[VIDEO] The Death of Americanism

[Paul McKeever]

URL:

Description: On February 24, 2009, Freedom Party leader Paul McKeever was a panelist on the CTS (Crossroads Television) programme "On the Line" with host Christine Williams. In this segment, the panel discusses anti-americanism, especially among Canadians. Christine asks why Canadians seem not to be bashing Americans since the election of Barack Obama to the presidency. Paul's answer is as much a critique of conservativism as it is a critique of what is happening (or has happened) to Americanism.

[TheEgoist]

Paul, you have NAILED IT!

[Thales]

Paul, I think you were good toward the end, where you broke down the three ways that conservatives attempt to defend capitalism, and then you made an appeal to reason, a superb point. But, I thought you should have been stronger for individualism and egoism and stronger against government control of the economy. It seemed to slip out that greed is bad and that should have been challenged.

One of the really big points is that unleashed capitalism results in amazing abundance, wealth and good things. The Professor there got away with bad mouthing capitalism, saying it would do all kinds of harm if it were unfettered. That needed to be challenged!

For example, the economic problem has been caused in part by inflation, but it's was also caused by government policies concerning home mortgages. The government cajoled banks into giving out cheap loans to non-credit worthy borrowers. The economic problem in no way came from the free market. It was entirely the fault of government.

American tradition certainly had a great deal of religion in it going back to the Pilgrims, but the Founding Fathers were not influenced by that so much as they were influenced by Enlightenment ideals. The Founders, in fact, created a secular government and made it very clear that there should be a separation of church and state.

Ron Pisaturo's article sets out in clear terms what America has been doing, and what capitalism means to life:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5444

[Chris.S]

Paul, have you tried getting on a bigger show? Maybe the Party is too small, but I'd think there are a couple cross-Canada shows that would reach a bigger audience.

(you shaved the beard! )

[01503]

Fantastic, Paul.

Also, I laughed aloud when the guy substituted your term "socialist" with "progressive".

[Paul McKeever]

Paul, have you tried getting on a bigger show? Maybe the Party is too small, but I'd think there are a couple cross-Canada shows that would reach a bigger audience.

(you shaved the beard! )

Probably the most important show in Ontario (Canada) for such discussions is called The Agenda, which is hosted by Steve Paikin on TV Ontario. I've been on his program twice (it used to be called Studio 2): in 2003 and in 2007 (albeit the 2007 interview was available only on the TVO website).

CTS has been calling Freedom Party, and myself, since about 1999 for its various programs: Michael Coren Live!, Rhonda London Live, and On the Line. I've also been on John Robson's show on iChannel. Generally, it's a "Don't call us, we'll call you" situation. I remember one host telling me how the staff of a political party leader (whose party has many seats in the legislature) kept calling the show and asking for the party leader to be on the show. The host said "Who the heck wants to hear what [party leader] has to say...boring".

As far as talk shows go, I suspect I'm on these shows more frequently than any other political party leader in the country (and, most certainly, I've been asked to address a much wider array of issues, in a much more philosophically fundamental way).

News shows are a different matter: Freedom Party and I get some coverage during elections but, most of the time, the media just track the leaders of the Liberals and Conservatives. Even Canada's and Ontario's NDP is largely ignored in the media. That too may change though: younger voters do not tend to read newspapers as much as the older ones do (hence the dramatic and widespread failures of so many news media, especially of late...even the owner of Canada's National Post is in big financial trouble). As the old forms of information distribution (e.g., news shows/newspapers) compete with the newer forms (e.g., blogs, websites, videos, etc), I suspect that the establishment will lose its strangehold on political speech and be less able to convince everyone that one MUST vote Liberal or Conservative.

[Paul McKeever]

Paul, I think you were good toward the end, where you broke down the three ways that conservatives attempt to defend capitalism, and then you made an appeal to reason, a superb point. But, I thought you should have been stronger for individualism and egoism and stronger against government control of the economy. It seemed to slip out that greed is bad and that should have been challenged.

One of the really big points is that unleashed capitalism results in amazing abundance, wealth and good things. The Professor there got away with bad mouthing capitalism, saying it would do all kinds of harm if it were unfettered. That needed to be challenged!

For example, the economic problem has been caused in part by inflation, but it's was also caused by government policies concerning home mortgages. The government cajoled banks into giving out cheap loans to non-credit worthy borrowers. The economic problem in no way came from the free market. It was entirely the fault of government.

American tradition certainly had a great deal of religion in it going back to the Pilgrims, but the Founding Fathers were not influenced by that so much as they were influenced by Enlightenment ideals. The Founders, in fact, created a secular government and made it very clear that there should be a separation of church and state.

Ron Pisaturo's article sets out in clear terms what America has been doing, and what capitalism means to life:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5444

Re: the professor bad-mouthing capitalism: you might be more pleased with the third part of the show (I might be able to post it tonight): I was asked about whether the government should bail-out auto companies. I let him have it in my closing sentence.

That said, I have a fairly long history of talking economics, politics, and law on these shows: there can be no confusing me with a socialist. However, over the last year or two, I've really been trying to develop ways for politicians/political advocates to speak about metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical issues without sounding - to the general public - like one is speaking about such issues. There are at least three related reasons:

1. Many issues of governance are neither economic nor political, but are metaphysical, epistemological or ethical, per se. Consider the Ontario legislature's decision officially to open daily legislative proceedings with religious prayers; to seek guidance/wisdom from a god: one properly objects to that on metaphysical grounds - the state is representing to the public that a god exists. Consider the recent case of a school calling child and family services after a child's teacher was told, by a psychic, that a given child in her class was being sexually abused by a man who lived with the child (the child lived alone with her mother, who was shocked to find the government attending at her house to investigate on the basis of a "psychic" tip): one properly objects to that on epistemological grounds - the state is treating arbitrary claims like true claims for the purposes of law enforcement. Consider Ontario's banning of portable scanning services that charged patients directly (Ontario banned it because some people cannot afford to pay for such services): the proper objection is ethical, not political or economic. I am hoping to set an example for other freedom advocates; I want to show them how a candidate for elective office can and should argue essentials without sounding as though he is delving into some 'obscure' topic called "philosophy".

2. Few people will take issue with the advocacy of reality and reason: everyone likes to believe that it is important to know what IS, even if they argue about OUGHT. Ironically, even though they are more fundamental that ethical and political issues, the advocacy of reality and reason tends to find wide acceptance even among religious people. In my experience, even a person who claims to be religious will stand by my side in agreement that government must not base its decisions upon false or arbitrary claims/beliefs, and that government must not substitute such things as consensus for logic. And, of course, once you have people agreeing with your metaphysics and epistemology, they can understand the ethics and politics that necessarily follows. They might not like your ethics/politics, but they no longer think that you - by advocating egoism and capitalism - are doing so irrationally/hedonistically. When you get rid of the perceived hedonism, you gain their respect, even if not also their agreement. More: you leave them trying, without any chance of success, to square altruism and collectivism with the reality and reason that you advocate (google "cognitive dissonance"). So I've been trying to secure the viewer's agreement with my metaphysics and epistemology, and thereby soften their resistance to my ethical and political arguments. If, without laying the metaphysical and epistemological groundwork, I just rush in with economic arguments, or just praise capitalism as "the virtuous" system, they'll treat it as nothing more than another "greedy" guy who "doesn't care" about his fellow man, etc.

3. Advocating reality and reason first and foremost allows me to distinguish Freedom Party, on the essentials, from libertarians, conservatives, liberals, etc., all of whom are anti-reason. At the end of the day, a person wants to know "What does Freedom Party stand for?". The answer I want them to take home with them is: Reason. When they see that the advocates of reason advocate capitalism "for some reason", the positive association will form (among those who will never think any way other than by means of association), even if they never consciously understand the logical connection. In the mind of the associative thinker: if the advocate of reason is for capitalism, then the advocate of reason is not for socialism, so there is no associative connection between reason and socialism, which implies association between socialism and...irrationality.

[Clawg]

It's good that the moderator asked for a definition. I wish more moderators would do that

[01503]

It's good that the moderator asked for a definition. I wish more moderators would do that

I've seen a bunch of Mr. McKeever's videos on that show, and the host seems to be very good about being objective during debates/arguments.

[Thales]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Paul. I see you have a long term strategy. I like the idea, but don't shy away from advocating egoism. Egoism is the opposite of what altruists claim it to be. It means life, where as altruism means death. That point can be brought out in so many thoughtful ways that most people can relate to and agree with and be inspired by!

[Paul McKeever]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Paul. I see you have a long term strategy. I like the idea, but don't shy away from advocating egoism. Egoism is the opposite of what altruists claim it to be. It means life, where as altruism means death. That point can be brought out in so many thoughtful ways that most people can relate to and agree with and be inspired by!

Thales: here's the third part, in which (briefly) I speak more about politics/economics, than about the underlying philo:

Incidentally, you might like this one:

Edited March 11, 2009 by Paul McKeever

[Thales]

Thales: here's the third part, in which (briefly) I speak more about politics/economics, than about the underlying philo:

Incidentally, you might like this one:

Paul, I listened to both. Excellent job!

Btw, Steve Paikin is a guy I've seen interview Mark Steyn. He's very good.

[Paul McKeever]

Paul, I listened to both. Excellent job!

Btw, Steve Paikin is a guy I've seen interview Mark Steyn. He's very good.

Yes, Paikin really is a cut above. It's too bad really, but the best part of our discussion was after the camera stopped rolling.

[JeffS]

Thales: here's the third part, in which (briefly) I speak more about politics/economics, than about the underlying philo:

Incidentally, you might like this one:

"You're just spreading the pain around." - Paul McKeever

A beautiful response. Three more homeruns here, Mr. McKeever. Keep it up.