Peaceniks Reverse Root

Here's my latest editorial, which appears in the March 2008 issue of California Freedom (which went to the printer a few days ago, but for some reason, is still not on the LPC website):

Wayne Allyn Root approached me at the LPC convention, wanting to set the record straight. I'd blogged against his presidential candidacy, because of his pro-war remarks ("Iraq is the wrong war. Iran is the right war.").

Root told me he's changed. He's been educating himself, reading libertarian thinkers such as Rothbard. Root says he now agrees with the LP's non-interventionist stance. He also claims he'd said "Iran might be the right war," but in any event, that was last year. He currently does not believe that war with Iran is necessary.

Root has also called the Iraq War "a mistake." I've seen photos of scorched and limbless Iraqi children, of blind or limbless U.S. vets. This war begs for stronger condemnation than calling it "a mistake." Still, it's a start.


Root was friendly and personable to me. He said that were I to know him better, I'd find much to like about his economic views. That may be. Although before entering the race, Root had endorsed a McCain/Lieberman GOP ticket, so it seems Root has evolved economically as well.

The question arises: Is Root sincere in his conversion to non-interventionism? I can't read his heart, but either way, Root's reversal is a victory for LP peaceniks.

If Root's conversion is sincere, it demonstrates the intellectual strength of classical libertarianism. The power of our ideas caused a 180°shift in this man's worldview. If he's lying, it demonstrates the political clout of the LP's antiwar faction. That there is at least a perception that one can't win the LP's nomination unless one opposes empire.

Root's reversal proves the LP, far from being "significantly divided," is a majority antiwar party. But I think everyone already knew that.

Curiously, pro-war/pro-defense (whatever you wish to call it) LPers still back Root. This suggests two possibilities: Either they believe Root secretly supports the war. Or they have nowhere else to go. At least Root (unlike Steve Kubby) hasn't called for the impeachment of Dick Cheney.

It seems Root is trying to appeal to both pro- and antiwar libertarians, offering a quiet, back-of-the-bus, non-interventionism (he plans to emphasize economic issues if nominated) as opposed to in-your-face, stop the war rhetoric. It may be why he won the convention's straw poll. He held his pro-war base, while gaining among moderate non-interventionists.

I'm not comfortable giving our top spot to a newcomer who's still learning and evolving. (That would include Christine Smith.) I'd rather Root continue his education, and prove his sincerity by supporting the LP in other ways. He can always run in 2012.

"Gibby the cat" won a vote in the straw poll. (No, it wasn't mine.) An LPC ExCom member deleted Gibby when posting the results on blogs. He told me it was because Gibby was ineligible, but I suspect it was because he worried that Gibby's vote would cast the LPC in a frivolous light. He was unhappy that I planned to report Gibby's vote in California Freedom, but I believe those of you who weren't at the convention have a right to know what went down, unsanitized.

This and recent issues of CF have featured articles from libertarian activists around the state. Many were directed to me by Kevin Takenaga. He tours the state, learns of members' projects, and directs them to contact me. Kudos to Kevin.

Kudos also to English libertarian Stuart Smith. The Coffee Club graphic on page 4 was drawn for us by him, free of charge. Convention delegates applauded Stuart for his work. Please visit Stuart's website: www.GravitonCreations.com.

Cost of Freedom Antiwar Panel Discussion, Los Angeles, March 21

I'll be participating on the panel.

Here's the press release written by Track 16:

"Track 16 Nights presents a panel discussion on Cost of Freedom: The Anthology of Peace and Activism. Edited by Michael Annis, Mike Palecek, Whitney Trettien

DATE: March 21, 2008

TIME: 7 pm.

PLACE: Track 16 in Los Angeles, CA.

RSVP 310.264.4678, Free admission

Track 16 Gallery is pleased to present a panel discussion on Cost of Freedom. Cost of Freedom (Howling Dog Press, 2007) is an anthology of stories of individuals and groups in the current American peace movement. The book has been praised by Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Thom Hartmann, Harry Belafonte, Ralph Nader, and Ramsey Clark.

Challenging this suspiciously heinous conception of patriotism, novelist Mike Palecek began gathering stories from activists across the United States, asking their perspective on the "cost of freedom." He found accomplices in Whitney Trettien, an MIT graduate student, and Michael Annis, an independent publisher. Together, the three of them assembled contributions from activists who knew that America was losing her Constitution to liars, murderers, and thieves.

The resulting letters, articles, sentencing statements, songs, poems, collages and photos are Cost of Freedom. From a grandmother's stay at Camp Casey to a young man's counter-inauguration protest (and subsequent run-in with the FBI), Cost of Freedom documents the everyday revolutionary acts of over 75 courageous men and women -- common citizens with an uncommon resolve and mission in life for peace, truth, and liberty, oftentimes at their personal expense.

Panelists include Rex Butters, Elena Siff Erenberg, Michael Palecek, and Thomas M. Sipos. The discussion will focus on US foreign policy, the Iraq War, the protest movement, etc. What's the current status of the antiwar movement? What hasn't it been more successful? What may the future hold? Will the upcoming elections change our foreign policy?

To stand as one against tyranny ... Cost of Freedom celebrates that."

How Is It That Pillows Are Still Legal?

Last Saturday night (February 23, 2008), at the Libertarian Party of California's state convention, LP presidential candidate George Phillies hosted a hospitality suite for California delegates. Here he greeted and glad-handed them, offered wine and cheese, discussed his policy proposals, and answered questions.


Little did Phillies know that, in the very next room, a heated debate over an especially controversial by-laws provision had erupted into violence!


Before the eyes of terrified onlookers, Libertarian Party national Vice Chair Chuck Moulton and LNC At-Large Representative Angela Keaton became engaged in a savage pillow fight!


The two combatants lashed out with their death pillows, while shrieking competing interpretations of Roberts Rules of Order.


Fearing that hostilities may escalate into soft cushions and comfy chairs, libertarian onlookers began debating (1) whether the use of pillows violated the non-aggression principle, and (2) whether stopping the fight would violate the non-intervention principle.


One Objectivist insisted that dropping a nuclear bomb on the combatants in order to prevent the proliferation of pillows in the hands of anarcho-fascists would be moral -- unless it were done for altruistic reasons.

Wayne Allyn Root's Bogus Image Change

The pro-war Root is trying to recast his image, and (like the empty skirt, Christine Smith) ride Paul’s coattails to the LP nomination.

“Hey, I’m not Paul, but I’m just as good. Really, honest Injun, I’m just like him. Pay no attention to my past, pro-war pronouncements.”

Yet even now, Root says that the Iraq War was "a mistake," rather than that it was morally wrong. Nor has he pulled back his past pronouncements calling for war on Iran.

Now that Paul is out, I’m still hoping that Karen Kwiatkowski will jump in. (Pretty slim chance, at this late point, but I can hope…)

If not Kwiatkowski, then I guess I’ll support Kubby or Phillies, most likely in that order. Either is okay with me.

Wayne Allyn Root Trounced in Otherwise Meaningless Primary

Here are the mostly irrelevant results for Super Tuesday's Libertarian Party presidential "primary election" in California. They indicate little, apart from Root's lack of appeal.

(Below the results, I explain why they indicate nothing, apart from Root's failure as a candidate.)

Christine Smith (Lib) 3,490 25.1 %
Steve Kubby (Lib) 2,362 17.0 %
Wayne A. Root (Lib) 1,918 13.8 %
Bob Jackson (Lib) 1,230 8.9 %
Barry Hess (Lib) 749 5.4 %
George Phillies (Lib) 698 5.1 %
Michael P. Jingozian 655 4.7 %
Daniel Imperato (Lib) 599 4.3 %
Robert Milnes (Lib) 605 4.3 %
John Finan (Lib) 588 4.2 %
Dave Hollist (Lib) 565 4.0 %
Alden Link (Lib) 447 3.2 %

Now, here's why Christine Smith's "victory" is really not a victory at all...

The "primary voters" for this election came from the 83-86,000 (last I heard) registered Libertarians in California. Unlike the 1,200+ dues-paying CLP members (from which the likely 50 or so CLP delegates to the LP national convention will be chosen), primary voters don't follow internal LP politics, so they're unfamiliar with the candidates.

It's thus not surprising that the only female name, Christine Smith, won. Sorry, but Smith won due to voter ignorance, and because of her sex. (And before you call me a "sexist," remember, I'm the one who's been promoting Karen Kwiatkowski for president these last several years.)

Smith's victory does not reflect her actual support among the eventual California delegation. It doesn't even reflect her support among primary voters, since they voted for her out of ignorance.

However, the real loser was Wayne Allyn Root. Root is the only LP candidate who is known to primary voters. Root's the only one who's appeared on Major Media for months now, doing talk radio and cable TV shows throughout Southern California.

And still, with all that Major Media attention, Root came in third.

Smith won due to voter ignorance. Root lost due to voter awareness.

I predict that neither candidate will be the favorite of the CLP (or national) delegation at the national convention.

But Do They Want Freedom for You?

Here's my latest editorial, which appears in the February issue of California Freedom:

In the late 1970s, New York radio host Bob Grant griped, "The American people have a peasant mentality. What they really want is fascism. They just don't want to call it fascism."

Conversely, some libertarians (sounding more like motivational speakers than political philosophers) brag that we have the most popular "product" in politics -- liberty! They cite the many people who score "libertarian" on the Nolan chart, then blame our dismal vote totals on "poor marketing"; all we need are candidates with the expertise to "sell liberty" in the "marketplace of votes."

I worry that Grant has the more accurate worldview. The Nolan chart overestimates our numbers. The chart is effective at marketing, but not at market research. It entices people into investigating the LP, but most of its questions (so far as I've seen) practice push-polling. Most Nolan chart questions are phrased so respondents will more likely fall into the libertarian quadrant by asking people about their own freedoms.

Well, most people think they should be free to do whatever. That's not a problem. Rather, threats to liberty have historically come from people who (1) want their liberty subsidized, or (2) don't trust others with liberty.

If asked, Should you or the government choose your doctor?, most people would score libertarian. But if they are instead asked, Should government health care funding increase so that you can afford the doctor of your choice?, many of those "Nolan chart libertarians" would now score "liberal." Likewise, while most people think they can choose wisely about owning a gun, taking drugs, paying for sex, sending their child to school, etc., fewer trust their neighbors with those decisions.

Libertarians often speak of government as if it were an alien being with a life of its own, apart from the people. Yet people (great and small) get political power, economic favors, salaries, "private" contracts, entitlement checks, etc. from the State. Socialism-imperialism is sustained by people who believe (often correctly) that they're better off with the State than they'd be under freedom.

How many people want liberty for themselves, much less for you? Consider two examples:

In 1994, Newt Gingrich led a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, winning votes with his libertarian-sounding Contract With America. And he delivered! Gingrich made a sincere attempt to push his "libertarian lite" agenda into law, resulting in the 1995 government shutdown when President Clinton refused to sign the GOP Congress's slightly smaller budget.

Remember what happened next?

Only a tiny portion of government shut down, yet people panicked! Polls indicated that most Americans blamed Gingrich for the shutdown (as if it were a bad thing), and that they thought his "libertarian lite" budget was "extremist." And so, politically crippled by an uneducated, statist electorate, Gingrich gave up on liberty.

In 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger promised smaller government when running for governor of California. And he delivered! Twice! First, by taking his "libertarian lite" reforms to the state legislature. After the legislature rejected them, he took his reforms directly to the people via four 2005 ballot propositions.

And the people rejected them!

I'm not saying that Gingrich or Schwarzenegger are libertarians. But both men made authentic (if slight) attempts at advancing liberty -- and the people threw liberty back into their faces. Whereupon both men gave up and fully embraced statism. (Why not? These men represent political parties, so it's natural that they focus on "getting votes.")

It seems Grant was right. Americans love the rhetoric of liberty, yet they get nervous when the chains loosen. No wonder they keep re-electing politicians who talk freedom and deliver slavery.

Many people want their "liberty" paid for by the State. Or they want "liberty for me but not for thee." The State needn't hide its outrages; the people are complicit. Radio shock jocks play "Don't taze me bro!" for laughs. Water boarding has ardent fans. So does NSA wiretapping. ("Hey, if someone's got nothing to hide...") Years ago, Liberty reported about a young man imprisoned on a marijuana charge, who contracted AIDS from prison rape and died. Yet comedians joke about prison rape because audiences think it's hilarious.

"Liberty for me but not for thee." Not principled, but certainly pragmatic.

That's why the term "liberty maximizing" (used in some LP circles) discomforts me. It sounds ominously utilitarian. The greatest liberty for the greatest number. What's wrong with that? Well, it can lead to unprincipled, anti-individualist policies. If you eliminate all taxes on 99% of the people by increasing taxes on the remaining 1%, you've a "net gain" in liberty -- very "liberty maximizing" (too bad for the unfortunate 1%). Likewise, if you "liberate" ten million people by napalming 100,000, some may judge that to be "the greatest liberty for the greatest number" -- tough cookies if your daughter was among those burnt to a crisp.

Our problem is not marketing a popular "product"; it's that many people don't even know what liberty is. That liberty does not entitle one to subsidies. That liberty is not democracy; just because a majority voted for it, and it's legal, does not make it moral. That liberty demands you respect the rights of others -- even of foreigners and "bad people."

I am baffled by Libertarians who attack Schwarzenegger for expanding government, yet who want to ignore political education in favor of "getting votes." If an uneducated electorate thought Gingrich and Schwarzenegger's tepid agendas were "too extreme," then how much more so must the LP compromise to compete for votes?

Of course, we can run candidates on those pro-liberty issues that are already popular with most voters (such as ending the war -- thank God most Americans do not see the war as "liberty maximizing"). But if we are to "get votes" without selling out, we must change the culture through educational election campaigns, and the arts, and any other means available. Otherwise, even if we are elected to office, the people will block our reforms.

Steve Kubby Invites Me on His Radio Show

Last Friday, January 4th, I was a guest on Steve Kubby's Blogtalk Radio show. He and I, and Richard Cowan, discussed the Ron Paul phenomenon and the upcoming presidential election.

We pretty much agreed on all the big issues. The importance of putting principle and liberty first, ahead of party politics. And that the Ron Paul phenomenon is a good thing for libertarians.