The Clintonesque, Libertarian Embarrassment, Wayne Allyn Root

On yet another Wayne Allyn Root thread at Independent Political Report, Thomas L. Knapp explains why so many of Root's critics attack "Root the man" rather than just Root's positions. Knapp's points are spot on, and worth repeating...

"You seem to think that this [Root's positions] is separable from character issues.

"With some people, it can be. With others, it's not.

"With Root, it's generally not because he is exceptionally, for lack of a better descriptive term … Clintonesque.

"If he launches an unjustified attack on someone and it backfires on him (e.g. Ruwart), he'll throw a staffer under the bus as the real author of the attack rather than confront the substance of the issue he brought up when that substance is going against him.

"If he takes a position and later finds embarrassing (e.g. his late 2006 endorsement of a McCain/Lieberman 2008 ticket), he'll just lie about it when confronted with it.

"Hell, sometimes he changes his positions so fast that it's hard to keep track of them at all, and arguing 'substance' becomes impossible. If you address the X that he said on Fox last week, he'll just come back with the opposite of X that he said last night at an LP fundraiser, or the orthogonal to X that he threw out in a radio interview this morning.

"How do you talk 'substance' on a guy who goes from strong supporter of the Iraq war to weak supporter of the Iraq war to 'Iraq was the wrong war, Iran is the right war' to allegedly anti-war over the course of a few months?

"How do you peg the 'substance' of someone who goes from 'Ron Paul is an old guy with some decent ideas but bad on foreign policy' to 'I'm Ron Paul on steroids!!!' so fast he leaves skid marks and takes out a couple of telephone polls making the U-turn?

"It's impossible to tell what the 'substance' of Root is from one day to the next — or, at any given moment whether that substance is the real thing or just another pitch to get over on the rubes."

Kudos to Knapp for hitting the nail on the head. See the entire thread here.

Oliver Stone Prefers Ron Paul for President

Filmmaker Oliver Stone prefers Ron Paul to Barak Obama for president!

Speaking to Ed Rampell of Rock Celler magazine, Stone engaged in the following exchange:


Rampell: In Our History you ask if there's "a potential wild card in an internal economic collapse of the empire"? Is America an empire? And if so, do you foresee the fall of the empire?

Stone: Yes. Yes, both. I don't think it's a wild card, I think it's a given. There's no way that we can continue this spending spree. In fact, I think in many ways the most interesting candidate -- I'd even vote for him if he was running against Obama -- is Ron Paul. Because he's the only one of anybody who's saying anything intelligent about the future of the world.

How do we go on being who we are? We have an identity crisis here. But as long as we keep running this fantasy through our minds that we can dominate history, it's not a wild card, it's a given!


Read the entire interview.

Oliver Stone's admiration for Ron Paul is yet another example of Paul's strong appeal to progressives -- and to artists and youth.

This is the crowd the Libertarian Party needs to court if it is to have a future. Instead, the LP is being guided by the Clintonesque neocon Wayne Allyn Root, who insists that the LP's future lies in courting "conservatives" (i.e., the neocon/pro-war Fox News crowd).

Were he ever asked to "discuss" Stone, Root would likely just vomit out one of his boilerplate screeds, ranting about how Stone is a "radical Marxist" who "hates America" etc. Really, Root need only take one of his past rants (they all sound alike), delete "Barak Obama" and insert "Oliver Stone."

Ron Paul's strength is that he appeals to a broad spectrum of thoughtful Americans who have a serious understanding of the dangers of war and empire. Whereas Root has no strengths -- just a few mindless rants that he endlessly reworks and recycles.

That Root supports Gary Johnson is worrisome, and would make me hesitant to support Johnson, were I still an LP member.

Libertarian Party Dysfunction

Anyone who participates in the Libertarian Party for any length of time will observe a chronically dysfunctional organization. The various factions blame each other, but I think the dysfunction stems from a combination of (1) the nature of American third parties, (2) the libertarian ideology, and (3) the sort of people attracted to an ideologically libertarian third party.

A fuller explanation requires a book -- it's too complex to explain in a single post. Instead I'll just provide (yet another) eyewitness account of LP dysfunction.

Gail Lightfoot is one of the most respected Libertarians in California. She was one of the LPC's original founders, some forty years ago. She's long been one of the LPC's most successful perennial candidates (in terms of number of votes pulled). And she's long been regarded as a highly principled member of the "party of principle."

Yesterday Ms. Lightfoot resigned her position as editor of the Los Angeles County Libertarian Party's newsletter (which position she inherited from her husband, Richard Venable). Lightfoot apparently emailed everyone on her Libertarian list (myself included) explaining her reasons for resigning:


"I regret to inform you that I had made a decision not to continue to edit and publish the L.A. Libertarian in Richard Venable's place. This decision ... was based on the failure of the LPLAC members to provide copy in a timely manner, and often not at all, or to communicate with me as a member of LPLAC so that I might be more informed of the activities of LPLAC. Total silence on the issue of making changes to the publication makeup or schedule was simply the frosting on the cake....

"As an aside, I fail to understand why Libertarians are the least forthcoming, open, and honest, in their dealings with one another. It is a wonder any activist remains an activist after simply observing our behavior to one another.

"Anyone who sees our internal struggles would surely think we are not fit to govern at all. Back stabbing for control (as if every new idea or direction requires total control of the org.) and rudeness towards our contractors seems to be firmly imbedded in our culture.

"Perhaps it is time to change that culture as we face extinction and loss of ballot status in 2012."


Gail Lightfoot raises issues (LP rudeness, dishonesty, backstabbing, control freaks) that many others have observed over the years. Lightfoot herself has reported on the rudeness and dirty tricks she's observed at California LP conventions.

I've written about Libertarians' chronic lateness and disregard for their own schedules (i.e., Libertarian Standard Time), the purges of Angela Keaton, Lee Wrights, and Rachel Hawkridge -- and the dishonesty and dirty tricks at the 2008 LP national convention, and the Nevada LP and California LP.

These are just a few examples of Libertarian Party dysfunction.

Small wonder that the Clintonesque Wayne Allyn Root finds support within the LP, even as the libertarian movement, and America as a whole, dismiss Root as a joke -- if they're even aware that he exists.

Small wonder that libertarians are looking outside the LP for principle, and are finding it in Ron Paul.

Boot Root at the Libertarian Party Convention

I've long blogged about the Clintonesque (even Stalinesque) Libertarian embarrassment that is Wayne Allyn Root.

So have many others. The problem with Root is not in digging up his dirt, but in keeping track of it all. (So much slime, so little time!)

Now longtime libertarian activist Carol Moore has amassed and organized Root's misdeeds from around the internet, compiling them into a webpage and PDF pamphlets. She urges delegates to the 2012 Libertarian Party convention to print and distribute her material.

Moore's Boot Root webpage begins by saying:

Since the mid-1990s various groups and factions of Libertarian Party members have been pushing for the Libertarian Party to become more "respectable," "mainstream," and "middle class," and less radical, outrageous and/or low income.

The party is being destroyed by people who don't care if they drive out members and reduce the number of candidates as long as those remaining are respectable, mainstream, middle class - or as Wayne Root puts it "high quality."

These people have fought to continue gutting the platform of meaningful libertarian content, including the non-interventionist foreign policy planks, and to drive more "hardcore" libertarians out of leadership positions on the national and even state levels.

They have tried to centralize power so that a small group of mainstream, middle class libertarians could control the whole party from the national level. They have been increasingly successful, using their higher incomes, allegiance to power over principle, and attendant political machinations to get their way.

That's just the beginning. Read it all at Moore's Boot Root page.

Wayne Allyn Root Endorses Gary Johnson ... for President?

Wayne Allyn Root has endorsed former New Mexico governor, Republican Gary Johnson, for president. Root wants Johnson to quit the GOP and run for president on the Libertarian Party.

Writing at Independent Political Report, Root posted (comment 8):


”I’ve been heavily recruiting Gary Johnson to LP for weeks. I had dinner with him in Baltimore a month ago. Spent much time with his campaign senior adviser in the past few days. I think it’s pretty clear I support Gary to be our Presidential nominee....

“I am heavily invested in my businesses and multiple careers right now ... I’m hoping to recruit a Libertarian-conservative candidate that I can support to LP, so I can wait until 2016.

“Gary is the perfect candidate. Answer to my recruiting efforts.

“The most fiscally conservative governor in America. Mr. Veto. Never allowed a spending or tax increase in 8 years as Governor.

“Simpatico with me on almost every issue.

“A Libertarian in every way -- yet still a huge supporter of Israel.

“The perfect LP candidate.

“I’ll be going 'all in' to help Gary.”


By any real world definition, that's an endorsement of a Johnson LP candidacy. It can even be taken as an endorsement of a Johnson presidency. Why would an LP official endorse an LP candidate, unless he wanted (even if he didn't expect) that candidate to actually win?

Yet in America's slippery political culture (“It depends on the meaning of the word 'is'.”), even the most supportive words are not considered an endorsement unless one says the magic words: “I officially endorse Thee!”

Thus, Root may claim that the hasn't actually “endorsed” Johnson for president.

Why would the Clintonesque Root want enough “wiggle room” to support a Johnson candidacy, without “officially” endorsing him?

Root's part of the pro-war/Reform takeover of the LP. As such, Root (and his supporters) care less about winning (no LP candidate will win) than about denying the candidacy to an antiwar firebrand. Nomination battles are really about “branding” the LP with one's preferred Public Face.

Will the LP's 2012 presidential candidate be a Republican Lite/Pro-Foreign Aid for “Friends” Face -- or an Uncompromisingly Antiwar/Anti-Foreign Entanglements Face?

At best, Johnson strikes me as the former, but with a dash of Antiwar Lite. He's certainly no Ron Paul.

Yet while Root wants to deny the LP's Public Face to a radical antiwar candidate, neither can he seriously endorse any LP candidate to the extent of actually urging people to vote for that candidate -- especially in swing states. Root's talk radio/Fox News supporters expect Root (and all of their "friendly guests") to rally behind the GOP in November. This election is “too important to lose” and the “most important election history.”

Root's career as an aspiring media pundit requires that he maintain his LP base as long as possible (by denying its leadership to his antiwar opponents), while simultaneously placating his Neocon media sponsors by preventing the LP from offering serious opposition to the GOP at the voting booth.

And so while Root is endorsing Gary Johnson for the LP's presidential nomination, I expect that Root will use his "wiggle room" (not an "official" endorsement) to hold back on supporting Johnson too loudly, should Johnson get the nomination.

Wayne Allyn Root's Slick, Non-Position on Julian Assange

The Clintonesque Wayne Allyn Root knows how to speak forcefully -- without actually taking a clear position on controversial issues.

Bold, empty statements are common among politicos. Buried within Root's latest anti-Obama rant, Root says:

"Is Julian Assange of Wikileaks really a 'threat to national security' or is Obama and the United States Congress a bigger threat to the average taxpayer?"

This is clever, in that Root appears to defend Julian Assange -- without actually doing so.

When Bush Sr. said that Saddam was "worse than Hitler," Bush did not mean that Hitler was good. Merely that Saddam was worse.

Actually, Root doesn't even say that Obama is worse than Assange. Root merely asks whether Obama is worse than Assange.

Root's brief statement can thus be interpreted in every possible way:


1. Julian Assange is a pro-liberty hero.

2. Julian Assange is a monster, second only to Obama.

3. Julian Assange is a monster, worse than Obama.

4. Julian Assange occupies some moral position between "hero" and "monster."


Root's statement about Assange can mean anything. Root doesn't defend Assange. To do so would threaten Root's aspirations to join the lucrative field right-wing, media punditocracy. Instead, Root's implied defense leaves him free to condemn Assange at some future date, should the neocon customer base require Root to do so.

However, if Root runs for a Libertarian Party office or nomination, one of his lapdogs can always spin Root's statement so that it looks as if Root is defending Assange.

(It's always better for Root's LP lapdogs do the antiwar/anti-police state spinning, as it leaves Root free to renounce that spin should the neocon media require it. "My supporters misunderstood my statement," Root can always say.)

Root knows how to be direct, even blunt. If he's coy, or vague, it's intentional.

Compare Root's coyness on Wikileaks to Ron Paul's bold statement on Wikileaks.

What Motivates Born-Again Antiwar Conservatives?

Yesterday I wrote about how so many conservative radio talk show hosts, who were previously pro-war, have done a sudden 180 degree switch now that Obama has attacked Libya. They now oppose war.

I provided a list of such born-again, antiwar conservative radio hosts.

To this list you may now add John Batchelor, whose sudden skepticism about the Libya War is noteworthy, considering that he's long been one of the most HARDCORE of neocon radio hawks -- no small achievement, considering the field.

Batchelor passes himself off as providing serious news and analysis (not a "mere entertainer"), and as possessing superior expertise on foreign affairs. Yet despite his feigned objectivity, he "editorializes with music." He plays stirring martial music when reporting on the U.S. military, and ominous music when reporting on Arab nations.

One of Batchelor's standard numbers is from Hollywood's Starship Troopers. That the film is increasingly interpreted as a satire of militarism seems lost on Batchelor.

Why the sudden policy switch among so many conservative hawks? One slow conversion, from hawk to dove, might indicate sincerity. But so sudden -- and united! -- a switch among so many hawks indicates ... well, it's weird.

Here's some (not wholly original) speculation:

The American populace is often and increasingly upset. In order for the Powers That Be (no, I don't know their names) to maintain control of the American Empire, they must give the people safe channels through which to vent their steam.

Our Two Party System serves this purpose nicely. Whenever a majority of the populace is dangerously fed up, they can find "hope" in the Out Party, and vote it into "power". This creates the illusion of Change.

No, I don't think there's an organized cabal, but rather, a confluence of interests, and an understanding of what's expected to succeed within the system.

Conservative radio hosts (and that includes "libertarian" baby pundits like Wayne Allyn Root) know that their personal success depends upon bashing Democrats, regardless of merit.

When Bush was in power, conservative pundits understood that their book deals and media ratings depended upon beating Bush's war drums and railing against the "big spending" Democrats. Now that Obama is in office, conservatives' success depends upon bashing Obama, regardless of what he does.

Democratic pundits, think tanks, media voices, etc., do the opposite.

It's noteworthy that neither side seriously challenges the Empire. No loud demands for a complete end to ALL foreign aid (to ALL nations) and a complete shutdown of ALL overseas military bases.

The talking heads (conservatives -- including "libertarian conservatives" -- and progressives) thus maintain the illusion of Two Choices. Whether the talking heads understand their role in maintaining this political deception is unimportant. They DO realize that in order for their careers to flourish, they must cheer one Official Side and attack the Other Official Side.

That's where the money is. That's what brings in the book deals, TV appearances, and radio show gigs.

(It's okay to take a few light jabs at your "own side" -- indeed, it's a Good Thing. It creates the illusion of "independent thinking," which goes over well with the populace. But you MUST choose One Side, and save your big punches for the Other Side.)

Thus the American populace sees Two (illusory) Choices. And when the economy sinks, or wars go bad, they vent their anger at the In Party by supporting the Out Party. The infrastructure and policies of the Empire itself -- from the Federal Reserve to the overseas military bases -- are left unchallenged. Indeed, that they might even be debatable issues is unthinkable to most people.

Yes, conservative talk radio is now attacking Obama's Libya War. So what? We are in Libya. It's a done deal. The Empire is pleased. And when the American populace becomes fed up with Obama's Wars (as they were, before, with Bush's wars), they will believe (thanks in part to conservative talk radio) that the solution to ending Obama's Wars is to vote Republican.

Then we'll have a new Repubican war, and an angry populace will once again vote for a Democratic warmonger.

This notion of hidden power brokers, discussing which Face (Clinton, Bush, Obama) will be our next president, reminds me of the ending to Being There:



==============================

A note on Wayne Allyn Root. Why don't I trust his (latest) born-again antiwar stance?

Because unlike Root supporters, I judge Root in context. His supporters want Root to be judged by his every latest article, all his previous acts and statements -- all his Clintonesque switches and sudden flip flops -- down the Orwellian Memory Hole.

Would any libertarian judge Obama like that? Would libertarians allow Obama to reinvent himself every day? If Obama gave a startlingly libertarian speech, would libertarians ignore all of Obama's previous acts and writings?

I judge libertarians by the same standards I set for conservatives, progressives, independents, and anyone else. I give no extra credit for having a Magic L before your name.