I thought that was pretty accurate.
Either that, or you have to get off your butts and actually overthrow the government.
C'mon, the rubber has to hit the road at some point. Either you elect your guy to office (you can trust me to nominate myself for this job) or you destroy the state from outside. Until then we're just going to sit here talking on the internet about it.
JJ is the last guy on this forum to tell to take action.
mustang19:Either that, or you have to get off your butts and actually overthrow the government.
Why?
C'mon, the rubber has to hit the road at some point. Either you elect your guy to office
What makes you think Gary Johnson is "our guy"? The whole point of that interview was to expose the fact that he's a pretty flimsy version what he himself claims to be.
Abstract: If you aren't considering Gary Johnson as a political candidate, this interview will either be a waste of your time or will only provide further reasons to distance yourself from the man. If you are still considering Johnson as a viable candidate, this interview will hurt right in the hope.
This is actually uncomfortable to listen to. To be honest, I think John James sums it up here,
Johnson's obviously just an average joe who happens to identify as a "libertarian". He knows about just as much as the average Democrat or Republican or self-identified liberal or conservative. Just instead of leaning on The NYTimes, or TownHall.com, he leans on Cato.org and kinda sorta reads that every now and then.
When Johnson uses phrases like "notion" or "broad brush" I automatically tune out (it's just as vomit-inducing -and not the happy rainbow kind- as hearing someone say "reform" at this point; they're utterly meaningless words meant to buy some time and to fill the air with voice). Honestly, I was reminded of therecent South Park episode where the boys go zip-gliding and the tourists on the zip-gliding tour tell stories and interrupt themselves frequently with "and, well, ya know, long story short..." At these points it sounds like Johnson's understanding that Wenzel and the audience have caught on to Johnson's quick talking points answer of being a Libertarian who's "fiscally responsible" and "socially tolerant" and that he is running out of content. (who is Wenzel by the way? I can't find a biography- I've only found this audio which he references in the interview of him at the New York Fed as well as a few podcasts)
At this point in the interview (at about 8:00 where I paused to start typing this post) I feel disappointed in Johnson's off-hand knowledge of economic theory and political philosphy but was still half-considering that a portion of his difficulty in answering questions could be due to nervousness in talking on (I think) live radio. After all, I have no idea how much media attention he has received except for this radio interview and probably a few appearances on Stossel. Johnson seemed fairly well-spoken at Republican debates, but ultimately unimpressive; he sort of sounded like a politician-type libertarian (by which I mean someone who is capable of delivering libertarian-esque positions on certain areas of contemperary politics, but ultimately unreliable or bland as a candidate).
Sort of fading in my hopes for Gary Johnson, I then hear this back-and-forth:
Wenzel: Who are your favorite, say, top two or three libertarian authors? Johnson: Well, you've already told me that Milton Friedman is not a libertarian... Wenzel: Well, yeah, I'm giving you a second chance here Johnson: ... ... I don't want to give you the wrong answer ... Ayn Rand
Wenzel: Who are your favorite, say, top two or three libertarian authors?
Johnson: Well, you've already told me that Milton Friedman is not a libertarian...
Wenzel: Well, yeah, I'm giving you a second chance here
Johnson: ... ... I don't want to give you the wrong answer ... Ayn Rand
Good God.
I was expecting something along the lines of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, but answering with only Rand and acknowledging his ignorance of Friedman's views on monetary policy (personally, apart from Friedman's chapter on the Great Depression I thought that Free to Choose was still a very good read) makes just as much sense from someone who sounds like he stumbled on the Libertarianism page on Wikipedia before this interview.
Wait ... he's asked a question on Henry Hazlitt and responds with the ACLU liberty torches?
--
Regarding Wenzel, I think that his conduct was also less than exemplary.
Being totally unfamiliar with the man I can understand that, as a radio host, he provides political/economic content as well as entertainment to keep his audience focused on him, but he treated Johnson pretty poorly. Wenzel seemed to noticeably get impatient and condescending towards Johnson -who, despite ignorance on some issues, is still a grown man running for political office- by resorting to a sort of I know a lot about the Austrian School and you need to read a bit more, ok? attitude throughout much of the show. I don't know if he and Johnson agreed to a half-hour show and he ran out of contemporary issues to discuss but this part of the show reminded me of my days of religiously listening to Mark Levin (a well-known and comical neo-con who explicitly attempts to embarrass opponents on air by either contesting points made against his brand of conservatism or by insulting them; Wenzel isn't that bad but his style of commentary is reminiscent of Levin). On the other hand, Johnson's interview noticeably lacked interesting content and Johnson seemed almost uninterested in answering some questions by responding to them with brief answers that show either a lack of information on the subject at hand or with unsatisfying answers that elicit follow-up questions from Wenzel for Johnson to back up his assertions [after mentioning Milton Friedman as one of his most influential libertarian figures],
Wenzel: Can you remember anything specific that you took away from Milton Friedman, the things he said or anything like that? Johnson: Oh absolutely. School choice- you know, that was Milton Friedman. Legalizing drugs- that was Milton Friedman. The whole notion of taxation and let's not tax ourselves, uh, let's not tax our income. Uh, boy, Milton Friedman talked about changing the world, changing government overnight by simply not allowing the government to not make withholdings from your payroll checks. [...] Wenzel: Yeah Gary, I'll tell you this, there are probably a lot of people jumping up and down who are listening to this right now [...]
Wenzel: Can you remember anything specific that you took away from Milton Friedman, the things he said or anything like that?
Johnson: Oh absolutely. School choice- you know, that was Milton Friedman. Legalizing drugs- that was Milton Friedman. The whole notion of taxation and let's not tax ourselves, uh, let's not tax our income. Uh, boy, Milton Friedman talked about changing the world, changing government overnight by simply not allowing the government to not make withholdings from your payroll checks. [...]
Wenzel: Yeah Gary, I'll tell you this, there are probably a lot of people jumping up and down who are listening to this right now [...]
[regarding Johnson's familiarity with libertarian institutions]
Wenzel: Are you familiar at all with the Mises Institute? Johnson: I am. Yes. Wenzel: Well, what do you think of the product they put out? Johnson: Well I think it's terrific. I really think it's terrific. Wenzel: Ok.
Wenzel: Are you familiar at all with the Mises Institute?
Johnson: I am. Yes.
Wenzel: Well, what do you think of the product they put out?
Johnson: Well I think it's terrific. I really think it's terrific.
Wenzel: Ok.
So Wenzel was pretty tough on Johnson, but it wasn't entirely without reason. This was my first real exposure to Gary Johnson and it's pretty disappointing.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
JJ: Why?
Okay, you don't have to do anything. Don't overthrow the government. Don't vote anyone into office. Just sit and chill and never put your ideas into practice.
You don't need Gary. You need your own guy. Someone in this forum has to be at least 41 or whatever the presidential age limit is.
You don't need Gary.
Judging by the interview, Gary needs us.
ThatOldGuy:(who is Wenzel by the way? I can't find a biography- I've only found this audio which he references in the interview of him at the New York Fed as well as a few podcasts)
As I said, he's basically an old codger who doesn't give a shit, and has a serious crush on Murray Rothbard. (As in, like Cartman on Mel Gibson serious.) He was in the finance/investment/advisory world for a while, made a bunch of money from that from what I understand, and basically has a lot of world experience to speak of, and pretty good knowledge of global events and a decent understanding of Austrian theory to apply it all to. He does this at his blog EconomicPolicyJournal.com, which I recommended here.
He's only done his "Robert Wenzel Show" a handful of times. He started it as a weekly thing toward the end of last year, after he, like I said, ended up on Peter Schiff's show looking like Gary Johnson did this show. (You can read through that thread starting at that post to get a nice rundown/discussion.) You can see a list of his past RWS episodes here. You should be able to get some background from him in those. The December 4 episode should be especially educational.
His blog has been around for some years now, and is consistantly flirting with the top 10 libertarian sites on the web. His first appearance on The Peter Schiff Show was almost a year ago now, Tom Woods had him on when he was guest-hosting. After that Wenzel came on again that one time with Schiff, looked like an ignoramus, and only recently came back on again a few weeks ago...with Tom Woods hosting.
You can find collections of good posts from his blog here.
Regarding Wenzel, I think that his conduct was also less than exemplary. Being totally unfamiliar with the man I can understand that, as a radio host, he provides political/economic content as well as entertainment to keep his audience focused on him, but he treated Johnson pretty poorly. Wenzel seemed to noticeably get impatient and condescending towards Johnson -who, despite ignorance on some issues, is still a grown man running for political office- by resorting to a sort of I know a lot about the Austrian School and you need to read a bit more, ok? attitude throughout much of the show.
Oh yeah. Like I said,
1) Wenzel is an old codger who doesn't give a shit, and
2) The whole reason he asked for this interview was to hang Johnson out to dry.
Wenzel isn't that bad but his style of commentary is reminiscent of Levin).
Yeah Wenzel isn't as vindictive as Levin, and this is not something he usually does, I honestly think it's just a combination of (a) him not really giving a shit, (b) him honestly not having much tact and not being a very good personal communicator, (c) him wanting to expose Johnson
I think there may have been a bit of "I'm better than you" going on there, but I do really believe most of his suggestion-session was in good faith and he was really trying to urge Johnson to look into it. (Not that he did a good job, and like I said he actually could have very well turned Johnson off, but I tend to believe he was mostly honestly trying to get him to study more. Mostly.)
On the other hand, Johnson's interview noticeably lacked interesting content and Johnson seemed almost uninterested in answering some questions by responding to them with brief answers that show either a lack of information on the subject at hand or with unsatisfying answers that elicit follow-up questions from Wenzel for Johnson to back up his assertions [after mentioning Milton Friedman as one of his most influential libertarian figures],
Yeah I think that was mostly just a product of Johnson's ignorance. Mostly. I think partly Wenzel had a bit to do with it because he, (like Schiff) uses opportunities like this anywhere he can get them, as guys who know as much stuff as they do (especially guys who have as clear an understanding of the world as they do, and are surrounded by idiots) have a real need to get it all out. So like I was saying here about Peter, I think it's pretty cathartic for Wenzel...which leads to him talking more than he should. (Of course, when your guest is spewing nonsense, I guess it's important to make sure you set the record straight...particularly when you invited him on specifically so that you could set him straight.)
Like the Friedman thing...I doubt Wenzel knew Johnson was going to go that far off the deep end...literally claiming Friedman advocated ending a practice which he in reality essentially pushed for the advent of...but it's basically what Wenzel was looking for. I'm surprised he didn't hit him harder on the foreign policy issue, as Wenzel is of course well aware of how weak Johnson is there. But then again, that may have been a result of Johnson's basic non-answers leaving Wenzel with little opportunity.
The Mises Institute question was a gimme too. Wenzel wanted to expose Johnson for not being aquainted with the Institute, and of course Johnson isn't, so he of course couldn't elaborate out any answers. But that also means he wasn't about to say anything negative and open the door for Wenzel to jump on him. So you get a "terrific" answer. And as you could see Wenzel just doesn't have the interviewer chops to jiujitsu that into the dialog he wanted. This is what happens when "just anybody" starts their own radio show.
mustang19:Don't overthrow the government. Don't vote anyone into office. Just sit and chill and never put your ideas into practice.
Okie dokie.
You don't need Gary. You need your own guy.
I do? Why?
Because Gary is a tool. A real anarchocapitalibertarian would do the job right. Clayton/James 2012!
Nevertheless, his record as governor of NM sounded very good.
John James:As I said, he's basically an old codger who doesn't give a shit, and has a serious crush on Murray Rothbard. (As in, like Cartman on Mel Gibson serious.)
So I guess that one could say that Wenzel has a super cereal crush on Murrary Rothbard. This is what I am inferring from your rather cryptic message.
I can sort of see the part of him "not giving a shit" about what he says. He seems pretty content with what he knows, enough so that he can comfortably start a radio show.
John James:I think there may have been a bit of "I'm better than you" going on there, but I do really believe most of his suggestion-session was in good faith and he was really trying to urge Johnson to look into it. (Not that he did a good job, and like I said he actually could have very well turned Johnson off, but I tend to believe he was mostly honestly trying to get him to study more. Mostly.)
I can definitely see this perspective as viable- now that you mention it, it makes a lot of sense.
Perhaps Wenzel's tone in speaking to Johnson, or just the means by which he attempted to advise Johnson to read more literature on the matter, is what made him come off as so negative to me. Like you said, he's not really a radio-host, but more of an 'anybody' that happens to have a radio show.
I still don't see Wenzel's possible I know more than you, ok? attitude and his possible Seriously, look into xyz if you want to understand more regarding abc attitude as mutually exlusive attitudes. His carelessness in how he communicated these suggestions are likely products of his "not giving a shit" state of mind (much like Inception, they are attitudes which are dual products of another attitude inside the Matrix within a greater worldview).
John James:2) The whole reason he asked for this interview was to hang Johnson out to dry.
I may not have mentioned it in that post, but yeah. Wenzel does say at the beginning that this interview is to get a sense of how libertrian Johnson is- which is why he keeps referencing 'hardcore libertarians.'
John James:The Mises Institute question was a gimme too. Wenzel wanted to expose Johnson for not being aquainted with the Institute, and of course Johnson isn't, so he of course couldn't elaborate out any answers. But that also means he wasn't about to say anything negative and open the door for Wenzel to jump on him. So you get a "terrific" answer.
That makes sense.
ThatOldGuy:So I guess that one could say that Wenzel has a super cereal crush on Murrary Rothbard. This is what I am inferring from your rather cryptic message.
Actually I was referring to this. But yeah, I think you got the picture.
John James:I tend to believe he was mostly honestly trying to get him to study more. Mostly.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKdocYeSqTA
Here's the relevant posts on Wenzel's blog. At this point, only the last two are really important, as the others are just the lead up to the interview.
The Robert Wenzel Show is Baaaacckkk
What Took Place During My Interview with Gary Johnson?
How Libertarian is Gary Johnson?
As you can see by that last link, The Examiner truly is a rag that will print apparently anything. Not that I disagree with this particular article, but they've hosted all sorts of egregious nonsense in the past, and evidently don't even bother to run a spell check, as can be seen by the multiple (elementary) errors in this poorly written piece.
At least he links to the LvMI though.
I showed some kid on google plus the interview in the OP (with the sentence "Gary Johnson doesn't know what he is talking about with libertarianism.") and he came back and said, "It sounds like the interviewer doesn't know what he is talking about."
I shit my pants. It was bad.
Aristophanes:I showed some kid on google plus
I think this is the point where you should have expected the result you got.
This guy really captures the essense of what I was saying in the OP about Johnson being essentially a know-nothing who basically just has libertarian sympathies. He uses the term "lifestyle libertarian"...which may actually be a pretty accurate term for at least part of what I was describing. But get a load of the links included throughout the article. Guy really knows his stuff. (Although, he evidently hasn't seen Graham's video.)
Says Scott Lazarowitz.
Kevin Kalstein emails: I actually meant to write this email last Sunday after listening to your Gary Johnson interview but it never made it past my "drafts" folder. I really like your interviewing style because you hold people's feet to the fire. I learned *far more* about Gary Johnson from your one interview than I had learned in the past year or so from all the YouTube videos and the couple of Republican primary debates that he was in (not that they allowed him to speak very much!) You really brought to light how shaky his economic "world view" might be (trusting CATO and Reason seemingly above all else). When you asked him about Henry Hazlitt and he answered with "liberty torches", it made me cringe. I also like that you gave him your honest appraisal after some of his answers (sort of like a teacher explaining the answer to a student after an oral exam). Also, as I type this, I'm listening to your interview w/ Peter Schiff [...]
He accepted For a New Liberty, thanked me for it, and assured me he will read it.
Sweet.
Peter Schiff visits The Robert Wenzel Show. He talks ( a little) about what he saw at the secretive Koch Conference in Aspen, that he attended. How to get a job on Wall Street. How regulators have stifled him in his attempts to grow his business. The real problem with the Facebook deal. What the next crash is going to look like, and much more.
SO, he doesn't tear Peter apart for not being a libertarian??!?! haha
For a New Liberty and Economics In One Lesson? There may be some hope for Johnson after all. I understand and can appreciate the term "lifestyle libertarian," and honestly, Johnson does seem to be an open-minded and rational guy... maybe just a few books is all that's needed to light the fire and get him understanding more about the foundations of the philosophy of liberty and free markets. He may honestly just need that push to get him rolling. Anyways, that is somewhat exciting news to hear.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
Sure, Gary isn't a libertarian philosopher, but you have to look at his record. He's a successful businessman, and I like what I've seen of his record as governor. You have to weigh what's better here...experience or intellectuality. This interview just sounded like Comic Book Guy doing a snobby interviewing job.
Why is the fact that he was a succesful businessman important?
SkepticalMetal:You have to weigh what's better here...experience or intellectuality.
When "intellectuality" as you call it includes the principles someone adheres to, where those principles come from, the level of understanding of those principles and why the person subscribes to them, and economic understanding from a fundamental standpoint...I choose "intellectuality".
Bill Clinton has plenty of experience...that doesn't mean I'm going to choose him over say, Lew Rockwell, who has zero political office experience.
True.
Brutality.
We must hold a geneva convention for debating.
Go soft on other libertarians but if he is a close minded statist liberal welfare socialist neocon fascist corporatist then drive the sword and tear him a new asshole.
If the statist is open minded but does not know (like stossel) be nice and explain.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
What is up with this 'I am more libertarian than thou' syndrome?
Well, consider this: Do you consider someone religious if they've never read any religious doctrines and there is no way of verifying their ultimate intentions of claiming that they are religious?
"Sure, I'll take you home [drunken] ma'am. Just get in the car... Don't worry! I'm a Christian!"