Skip to comments.Informing Individuals: Stossel takes his message to print
Posted on 03/03/2004 6:47:25 AM PST by wysiwyg
In the summer of 1996 the Libertarian party took its national convention to Washington, D.C., and I went, figuring that the ironic tableau ought to provide good material for a story. Two things stood out over the course of the event: First that the Libertarians had the kind of vigorous and intelligent debates that never occur anymore at the major-party meetings; and second, that maybe a full half of the delegates were nuts. There were folks who insisted there was no such thing as judicial "authority," some who believed citizens are obligated to evade income taxes, and others who probably saw no use in paying them anyhow, since American currency actually had no value. Listening to the Libertarians made one thing clear: If government succeeds at nothing else, it does make some grown men bark at the moon.
I felt a touch of this madness coming on as I read through Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media..., by John Stossel of ABC News fame. For those who don't know Stossel, he is a congenital skeptic and provocateur whose appearances on 20/20, and in his own periodic TV specials, have been perhaps most notable for how sharply they contrast with the ordinary TV news fare.
Stossel is basically a Libertarian (he prefers "classical liberal"). He is also, as the book's title suggests, the "scourge" of liberal media. From his network perch, Stossel exposes viewers to a universe of depredations undertaken in "the public interest." It's an underground economy of lawyers, activists and other professional busybodies who enrich themselves (and one another) while harming the very people they purport to help. Journalists are the indispensable abettors. The only people who don't get to participate ordinary taxpayers pick up the tab.
Stossel isn't going to make many new friends in the profession with this book, which exposes society's know-it-alls to ridicule at every turn. It depicts his fellow journalists in places as lazy, committed to ignorance, and especially susceptible to nonsense peddled as "science." He writes:
We [journalists] like to think we're superior to the people who, centuries ago, burned "witches" for no better reason than a neighbor's belief that his crop failure or impotence was caused by that woman's action. But reporters are still prone to the same mental errors that caused these killings: seeing patterns where there are none, finding causes where there is only coincidence, ignoring our sources' political agendas, and turning scanty evidence into panic.
Stossel suggests that political bias within the profession means that liberal groups have a reliable pipeline to the top news outlets and journalists, who are prone to accepting the information they are provided uncritically. The Washington Post, among others, reports that 150,000 women die every year from the eating disorder anorexia a number that, as Stossel points out, is absurd on its face. ("Triple the number killed in cars?") Dan Rather, citing a report, suggests that one in four American children under age 12 is "in danger of starving." (The actual source material, based on a highly misleading survey, said nothing of the sort. But either way, Stossel notes, isn't our real problem obesity?) The New York Times winds up having to correct a piece that says, erroneously, that the North Pole is melting but not before the story is picked up by other major media who also interview the same "global warming expert" quoted in the Times story.
The fourth estate is not the real focus of this book, however. Give Me a Break is a capitalist's manifesto, a paean to the power of self-interest to regulate human affairs. Stossel makes no apologies for his faith in free markets as the surest source of wealth, justice, innovation, and efficiency. He's a crusader who comes across as a populist F. A. Hayek or Milton Friedman. "Calcutta is poor because of your stupid policies," he tells a top official of the local Socialist party, which has run that Indian city for years. Elsewhere, he corners Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf, who's demanding that the city government pony up for a new stadium. "Let's have a debate," Stossel says. "You're a freeloader. You're taking money from poor taxpayers to make you, a rich guy, richer." That must have been cathartic. It's no surprise that one school teacher from Kansas writes Stossel, after his interview with the Calcutta official aired, to complain that he was "rude" to his subject. Stossel's response: "I was rude. This man wrecked people's lives.... Someone ought to be rude to him."
Readers may cringe when Stossel, arguing with the zeal of the converted, suggests that Michael Milken, the junk-bond king who did jail-time for violating securities laws, contributed more to humanity than Mother Teresa. But here's his logic: By revolutionizing corporate finance, Milken ensured that smart business ideas would have a chance to flourish; this ultimately created jobs and hope for millions of people worldwide. Mother Teresa's charities live on, aiding the suffering, but "Milken's selfish pursuit of profit helped a lot of people, too."
Only trial lawyers can test Stossel's faith in the marketplace. But, then, he argues that the tort system hardly resembles a free market, which ideally would provide awards commensurate with the worthiness of claims. Today's courtroom, Stossel says, is an arena for clever extortionists, who feed off the reluctance of defendants to see matters through to trial. Lawsuits don't need to be valid; they just need to carry enough risk for defendants to force out-of-court settlements. Stossel visits one area of San Francisco where residents live in abject fear of a particularly litigious neighbor. He is soon sued by the woman in question for slander. "We are the only advanced country in which I can sue you, wreck your life, be wrong, and then just walk away," Stossel writes. "It's the reason Americans file some 90 million lawsuits a year. Lawsuits are too lucrative and risk-free to resist."
Still, the thematic thread that holds this book together is government arrogance and its unholy consequences. Stossel wonders whether government has ever "solved" any problem it has been assigned, or even provided better solutions than those which would arise naturally if people were permitted to make their own decisions. Are the nation's public schools, controlled by bureaucratic fiefdoms and shielded from competition, meeting anyone's idea of success? The drug war has given rise to a violent black-market trade in narcotics, packed our prisons with nonviolent offenders, and cost billions of dollars upon billions of dollars without showing the slightest sign of cracking the "problem." Could drug legalization possibly make matters worse than they are now?
Give Me a Break draws from the spectrum of Stossel's reporting over the years, and the book smartly combines sharp analysis with well-chosen anecdotes. The cumulative effect is an unremitting pageant of outrages. Stossel shows how the Park Service managed to spend $330,000 on an outhouse with a gabled slate roof, cobblestone masonry, and a porch. (He found a restored 15-room house nearby that was selling for less.) City officials in Atlantic City, N.J., try to condemn one widow's home so that Donald Trump can build a limousine parking lot for one of his casinos. And the egregious state tobacco settlements, a festival of logrolling for attorneys general and their allies in the plaintiff's bar, may provoke the formation of a pitchfork brigade. Along the way, Stossel asks, How could we have let things get this way?
That's really the nub of the issue here. Because if individuals wanted to control their own lives, it stands to reason that they would vote for politicians who would try to erode government's influence. They mostly don't. Stossel suggests that the costs of bureaucratic creep are too much of an abstraction for ordinary taxpayers to notice they don't see the prices climbing or the businesses closing as a result of new laws and regulations. I would argue that perhaps these phenomena are really the opportunity cost of not having to pay attention to government machinations; that as long as people feel they're still free to enjoy their lives, they'll tolerate the costs. It's the cultural equivalent of smoking. If we're lucky, we'll never "die" from it. Either way, Stossel's book is an impassioned plea to Americans to catch the disease while it can still be cured.
Ethan Wallison is White House correspondent for Roll Call.
However, the basis of the book and the underlying thread is ever-expanding government power and the gradual loss of our rights. The more Stossel gets under the skin of the "Totalitarian Left," as he calls them, the better.
Again, I highly recommend this book to anyone that honors the Constitution, loves America and values freedom.
P.S. It's also available at Costco for $14.29 (Item# 765357). Amazon sells it for $14.97.
I agree. I used to think that O'Reilly was following in Stossel's footsteps. Used to. I can't even stand to watch him anymore.
The difference being ....?
I've read it. It is a great book. There was a brouhaha in my county recently because a discount store was allowed to renew it's lease and the library had assumed the lease would expire allowing them to take over the building. I've written a letter to the editor suggesting they read Stossel's book, but so far they've only printed the ones crying about the injustice to the library. They don't get it. Right now, that free enterprise is contributing to our economy, once the library takes over...it will be a drain on it.
To quote Stossel, p. 181:
But the mainstream media are tilted so far to the left that they call me conservative.Does that answer your question?
I guess they call me that because I believe the free market is a good thingbut what's conservative about the market? It's unplanned, unpredictable, scary, noisy. "Libertarian" is a better term for my beliefs. But it's a lousy word. People think it means "libertine," and the Libertarian Party has had flaky people like Howard Stern run for office. Maybe "classical liberal" is a better term for what I am. Liberals were originally the ones who advocated freedom and tolerance.
Granted. Another excerpt from his book, p. 133:
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we don't need government. I'm no anarchist. The worst places in the world are the places that have no security, almost no rules. We need rule of law. but do we need so much?The first paragraph points out an important difference between "classic liberal" and some Libertarians. There was a little-noticed movement a few years ago to replace the Texas Constitution with one that almost completely abolished government; everything, including defense, police and courts was to be handled privately. I can only imagine the chaos.
The founders' vision of limited government is one of the greatest philosophical achievements of humanity because it protects people while leaving them free to pursue their own interests. That freedom is what makes so many other good and creative things possible.
The second paragraph is in stark contrast to what current liberals believe.
Yeah, yeah. Your mother wears combat boots.
Care to weigh in on this? Can you tell me the difference, if any, between a classical liberal and a Libertarian?
Therefore it's just another circle jerk with the consumate jerk.
I'm afraid to ask what number one is.
On this poster,,,of course. he doesn't want an answer and he isn't open to the info, his purpose is to troll. As always.
It's an obsession with anti-freedom people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.