David Shuster's Mindless Debate with Ron Paul

David Shuster thought he didn’t like Ron Paul’s academic criticism of Abraham Lincoln. He could not explain exactly how or why he disagrees with Paul, but he certainly doesn’t appreciate Ron Paul getting all intellectual n’ stuff about everyone’s grade-school hero. So Shuster called Ron Paul a “crackpot” on Morning Joe and baited his supporters to respond, but Paul responded to Shuster himself.

 

Shuster attacked Ron Paul for what seemed like a half-hour about Abe Lincoln. He really did. Twice, Paul asked for more substantive questions and twice, the gorgeous and classy Mika Brzezinski tried to change the tone. But Shuster would not be deterred. He came to defend Honest Abe with the zeal of a child defending the existence of Santa Claus and by God, he would do it without facts, names, or historical support. His questions were empty, but proud and demanding. They had the urgency of a young Dan Rather investigating Nixon, albeit none of the conviction. He boldly insisted, over and over, that Ron Paul retract his statement.

 

Ron Paul fought a good fight, Ron Paul style. Anyone else would have embarrassed Shuster by saying 'Look kid, you called me a crackpot and now you can’t even explain why', but Paul always insists on debating the merits. He dropped authors’ names, dates, and citations like intellectual bombs. As each one landed, Shuster’s supercilious smile dimmed and his tone became cordial. To paraphrase Paul: ‘this is a useless distraction, but if you want a lecture on abolitionist history, I’ll give you one…There was more than one way to get rid of slavery. I would have preferred a Constitutional amendment because, after all, I am a strict Constitutionalist’.

 

Despite his incessant pomp and pretense, it never became clear what Shuster’s beef was. Paul and Shuster agreed that the civil war was not primarily about slavery. They agreed that Civil War happened to “save the Union”. Paul’s only remaining point was that war was not the best way to save the Union. Shuster should have rebutted that or conceded that it was wrong to call Paul childish names. He did neither. He just acted indignant.   

 

This was almost a disaster for Shuster. After calling Paul names, he had a huge burden of proof. Paul locked him into a corner so tightly had to not only argue esoteric counterfactuals from 1860’s politics, but also excuse the purpose of the discussion in the first place.

 

That is when the miracle happened. Shuster’s gray-haired co-panelist, who had not yet attempted to hold his own in the discussion, jumped the substance altogether and went straight for the absent-minded blanket rejection: “Well, you (Paul) read this [DiLorenzo] and we’ll read everyone else who says exactly the opposite” (zing!). It was clear by then that neither panelist had read anything, but that didn't matter. The mere act of denial empowered Shuster to get back on his horse and ride. As he realized that he could save some ego by pretending not to notice he was losing, he cloaked himself in a blanket of smug and made bold, disingenuous assertions for the rest of the segment.

 

This hubris came to an apex when he excused himself for pushing the Lincoln topic. Shuster explained the ways of the world to Paul “…but when you talk about someone as revered as Lincoln, you get into a danger zone”. Whatever. Shuster is the only one pushing this. Paul doesn’t want to talk about it. His opponents are not demanding a retraction. The electorate doesn’t even care. Shuster is hardly the voice of the people. He gave up such principled notions of journalism when he used the word “crackpot”.

 

Paul won the discussion from a rhetorical perspective. It seemed that Shuster misunderstood Paul’s argument at the outset which led him to concede Paul’s main point pretty quickly. He pretended that he had a problem with Paul’s more subtle points, but he could not explain how. He used broad, sweeping statements like “every historian will tell you”, but only Paul cited actual historians. A sure sign of this defeat arose when Shuster’s gray-haired cohort waited for Paul to hang up the phone before taking this bold position: “He’s completely wrong about Lincoln” What...how? It wasn’t even clear that Shuster disagreed with Paul by then.

.

Shuster probably just miscalculated. He clearly wanted to grapple with Paul for the spectacle, but he probably hoped Paul’s criticism of the national epic would be so viscerally repugnant to viewers that they would excuse Shuster’s sophomoric questioning: “Would you like to publicly take this opportunity to take back these remarks?” But the public remains uninterested. Although Americans may be willing to reject the better argument for a more favorable one, they won’t reject it for nothing at all. Shuster offered nothing at all.

 

To get a perspective of Shuster, contrast his youthful, hyperbolic punditry against conservative heavyweights like Pat Buchanan and John McLaughlin; both of whom tout Ron Paul. When Buchanan shows up to talk about Day of Reckoning, Shuster calls him “sir”. John McLaughlin’s stature makes Shuster look like a freshman who read an ideologically-loaded book just to bait the professor and waste everyone’s class time. If Shuster doesn’t act like a man and admit he was wrong, Joe Scarborough should seriously consider whether he wants a zealot representing his name. Scarborough wouldn’t make these kinds of mistakes.

 

To be honest, I would like to have Shuster on Paul’s side. He ha a lot of good qualities and he would be an amazing pundit if he abandoned his embarrassing “gotcha” routine. But if Shuster won’t come correct with conservatism, Huckabee can have him. I’m sure their conversations will be intellectually riveting. I will be voting with McLaughlin.

 

All of this is moot of course. The Party doesn’t stand a chance in its current incarnation. It’s manifestly clear that Ron Paul represents everything that was ever good about the Republican Party, but that neoconservatives degrade the Party with their lust for power. No matter who the neoconservatives nominate, he’ll be creamed by the Democrats without the vote of the conservatives. The party will turn on them, Goldwater libertarians and Constitutionalists will pick up some seats in the wake of this largest grassroots campaign in history, and the Party will be reformed.

 

Of course, if Ron Paul wins, that will all happen sooner. And yes, it is possible.