A Pragmatic Defense for Radical Libertarianism

One longtime debate within the Libertarian Party is: Should the LP hide its "extreme" positions so as not to scare voters?

Should the LP dilute its policy proposals into something nicely wishy-washy?

Reform Faction types (what I call "Big Government Libertarians" because of their support for America's wars and empire) say that the LP must extensively downplay its positions, which they say are too "extreme, absolutist, radical, purist, and anarchist." A more moderate message will "win votes" and thus bring us in at least a little bit of liberty. America's wars and economic sanctions will continue, murdering 100,000s of women and children. But on the other hand, we might be able to abolish that mandatory seatbelt law. (Whoopie!)

But Los Angeles libertarian Ted Brown offers a strong argument in favor of the LP promoting a Radical message. Brown explains that you have to demand a lot, to get a little. (The squeaky wheel gets the grease.)

Brown says:


"In politics, you have to ask for a lot and be willing to accept a lot less.

"For example, you should demand a $1 trillion budget cut. More moderate types will say, that's a bit much, but let's cut $100 billion. But if you only demand a $100 billion cut in the first place, you're likely to get way less than that.

"The same goes for drugs. I advocate full decriminalization of all drugs, where they can be advertised on TV and sold at Rite-Aid in colorful packages. More moderate types will be horrified, but will say, we can't do that, but we can legalize and regulate marijuana. If I only sought the legalization and regulation of marijuana to start with, I wouldn't even get that.

"The moral of the story is, the LP must be there to advocate the most radical freedom-oriented solutions. Otherwise we are unlikely to see any change in our direction at all."


Brown's remarks may be found on Independent Political Report, Comment 52.

Gary Johnson Is Pro-War

Gary Johnson is no Ron Paul.

Unlike the stridently antiwar/anti-interventionist Ron Paul, Gary Johnson (the former New Mexico governor seeking the Libertarian Party's 2012 presidential nomination) has been vaguer about his foreign policy views. As if he were trying to be all things to all people, afraid of offending peaceniks and Neocons alike.

But a recent Daily Caller interview exposed some of Johnson's views.

According to the Caller:


[W]hen pressed on foreign policy topics throughout the interview, Johnson gave answers that didn't always seem to add up and were often, at best, unorthodox positions for a man who has been painted as a non-interventionist.

While Johnson positions himself as a strong antiwar candidate who wants to cut the defense budget by 43%, he told TheDC that he supports America's efforts to aid African troops in tracking down Lord's Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony and that he wouldn't rule out leaving behind American bases in Afghanistan.

Johnson said that while he wants to end the war in Afghanistan, that doesn't mean he would necessarily stop drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen, even though he believes they create more enemies than they kill.

"I would want leave all options on the table," Johnson said. "But there’s an unintended consequence when it comes to drone attacks in Yemen. Yeah, you take out the al-Qaida stronghold, but you also wipe out the other half of the block. That makes Yemenis against the United States for the rest of their lives and all their descendants."

But if Johnson plans on leaving Afghanistan, how does he plan to leave the option of a drone campaign against al-Qaida elements in Pakistan on the table?

"So now you have the U.S. bases that exist in those areas, do we shut down those military bases? Perhaps not," he suggested.


Now listen to Johnson contradict himself:


"I would completely withdraw our military presence," he expounded. "Does withdrawing our military presence from Afghanistan mean that we would still have a base open in Afghanistan if they allowed us to keep a base open? Perhaps."


Johnson adds that the U.S. should stay in the Middle East. Which means we should keep funding Israel and fighting its enemies. Or as the Daily Caller reported it:


Johnson said that while he favors withdrawing or reducing American forces based in Europe and the Far East, the Middle East is a region of the world the U.S. should remain in.


As the interview progresses, Johnson seems ever more confused. Although, I suspect he's not so much confused as trying to be all things to all people.


But despite Johnson saying he thinks that the Middle East is a region of the world the United States should maintain a military presence in, he contended that there are "no military threats" to the U.S. anywhere in the world.


Not even in the Middle East? So why does Johnson think the U.S. should remain in the Middle East? Is it because he believes that a candidate must support Israel to get favorable media attention (as Wayne Allyn Root has claimed)?


"As I'm sitting here right now, there are no military threats against the United States," he said, stipulating that America should be "vigilant" against terrorist attacks on the homeland."


Does this mean that Johnson supports America's growing National Security State, with its TSA, invasion of privacy, and all. If not, what specifically does Johnson mean?

Johnson also supports "humanitarian wars."


Last year, The Weekly Standard reported that Johnson told the publication that he supported the concept of waging wars for humanitarian reasons despite wanting to cut the military budget by nearly half. Asked whether he stood by that, Johnson said he did.

"I don't want to close the door that if any of us were president of the United States that we would sit idly by and watch something like the Holocaust go down," he said. "I don't want to close the door on the United States involving themselves and putting a stop to that. Can we spend money on that? Yeah, I think so." ...

One intervention Johnson said he supports is the U.S. mission to help capture Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army, which Johnson believes is arguably the "worst terrorist" group in the world.

"Based on what I know, yes," Johnson said, indicating his support for the mission to capture Kony. "Based on what I understand about it, that arguably this is the worst terrorist group that's been on the planet for the last 20 years."


That last statement is an interesting soundbite. It can be taken to read that Johnson thinks the Lord's Resistance Army is worse than al-Qaida. I have no idea if it is, but I can see how the conservative Right can beat Johnson over the head with that quote.

Read the entire article.


Finally, if you've read this far, here's an interesting video I found about Gary Johnson. Make what of it what you will:

Mitt Romney/Ron Paul for 2012?

The possibility of a Mitt Romney/Ron Paul 2012 ticket first occurred to me during the South Carolina GOP primary debates. Gingrich was harsh on Romney, whereas Paul was more polite. Paul had placed a strong third in Iowa, and second in New Hampshire. I doubted that Paul could win the GOP presidential nomination, but what if he continued to place strong second or third places in the remaining primaries?

From Romney's point of view, wouldn't a Romney/Paul ticket make sense? I figured it was a crazy thought. No one -- Romney and Paul included -- would go for my idea.

But since then I've seen signs that it could happen.

The media has reported on the close friendship between Romney and Paul. Observers claim that Paul continues to be soft on Romney. Here in Los Angeles (on February 19th), KFI-AM's Gary Hoffmann aired an Odd Couple parody featuring Romney and Paul in the Felix and Oscar roles. Yes, it's kinda lame, doing Odd Couple parodies in 2012. (Listen to Hoffmann's parody here.)

CNN's Wolf Blitzer, among others, has speculated that Paul is soft on Romney because he hopes that Romney will ask Paul's son, Senator Rand Paul, to be his running mate. But I ask, why not ask Ron Paul?

A Romney/Paul ticket has its strengths:

* Recent polls show that, of the four remaining GOP presidential contenders, Romney and Paul score highest against Obama.

* The GOP can't win with conservative votes alone, and of the GOP contenders, Romney and Paul have the greatest appeal to moderates, independents, and Democrats. Paul is especially popular with libertarians and (formerly pro-Obama) youth.

* Granted, far-right conservatives prefer Santorum or Gingrich, but they hate Obama enough to pull the lever for Romney/Paul. Where else can they go? Not to the Constitution Party, which, like Paul, opposes empire-building and foreign aid.

* Libertarian-leaning Republicans can go to the Libertarian Party, and some will do so if Mr. Romneycare is on the GOP ballot -- unless he's offset by Ron Paul. Paul will stem any exodus to the LP -- especially since he's far more libertarian than some recent and prospective LP national candidates.

Would Romney or Paul agree to a Romney/Paul ticket?

Some might say that Paul is too principled to be Romney's running mate. Paul is principled, but he's also a pragmatist. He served as one of 435 House members. He accepted minority status (1 vs. 434) for a seat at the table of power. For a podium and a voice. Why wouldn't he accept the vice presidency?

Unlike other cabinet members, the vice president is elected by the people. He needn't always publicly agree with the president. He can't be fired by the president. He can speak his mind.

Would Romney fear that Paul would be a loose canon? I don't think so. As friends, Romney knows Paul better than that. And despite detractors' attempts to paint Paul as a wingnut, Paul has shown that he can handle power responsibly and be a team player. This doesn't mean that he would “sell out” -- only that he would continue to promote his principles within the system.

Paul has proven that he can't be bought, but he can compromise and be patient in nudging his agenda forward. As someone who admires Paul's foreign, economic, and civil rights policies, I prefer a Paul presidency, but I'd settle for having Paul serve under Romney, daily advising him on policy matters.

A Ron Paul vice presidency may be the best that libertarians can hope to achieve in 2012. It'd certainly beat another symbolic third party vote.

Praying for Peace

I was emailed this joke. It seemed good enough to share...


A female CNN journalist heard about a very old Jewish man who had been going to the Western Wall to pray, twice a day, every day, for a long, long time.

So she went to check it out. She went to the Western Wall and there he was, walking slowly up to the holy site.

She watched him pray and after about 45 minutes, when he turned to leave, using a cane and moving very slowly, she approached him for an interview.

"Pardon me, sir, I'm Rebecca Smith from CNN. What's your name?

"Morris Feinberg," he replied.

"Sir, how long have you been coming to the Western Wall and praying?"

"For about 60 years."

"60 years! That's amazing! What do you pray for?"

"I pray for peace between the Christians, Jews and the Muslims."

"I pray for all the wars and all the hatred to stop."

"I pray for all our children to grow up safely as responsible adults and to love their fellow man."

"I pray that politicians tell us the truth and put the interests of the people ahead of their own interests."

"How do you feel after doing this for 60 years?"

"Like I'm talking to a fucking wall."


Reminds me of what Kurt Vonnegut said in Slaughterhouse-Five. That writing an antiwar novel is like writing an anti-glacier novel. There'll always be glaciers, just like there'll always be wars.

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.

Gary Johnson on Israel and Iran

Carol Moore, of the Libertarians for Peace Yahoo Group, gives a heads up on Gary Johnson's views on U.S. support for Israel.

In a December 30, 2011 NPR interview with Robert Siegel, Johnson said:


SIEGEL: By the way, what do you make of Congressman Paul's libertarianism which pointedly does not include respect for the reproductive rights of women?

JOHNSON: Well, that would be one of our differences. I also happen to think that Israel, you know, we were responsible for the creation of Israel and that was through the United Nations; that they've been a strong military ally, that they will remain such. I do not think a military threat right now exists from Iran, but we should be vigilant to that. And I think it's naive to think that Israel is not going to act in their best interests should there be weapons of mass destruction showing themselves.

SIEGEL: And you would say the U.S. should support an Israeli action in that case, if Israel were to act militarily?

JOHNSON: Well, I would argue that that would probably be in our best interest. And to have them do that is a better situation than U.S. men and servicewomen engaged in the same.


Johnson's remarks sound vague and squishy to me. As if he knows that 1. many Libertarians support a strictly non-interventionist foreign policy (i.e., ending all foreign aid and military alliances/favored nations -- no exceptions), and 2. that other Libertarians (e.g. Wayne Allyn Root) want the LP to carve out an exception for Israel (i.e., continued U.S. aid and military alliance).

Johnson's answer sounds like he's hinting that he supports such an exception for Israel, without coming out and saying so unequivocally.

Curiously, while Johnson claims that Israel has been a "strong military ally" of the United States, there are counterclaims that Israel has never been -- legally or officially -- a U.S. ally, because no treaty of alliance has ever been signed between the two nations.

Carol Moore wrote the influential and controversial article, "Is Applying Libertarian Principles to Israel Anti-Semitic?"

Libertarian Party Joins Muslims to Oppose NDAA

An interesting press release from the Council on American Islamic Relations (dated January 2, 2012):


On Tuesday, January 3, representatives of the Libertarian Party and the Green Party will join the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT*) -- a national coalition of major Muslim organizations -- and other civil liberties group leaders at a news conference in Iowa to express their opposition to the unconstitutional nature of the National Defense Authorization Act's detention provisions.

This news conference is intended to convey a broad-based public response to President Obama's signing into law of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that authorizes the military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens suspected of terrorism without charge or trial.

WHAT: News Conference on New Law Authorizing Military Detention of U.S. Citizens "Without Charge or Trial"

WHEN: Tuesday, January 3, 11 a.m.

WHERE: Des Moines Marriott Downtown, Sioux City Meeting Room, 700
Grand Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50309

CONTACT: AMT National Director Muhammad Salim Akhtar (773-507-5335)

AMT is an umbrella organization that includes:

Member Organizations:

American Muslim Alliance (AMA)
American Muslims for Palestine (AMP)
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)
Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA)
Muslim American Society (MAS)
Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA)
Muslim Students Association-National (MSA-N)
Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA)
North America Imams Federation (NAIF)
United Muslims of America (UMA)

Observer Organizations:

American Muslims for Civic Engagement (AMCE)
Islamic Educational Council of Orange County (IECOC)
Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)

SOURCE Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)


This move by the Libertarian Party is especially interesting given Wayne Allyn Root's opposition toward Muslim outreach.