Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Uncle Milt’s Fencing Exhibition
Some weeks ago on one of the podcasts, Rob recalled Milton Friedman explaining how assuming that his opponents were arguing in good faith both added years to his life and helped him win more debates. Watching some old videos of the great man on YouTube, I came a fantastic example of the Great Man doing just that:
In it, a character straight out of casting for a 1970s student activist — you simply cannot un-see that hat — filibusters Friedman for nearly two minutes about his criticisms of “so-called communist countries” like the Soviet Union and the general wickedness of capitalism and Western colonialism, earning a round of applause from the audience for his efforts. Within minutes, however, Friedman’s utterly turned the tables, laying out all the ways in which the questioner used wrong facts to come to wrong conclusions and generally make a fool of himself. Best of all, it worked: within minutes, he’d turned the crowd, and without even seeming to break a sweat.
Righteous anger has its place as well — something one hopes the non-Trump candidates will soon rediscover and put to good use — but it’s always satisfying seeing someone win over an audience with expert parry and thrusts that don’t spill a drop of rhetorical blood
Friedman’s one of the masters, but he’s hardly alone. What are some of your favorite examples?
Published in General
I agree with your scoring of the debate, Tom, but I don’t see where he turned the crowd.
Tom,
What is also interesting is how the audience actually allowed him to make his points. That same group today would have shouted him down. If he was even allowed to address them in the first place.
Facts, data, well reasoned arguments … these mean nothing today.
The applause at 4′ 45″.
I don’t know about that. The trouble is that everyone thinks the facts, data, and reality are on their side.
Boy do we need a paladin of his acumen and brilliance today to be our foremost warrior for Freedom. He was a titan, sorely missed. Sorely missed.
Followed by groaning, hissing, gasping, and unfavorable outbursts especially at 7’45”. He won the crowd on that point you refer to, but this was a mixed bag at best.
Agreed. That loss of civility alone is cause for lamentation.
No one would be pining for socialism if this was the case.
Oh I agree that somebody has to be wrong, but everyone thinks it’s the other guy and they have the facts and reasoning to prove it! I’m not necessarily talking about your average Facebook poster, although they all like to think they’re on the side of science and history, but professionals and academics too. The genuine snake is pretty rare in my experience.
One of his best ever was a Q & A with Phil Donohue about angels. Milton of course was erudite as ever, but what’s memorable to me is that Phil, a badge-wearing progressive, let him speak his piece, as did the audience.
Interestingly, in the same field: Thomas Sowell and Matt Ridley.
In Con Law: the Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds; and Antonin Scalia.
In ecology: Bjørn Lomborg, Stewart Brand, and Matt Ridley.
In statistics: Hans Rosling
Libertarianism with a bit of an edge, mostly limited to non-CoC language: Penn and Teller
I’d like to give kudos to the questioner. He didn’t have the strong position he thought he had but he had a position. Today, having a position is the great sin.
I was also struck by his coherence, respectfulness, and sincere effort to move along when asked to do so. Also the fact that he’d written his question, presumably to stay both on point and within a proscribed length. He didn’t grandstand; he didn’t shout; he didn’t have a small army of thugs to disrupt the proceedings.
He had a question.
At 4:48 his point on Hong Kong and China, which way the flow of people was going, the crowd reacted well to his point.
Yeah, that hat is ridiculous. And, of course, the glasses indoors.
I’m often amazed at the way people dress today, and this is a good reminder that there is nothing new under the sun.
Venus Flytrap seems too intelligent to be limited to the FM radio dial.
I enjoyed MF’s dismissive waving away of the heckler’s assertion that Cuba was a colony of the U.S. Sometimes, you subtly have to let a fool know that he’s a fool.
Ahem.
You’re not claiming midget faded rattlesnakes aren’t rare, are you?
I am not so vain as to think of my particular species as the only genuine snake.
Leave me alone you microaggressors! Oh my, I need to get to a safe space.
Shame on you for shaming diminutive pit vipers! “Micro-agressors” indeed!
I’ve been looking for a good 8-panel cap. I had one years ago but wore it out. I’m not sure that’s what the kid had, but maybe it’s close enough. I’d like to have one in a more neutral color, though I wouldn’t refuse to wear one like his.
I prefer Friedman’s political point of view to his, though. I’m glad the great man didn’t let himself get bothered by the cap, though it would be interesting to see him wear one like it.
Absurd outfits do not render a person’s arguments invalid, I agree. Wearing shades indoors is exceedingly disrespectful, though. Wearing a hat in a setting like that is also disrespectful. That man’s entire movement – which today is the black lives matter movement – is one of entitlement and disrespect. If Milton Friedman were to wear an outfit like that, he would likely know when a change of attire is necessary. No, your clothing doesn’t make you wrong or right, but it sure does say a lot about you.
As to the question in you last paragraph. Lee Iacocca was on Phil Donahue back when Chrysler was struggling and seeking a government bailout. Donahue was on the attack, and was determined to make Iacocca and Chrysler look bad. Iacocca turned the show into a hour long Chrysler commercial. At one point Donahue just held his microphone by the cord and let it hang. He knew he had been soundly defeated, so did the audience.
Tom Meyer, thank you very much for bringing up this clip. It’s one of my all time favorites. I am also grateful that Ricochet is so polite. When I first saw this odd-hatted gentleman I was indignant.
In my defense, he was defending Mao’s China. So you know, he was actively supporting a Government that killed more innocent people than any other Government that has existed in the history of man. But really, I did not give him enough credit for being concise, polite and attentive.
I know this is a very odd request but I’d like to know what happened to this fellow. Is he still an unrepentant Marxist? I thought a rather uncharitable thought when I watched him previously. I surmised that he did not care about the incredible suffering of people who live under communism. Now I think that was too harsh.
To ask a hard question, why isn’t this hat-guy treated like a fascist sympathizer. He has advocated for regimes that systematically killed peaceable ethnic and religious minorities.
An eternity ago I used to date a Tibetan girl. She nearly cried when she recounted how her parents told her that Chinese Communist soldiers forced her village to dishonor a picture of the Dalai Lama. (Forgive me but I can’t remember if the soldiers forced the villagers to spit on the Dalai Lama picture or step on it or burn it. I can only recall it was some sort of desecration.)
I don’t think this odd-hatted fellow is a vicious evil human being. But he defended a vicious and evil polity. Shouldn’t he get a little grief for that?