John Stossel: Leaving the left |
Featured Commentary

John Stossel: Leaving the left

Watching this video upset me. Students and even faculty members won’t let Dave Rubin speak. They constantly interrupt, shouting “hate speech!” and “black lives matter!”

Rubin was once a man of the left. He even was a co-host on The Young Turks network.

But then he started a podcast.

He did long interviews with people like talk show host Larry Elder. In that interview, Rubin referred to “systemic racism” and said that “cops are more willing to shoot if the perpetrator is black.”

“What’s your data for that?” replied Elder. Then he gave Rubin answers the left doesn’t like to hear, like, “Seventy percent of homicides are black-on-black …” and “The idea that a racist white cop shooting black people is a peril to black people is complete and total b.s.”

“He just beat me with fact over fact about how systemic racism doesn’t exist — not that racism doesn’t exist,” Rubin told me.

The more people Rubin interviewed, the more he became convinced something was missing in the left’s picture of the world.

“I realized not everyone that (the left) disagreed with could be a racist and a bigot and a homophobe and a sexist. That was the argument constantly being laid out. If a Republican gave a speech and said, ‘We should lower taxes,’ their answer was, ‘he’s racist’.”

Rubin now considers himself a classical liberal. That means he believes in liberalism roughly as it was before today’s liberals added big government to the philosophy and subtracted belief in individual freedom. “If you believe in the individual, then you fundamentally understand that individuals are different, so you are willing to sit down with someone different than you,” Rubin says.

He still disagrees with conservatives about many things — he’s a married gay man who is pro-pot and pro-criminal justice reform. But he found that conservatives are willing to debate those topics. “For all the differences that we have — I’m pro-choice; most of them are pro-life. I’m against the death penalty; most of them are for the death penalty — they’re all willing to sit down and discuss ideas.”

Some of his podcasts last one or more hours. I never thought people would be interested in such long interviews, but I was wrong. Millions listen and watch his YouTube videos.

“I started doing these long-form interviews, and people kept watching. Suddenly, I realized, ‘Whoa, there’re a lot of people thinking the things that I’m thinking.’ ”

Today, his left-wing former colleagues hate him.

“He’s a puppet for the right wing,” said Ana Kasparian on Rubin’s old Young Turks network. “He was lazy when he worked here. He’s lazy now with his ridiculous show.”

To me, she sounded jealous.

“I lose friends now,” Rubin says. “This goes to the laziness of the argument of the left. They truly believe that if you disagree, you’re evil.”

Many on the left have also come to believe that words themselves are a form of violence, so some now say Rubin’s words must not be heard.

“It’s an oppression Olympics,” Rubin told me. “The more marginalized you claim to be, the more political clout you have on campus or in left-wing circles. …If you have a limp, you’re this much oppressed; if you’re a Jew, this much oppressed; Muslim, this much oppressed. Everyone wants to be oppressed.”

Of course, many minorities have suffered genuine oppression. Rubin acknowledges that but says the left misses what’s special about America.

“No society’s perfect, but the United States, by and large, has given more freedom to more people from every walk of life, regardless of your skin color, your sexuality. … Do we have problems? Yes. We can talk about those things, but to tell me those are because you are ‘oppressed’?! It ain’t true. And that idea needs to be decimated.”

John Stossel is author of “No
They Can’t! Why Government Fails —
But Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.