Clint Eastwood: "let's spend a little more time leaving everybody alone"

GQ has a Q&A out with Clint Eastwood and Leonardo DiCaprio, who are teaming up for a new movie about J. Edgar Hoover. Here's the obligatory section about Dirty Harry's politics, interspersed with Leo's frantic Global Warmingism:

GQ: [To Eastwood] You've described yourself as a social libertarian. What does that mean to you?

Clint Eastwood: I was an Eisenhower Republican when I started out at 21, because he promised to get us out of the Korean War. And over the years, I realized there was a Republican philosophy that I liked. And then they lost it. And libertarians had more of it. Because what I really believe is, let's spend a little more time leaving everybody alone. These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of.

Leonardo Dicaprio: That's the most infuriating thing—watching people focus on these things. Meanwhile, there's the onset of global warming and—

Clint Eastwood: Exactly!

Leonardo Dicaprio: —and these incredibly scary and menacing things with the future of our economy. Our relationship to the rest of the world. And here we are focusing on this?

Clint Eastwood: They go on and on with all this bullshit about "sanctity"—don't give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want.

Leonardo Dicaprio: It's the great diversion. Politicians are masters at getting you to be on their side so that you don't look at how big business—

Clint Eastwood: I love big business! [They both laugh.]

Clint Eastwood: I love big business if it hires everybody and does all the right things, and if they get off track then they'll have to deal with whatever—

Leonardo Dicaprio: But they often do get off track, unfortunately. See, now you've got us in a political debate!

Thanks to Moose of Reason for the tip. Reason on Clint Eastwood here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I love big business if it hires everybody and does all the right things, and if they get off track then they'll have to deal with whatever—

    I love Clint. And I think he is a great filmmaker. But that doesn't strike me as exactly "leave everyone alone" kind of attitude.

    And DiCaprio is so stupid it is a wonder he can feed himself.

  • ||

    Leo doesn't like big corporations? Then don't work for them, buddy. 'Cause that's where all of your money is coming from, dude.

  • ||

    No kidding. Go work for only mom and pop movie makers there Leo. Good luck with that. And is it just me or does he get creepier looking every year. He is not that old (mid 30s) and he is already as creepy looking as Nicholson was in his mid 60s.

  • Colin||

    Of course, it's big corporations that fund his fucking movies, and hence fucking pay him.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Maybe that means the big corporations are evil!

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Look, I think Leo's distaste for big business comes from a distasteful experience with Cobol Engineering.

  • Bee Tagger||

    I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt for now, given his familiarity with libertarian thought. He may have been starting to say that the businesses will have to deal with the market consequences of not doing the right things anymore before being cut off.

  • Tony||

    It's bizarre how you guys are almost incapable of believing that corporations can do wrong.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Can you explain how you got that from what I said?

  • ||

    You have to remember Tony is a liberal. And reading and figuring is just not something liberals do very well.

  • ||

    No, Tony is a libertarian who still thinks it's funny to play sockpuppet around here.

  • ||

    I think Tony is real. I think the anonymous franchise is a sock puppet.

  • ||

    I don't agree. If I had to guess. I'd bet on a former regular.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I hope Tony is a sock puppet. Otherwise, I don't know if I could go on living in a universe with this much stupid.

  • ||

    I mean compared to much of his ilk, he's practically a genius. It's sad, but true. Only when Perry is president will they come crawling back to us, begging for our support.

  • Applederry||

    Standard liberal tactic: It's not what you said that's important, but how I interpreted it.

  • Tony||

    You seem to be claiming that corporations doing wrong have negative market consequences that would tend to discourage doing wrong. But what if it's profitable to do wrong? Like, say, to pollute somebody's water supply? It's not the market that will punish that, only police power.

  • ||

    Who the hell would pay to pollute a water supply?

    Jesus Christ man, Captain Planet is a cartoon. Stop using it as background information for your moronic opinions.

  • Tony||

    Well pollution isn't anyone's goal, but it could be the cost of doing business--a cost they're happy to make other people pay for if there is no police power (environmental regulations) to stop them, or make them pay for their own costs. If polluting wasn't profitable, then the most profitable industries in the world wouldn't be the most polluting ones.

  • Esteban||

    And following that logic a business would relocate to an area or country where environmental laws are not enforced or exist at all. But that hasn't exactly happened either. It's not that easy to relocate or build a new refinery, whereas it's cheaper to build out an existing refinery and follow environmental regulations. Up to a point. Until the government becomes incredibly antagonistic to business...

  • ||

    Tony, how about you actually quote someone who's ever posted anything at H&R that suggested that corporations should not be sued and forced to pay damages to anyone to whom they cause identifiable harm?

    Failing that, quote someone who has said that corporate officers should not be prosecuted for fraud or theft, whether it is against their shareholders or their customers.

    How about you just quit making things up?

  • ||

    When Tony gets beat, he runs away. Don't expect a response.

  • Tony||

    Oh you believe it in theory, but you seem perfectly willing to just pretend certain externalities doesn't exist when they might prove inconvenient for certain industries if they had to pay for them.

  • ||

    Tony, what you don't understand is that when the government regulates an industry all the industry has to do is follow the regulations. When there is no regulation, when the full force of tort law is unleashed, then companies that cause massive harm will disappear, because they can be sued out of existence.

    Let's look at BP. BP's rig was inspected by the feds, and the feds signed off on it. Never mind if the inspector was corrupt or incompetent. Never mind if the actual precautions taken were insufficient to deal with the danger. The rules were followed, and so now BP will get away with their negligence. You say you want to hold corporations accountable, but what you fail to understand is that regulation is a minimal standard, not an effective standard, and that instituting regulation does not make companies more responsible, it makes them less responsible. Because all they have to do is the bare minimum, and if something happens anyway they are shielded from the full force of a civil action.

  • ||

    Tony, how about you respond to what I actually posted instead of making shit up?

  • DJF||

    That is not true, just ask them about what they think about the United States Postal Service which is one of those evil government owned corporations

  • Colin||

    They can do no wrong.

    Only people can do wrong.

  • ||

    corporations are people

    there is no inherent good or evil whether those people do what they do using a corporation, partnership, trust, or however they decide to organize their internal affairs

  • Tony||

    Corporations are people who libertarians seem to want to exempt from the rules of law and order.

  • ||

    Like governments are exempt from the rules of ethics when they take from our neighbors via the IRS?

  • Tony||

    There is no ethical tradition that says taxation is wrong. Not even Ayn Randism.

  • ||

    Really? Crap. Gotta go get my sheep clothes on and register to vote now...

  • ||

    There is no ethical tradition that says taxation is wrong.

    Didn't the US originate from issues it had about Taxes?

    I don't know about you but when i document starts out with the phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal" I tend to think the writer is attempting to establish an ethical tradition.

  • Tony||

    Yeah, the issue was that taxes were too low on a mega-corporation (the East India Company), which allowed it to outcompete local tea distributors. They were protesting A TAX CUT.

    Anyway it was taxation without representation that was the problem, but taxation itself.

    Anti-tax zealotry (pedestrian anarchism) is not in the fine tradition of Western thought. It's just a cult.

  • ||

    Corporations are people who libertarians seem to want to exempt from the rules of law and order.

    No matter how many times it is demonstrated that there is no truth to this assertion, you show up to repeat it, over and over ad nauseum.

  • ||

    Corporations are people

    Soylent Green are people.

    Corporations are pieces of paper that organize ownership of property and production.

    Why do you hate pieces of paper Tony?!?!?

    What did flattened and bleached wood fibers ever do to you?

  • ||

    It's bizarre how you guys are almost incapable of believing that corporations can do wrong.

    No...what is bizarre is that most poeple don't even believe that...in fact the real republicans which you claim we are don't even believe that. In fact just today Reason did an article about a growing anti-cronies sentiment among Republicans. Hell even during the debate earlier this week you had Buchmann calling Perry a crony.

  • ||

    I think he means that they will have to deal with the consequences of their actions; not punishment or regulation. If customers realize they are purchasing from a bad company, they'll be less inclined to consume the product and the company will suffer ergo. To put it really simply. lol

  • Restoras||

    Very nice and all, but no Morning Links? Really?

  • Matt Welch||

    Up now.

  • Morning Links are AWOL||

    UBS hit by $2 billion loss from rogue trader

    LONDON (MarketWatch) — Swiss bank UBS AG said Thursday that a rogue trader in its investment-banking division ran up $2 billion of losses, which could push the firm’s third-quarter results into the red.

  • ||

    How does one person have the ability to lose this type of money at a bank. Is there no risk management or governance at UBS? Or maybe this guy's a fall guy?

  • ||

    When I heard this story, it immediately made me think of the case where Barings collapsed in the 90s because of a rogue trader. And then IIRC, one of the big French banks had a rogue trader problem a few years later.

    And it made me think back to try to remember a similar case at a US bank and I can't think of one.

    Is my memory faulty, or do US banks really employ better risk management that the Euro ones?

  • tarran||

    IT can happen if the trader is an asshole who is senior enough to get away with breaking the procedural safeguards:

    Brad’s phone rang with the telltale tone of an inner-office call. “Yeah,” he briskly blurted out as he picked up the phone, “what’cha ya need?” That was actually his nicewayof answering the phone. As the senior trader at Æxecor, one of the world’s largest energy trading companies, Brad didn’t need to impress anyone and, in his mind, displaying anything less than vicious hubris would be a sign of weakness.

    “Err,” the receptionist nervously answers, “there’s a… err, delivery for you, sir. They—”

    “Hmphf,” Brad’s scoff cut her off. “So just sign for it, then! Is that really that hard to do? You can do that, can’t you?”

    “Well sir,” the receptionist winced, “they’re asking for mooring instructions? And we need to pay wharfage charges? They said you’d know. I’m at a loss.”

    “Fine,” Brad scowled, “I guess I have to do everything around here!” He slammed down the phone and marched out of his corner office. Despite Æxecor’s location – the “old docks” district – their office was one of the most posh in the city. On one end of the expansive, former warehouse sat the executive suites, which had a tremendous view of the city skyline. The other end – where Brad was headed towards – was the reception which overlooked its own, private bay on the river.

    “Okay, I’m here!” he angrily announced once he stepped foot in the lobby. “So let’s do this! What do I need to—”

    Brad stopped mid-sentence. His eyes were immediately drawn through the floor-to-ceiling windows and onto the river bay that Æxecor’s building overlooked. There was an absolutely gigantic barge – nay, an armada of tightly-connected barges – overfilled with enormous piles of coal that was attempting to dock in front of the building. “What… the… fuuu—”

    Read on for a very funny story.

  • DJF||

    Don't' worry, I bet that rogue Treasury Secretary Geithner and Fed Chairman Bernanke are already getting low interest loans ready to bail them out under their “NO BIG Bank Should Cry“ policy.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "When you start writing like libertarians you'll start feeling like libertarians and then, Goddamn it, you'll start acting like libertarians."

  • rts||

    In about fifteen minutes, we're going to start turning these boys into fanatics - razors. They'll lose their fear of not being invited to liberal parties.

  • ||

    And the point of this post is what?

  • Bee Tagger||

    To entice some ladies to the party, duh.

  • Ice Nine||

    To fill that aching Morning Links void in our hearts.

  • Sons of Taffeda||

    Political discourse.

  • Sons of Taffeda||

    To which I would add, the sheer joy of reading Mr. Eastwood's word and hearing them in his voice.

  • Colin||

    God, I hate these stupid ignorant actors. They think just because some writer gave them something brilliant to say that they are brilliant.

    I wish just once one of them would say, "Hey, I'm just a fucking actor! Why are you asking me these questions?"

  • ||

    If it makes you feel any better, that's what Michael Cane would say.

  • ||

    Caine. Stupid spelling correction.

  • ||

    Clint didn't turn to DiCpario and say, "Put a sock in it, punk!"?

    I am disappoint.

  • DJF||

    Clint is an old movie cowboy, he is just trying to get this movie to market. As long as the punk kid does not cause a stampede or drinks all the whisky then he will just go with the flow.

  • Scooby||

    Leonardo Dicaprio: That's the most infuriating thing—watching people focus on these things. Meanwhile, there's the onset of global warming and—

    Clint Eastwood: Exactly!

    So, we should be sticking our nose into other peoples business over global warming, not over gay marriage? Is that what you're saying Clint?

    Don't be so quick to agree with that little twerp Leo. We shouldn't be sticking our nose into other's business regarding either of them.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure that Clint was commenting on Leo's first sentence, not the shit about global warming.

    It was simply an interjection without much meaning at all.

  • ola||

    When little leo metioned global warming, what did dirty harry mean when he said "exactly"? Exactly what, you are a little turd leo?

  • ||

    This wasn't the ideal situation for getting a precise picture of Eastwood's beliefs. To whatever degree, he was being polite to the kid.

  • ||

    It's bizarre how you guys are almost incapable of believing that corporations can do wrong.

    If that's true, Tony why is it your gang that shovels gazillions of megabucks in subsidies to corporations, while we're the ones who think they should fail if they're not profitable?

  • ||

    Wasn't that Solyndra place a corporation, Tony? I think they may have done some stuff that was wring.

  • Joe Mother||

    Wanna bet that in the actual interview, that "Exactly!" came sooner or later, and the GQ writer strategically placed it right after the global warming comment?

  • Tom||

    Where the hell did this global warming remark come from? Does Leo really weasel that in to every goddamn conversation?

    By the way, it's clear that Clint was saying "exactly" in response to Leo's prior sentence. Also, Clint was going to say that market forces--not the government--would deal with corporations when they get off track, but that little fucker interrupted him.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Did you leave off the part where Clint punches him in the nose for continually interrupting him? Because I'll go buy a copy of the magazine right now if that's in there.

  • ||

    Meanwhile, there's the onset of global warming

    /facepalm

  • Ben||

    Hey Bronco Billy! Damn I remember seeing that movie when I was a kid. Back in the days when Clint was nailing Sondra Locke.

    Boy did they have a nasty breakup!

  • Max||

    I don't think Clint is going to swallow the Kool-Aid, so don't you libertoid assholes cream your pants.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement