I just came across this. It reminded me of the Thunderfoot vs Eric Hovind debate and I think some analysis would be good. I know its kind of old, but still worthwhile to think about.
I think Schiff’s style can be a bit bombastic, and I think he is approaching this in perhaps the wrong manner in a couple of ways. Although, I respect his balls for going into extremely hostile areas to his message, but he isn’t helping it much.
First, I think his sign that reads “I am the 1%. Let’s talk.” comes off as a bit smug. Sure, we all know that Schiff is kind of an ass hole deep down (wouldn’t any of us be if we had to deal with this nonsense on a day to day basis), but that’s kind of why we love him. However, in this circumstance, I think its starts the conversation off on the wrong foot from the very beginning. It is divisive yet not at all (I know how little sense that makes). He is stating the blunt truth: “You are the 99% and I am the 1%.” However, it comes off as “It’s you guys vs me”. The “let’s talk” part could be seen as inviting discussion (and it certainly does) but I think that is the part that sounds kind of smart ass…“Let’s have a little talk, morons”
Second, he is using language that is already antithetical to theirs (“what we need is more capitalism!”). This is certainly true, but to use the word “capitalism” so flagrantly and immediately among hordes of capitalist haters, well, shits hit the fan already. It would be kind of like in a religious debate, where the atheist says God is not real, to which the Christian replies, “But look right here in Gensis 1 ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth!’ See, God is real.” Until you can (1) define what God is, and (2) acknowledge that the atheist doesn’t accept your text as legitimate proof of anything, you aren’t going to get anywhere.
Same goes for Schiff; he should have eased into the capitalism slowly, established all that he has in common with the OWS protestors there, differentiate himself from the 1% these people hate, and then they might be ready to listen. This is mostly a shouting match, and the fact that he is filming and holding the microphone only instigates contempt for him because the protestors don’t feel like they can get a word in (whether they can or not).
Now, for the protestors, these people use every get-out-of-an-argument-I’m-not-prepared-for trick in the book. “I see you are knowledgable in economics, but let’s have a real conversation.” or “Money isn’t everything. That’s all you care about.” Most of these people are not just economically illiterate, they are downright buffoons, morons, imbeciles. These traits, mixed with a general unwillingness to listen to Schiff (largely due to his presentation), I think resulted in a pretty fruitless exchange of ideas, at least for the most part.
Finally, a crowded outdoor setting full of emotionally charged protestors is not really the most conducive environment to understanding, but I suppose Schiff was working with what he was given.
I especially liked the shaggy haired dude near the beginning who approached Schiff politely, invited him to a more civil discussion, and when a sign accidentally hit Schiff on the head due to a gust of wind, the dude admonished the sign holder, yelling “We don’t resort to violence during civil discussion! That is unacceptable!” I was like, “Right on, shaggy man, you would make a great Libertarian. Please join us.”