Mondays With Murray: Rothbard On Woody Allen
The standards and conduct tolerated by humanity differ substantially depending which class of society is being examined. Generally, the greater authority or influence an individual or group wields the more despicable acts they are able to commit. Famous, influential people are able to commit heinous acts and yet be praised for contributions that are seen in a positive light by the masses.An example of this phenomenon is exemplified by the special treatment society allows the current commander-in-chief, pop culture icons, and media personalities. President Obama can approve a drone attack in Pakistan that kills women and children one day, then turn around and hold a press conference touting policies that grant false protections to women and children. Those critical of the President may attack the structure or feasibility of the later, but almost nobody questions the former. Certainly, nobody in the mainstream media would dream of vilifying a sitting President for killing innocent people.This paradoxical double standard also exists for Hollywood types in the entertainment industry. Michael Jackson was accused multiple times of child molestation, but was never convicted. There are reports that he paid 35 Million dollars to cover-up and quiet families’ of children that he had sexually abused. Yet, even after his death, Jackson enjoys a passionate following. This is troubling for a man who at best displayed poor judgment in his weird behavior with children and at worst was a sexual predator that tormented an unknown amount of innocent children.If a person that lives in your neighborhood had 1/100 of the stigma that Michael Jackson had while alive, you probably wouldn’t allow your child outside without an adult present. Yet, families welcome Michael Jackson into their living rooms via stereo speakers and clap as their children dance to his music. If you don’t see a problem with this scenario, then you probably feel the current rehashing of Woody Allen’s controversial past is an inconvenient speed bump in the life of a great film maker.The controversial past I’m referring to was addressed in an open letter penned by Woody Allen’s formerly adoptive daughter in the NY Times. It has brought Allen’s controversial past and inappropriate behavior back into question. Dylan Farrow provided the graphic details of the alleged child sexual abuse, which prosecutors chose not to pursue more than two decades ago. In addition to the sex abuse accusation resurfacing, Allen's sexual relationship with another older adopted daughter Soon-Yi, which began when she was a teenager, is considered inappropriate by most rational adults. Allen is still married to Soon-Yi today, but that does not minimize the creepiness of the situation that unfolded in the early 90s.Last week, this week's guest on the Lions of Liberty Podcast Bob Wenzel at economicpolicyjournal.com published an opinion Rothbard gave on the Woody Allen situation, which originally appeared in the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, published in the early 1990s. Below is a portion of that article.
Woody’s and Mia’s living arrangements constituted a veritable metaphor of what left-liberal “alternative lifestyles” are all about: out-of-wedlock, separate apartments, Mia’s adopting a veritable zoo of multicultural kids, one after the other – all very mod, very trendy, very politically correct. And then, whamo! Woody goes over just about the last line, or, if you want it put that way, the “last frontier” – incest. Well, OK, it’s not legal incest, but it certainly, morally, encompasses what incest is all about: bringing up a kid from early age, as a step-(common law) father, and then taking advantage of her innocent daughterly trust to launch an affair, replete with nude photos.It has been almost too much for Woody’s fans. You mean “If It Moves, Fondle It” could include incest? Shocking! But after all, why not? If all bets are off, if there are no religious or moral restrictions on behavior, why not Ago with the flow,” why not go with your heart, feelings, gonads, why not Do It? Particularly shocking to Woody’s army of left-liberal fans has been his obtuse refusal to see any moral problem in his behavior. She (Woody’s quasi-step-daughter) “has turned my life around in a positive way.” Well, isn’t that it? Woody’s movie characters – clearly a metaphor for himself – always follow their heart/gonads but only after a lot of kvetching and pseudo-philosophizing; Woody in real life has apparently transcended all that into the purely hedonic.
As you can tell by the passage, Murray was not fond of Woody Allen. He hated his politics, lifestyle, and seeming lack of a morals compass.Rothbard cites Woody’s “army of left-leaning liberal fans” as being shocked with the Soon-Yi scandal. If Murray were alive today I'm sure he would hold strong opinions on the recent revival of the Woody Allen scandal. The catalyst for the revival is an interesting topic in itself. How have so many, both inside and outside the movie industry, forgiven or forgotten Woody Allen’s inappropriate conduct in the 90s that he was able to win a lifetime achievement award?Perhaps societies’ favorable treatment of unsavory figures, such as Woody Allen or Michael Jackson, underscores a grand flaw in humanity. Most people only choose to apply moral principles when it is convenient. They tolerate celebrities’ immorality or disturbing behavior as long as it doesn’t affect their life. This is on par with a majority of the population’s political views. Most justify immoral behavior by the State as a necessary evil. Coercion and violence is tolerated, because the masses can’t imagine institutions operating any other way.Until we take a step forward as a society and hold theft and violence exerted by the State equal to theft or violence between individuals, the ideas of liberty will have a hard time spreading.