In his book, The Adirondacks - A History of America's First Wilderness, Paul Schneider chides the local sense of rugged individualism versus the overriding power of the state to regulate everything under the great pines as a sort of quaint 'libertarian' knee jerk. I got the same sense of intellectual hubris from listening to Brian Mann's recent 'interview' of me on North Country NPR last week.
Mann opens the piece with outraged locals being prime targets of a libertarian sensibility in that neck of the woods. While Mann does immediately segway to the core issues of voluntary interaction amongst humans from me, it really was just a snippet of what I was relating as an attempt to portray the libertarian mindset. While he kept promising me that he'd return to the problematic of ballot access, we never did. Instead it was sort of a liberal/progressive hit job and what he feels is the core problem of libertarianism. So much for just 'covering' the candidate. I'll be curious if a similar piece about ideas and philosophy will even be approached for the two heavies.
I really thought that avoiding the typical third party umbrage issues wouldn't be that hard in a race that could potentially bring real national coverage and a multitude of local outlets right to our extremely cool doorstep. I have to say that after spending a good twenty minutes on the phone with Brian that I thought I pegged the down to earth mellow straight talk nicefest that I conceive the typical NPR interview to be like. I was quite disappointed by the final product, because I feel he choice picked about 40 seconds of quotes to fill his journalistic paradigm. I hope that he takes up my offer for him to appear on Capital Outsider and let him go an entire 27 minutes without interruption. I should think as interviewer that I would develop a solid inquiry into his curious claims that it's not Red & Blue, but city and rural divides for the approximate half of the population that bothers to vote and the other half stuck with basically two immutable choices. Oh well, I guess he doesn't get to Schenectady often.
I just about bit my lip when he started dropping the Ayn Rand bomb and Greenspan narrative. Anyone who knows me or Austrian Economics would know that neither icons of the libertarian perception are high on my list of examples. Mann did only pick-up on the Henry David Thoreau reference when I threw a litany of folks (Spooner, Tucker and Warren) out attempting to describe the classic American spirit of liberty throughout the years.
While his insertion of economist Steve Horowitz did an adequate balance for the kneecap of Rand/Greenspan segment, I thought our own conversation covered these aspects reasonably well. I'm wondering if my Schumer criticism or Federal Reserve references kept him from accepting/approaching it with my own words. He doesn't include the course of the conversation where I don't accept the layers of bureaucracy as a necessary safety net to the public good, but rather turn it around in the rational approach of the Austrians to recognize that central planning will always fail. Collapsing on itself and it being the blame for the sudden chaos and not the free open market. This often brings the point true understanding of corporatism that frequently is common ground between the libertarian and progressive.
Mann makes a passing reference to the ballot access issue and makes a remark about the signature collection that only included an approximate total of a three day effort in twelve. At least Curtis Schick from Channel 9 calls back and asks.
Mann seems to have been prompted into covering me by some guy named John Warren who seems to be a critic of his coverage. Consider me in that camp despite my better campaign instincts. He gives Warren a chance to air his grievance at the end. In curious twist he brings it back to what I can only perceive as a naive glorification of the noble public servants out there plowing the roads. He deftly cuts out my criticism of the prison industrial complex built on the ignoble pillars of the Drug War and neatly provides a picture of the third party libertarian and as the idea guy instead of a real viable candidate.
This morning is a relatively normal day. So I'm indulging in a little blogging push back. The last three weeks and the next three days would certainly not be described as such in my world view. I got Sam on the bus and there's a little time to reflect in between Curious George and getting Anna to Grandma's. While I'm busy balancing real work (one server meltdown postponed a real TV interview), campaign petitioning and the other natural defugalities in life, my opponents enjoy constant daily campaigning and my need for boots on the ground has left me driving my 1991 Chevy Blazer until next Friday. These are interesting features that I'm sure Tom Caruso picks up on this Saturday when he and his partner come up.
I will be on guard again from future journalism like this. I guess I'll have to set ground rules and parameters like the heavies do. But again, I will not apologize for being a thinking libertarian. Now if you'll excuse me, I've a mini-ground war to lead in the next week and Sid the Science Kid is almost over.
"some guy named John Warren" is one of your neighbors and a would-be constituent. He's also been involved in Third Party political struggles for a long, long time.
John - mind you, I have no complaint about you personally, nor have we met however. You are correct about being a potential constituent and ally, I very much appreciate that.