The reason that I’m singling out Stossel here isn’t that I think he’s an over-the-top, out-of-control lunatic. Quite the opposite. If I offered counterarguments to Glenn Beck’s libertarian views, I wouldn’t have a very fair fight on my hands. Punching holes in Beck’s theories proves as challenging as finding an out-of-shape virgin at a Star Trek convention.
Since I’m the biggest nerd alive, I spent my childhood, Friday night’s watching 20/20. I enjoyed Stossel’s arguments. I even agreed with many of them. Occasionally, he even managed to make me see things in a fresh light, an experience to which I’ve always felt drawn.
I’ve read Stossel’s book, Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, as well as Give Me a Break. He has likely published more since these two have hit shelves. I’ve also watched his show, Stossel, named, I presume, after his father. While most natives of Fox communicate through screaming and Bible thumping, Stossel offers a refreshing change of course: low-drama and forethought. He’s mellow. While other Fox anchors preach doomsday, Stossel often seems to say, “Everything is going to be fine. Relax.”
However, I frequently disagree with Stossel on a variety of issues. Here are a few.
On his show, Stossel frowns at the notion of urging Americans to “get out and vote.” He argues that many Americans haven’t the knowledge needed to make an informed decision at the polls, and that therefore no one should push these ignorant people towards the ballot boxes, where they will make a random and misinformed decision with which the rest of us have to live. I get what Stossel’s saying here, but I don’t agree with the notion of discouraging the ignorant from voting. Instead, we should push to educate them—with unbiased education, of course.
Stossel has suggested that the price of gasoline is a bargain (this suggestion occurred a few years back when the price skyrocketed). He asked his readers to compare, pricewise, a gallon of gas to a gallon of premium ice cream—overlooking the fact that the average American doesn’t need a gallon of Eddy’s Cookies and Cream to pick the kids up from soccer.
Gasoline is a must-have for anyone who hopes to function in a city that doesn’t provide reliable, affordable, public transportation (the public transit here in Orlando is neither). Premium ice cream is a treat. The two are incomparable. At least, they ought to be. I felt reminded of this appraisal when a Fox News anchor said, “If you can afford a five-dollar Frappuccino, then you can afford your five-dollar copay [for birth control].”
Like gasoline, birth control is a must-have. A Frappuccino is not. In one argument, Stossel assumes that the same people bemoaning the price of gas are happy to fork out money for premium ice cream. In another, an anchor assumes that women who can’t afford a copay are enjoying a morning Frappuccino apiece.
People struggling to keep their gas tanks wet are not snacking on Eddy’s. Women who cannot afford a copay are not gulping down a Frappuccino every morning. I could make a similar argument that the price of reconstructive surgery is a bargain—when compared to the price of a Ferrari. These arguments all steam from the belief that if you can afford trivial things, you can afford important things. Many people can’t afford either.
Like presidential hopeful and libertarian, Ron Paul, Stossel believes that America ought to end its drug war. I agree. But Paul and Stossel want to reduce government regulations, without which we would undermine the benefits of legalizing drugs (see my earlier post, Sex, Drugs, and Ron Paul for more on this counterargument).
Stossel frequently discusses the benefits of privatization, almost to the point of suggesting that we ought to privatize every service offered in our country. This would backfire. The privatization of prisons is one example upon which I intend to explore fully in a future blog.
I like Stossel’s cool-headed rationalizations. I like the fact the he permits his guests to speak. He usually avoids the obnoxious showmanship favored by his Fox Network peers. Occasionally, he “makes a point” by hitting a car with a hammer or driving a scooter through a stack of boxes. Since these stunts usually kick-start his show, I suppose he’s just trying to grab viewers before they change the channel. Rarely, he does something mind-numbingly stupid (who amongst us hasn’t?), like the time he placed a telephone in the middle of the set of his show and more-or-less dared President Obama to call and debate with him on the air, as if the President of the Free World might not have something a bit more pressing occupying his plate.
It’s beginning to seem that libertarians fall into two categories. One (Stossel and Paul) proves thoughtful but often misguided about what policies will actually work. The other category (Beck) is just the opposite, spewing nonsense as loudly as possible. It always seems that those lacking in reason attempt to compensate by screaming, as if a falsehood were just a truth whispered a bit too low. Stossel doesn’t do a lot of screaming. I don’t think he’s ever raised his voice. I’ve seen Ron Paul attempt to scream; he didn’t seem to have had a lot of practice at it. I imagine that this is because Stossel and Paul can make very reasonable arguments that, in a better world, might actually have merit.
No comments:
Post a Comment