Libertarians Support NSA Domestic Spying

At least that's increasingly the image given by today's "voter friendly" Libertarian Party.

Why do I say this?

I was listening to Bill Handel's radio show last Friday (June 17, 2011, heard on 640 KFI-AM). Handel was discussing some new National Security Agency plan or proposal to spy on all the email passing over the internet in the U.S.

Handel said that he has no problem with this. (I don't think he was joking.) He said the NSA already listens in on all cell phone calls and texting, worldwide.

Then Handel said, "Of course, some people are gonna have a problem with that. The First Amendment folks, privacy folks, the libertarians -- not the libertarians. The civil...what word am I looking for? The ACLU types. The..."

And so on.

I think the phrase Handel was seeking was civil libertarians.

Handel's comment demonstrates that the word libertarian is no longer associated with opposition to NSA domestic spying. Civil libertarians, sure, but not libertarians.

No, I don't think Handel was trying to slam libertarians. He is a non-partisan guy, with no particular animus toward libertarians. A middle-of-the-road, common sense-oriented, shock jock. He's praised both Bush and Obama, depending on the issues. He's agreed with California Republicans on the need for severe budget cuts, but he also supports national, single payer health care.

Handel's comment was not intended as a slam against libertarians, but his honest understanding of libertarian views.

You can listen to the above broadcast over here.

Good job, libertarian "vote getters"! Good job, you "big tent" types who don't want the Libertarian Party to take too "extreme" a position on the issues. Congrats also to Wayne Allyn Root for his carefully nuanced position on Julian Assange!

Increasingly, the public perceives libertarians as a right-wing party that supports government domestic spying. I'm sure electoral victories are right around the corner!

At times like this, I sure am glad I'm no longer a member of the Libertarian Party.

Screw Elections, Not Principles

I recently wrote a letter to the editor opposing sales taxes and rent control. The details (the context, which newspaper) aren't important. What is important is this: I made no mention of the Libertarian Party or of the libertarian philosophy.

Some libertarians have made a sexual fetish of "the L word." What I call Sesame Street Libertarians.

Back when I was active in the California Libertarian Party, I met many LP members who measured the value of their activism (mostly letters to the editor and calls to radio talk shows) by how often they managed to publicize the word "libertarian."

"I wrote 'libertarian' twice in my letter to the editor," one LP member might say, "but the newspaper deleted one instance, so they only printed 'libertarian' once."

"I managed to say 'libertarian' three times during my call to a radio talk show," another would brag.

These sick puppies measure the value of their message not by its cogency, intelligence, integrity, or persuasiveness -- but by the number of "L word" hits.

They imagine that getting "the L word" out there is itself a good thing, because the more often people hear "the L word," the more likely they are to vote Libertarian. Sesame Street Libertarians think that selling the party is like selling Pepsi. These "vote getters" emphasize "branding" and "marketing" over ideas, principles, and truth.

One problem with this thinking is that it elevates form over content; packaging over substance. We see the result.

Today, Sesame Street Libertarians infest the LP. Obsessed with winning votes for "the L party," they regard principles as a ball-and-chain that prevents the LP from winning elections. They've sold out, with nothing to show for it at the ballot box.

I think the reverse is closer to the truth. "The L word" is a ball-and-chain that defames libertarian principles.

Why do I refuse to use "the L word" in my letters to the editor? Because one can more effectively promote libertarian ideas if one ditches "the L word" -- and even more so, "the L party."

If I argue against a sales tax increase, without identifying myself as a libertarian, then people from across the political spectrum are more likely to consider my ideas with an open mind.

If I call my ideas libertarian, then many people who are prejudiced against libertarianism will shut their minds to my arguments.

(This is why actor Mike Farrell tells people to "Just call me Mike." -- because he thinks political labels prevent people from listening to each other with an open mind.)

Do libertarians want to promote their principles -- or a political party?

If principles, then it's wise to ditch the ball-and-chain that is the Libertarian Party. Don't mention the party. Don't even mention "the L word" as a philosophy. Now that Sean Hannity, Wayne Allyn Root, and all manner of neocons are hiding behind "the L word," it's likely been corrupted in many people's minds anyway.

If, on the other hand, you're more intent on promoting the LP rather than principles, well then, take a tip from Howard Stern. Call every random radio talk show, and in the middle of the conversation, start spouting, "Libertarian, libertarian, Baba Booey, Baba Booey, Wayne Allyn Root rules!"

It won't win the LP any votes, but nothing does, so you may as well get "the L word" out of your system and enjoy the rush.

Jennifer Jajeh's I Heart Hamas in Hollywood

It can't be easy being a Palestinian-American in Hollywood -- or anywhere else in America.

Writer/actress Jennifer Jajeh, a Christian Palestinian-American, was raised in the U.S., and has visited Israel and the Occupied Territories.

She now courageously places her difficult identity into the spotlight, and mines her life experiences, for a one-woman show: I Heart Hamas: And Other Things I'm Afraid to Tell You.



Despite the provocative title, I Heart Hamas is getting rave reviews in major American cities.

This play, along with films like Miral, indicates that a significant number of Americans -- Jews and gentiles -- are ready to see Palestinians as actual human beings.

True, Jajeh is a Christian Palestinian-American. Nevertheless, I'm sure the Islamophobic bigots can make an exception in Jajeh's case (seeing as she's still an Arab) and hate her anyway.

Nevada Libertarian Party Prefers Bolshevik Party Discipline to Pluralism

After the Libertarian Party of Nevada dissolved its county parties, it offered, as part of its rationale, the need to speak with one voice and promote one message to the public. They didn't want the county LPs to issue independent or conflicting messages. As the Nevada LP said in a press release:

“...our primary reason for this change was to more effectively pursue Libertarian goals of identifying and electing qualified Libertarian candidates statewide by creating a single source of a unified, positive message...

“Without adequate coordination, the voting public is getting mixed messages from different parts of the LPNevada as county affiliates often focus on issues of little importance to mainstream voters...."

According to the Nevada LP, the goal is to elect candidates. Allowing the county parties an independent voice impedes that effort. Too many voices, too many opinions.

The Nevada LP is lying.

It's not that they want to promote one message -- it's that they want to promote their message.

That's how control freaks think.

A few years back, when the pro-war control freaks were on the out (at least here in California), they whined that it was “divisive” to publicly say that the LP was antiwar.

No one tried to squelch their right to voice their pro-war crap, but having a voice was not good enough for them. Since they were a small minority, their pro-war screeds would have been drowned out -- so they instead wanted all libertarians (pro and antiwar) to shut up about the war, because “it's an issue over which libertarians of good faith disagree.”

Now it seems that the pro-war control freaks are in charge of the Nevada LP. (I say this because Nevada LP Vice Chair Wayne Allyn Root supported the dissolution of the county LPs.) And these control freaks are not satisfied with having the state LP bully pulpit (the loudest voice) -- they want the other, smaller voices to shut up.

Here in California, it's long been customary for every LP -- the state LP, county LPs, and even regional LPs (the Los Angeles County LP is divided into 8 regions) to issue their own press releases, and pass their own resolutions. County LPs are independent entities, entitled to their own voices in the public arena.

This is a Good Thing.

When I was editing the state newspaper, I always allowed, and even invited, pro-war LP members to submit articles and letters to the editor. I was satisfied that, because antiwar libertarians were the majority, and had the better arguments, that we had nothing to fear from giving a platform to the pro-war crowd.

But the Nevada LP control freaks (of which Wayne Allyn Root is one) don't see it that way. Now that they're in charge, they want to be the sole voice representing Libertarianism.

I don't know how big a factor the war issue was in the Nevada LP's dictatorial action, but I suspect that, overall, this conflict falls along the usual Reform vs. Radical divide. A “Reform faction” (now in charge) prioritizes vote-getting, and thus wants to avoid hot-button issues like ending the drug war, opening borders to immigration, ending foreign bases and foreign aid (even to Israel -- gasp!), ending the police state, downsizing the military -- things that “normal Americans” don't feel comfortable with. (Or so the Reformers claim to believe.)

When Radicals are in charge, they dominate the debate.

When Reformers are in charge, there is no debate.

At least that's how it seems to work out.

Reformist control freaks like to impose Bolshevik Party discipline.

At least Mao Zedong paid lip service to pluralism, saying that Communism should "Let one hundred flowers bloom.” Not so the Nevada LP.

Libertarian Gamma Males Hate Alpha Males

Control freaks have long pestered the Libertarian Party. They infest the LP from time to time, trying to dictate how everyone should behave "to win elections," or what the party's message should and should not be. The Nevada LP's recent crack down on its county parties is one example. The actions of the Reform/liberventionist/Root faction provide other examples.

Even so, the control freaks always have a hard time because, as it's long been said, trying to manage libertarians is like herding cats.

Now I've come across an interesting term, in an article about Herman Cain, that relates to this phenomenon -- the Gamma Male.

From reading this article, it seems to me that Alpha Males can easily rule Beta Males -- but the LP is mostly composed of Gamma Males. Alpha Males (which is what I consider Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root, Aaron Starr, and some others, to be) cannot control Gamma Males. Gamma Males don't want to rule, but they rebel against control.

(Yes, there are some women in the LP, but unfortunately, the party's fate is still largely determined by male power dynamics.)

Here's the relevant excerpt from the article, by Daniel M. Ryan, found at EnterStageRight.com:

"The division of people into Alpha and Beta started, unsurprisingly, with experiments on rats. Studying social dynamics, the scientists found that certain rats struggled to assume leadership of the rat packs and tended to end up as leaders. They were labeled Alphas. Other rats didn't fight for leadership, and were content to follow: they were labeled Betas. The two categories seemed exhaustive, until those rat-watchers discovered a third kind of rodent.

"That rat was labeled the Gamma. Superficially, it appeared to be an Alpha. What differentiated the Gamma from the Alpha was the former's disinclination to either lead or follow. Gammas that got leadership slots grew tired of being the boss and went off on their own. Interestingly, they were confused with Alphas but not Betas. Gammas weren't much for following....

"The Gamma personality has not entered the popular argot, despite the Gamma's correspondence to a definite psychological profile. A Gamma male, or female, is a dominant loner.

"Like their rat counterparts, [Gamma humans are] not much for following but show little inclination to lead. In a way, it's surprising that there's not more recognition of the Gamma personality because there's a whole Gamma subculture right in front of our eyes. As dominant loners, whether rough-hewn or refined, they're inclined to be individualists.

"As people, they tend to assume that other people are like themselves. Consequently, they tend to see the leader-follower bond as a little odd or degrading. Some are more sophisticated then others, but their psychological profile inclines them to look on leaders with suspicion and followers with disdain.

"H.L. Mencken, to take a single example, was all Gamma. What other kind of person would see democracy as something akin to a well-run slave plantation, with vote solicitation obliging the master to always wear velvet gloves and keep pampering the slaves? His knack of portraying political leaders as either rascals or buffoons went hand-in-hand with an eternal contempt for their supporters and followers. Clearly, H.L. Mencken's own political prejudices squared tightly with the Gamma profile. So does anyone who despises the "sheeple" for needing the sheepdog."

Read the entire article.

Wayne Allyn Root Uses Libertarian Party for Neocon Stardom

Since 2007, when I first saw him speak at the 2007 Libertarian Party of California state convention, I've said that Wayne Allyn Root is using the LP to promote himself, seeking a new career as a paid political pundit, with all the usual lucrative book deals, and radio & TV gigs.

Why would Root seek a new career? Perhaps because his sports betting business was already tanking in 2007, though I didn't learn about that until later.

Why would Root use the LP to attain the goal of media star/political pundit?

My logic: The world is full of Rush Limbaugh wannabes. An aspiring, right-wing media pundit, one with no serious political creds, must separate himself from the herd.

Winning the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination is one way to rise above the pack.

Plus, the libertarian pond is much smaller than the conservative ocean. It's easier to look like a Big Fish in the LP than in the GOP. Less competition when Fox News needs an "official libertarian spokesperson."

Root only won the LP's VP nomination, but his plan worked. Despite Root's ignorance of both libertarian philosophy and internal party issues, the VP nomination brought Root instant "political spokesperson" creds. Which he immediately began leveraging to pump up his own personal stardom.

Root's supporters derided my analysis of Root's motives and intentions.

Robert Capozzi called me a "mind reader" for presuming to know Root's motives and intentions.

No, not mind reading. One may logically assess a person's motives and intentions based on that person's circumstances, statements, and actions. We all assess other people's motives and intentions, every day.

IPR's "Libertarian Girl" said my analysis was ridiculous, because if Root wanted to use a political party for personal fame, he'd join the GOP rather than the LP.

No, not really. Had Root sought power within, or through, the GOP in 2007, he'd have been a small fish among Big Boys. The GOP wouldn't have nominated Root for vice president. And Root's ego can't abide toiling in the shadows of GOP power brokers, hoping for a chance to maybe run for state assembly in 10 years.

But now I am vindicated. On January 31, 2011, Root sent an email to S. Rowan Wilson, which Wilson released to the public. (Root's email was in relation to yet another Root fiasco, specifically, the Nevada state LP's power grab, disaffiliating its county parties.)

In his email, Root reveals his personal goals. Here's the relevant excerpt (the ellipses are in the original), in which Root writes to Wilson:

"And I'm not interested in local issues- I’m 100% a national guy.

"So only when I’m 70 years old and retired will I be interested in running for Congress or U.S. Senate. At that point it might be fun to move to D.C. and add a new chapter to my life.

"In the meantime my goal is to become very famous as a TV and radio host over the next 6 years...and run for President in 2016 with the name recognition of Rush or Hannity or Glenn Beck or Michael Savage.

"And get Ross Perot-like vote totals...and then become a true national celebrity known and respected by all.

"Then spend 4 more years as the Libertarian-conservative Rush or Beck on radio and TV...

"then actually have a legitimate shot to win the Presidency in 2020...

"And if that doesn't happen...at that point as a household name (like Ross Perot, Al Franken, or Jesse Ventura) become Nevada's U.S. Senator.

"But the only way to 'settle' on U.S. Senate and actually win...is to become Nevada's most famous citizen as talk show host...TV celebrity...and serious Presidential candidate."

You can read the full Root/Rowan email exchange on Independent Political Report.

Are Root's motives relevant to anything?

Yes. If Root seeks a personal success that requires the approval of Fox News and the right-wing punditocracy, then Root will craft his Message to appeal to those who can give him that success -- the pro-war Establishment.

Root will also avoid sensitive, controversial issues (e.g., aid to Israel, open borders, drug legalization, gay marriage), or even take an anti-libertarian position on those issues, should it offend his Fox News customer base.

Which makes Root a damaging spokesperson for the LP.

Libertarian Party Is Too Right-Wing for Republicans

A little over a week ago, I attended a non-political, arts-related social event. A man recognized me from a couple of years ago, and said, “You're a libertarian, right?”

I explained that I was no longer a member of the Libertarian Party.

He replied that while he was a progressive, and usually voted Democratic, he'd liked some things about the LP, but that in recent years, the LP “had turned really right-wing.”

I asked for examples. I wondered if he could cite specific names or incidents that caused him to feel this way.

He didn't have any particular person or incident in mind. He said he knew several Libertarians, and their general impression was that the LP “had turned really right-wing.”

I don't know if these libertarian friends of his are party members, or just philosophical libertarians.

This man's demographic background: a Latino (fully integrated; no accent), in his early 30s, with wife and kids, who works in the arts and lives in California.

But this is even more noteworthy...

Most folks at this event were progressive Democrats, but I also met a man who described himself as “a former Republican,” but now registered as an independent. A white guy, early 40s, who works in the arts.

He too complained that “the Libertarian Party is too right-wing.”

Again, he couldn't cite any specific names or incidents that made him feel this way. It was just his general impression that the LP had become “too neocon.” (His words.)

When I told him that I'd cast a write-in ballot for Ron Paul, he grew excited. He had voted for Paul too.

He liked Ron Paul, but not the LP. Paul was cool; the LP “too right-wing.”

A couple of observations:

1. While the general public may not pay enough attention to LP candidates or leaders to remember any specific names, the message is trickling down that the LP is “right-wing.”

2. The current LP (brought to you by the Reform faction) not only repels libertarian-leaning progressives, it's gotten so that the LP repels libertarian-leaning Republicans.

LP Reformers (and specifically Wayne Allyn Root), say the LP must focus its outreach on Republicans. Well, there's nothing wrong with outreach to libertarian-leaning Republicans -- but the current LP repels them. Instead, the current LP resembles the Neocon GOP which libertarian-leaning Republicans are escaping.

Rather than provide a home for libertarian-leaning Republicans, the current LP resembles the Neocon creeps they just escaped from.

This former Republican is not unique. I was a registered Republican before I quit trying to “work within the GOP” and switched my registration to Libertarian. I left the GOP because of their pro-war/anti-civil liberties policies.

Only to leave the LP for the same reasons.

The Reform/Root faction says the LP should ignore libertarian-leaning progressives, because the real gains are to be had among Republicans. But the LP isn't attracting libertarian-leaning/Ron Paul Republicans. Only Neocons are pleased with today's LP -- and they'll be voting GOP come November.