The following post is by Seth, a contributor to this blog, who is gracious enough to allow his fine work to be shared with (and hopefully by) our readers. I suggest you visit his blog, Our Dinner Table, often if you want thoughtful, shortish commentary about a variety of freedom related issues.
Seth's idea is that "All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven’t been teaching you what it means to be an American, let ‘em know and nail ‘em on it. That would be a very American thing to do."
At Whatwethinkandwhy we have made it clear that this blog is an admirer of Dr. Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky. We also admire Seth's refreshingly thoughtful and substantive blog. In the following post we get a little of both.
I saw this video of David Letterman’s interview of Rand Paul from 2011 posted on Carpe Diem:
I suggest skipping past Paul’s corny attempts at humor near the beginning and watch the last five to six minutes of the discussion. It’s a great example of how someone’s ignorance, Letterman’s in this case, can be mistaken for legitimate arguments by stating platitudes and refusing to accept facts.
In one example, Letterman characterizes Republicans as the party that just wants to give tax breaks to the rich and big business.
Paul points out that there’s the idea that the rich don’t pay their fair share isn’t accurate. They, in fact, pay most of the taxes. He says the top 1% income earners pay a third of income taxes collected and the top 50% pay 96%. Letterman gets some claps for replying:
…I think there’s something wrong with those numbers. I don’t know what it is exactly, but I’m pretty sure there’s something wrong with them…
I’ll give Letterman credit. After the applause, he then says:
Thank you, you’re applauding my stupidity, God bless you.
I’d like to know if Letterman followed up to learn more about these facts to see if he could build a more valid counterpoint than “I’m pretty sure there’s something wrong.” If he did, what did he find? Did it change his mind?
What do you do when you encounter facts that go against what you previously believed? I don’t know about you, but I find that intriguing and I usually dig in deeper.
Earlier in the conversation (4 minute mark), Letterman demonstrates his ignorance by confusing the national deficit with the debt. ”The American debt is what, $3 trillion?”
Paul explains that the deficit is running about $2 trillion each year, but total debt has accumulated up to $14 trillion.
Letterman blows by this fact. He just learned that something he thought was $3 is nearly 5 times as big and he has no reaction. A reasonable person should respond, “Holy cow! $14 trillion? How did that happen? I had no idea that it was that much. What was I thinking?”
I will give Letterman some credit here. He asks how continuing to borrow will affect him. Paul tries to explain, but I don’t think it made much sense to Letterman.
I would have said the Soviet Union, Greece, Cyprus and Detroit are good examples of what can happen. It’s tough to tell how far down the road that is, but that’s the direction borrowing leads.