Wayne Allyn Root's Conscience of a Libertarian

Below is a review of Root's new book, written by Classical Liberal, which he permits me to reprint.

The Conscience of a Bullshit Artist

I have the unpleasant task of reading Wayne Root’s misnamed book, The Conscience of a Libertarian. The title is, of course, just a rip-off of The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater. There was no need to change titles since Root's work is clearly the work of a conservative, not a libertarian. Root remains a pretender, a conservative in libertarian clothing.

Early in the book Root defines himself as a "Libertarian conservative." That is more telling than he would care. First, note that the term "libertarian" is modifying the term conservative. His main identity is that of a conservative not that of a libertarian. A "conservative libertarian" is someone who says they are foremost a libertarian with some conservative sentiments. A "libertarian conservative" is the opposite: someone who is mostly a conservative with some libertarian sentiments.

There is another telling point to Root's self-labeling. He uses the term "Libertarian" instead of "libertarian." A big L libertarian is merely a member of the Libertarian Party and these days that is no indication as to whether or not they are libertarian in political terms. The small l libertarian is someone who is a libertarian philosophically.

Root identified himself as a "Libertarian conservative" not a "libertarian conservative." This is even weaker that what I mentioned in the previous paragraph. Here one is not actually claiming to be a libertarian philosophy, merely a Libertarian Party member who is a conservative.

Of course, the whole thing could be imprecise writing and bad editing. Root is no intellectual and it shows. He is a loud-mouthed, brash, self-promoting individual with all the charms of a cross between a used car salesman and Richard Nixon, just without the principles.

Early in the book, Root dismisses discussing issues that separate libertarians from conservatives: social freedom. He does talk about taxes, and taxes, and more taxes.

Social freedom is not something he talks about, but then he doesn’t want his conservative, anti-libertarian views too obvious while he tries to con the desperate and dying Libertarian Party into nominating him for President. Consider how Root addresses social freedom:

"As a Libertarian, I believe that social and personal freedom issues are quite simply States’ Rights issues. …These issues are none of the federal government’s darn business. Voters should decide these issues on the state and local level."

There is nothing libertarian about that issue. That is a conservative through and through.

Libertarians, by which I mean philosophical libertarians not LP members, believe in individual rights not states’ rights. No decent libertarian would argue that the rights of anyone should be put up to majority vote of the public. But Root is no decent libertarian; hell; he’s not even an indecent libertarian.

What Root is doing is trying to hide social conservative values by sweeping that entire category of issues under the rug. We will hide social issues behind the mantra of "state's rights" instead of addressing them.

Libertarians have NEVER supported the violation of rights as long as it is the states that are violating those rights. That view is classic conservative thinking and was quite popular with the Dixiecrats, the racist Democrats who wanted to use state law to oppress blacks. Root is speaking in the tradition of Strom Thurmond not Lysander Spooner.

Root is also ignoring an important question: what should the states do about these matters? Even if he is merely a Libertarian, and not a libertarian, the LP still has state affiliates and those affiliates must take stands on censorship, equality of rights for gays, separation of church and state and other issues that Root ignores. What stand should they take, Mr. Root?

When Root first floated the idea that he was the great savior of the LP, his web site did take stands on social issues and the stands I saw were very conservative. That was losing Root some support. So he pulled the same sort of trick pioneered by that other social conservative, Ron Paul. He called social freedom a state’s rights issue and then ignored it.

Mr. Root also seems to be taken aim at the many agnostics and atheists that are in the Libertarian Party—including most of the LP presidential candidates until the conservatives took over.

Root says he is "comforted by the idea of our electing public official who are religious God-fearing and love men and women." Apparently atheists like John Hospers (the first LP presidential candidate) or Ed Clark (the most successful LP presidential candidate) make Root uncomfortable.

Worse, Root then equates morality with religion implying that non-religious people are immoral and corrupt. He says that electing "God-fearing" candidates is good for America "because moral people are less likely to bring about a corrupt government."

(Sort of like the non-corrupt, good government of George Bush, right Mr. Right?)

Never before has someone who was an LP national candidate taken a swipe at non-believers, implying that because they are not religious they are more likely to be immoral and corrupt.

Elsewhere, Root claims he is the perfect candidate because he isn't an atheist. "I'm the perfect political figure to lead this fight because of who I am. I'm not an atheist. I'm not a liberal, I'm not anti-religion. To the contrary, I'm a proud family man and patriot who strongly supports God, religion and prayer."

Notice he did not include, "I'm not a conservative."

Root then goes into a discussion of marriage where he proves he is historically as adept as he is philosophical adept. In other words he is total incompetent. He claims "After the abolishment of slavery, some states began licensing marriages in order to prevent blacks and whites from marrying each other. Prior to this, marriage was a religiously defined institution."

Both of these claims are false. State regulation of marriage goes back to the 1500s and was pushed by the Protestant Reformers who said marriage was a state institution more than a religious one. It was not the result of the abolition of slavery.

And prior to the Reformationists inviting the state to take over marriage was primarily a non-religious, secular event. It was governed by custom and the will of those involved but not regulated by either church or state.

Martin Luther wrote: "Since marriage has existed from the beginning of the world and is still found among unbelievers, there is no reason why it should be called a sacrament of the New Law and of the church alone."

Luther wanted state control over the matter but acknowledged it was primarily a non-religious institution predating the church. Root doesn’t know his history any more than he knows libertarianism.

In Root's long diatribe about God and morality he seems to be saying that it is a bad idea to have government enforce morality. But how does that jive with his claim that these are all state issues? At first it appears he is saying that government, at any level, should not take on the role of moral enforcer. But that is not the case. He actually qualifies his position by saying: "Do not ask or demand that the federal government impose your choice and values on the rest of us." It is only Nanny statism at the federal level that offends him.

This remains consistent with his stated position that voters have the right to dictate morality at the state level. In the world of Wayne Root, individual rights may be determined by popular vote at the state level.

Social freedom issues are not quite entirely ignored, though they may well have been. He has a short section on medicinal marijuana but little about the destructive effects of the war on drugs as a whole. There appears to be one paragraph in the entire book on this topic.

He does have a chapter called The End of Prohibition but that isn't about drugs. That is about the laws regulating gambling. Root is in the gambling business so his "principled" stand here is not surprising.

True principled libertarians defend the rights of people they don't like. Mr. Root never does that.

Root has almost nothing to say about civil liberties and social freedom. Also missing is any discussion of foreign policy and the war on terror. Surely the war and the hysteria about terrorists have justified more big brother measures in recent years than anything else. And Root has not a single word to say about them. He doesn't defend the traditional libertarian foreign policy of non-interventionism.

But then Root was a pro-war cheerleader before, who only shut up about it when he realized it might hurt his desire to be an LP candidate.

There is nothing [in his book] condemning the Patriot Act, nothing condemning torture of individuals by the US government, nothing about indefinite incarceration of prisoners by the federal government.

The only things Root talks about are conservative talking points. He avoids most social issues and all issues of foreign policy.

He will rant about affirmative action, which pales in significance to foreign policy.

He spends page after page on taxes but says nothing about repealing the Patriot Act and bringing the troops home.

Root's book is purely a marketing gimmick. It is not meant to explain libertarianism. How could it? Root has no idea what that term means. The whole purpose of the book is to convince conservatives to complete the take-over of the Libertarian Party and nominate the con man from Nevada for President.

Seaside Peaceniks Hold Obama Accountable

The following is written by Lawrence K. Samuels, who is the Chair of the Monterey County Libertarian Party:

Even before Anthony Gregory spoke at the Peace Resource Center in Seaside, CA, on June 20th, his topic was controversial.

Libertarians for Peace, and the Libertarian Party of Monterey County, wanted to see whether the 27-member Peace Coalition of Monterey County truly supported peace -- or were only interested in having Democrats in charge of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Gregory's speech was entitled: "Is the New Boss the Same as the Old Boss: Has Obama Kept his Promises?" The title alarmed a number of peace activists who were worried that Gregory, a research analyst at the Independent Institute, would go on an "Obama Bashing" tirade. But despite that concern, the Peace Coalition voted to be the main sponsor for Gregory's speech.

Promo flyers tried to downplay the controversy by asking: "Do all politicians promise reforms and then reform their promises, or is Obama the exception?"

According to Gregory's speech, Obama is no exception. The 28-year-old libertarian editor of the Campaign for Liberty website spent over an hour listing dozens of broken promises by President Obama. Some of Obama's better-known broken promises include:

1. His promise of transparency, saying he would give the public a five-day public comment period;

2. His promise to quickly close Guantanamo;

3. His promise to oppose warrantless surveillance;

4. His promise to withdraw completely from Iraq;

5. His promise to stop unconstitutional actions such as "state secrets" and "immunity" claims;

6. His promise to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Unfortunately for peace defenders, Obama /has/ kept a number of promises -- which actually hurt peace:

1. Escalating the war in Afghanistan with 30,000 more troops;

2. Increasing the Pentagon military budget;

3. More deeply involving the U.S. with the war against the Taliban in Pakistan.

During the Q&A period, one Obama supporter said that, despite all of Obama's broken promises, the public should still support the President. His cited reasons were trivial, arguing that Obama has helped to heal American society, and has restored $50 million to the United Nations Population Fund.

Gregory countered by arguing that the U.N. was an imperialist cadre, initially organized by Stalin, dictators, and Western powers to the detriment of smaller nations.

Despite their fear of a harsh bashing of Obama, many local peace activists were impressed with Gregory's speech. Most understood that Obama is no friend to civil liberties, international peace, or transparency.

Israeli Peaceniks vs. Warlike American Jews

It seems that ever more Israelis perceive a militarization of Israeli society, and are refusing to serve in the military, and even going to prison for it.



Meanwhile, American Jews visiting Israel talk tough.

Monterey, CA Tea Party Unites Antiwar, Anti-Tax Protesters

The below was written by Lawrence K. Samuels, Chair of the Monterey LP, and is reprinted with his permission:

Hundreds of Tea Parties dotted the American landscape on April 15, 2009, confusing some and delighting others.

In Monterey County, the Libertarian Party and Libertarians for Peace helped organize a mostly spontaneous anti-tax protest, drawing some 600 teabaggers. I say "spontaneous" because we couldn't get any press to promote the event beforehand. Except for KION 1460 AM radio, and libertarian Mark Carbonaro's radio announcements, the public could only have learned of the tea party through word of mouth or the internet.


Teabaggers were upset over the skyrocketing debt, uncontrolled spending, higher taxes, socialized bailouts, and bloated government. We tried to maintain that theme, though some people had signs protesting Obama's administration.

Most attacks on Obama are misdirected. By criticizing Obama, rather than overall government coercion, teabaggers appear sympathetic to Republicans. We must dispel this mostly media-driven criticism of Tea Parties. One way is to set up tables, as did various Monterey libertarian groups, and distribute hundreds of libertarian buttons and flyers. We also brought pre-made signs, and a sign-making table with poster board and markers.

A few counter-protesters attended on the other side of the street. Ironically, they came because the local Peace Calendar had sent notices to protest the event -- yet Libertarians for Peace is a member of the Peace Coalition that runs the Peace Calendar.

Their website's anti-Tea Party notice was taken down soon after we complained.

We knew some of the counter-demonstrators from past antiwar demonstrations. We crossed the street and distributed antiwar literature to them, stressing that antiwar and anti-tax people are natural allies. Some of them lightened up, and accepted our invitation to our side of the street. After all, we were embracing our principles with "End the War, Cut Taxes" signs.

Counter-protesters did not have a single antiwar sign, only placards that said they were "proud tax-paying Americans," and Obama banners. One sign appeared to be pro-war, proclaiming: "Support the Troops: Pay Your Taxes."

Now that Obama is escalating troop strength in Afghanistan and asking for another $83 billion for both war zones, it seems that Democratic sympathizers in the various Peace Coalitions are less inclined to criticize the war. Seems it's okay for Democratic politicians to engage in war, but not for Republicans.

We soon hope to highlight this contradiction with a speech by Antiwar.com co-founder and long-time libertarian, Eric Garris. The planned speech is entitled: "Is the new boss the same as the old boss?"

Libertarians must be in the forefront of this pro-taxpayer, pro-freedom protest movement. We must denounce both the past abuses of the recent Republican administration, and the new abuses of the current Democratic administration.

Teabaggers are talking about forming a Freedom Coalition, comprising dozens of local organizations, similar to the county-based Peace Coalitions that sprung up during the Iraq War.

As with the antiwar movement, the freedom movement will have a long and rocky road to travel. It makes for a better journey if we have a roadmap.

West Virginia LP Demands End to Drone Attacks in Pakistan

I wish the national LP was more libertarian on foreign policy, but until it is, it's up to the state LPs to issue libertarian foreign policy statements.

I was glad to see the West Virginia LP issue the below press release:

Over the past few months, the United States military has been operating remote-controlled drones to attack targets inside of Pakistan, a sovereign nation. President Obama virtually promised such attacks to supporters during his campaign, stating that "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Now he appears to be keeping at least one campaign promise. According to one report, 700 Pakistani civilians have been killed by these attacks, leading to outcry in Pakistan against the use of these attacks and encroachment into sovereign Pakistani airspace to attack what the US military believes might be terrorist targets.

There’s a catch, though. While the US government has succeeded in killing 700 innocent civilians, only 14 actual terrorist operatives have been killed. That's right -- for every suspected terrorist that's been killed by these strikes, 50 innocent civilians have died. The Libertarian Party of West Virginia finds this wholly unacceptable. While we oppose foreign intervention entirely as a mis-use of our nation’s valuable resources, racking up these unacceptable levels of civilian deaths must be vehemently opposed by all libertarians as inhuman, immoral, and evil.

As such, the Libertarian Party of West Virginia demands an immediate end to these attacks, across a sovereign border, violating Pakistan’s sovereignty, and killing innocent civilians.

Wayne Allyn Root's Latest Shameless Whooper

A source emails me the following: "Wayne Root announced that he was the leader of the Antiwar wing of the party at the LPGA convention."

Huh?!

Who elected the recently pro-war Root the "leader" of the LP's antiwar wing?

Pro-war liberventionists like Bruce Cohen, Brian Holtz, and Eric Dondero continue to praise and support Root. Surely, the pro-war wing recognizes its own.

Rachel Hawkridge Addresses LNC Purge of Lee Wrights

With her permission, I repost what Rachel Hawkridge, Washington LP State Chair, and LNC member, says about the LNC's purge of Lee Wrights:

"Dear gentle, yet ferocious, freedom fighters :o) -

Once again, some of our National Committee is trying to expel a lifelong freedom fighter, dedicated activist, and Libertarian National Committee member.

First, it was Angela Keaton -- TWO valuable meetings were consumed with abusing her. Now the target is Lee Wrights. If you haven't heard -- the posted eMails from Secretary and Chair to Lee are factually correct here.

Within one hour, Lee was notified, and then his seat was offered up to the StateChairs list. Staff claims to have sent 2 snail mail notices, but Lee has moved recently. Meanwhile, other members receive eMail notifications that their memberships are about to lapse. And Lee's eMail address and phone number haven't changed in some time -- both Staff and the Committee have those ... they were on the LP Leadership page. By the time I got to the eMail that announced a vacancy (1 hour later), Lee's name and picture had already been removed from the website.

It seems to point to a systematic purge. And sets a precedent -- if some of the Committee don't like you, no matter that you were elected by a majority at National Convention, that you have poured heart, soul, Time, Treasure and Sacred Honor into the movement, the party, the people -- you can be picked off, expelled by someone who feels that they have the authority to decide.

You, or your favorite activist, could be elected to LNC, dedicate vast amounts of Time, Treasure and Sacred Honor to Liberty, and then have staff either lose your contact information, or lose your dues check, or forget to change your renewal date, and open your eMail one day to find you've been expelled.

Whether you like Lee Wrights or not -- and those of you on the original distribution of this eMail all value him and/or Angela -- I am looking for contact information (names, eMail addresses (preferred), or phone numbers) for people who are sick of the controversy.

If you are someone who values the old LP, the current LP, the movement, or the activists -- I need to hear from you, and all your friends and contacts.

Please take some time to put together a list of contacts, and send it to me, AND then send this letter to them.

We need to build a network of people who are ready to help fix the LP. To return it to its roots, founding principles, to the vision of David Nolan ... to a place where free people can work together to achieve more freedom. Where acts of aggression are not welcome.

This is a tipping point, I believe -- the freedom movement is gaining speed again. We lost ground during the Campaign for Liberty/Ron Paul controversy, and lost a valuable opportunity. Let's not miss this one!

Help us to build a party, rather than destroy one?

Act In Liberty,

Rachel Hawkridge
Chair, Libertarian Party of Washington
Libertarian National Committee
Region 7 Representative

Office Hours: Wednesdays 10 - 2 p.m., 206-769-2492 cell
LNCRegion7.blogspot.com

"When the truth is replaced by silence," the Soviet dissident Yevgeny Yevtushenko said, "the silence is a lie."