Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998
Leonard Peikoff on NPR and "McCuistion"
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
Leonard Peikoff was recently in Dallas (didn't get a chance to
meet him, sad to say) taping a few shows for the nationally
syndicated PBS show "McCuistion." The McCuistion show has an
interview format, and tries to have a variety of views presented
in each show on the topic. Dennis McCuistion does not to take
"sides" with his guests, preferring to leave it up to the viewer
to decided which "side" is correct.
May 3 - Part I - this is a one-on-one interview with Dr. Peikoff
discussing Ayn Rand, who she was and why she wrote the books she
wrote.
May 10 - Part II - This program is a panel discussion with Dr.
Peikoff, Phyllis Schaffley and Phil Wexler. We discussed the differing
opinions that each of them had on different issues. [My comments: The
purpose of this show is to clearly differentiate Objectivism
from both Conservatism and Liberalism.]
While in Dallas, Dr. Peikoff was interviewed on a local PBS
radio affiliate promoting both PWNI and the upcoming McCuistion
shows.
Dr. Peikoff was his usual emphatic self, and handled the call-in
questions expertly. He explained what was meant by Miss Rand
choosing him as her "intellectual heir" and other things
Objectivists are very familiar with. One caller *castigated* him
about promoting Objectivism on a *public radio* show. Dr.
Peikoff was rather annoyed at the castigation and replied (from
memory):
"Every couple of years or so, this question comes up. I don't
understand why people seem to have such difficulty with this. *I
pay my taxes*, so why shouldn't I take a benefit when it is
offered to me? Am I *not* supposed to use *public* roads, or
*public* libraries, or other *public* institutions when there
are no other options in many cases? Am I not supposed to drive
anywhere? Besides, public radio has been much more open to
promoting Objectivism than commercial stations -- [public radio
stations] shouldn't exist, but so long as they are there, I say
why not use them? After all, I *have* paid for them, even though
unwillingly."
How's *that* for a come-back ;)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 00:47:48 -0400 (EDT)
PWNI Announcement
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
Jenniffer Woodson wrote:
>Dr. Peikoff recently recorded two one-hour television
>specials for a Dallas-based PBS program, McCuistion.
>
>The second special, a panel discussion that contrasts
>Objectivism with Conservative and Liberal philosophies,
>is entitled "Liberal, Objectivist and Conservative: Divergent
>Voices in America." In it, Dr. Peikoff discusses issues such
>as abortion, education, welfare and foreign policy, with President
>of the Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly, and a "free market liberal,"
>Phil Wexler.
I watched this show today, and I have to say it's one of the
best debates including an Objectivist that I have ever seen.
Usually, such debates degrade into non-essentials and name
calling, or worse -- remember the one where the issue was
chastising men for not doing their own laundry?
A lot of credit for this has to go to Dennis McCuistion, who
kept the whole thing on track and asked appropriate questions
along the way. Credit must also be given to the participants,
who faced the issues instead of going off-topic in an evasive
manner.
Most remarkable was seeing the Liberal squirm under the scrutiny
of Dr. Peikoff (they were sitting right next to one another,
while the Conservative was on via satellite). At one point, Phil
Wexler was trying to establish the idea that a basic "social
safety net" must be kept in place, to satisfy emergency cases.
Dr. Peikoff asked him why he thought anyone else was responsible
for the welfare of another; to which Mr. Wexler replied, in a
very embarrassed manner: "Well...uh...altruism, of
course...[rushing the end of the sentence]...and I know how you
feel about *that*." From that point on, the Liberal was on the
moral defensive -- and kept appeasing Dr. Peikoff, claiming they
really had a wide conceptual agreement!
To her credit, Phyllis Schlafly never wavered, and never
appeased the other debaters. One can disagree with her, but one
can at least say that she has the moral certitude of her
convictions.
There was a small studio audience that cheered at appropriate
moments, most especially *for* Dr. Peikoff. Part of this may
have been due to the fact that this taping occurred right after
the taping of the interview with Dr. Peikoff, and that it was
(mostly) the same audience.
Overall, if the purpose of the debate was to differentiate
Objectivism from either Conservatism or Liberalism, I say:
mission accomplished!
