Comments (20)

• Steve Hogan

  It's encouraging to see Dr. Paul being treated with the respect he richly deserves. I hope there are viewers out there who might be motivated to open their minds and consider his ideas.

  I think he also conveys a man who is at peace with himself. To have a congressman that is self-effacing and humble is rare indeed.

  Published: September 30, 2009 11:33 AM

• Nikolaj

  For, me the fact that Paul has been treated with such a respect by the collectivist like Stewart is not so encouraging at all. It should worry every Paul's supporter, if anything. Libertarian, minimal government supporter, laisse-fairist treated well by mainstream media! ?

  I suppose Paul's treatment had something to do with his failure to mention "O" word during entire conversation, and his occasional castigating of Haliburton and Bush wars (that is always good way to appease left-wing nuts in MM), rather than with some mysterious Stewart's conversion to libertarianism...

  Published: September 30, 2009 12:13 PM

• iamse7en

  He did not sufficiently explain what would REPLACE the purpose of the Fed. I know what he believes, because I am reading his book right now and have followed his thoughts for a year now, but that show has quite a liberal audience, and I would have thought, "Okay, he wants to end the Fed, but he doesn't have a proper answer on what will replace it...it will be anarchy as Jon said!"

  Obviously, that is ridiculous, but other than that, I thought he did a good job.

  Published: September 30, 2009 12:25 PM

• Tina Brewer

  @Nikolaj

  If you think that Ron Paul taking Halliburton or the military-industrial complex to task is some type of cynical ploy on his part to ingratiate him to the liberals in the crowd, you have absolutely no conception of the level of principle this man embodies and the solidity of his core philosophy. He has ALWAYS stood against corporatism and war as strongly as he has stood FOR free markets and peace.

  The beauty of the libertarian philosophy is that it GENUINELY (and not cynically, as some sort of ploy to get votes) stradles the major philosophical concerns of both of the other main parties; it IS as much about civil liberties as it is about economic freedom. It IS as much anti-war as it is anti-collectivist. Thank goodness Ron Paul never forgets this.

  Published: September 30, 2009 12:43 PM

• Nate Y

  Nikolaj,

  Would you rather the MM continue to ignore Ron Paul? The conversion to classical liberalism, libertarianism, austrian economics, whatever is not instantaneous. People are relunctant to let go of their ideas. I know I was.

  I don't see how this interview and the current sentiment around the country could possibly be seen as anything but a step in the right direction.

  Now for some rambling...

  Sometimes Jon Stewart takes a little too long with his punchlines and tangents for my tastes but meh.

  Anyone notice the crowd cheer when Stewart implied that we need government to protect us from corporatism? That was a disheartening but Ron Paul answered it pretty well. Although, I wish he would have had time to say something like "We would protect ourselves from corporatism. The people aren't powerless. In fact, in a free market, the people are much more powerful. If a company is dishonest, it will quickly be dismantled by the market. Just like dishonest people find themselves in strained relationships and without any friends."

  Published: September 30, 2009 12:54 PM

• Nikolaj

  Tina,

  I didn't mean to suggest dishonesty form Paul's side. But, to emphasize, as he did, that "wars" were main drivers of deficit, in the situation when Obama increased federal deficit 10 times during six months by welfare and pork-barrel, rent-seeking spending, is seriously misleading. He is treated well by MM, only because of his antiwar and anti-Bush credentials. They can say - look, this guy is o.k. he is going to attack Bush again, to rant against wars, against military industrial complex. Yes he is going to say something against big government as well, but this will be quite innocent, since he will not touch Obama, and to say that democrats are at this time a greatest danger to the country.

  My central point was that Paul is treated well not because MM accepted suddenly libertarianism, or at least increased their tolerance for it, but only because they think they can use Paul as their favorite "court libertarian". Have you heard Stewart and company to say anything positive about Tea Parties? About any other politician who said anything that was pro-market, if he was strongly against Obama in the same time? You haven't, and you will not. Shouldn't be little more suspicion and second thoughts on our, libertarian side, when they treat well the guy who influenced Tea Parties to such a great extent. If I were Paul, I would never accept to play that game. Why he does?

  Published: September 30, 2009 1:02 PM

• Josh Hanson

  Speaking from my own personal experience in my Republican days, I refused to even listen to anyone from another political party unless they shared at least some aspect of my beliefs. Back then, I would never have heard a word coming out of someone like Glenn Greenwald or Naomi Wolf because they were "communist" (in my eyes at the time, all leftists were communists). I think that despite some areas of disagreement, there have been valuable contributions made by both Greenwald and Wolf. By choosing his words wisely, Congressman Paul is getting people to listen to him who may otherwise have refused to do so. I don't think Paul has sold-out by helping to gently show his audience the error of their beliefs.

  Published: September 30, 2009 2:02 PM

• Tina Brewer

  @Nikolaj

  Thank you for clarifying your view.

  I think it is important to try an move libertarian ideas forward by actively embracing whatever is right-minded about even our furthest opponents' philosophy. For example, take the issue of concern for the plight of the working poor. (random issue for the day) This is certainly an area of serious concern. The fact that our opponents on the left say to this condition "we need the state to legislate this, fix this price, set this wage, etc" should not shift our focus from our common ground. Instead, we should say "we too share a concern for the poorest in society. let us show you how a network of truly free and voluntary exchange can vastly improve the lot of even the poorest in society".

  Published: September 30, 2009 3:23 PM

• DixieFlatline

  I like Ron Paul, he does great and heroic work.

  But it is very unlibertarian to consider him beyond criticism.

  A "movement" that falls into personality politics, is ultimately worthless to the cause of individualism.

  Published: September 30, 2009 5:12 PM

• Gaurav Ahuja

  This is wrong. "But it is very unlibertarian to consider him beyond criticism.

  A "movement" that falls into personality politics, is ultimately worthless to the cause of individualism." I do agree with the sentiment but I disagree with both parts of the statements. One has to separate philosophy and the implications thereof with what you feel may be a genuine part of what many libertarians and individualists feel apart from it. It is like saying it is not libertarian to ban someone from a convention because of his personal views.

  Published: September 30, 2009 5:53 PM

• Sean Hutchinson

  "It is very unlibertarian to consider him beyond criticism."

  What makes Ron Paul so unique is that the last thing Ron Paul is about is "Ron Paul". His public life is dedicated completely towards propogating the logical truths he has come to accept. Thus, I think it is wrong to attack "Ron Paul". Disagree with his tactics all you want. Just be aware that your disagreement is justifiable solely within the realm of the man's actions. Any attack against the man himself would be totally without merit.
  

  Published: September 30, 2009 6:01 PM

• brad

  just noticing some light criticism regarding mr paul's comments to mostly the bush admin. while i share the sighs that it would have been nice to see him attack both sides equally, in the end i do agree that to reach those who are confused you must be the first to cast the fig leaf in their direction to dismantle the doubter's defenses and instill a sense of curiousity without them feeling that we are all out to destroy and indoctrinate their beliefs. i am speaking out of experience on this. i cannot wait until his book is firmly in my hands soon.

  Published: September 30, 2009 6:17 PM

• jc butte

  bandwagoners reveal yourselves! We all love Ron Paul now that he's a celebrity and leading a cause that is gaining momentum. Back in the 80's it was a different matter and a lot of libertarians dismissed him as a bible thumper and otherwise cast doubt on his commitment to orthodoxy.

  I'm not trying to start anything. If anything all it does is provide additional evidence as to Dr. Paul's sterling character (one like some of you I've been privileged to experience firsthand).

  A bit later when I break into my stash, I'll raise a toast to the second father of our country.

  Published: September 30, 2009 7:27 PM

• Bala

  Ron Paul, as always, a pleasure to listen to. Just that I thought he could have tackled the question on "Corporatism" better by attacking it right upfront. Like you know, saying that this notion of "Corporatism" is a complete by-product of State interventionism as we see it today and that it would not exist in a Libertarian society. He did mention it, but I thought rather defensively. It was almost as though he accepted the statement that the "little guy" needed protection. He even used the word "preventive". I somehow feel that is a little bit of "conceding ground" and that he should have tackled it the same way he handled "fraud". Dismissing the opposing position as fundamentally flawed and an outcome of certain other fundamental flaws that exist in the present system and would not exist in his (Ron Paul's) ideal society would have been, IMO, more effective. He should have used the opportunity to take the "moral high ground" and deny it to the opposite point of view.

  Published: September 30, 2009 8:59 PM

• Slin934

  Not a bad little interview.

  I must agree though, he should have summarily dismissed the notion that corporatism would exist without the state to support it; and he should have gone into a little bit of detail as to how a free market in money (back by 100% reserve) is inherently self-regulating.

  Published: September 30, 2009 9:40 PM

• Mike T.

  Excellent comments. Something being missed here is that Ron Paul is on the DAILY SHOW, a program looking at the lighter side of politics and news. As such, you can't expect Ron Paul to get into deep discussions and splitting hairs on the finer points of libertarian, etc.

  Just the fact that he's getting air time is a step in the right direction. The more eyes and ears he can open, the better!

  MT

  Published: September 30, 2009 9:48 PM

• Mark

  I think Dr. Paul acquitted himself quite well. It is encouraging to see that he can get a fair hearing in at least some MSM outlets. Since most americans know nothing about macro-economics or the fed, or have learned the keynseian approach, getting them het up about a banking institution they know nothing about is kind of an uphill climb.
  
  I hope Dr. Paul gets some traction and his message spreads. Libertarians tend to have the curse of Cassandra, and an america that takes control of its government is more attractive than simply being of an Austrian mindset and being able to say 'told you so' after a complete economic collapse.
  
  Saw him at the U of Minnesota with Michelle Bachmann, and it was nice to see he is drawing other republicans into the fold--though I suspect the truly conservative members of congress can still fit in a single SUV when driving to an event.

  Published: September 30, 2009 10:07 PM

• Mark

  PS. As I was waiting for my comment to post, it occurred to me that the institute would be well advised to add a second meg of ram to the 386-based computer running the web site....
  
  Not that I'm not greatful for the greatest freedom and liberty web site, but it is a tad slow updating that comments database.

  Published: September 30, 2009 10:13 PM

• bob

  Penn got it right - when someone asks a libertarian who's going to do ____, they should reply "you will". We'll provide charity. We'll regulate money supply via the market.

  Published: September 30, 2009 10:20 PM

• pjones

  I think Ron Paul's interview with Jon Stewart shows that the issue of the Federal Reserve and anger with the bailouts, the rigged markets, and so on, now cuts across the ideological divide. In fact, I can't think of many people who support the Fed who aren't involved with it or benefit from it in some way.

  Published: October 1, 2009 4:00 AM