Libertarianism Is Dummied Down and Declining

Libertarian Party members keep talking about "growing the party." I've heard this mantra for decades. Optimistic Libertarians of all factions have assured each other that Americans are really libertarians, that major party status is just 15 or so years away.

It's always been 15 or so years away. In the 1990s, the national LP sent out some junk mail promising a "Libertarian majority Congress in 2010!" They did not promise one elected Libertarian, but an LP majority in both Houses of Congress.

Wayne Allyn Root likewise, when running for president in 2008, promised that he would win the presidency on the LP ticket in 2024 or thereabouts. Victory is always 15 years away, give or take.

Well, no. Libertarianism as a philosophy is going backwards in the U.S. The "Ground Zero mosque" controversy is proof of that. Vast numbers of Americans have embraced xenophobic bigotry against Muslims.

Even "sensible, moderate" radio talk show hosts here in Los Angeles (e.g., Dennis Prager, Peter Tilden) oppose the "Ground Zero mosque" and imagine that their positions are moral. The say how the "mosque" would be insensitive to Americans -- ignoring that the people building the Muslim cultural center are Americans.

And even members and spokesholes for the Libertarian Party are "opposing the property rights and religious freedom of their fellow Americans.

At Los Angeles's Karl Hess Club last week, one longtime "libertarian" kept spouting snide smears against Muslims, hoping to entice others to join in. We didn't. But while many of the KHC attendees are not anti-Muslim, several have indeed succumbed to Islamophobic fever.

First the LP tent grew to accommodate warmongering imperialists. Now the LP has grown to include xenophobes opposed to property rights and religious freedom.

Fifteen years ago, it was a given that most Americans were not libertarians. But now, you can't even be sure that a Libertarian is a libertarian. The Libertarian Party has gone backwards. The libertarian movement has gone backwards. America is retreating from freedom and rationality, and libertarians are no help at all.

Libertarian Warren Redlich Support "Ground Zero Mosque"

There's been much bigoted hysteria regarding the "Ground Zero mosque" (which is not on Ground Zero, and is not a mosque), including bigoted statements from Libertarian Party embarrassment Wayne Allyn Root.

It's therefore nice to see a Libertarian Party candidate actually take a libertarian position on this issue. You rarely see LP candidates or officers speaking like libertarians any more (one reason I rarely vote LP anymore), but Warren Redlich, the LP candidate for New York governor, correctly supports both property rights and religious freedom, and thus supports the right of our fellow Americans (of the Muslim faith) to build a Muslim cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero:



Curiously, the New York LP nominated Alden Link as their Lt. Governor candidate. I don't know Link's position on the "Ground Zero mosque," but when I met him at the 2006 LP national convention, Link struck me as quite pro-war. He suggested the U.S. military should bomb the branches of banks that hold "terrorist money" in their deposits.

Link was also quite the warhawk at the 2008 LP national convention. He was the only candidate who managed to make Root look like a dove.

After failing to get a single delegate's vote at the LP convention, Link (who was not a delegate), attempted to get the Boston Tea Party's presidential nomination.

Failing that, Link eventually managed to secure the Objectivist Party's vice presidential nomination. Considering how insanely pro-war organized Objectivism is these days, that seemed an appropriate political home for Link.

Objectivist Party founder, presidential candidate, and sometime LP officer, Dr. Tom Stevens, has formed Bachelors for Link to support Link's Lt. Governor candidacy.

Who or what is Bachelors for Link? In endorsing Link, this "group" (assuming it's more than just Dr. Stevens and his blog) says: "Bachelors often feel pressure to get married and to live a conventional lifestyle. Despite choosing to be 'unattached', they often face ridicule and are the subject of 'whispering campaigns' questioning their sexual orientation. We are proud to support Alden Link, the Libertarian Party's candidate for Lt. Governor of New York State, who has socially tolerant views and a principled belief that people should be able to organize their lives as they see fit without private sanction or governmental interference."

So...should Link be elected Lt. Governor of New York, he'll use his office to end "whispering campaigns" against bachelors? Well, at least it'd be a less offensive use of Link's time than his previous Islamophobic war hysteria.

Kudos to Warren Redlich's defense of Muslim Americans' equal rights -- and a curious, raised eyebrow to Alden Link's latest weird candidacy.

Wayne Allyn Root, John Hospers: The LP's Anti-Libertarian Faces

Massachusetts Libertarian Party Chair George Phillies reports on Independent Political Report (comment 148):

"I am amused to report that the LNC was contacted by a reporter who wanted to do a story on possible interactions between the Libertarian Party and Malcolm X, the question being 'Has Malcolm X inspired your Libertarian activism?'

"It was observed by one LNC member that there was a PA local candidate who was a member of the Nation of Islam. It was noted that another LNC member had made a study of Malcolm X and his beliefs. Another LNC member claimed there is no one like that in our party.

"Mr. Root gave the LNC 'I am the de facto face and voice of the LP.' and opined that he should get the interview. Another LNC member answered Wayne 'You have indeed gotten a lot of media. However, as I pointed out in an earlier e-mail with graph attached, this has not translated into new members for the LP. We have fewer new members each month. Whatever you are doing is not growing the LP.' Glaringly obvious reasons for this failure were then listed.

"If you are wondering why our national party is in its current shape, you should recognize that this was most of the LNC's activity for a number of days.

"I have not yet learned if the reporter got an interview with anyone."

Some observations:

1. This above thread concerns 1972 LP presidential candidate John Hospers's call to oppose the Muslim cultural center being built two blocks from Ground Zero.

2. LNC member Wayne Allyn Root had previously also called for public opposition to the Muslim center.

3. Root's position resulted in criticism from Libertarian bloggers, which is why Hospers felt the need to jump in and defend Root.

4. Well, of course it resulted in negative reaction! For Root and Hospers to call for public opposition to building the Muslim cultural center is to invite the public to suppress the property rights of the building owner and the religious freedom of Muslims.

Seems the Libertarian Party tent has gotten so big, it now welcomes people who are pro-war, anti-property rights, and anti-religious freedom.

And now Root claims that he's the "de facto voice and face of the LP." Considering Root's constant conspiratorial speculations about Obama being a black radical at Columbia University (even though Root claims that he never met Obama at Columbia), I wonder what Root would have told the reporter about the LP's views on Malcolm X.

(I myself have no views on Malcolm X, as I've never read or studied him. I only saw the Spike Lee film, which is not enough for an informed opinion.)

Root's defenders (the usual suspects) chimed in that Root hasn't called for government intervention against the "Ground Zero mosque" (a misnomer, since it's neither a mosque, nor on Ground Zero -- it's a Muslim cultural center two blocks away from Ground Zero).

Root's defenders praise Root for calling on the private sector to exert "market pressure" on the property owner and Muslims to not build there, and to leave the government out of it.

Now, can you imagine if anyone in the LP called for the private sector to exert "market pressure" on someone to not build a synagogue? Or a gay or black cultural center? Yes, it would technically be "libertarian" in that it's not a call for government intervention -- but it would still be bigotry.

While the LP may well defend the rights of haters, that doesn't mean the LP should actually instigate hateful action. The ACLU defended the free speech rights of Nazis, but it didn't go the extra step of encouraging the Nazis to engage in hate speech.

Alas, Hospers and Root are calling for the LP to side with haters.

However, Root may well be correct in that he is one of the more famous LP members out there. How tragic for liberty if Root becomes the "de facto" voice of the LP.

Ron Paul is far more famous that Root, and more respected. But Paul is not active in the LP. (Yet another thing to admire about Dr. Paul).

If there was ever any doubt, Root and Hospers are not libertarians. Whatever titles they accumulate, however many talk shows they appear on, they have left the pro-liberty reservation.

Gasp! Am I suggesting a litmus test?!

See Thomas Knapp's excellent article on libertarian litmus tests.

Can Libertarians Be "A Little Bit Pregnant"?

The Libertarian Party's "Vote Getter" faction (for lack of a better term) has long advised that the LP "is a political party" and so we must be wary of "scaring voters" with "purist rhetoric."

Consider Wayne Allyn Root, who says that the LP should steer clear of non-economic issues. Root joins other Reform types who say that foreign affairs and war and national security are "divisive" issues, to be avoided if the LP wants to "get votes."

At the same time, most Vote Getters (some of whom are Radicals) join with other Libertarians in deriding Republicans for being "unprincipled" and betraying their promise of smaller government.

The LP Vote Getters want it both ways. They want the LP to dilute its issues so as not to "scare voters," while at the same time claiming to be "principled," unlike the Republicans.

The LP Vote Getters want the LP to compromise (for votes) while remaining principled (unlike the GOP). They want a Libertarian Party that's only "a little bit pregnant," unlike the GOP, which is "very pregnant."

No, I'm not deriding incrementalism. I support incrementalism. Incrementalism means moving slowly in X direction, yet still proclaiming that you expect to arrive at X.

Vote Getters want to hide X Goal from voters, either fooling voters about the LP's end goals -- or perhaps not even wanting to arrive at X.

That's right. Some Vote Getters are "low tax Imperialists" at heart. They support war and empire, but use "it'll lose votes and donations" as an excuse not to support those issues.

Peacenik Actress Darcy Halsey's New Gig

Actress Darcy Halsey, a registered Libertarian and avowed peace activist, has a new gig -- helping travelers find the information they need at Los Angeles's Traveler's Bookcase, 8375 West Third Street.

The store has an intimate setup, offering a comfort zone where people can sit, sip tea or coffee, and discuss travel and books about travel.

"I've seen the owner spends hours with some customers, sharing travel advice and helping them with their upcoming trips," says Halsey.


But it's not only about travel -- Traveler's Bookcase has a sideline devoted to mystery books about travel. Mystery fans can prepare for upcoming trips by reading some sleuthing tales set along their itinerary.

"We have a mystery table with mysteries set around the world," says owner Natalie Compagno. "We've had two signings recently -- Michael Genelin and Cara Black, both hugely successful. We'd love to have more events.

"We also have lots of coffee table books for gifts," she says. "And I just got pulled onto a gift basket project for E Entertainment, and had to make some books happen!"


Store hours are Monday 11-7, Tuesday through Saturday 10-7, and Sunday 11-5. Open every day except July 4th, Christmas, Thanksgiving, and New Year's.

Wayne Allyn Root's Hypocritical Whine About "Back Room Deals"

On June 23, at See the Independent Political Report, Steve LaBianca wrote (comment # 148):

"I have on good info that W.A.R. is STEAMED about losing the LNC chair election, and blames it on 'deals' cut, and lost as a result, even though W.A.R. believes that he is the favorite of the delegates!"

So apparently, Root blames his losing the Libertarian Party's 2010 Chair race on a "back room deal." This deal supposedly involved John Jay Myers endorsing Mark Hinkle, after Myers came in next to last (after George Phillies).

To this complaint by Root, Carolyn Marbry responded (comment # 186)

"Geez, here we go with more sour grapes and whining about losing… Nah, more like pot kettle black, actually.

"Look, it’s not a back room deal for two like-minded candidates to agree between themselves on a strategy of endorsement to maximize the possibility of one of them or the other being elected. This is how it’s done. That’s a strategy, not a back room deal.

"Does anybody really find it surprising that Myers’ supporters would be drawn to Hinkle over Hancock or Root, even without John Jay endorsing him? So that was mostly pro forma anyway and mostly ended up saving us one more round of voting.

"No one has suggested, at least in my hearing, that Hinkle offered Myers any sort of pay off to endorse him. If there was some kind of pay off, I’d like to know about it because that would drastically change my opinion of both men involved."

So Carolyn accurately destroys Root's whine about a back room deal. Interestingly, she then claims that Root offered a back room deal to Hancock. Carolyn writes:

"if you want an example of a REAL back room deal, though, here’s one. When one candidate goes to his exact political opposite who was dropped right before the final round of voting and makes the offer to give that other candidate’s media website a listing on lp.org and to 'make sure' that other candidate gets elected to the LNC if he makes an endorsement, THAT is a back room deal.

"To Hancock’s credit, he refused this offer.

"The 'back room deal' of which I speak was caught on film, apparently, by Root’s own film crew, so he apparently didn’t think so ill of back room deals at the time."

Root had hired a film crew to shoot a TV "reality show" about his race for Libertarian Party Chair. It has previously been reported on IPR that the show would only be shopped should Root win the Chair race. Root lost, so I guess he won't be hawking his "reality show." As if anyone in America would care to watch his ego on display.

Speaking of back room deals, what about Root (after he lost the 2008 LP presidential nomination), offering to endorse Bob Barr for president, provided that Barr would then endorse Root as his VP running mate.

That's another Root-engineered back room deal, which Root would prefer people forget. I was at the 2008 convention. The Barr and Root people hated each other. Their unity at the 2008 convention's end was pure expediency; whereas I'm not aware of any animosity between the Hinkle and Myers supporters in 2010.

Finally, David F. Nolan said (comment # 187):

"there was no 'backroom deal' made by Myers and Hinkle; Myers simply dropped out because he knew he wasn’t going to win and Hinkle was his preferred choice. The IPR straw poll the night before predicted almost exactly what would happen ... if Wayne is whining about being cheated in the Chair’s race, that’s pathetic. He wasn’t. He lost, fair and square, despite spending (he claims) more than all of the four other candidates combined."

See the full thread here.

BTW, while I've often criticized Root, largely for his pro-war views, I'm only one of many Root critics. Read this latest criticism on Root from Carol Moore.

France Has Always Been Oceania's Ally

The Neocon Party Line regarding France has changed.

On June 25 I was listening to radio's John Batchelor Show. John Batchelor is a hardcore, pro-war Neocon. He was interviewing some guy and they discussed France's historical conduct in war.


The two men praised France's centuries-old, warrior tradition. They spoke of how France revered battlefield courage and the military spirit. They cited France's conduct in Vietnam, how France remembered and honored its Vietnam vets because, despite losing, they fought bravely.

Now, whatever the truth of falsehood of John Batchelor's analysis of French military culture, I remember that only a few years ago, American Neocons universally and incessantly reviled the French for being cowards.

What changed?

I suppose that, earlier this decade, France wasn't a strong enough supporter of American adventures in the Mideast. Then France elected the more pro-war, pro-American military, pro-Israeli military Nicolas Sarkozy. So now France is lionized.

Understand, I'm not complaining about anyone saying that this particular French administration was better or worse than that French administration. What I find laughably -- and creepily -- Orwellian is the blanket praise or condemnation by which an entire nation, culture, and history is judged, based on current events.

When a French administration, earlier this decade, failed to support American Neocon efforts strongly enough, ALL of French history and culture was to be universally condemned and despised as cowardly and evil. (Or, as the Neocons put it, "lacking a moral compass" or "lacking in moral clarity.")

But now that the current French administration is more friendly to U.S. and Israeli policy, ALL of French history and culture is to be universally praised and admired.

This is the essence of political correctness. No subtlety or nuance. (Yes, nuance is good.) This is the politically correct, knee-jerk "thinking" by which liberalism was characterized in the 1970s, and into which conservatism descended during the 1990s.

What's called "conservatism" these days is simply Orwellian parrot-speak, with the Party Line changing on a dime.

Only a few years ago, France was a nation of cheese-eating surrender monkeys. France had always been a nation of cheese-eating surrender monkeys. France always would be a nation of cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

(Neocons whined that Napoleon was Corsican, and Charlemagne was German, so they didn't count as "French" -- so the French were still cowardly surrender monkeys.)

But now we're told that France is a nation of courageous warriors. France has always been a nation of courageous warriors. France always will be a nation of courageous warriors.

Until Oceania's Neocon Party Line changes yet again. It's doing so now on Turkey. It's done several times over the past decade on Russia.