Press "Enter" to skip to content

Root’s book reviewed at Liberty For All

My column this week is about Libertarian presidential hopeful Wayne Allyn Root’s new book, “The Conscience of a Libertarian”. The review may be read in full here.

About Post Author



  1. Deran Deran August 17, 2009

    Instead of more chatter abt Wayne Root and his doings, why doesn’t IPR interview with Debra Reiger, the new Interim Chair of the Peace and Freedom Party’s National Organizing Continuations Committee.

    Her contact info is posted in the BAN post abt her

    IPR tends to heavily toward thinking everything Root does is news worthy.

    There’s things doing on the US democratic Left, and I would be interested in reading abt them.


  2. Eric Dondero Eric Dondero August 17, 2009

    Contrary to the poster above, no us regular IPR readers are not at all interested in what the Fascist Left is doing. They already have Islamo-Fascist Obama who wants to ram Communist Health Care down our throats, and this asswipe America-hater above has the audacity to cry like a little girl: Golly gee, give us more coverage.

    Take a hike Fascist asshole. This site covers Wayne Root, cause he supports Freedom, a concept that is completely foreign to Hitler/Commies such as yourself.

  3. Bush is a 911 Terrorist Bush is a 911 Terrorist August 17, 2009

    “Instead of more chatter abt Wayne Root and his doings, why doesn’t IPR interview with Debra Reiger, the new Interim Chair of the Peace and Freedom Party’s National Organizing Continuations Committee.”

    If someone who writes for IPR decides to, sure. Do you see a lot of interviews at IPR? Not so much. There is news about Root because he sends IPR regular press releases, gets news coverage, and is the leading presidential nomination candidate of the largest third party in the US.

    Dondero does not speak for all IPR readers, only himself, and there is plenty of coverage of left wing parties at IPR.

  4. George Phillies George Phillies August 17, 2009



    I am not calling you a prevaricator, but do you have an actual cite with date for “Root is an announced candidate for president” assuming you refer to the current election cycle? There are some interesting questions that fallow therefrom.


  5. Gary Chartier Gary Chartier August 17, 2009

    George @6: this

    implies that WAR hasn’t yet officially announced, and I can’t find evidence that he’s even set up an exploratory committee. But it does seem to be about as close to an announcement as it could be without involving an explicit declaration.

  6. mdh mdh August 17, 2009

    I’ve heard from several people at state conventions that Root has made his intention to seek our nomination in 2012 known quite boldly. I haven’t seen anything like a candidate campaign committee spring up yet. It’s still early for such formalities though, really, so that isn’t surprising. Right now it’s all talk, but barring something whacky happening I would imagine that he will get on with the rest in due time.

  7. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp August 17, 2009


    I guess it depends on what you mean by “announced.” He at least nominally announced his 2012 presidential candidacy in his acceptance of the LP’s 2008 VP nomination.

    The title of his web site is “Wayne Allyn Root’s Libertarian Presidential Candidate Web Site.” His bio on that site describes him as “the leading contender for the Libertarian Presidential nomination in 2012.” Per whois, the registrants of that site are “debra and Wayne Root,” so he presumably controls the content.

    Granted, he did pull several switch-a-roos in 2007, first announcing (on local Las Vegas TV that spring), then announcing that he hadn’t announced but was thinking about announcing (in an interview with Libertarian Lady that summer), then sort of announcing again that November, etc., so I suppose he could be trying to have it both ways again … but in reality he’s very much announced.

  8. Bush is a 911 Terrorist Bush is a 911 Terrorist August 17, 2009

    Press Release
    For Immediate Release
    Monday, August 17, 2009

    Libertarians press Congress on DOMA, ‘don’t’ ask, don’t tell’
    Hate crimes bill opposed, cast as attempt by marriage opponents to buy LBGT votes

    WASHINGTON — America’s third largest party challenged House and Senate Democrats Monday to fully commit to the equal justice for gay and lesbian Americans by rejecting a proposed hate crimes law and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring military service by “out” gays and lesbians.

    “Libertarians are the only party committed to equal justice under the law, whether it is protection from violence, marriage equality or the ability of a qualified person to serve in the military,” said Cat Sumner, Libertarian National Committee gay and lesbian policy advisor. “So-called ‘hate crimes’ bills further divide America by creating different classes of victims for the same crime. Instead of dividing the gay and straight communities, we should be treating everyone equally.”

    “This so-called ‘hate crimes’ bill is just an attempt by Democrat opponents of marriage equality to hold on to gay and lesbian support without actually fighting for them,” said Sumner. “The Libertarian Party is the only party in America not afraid to engage in a no-compromise fight for a country where gays and lesbians can live their lives without government-sponsored harassment. Libertarians challenge Congress to prove they are truly committed to equal justice for gays and lesbians by dropping so-called hate crimes legislation and instead repealing DOMA and ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’”

    Libertarians consider the hate crimes bill not just a violation of equal justice under the law, but an attempt by legislators to buy gay and lesbian support while still opposing gay marriage and military service. The original sponsor of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, then-Republican Congressman Bob Barr (GA,) has recanted his support of the bill and is seeking its repeal. He was the Libertarian presidential nominee in 2008, winning the party’s second-highest presidential vote total in its 38-year history.

    The House passed a hate crimes bill, H.R. 1913, on Apr. 29. On Jul 16. the Senate attached a hate crimes amendment to a military spending bill, both of which were approved. The House bill and Senate amendment must be reconciled in committee before being sent to President Obama for his signature.

  9. Catholic Trotskyist Catholic Trotskyist August 17, 2009

    Eric, I appreciate your active opposition against fascist/stalinist criminal Ralph Nader, but I completely agree with Deran and Bush911 and Peter on this post. Independent viewers have good reason to be interested in left-wing candidates, just as much as libertarian and right-wing candidates. Most Democrats believe that Obama is not being left enough. We truly want the foundations of America to be destroyed, and feel that Obama is not doing it fast enough. But as you alluded to, he does have a foundation which will implement this plan, and the Catholic Trotskyist Party of America is patient and continues to support him. Soon, everyone will be able to receive life-saving communist healthcare, government will intervene more in the economy, but the military budget will be smaller and our sovereignty will be surrendered to the United Nations. Thus, the Christian Socialist New World Order will be established, and God’s peace will abound forever, amen.

  10. Catholic Trotskyist Catholic Trotskyist August 17, 2009

    I like hearing about Root too, on the other hand. Unlike Nader, at least he didn’t put spyware on my computer last year.

  11. Jeremy Young Jeremy Young August 18, 2009

    Contrary to Dondero’s comment above, I’m a regular reader who does enjoy hearing about leftist parties.

    I won’t answer to “fascist,” though. I’ll answer to “statist,” but the most accurate term to describe me is “Progressive” — a term that has unfortunately become mangled beyond recognition. I use it to evoke the Herbert Croly-Woodrow Wilson Progressives of a century ago, and for me it means enthusiastic support of a large and powerful federal government, support for the welfare state, support for some measures of social control (though the old-school Progressives did get a bit carried away on that one, even for me), fierce patriotism, and internationalist foreign policy.

  12. Jeremy Young Jeremy Young August 18, 2009

    Peter, just a quibble about one sentence in your review. You write: “Root may be the most media-savvy figure ever to seek the Libertarian Party presidential nomination.” I submit that is not true. I think everybody agrees that Russell Means is the most media-savvy figure ever to seek the LP nomination.

  13. Thomas M. Sipos Thomas M. Sipos August 18, 2009

    Progressive” … I use it to evoke … and internationalist foreign policy.

    You mean imperialism? War and empire?

    In that sense, Dondero is quite the Progressive.

  14. mdh mdh August 18, 2009

    Tom, I’m inclined to believe that internationalist foreign policy and interventionist foreign policy are two very different things, where internationalist refers more to engagement in international treaties and bodies such as the UN, without necessarily encouraging wars of aggression or the like. Jeremy’s interpretation could be otherwise, but that’s my take on what he might mean. Many progressives are proponents of international involvement while opposed to outright interventionist wars and such.

    On another note, I, too, am interested in what socialist parties such as the P&FP, the various boutique socialist parties, the Greens, etc are up to. Some of their battles are also our battles, for example ballot access. In addition to those, it’s always worthwhile to see where your competition is focusing their energy and, when they try to take on OUR issues, to make sure we do a better job of it than they do! 😉

  15. Jeremy Young Jeremy Young August 18, 2009

    Matt’s essentially got my perspective right. To a libertarian, my foreign policy views aren’t very different from Dondero’s, but the gradations are pretty significant from my perspective. I support world government and cession of national sovereignty to a world government body. He (I think) is a nationalist who advocates U.S. military intervention to spread freedom and democracy across the globe.

  16. George Phillies George Phillies August 18, 2009

    Thank you all for your useful pieces of information showing that Root is an announced candidate for President, and has been for some time. Readers will recall that the LNC has a clear rule against LNC supporting candidates prenomination — this rule was violated by LP News several months before the Barr nomination took place, and if you believe the Barr campaign financials rather than the LNC financials was violated with money in the form of an LNC financial donation to the Barr nominating campaign.

    I’m sure the LNC will avoid repeating these errors, which also took place during the Browne nominating campaign.

  17. George Phillies George Phillies August 18, 2009

    With all respect, Peter, I do not believe that your interpretation is entirely consistent with Browne’s actual 1996 campaign, and is only somewhat more consistent with Browne’s 2000 campaign.

  18. Thomas M. Sipos Thomas M. Sipos August 18, 2009

    Actually, Bruce Cohen complained to me last week, because I’d called Root a presidential candidate when discussing the CarbonCopyPro press release.

    Cohen wrote: Wayne Root HAS NOT formally declared as a Candidate. He wants to run. He would like to run. But your comment on IPR that he IS running is technically
    and legally incorrect.

    Please feel free to check with me or with Wayne before
    you cause yourself problems with such misstatements.

    I’d replied: “You got a problem, take it up with CarbonCopyPro. They (the people Root endorsed) are the ones who said: “As, the Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. President in 2012, Root’s endorsement of the CarbonCopyPRO business model is noteworthy.”

    Now I expect Cohen will complain about my posting the above. He complains about everything I do.

  19. Donald R. Lake Donald R. Lake August 18, 2009

    Thomas M. Sipos on Bruce Cohen on keeping him honest: May be there is a reason for that ?????

    Shouldn’t we [alternative non Dem and non GOP folk] be better than the Establishment Duopoly rather than just mimic the &@$#%&$# Democans and Republicrats ????

  20. mdh mdh August 18, 2009

    I agree wholeheartedly with Peter @23. Root could make a very good candidate for us.

  21. Joe Buchman Joe Buchman August 18, 2009

    Haven’t read the book yet, but I am glad to see this quote in there:

    When it comes to issues like abortion, gay rights, stem cell funding, right to die (think Terri Schiavo), online poker, medical marijuana, and censorship of television, the GOP is actually in favor of Big Brother moving into our bedrooms, taking over our televisions and computers, and taking control of our lives.”

    If Wayne can articulate the pacifist/leave-us-alone side of Libertarian Liberal issues, as well as continue his hard-core free market economic defense, he’ll get more and more of my support, and I suspect that of others inside and outside the LP as well.

  22. George Phillies George Phillies August 18, 2009

    There is a unique legal definition of candidate, namely the raised or spent more than $5000, and therefore has an FEC filing obligation.

    There is another definition ‘says he is running” and as can be seen in the above, he has said he is running.

  23. Thomas M. Sipos Thomas M. Sipos August 19, 2009

    Lake: Thomas M. Sipos on Bruce Cohen on keeping him honest: May be there is a reason for that ?????

    Bruce Cohen was “correcting” me.

    But I got my information from Root’s endorsee, CarbonCopyPro, which presumably ran its press release past Root for approval.

    So maybe Cohen should try to keep Root or CarbonCopyPro honest?

  24. Mike Theodore Mike Theodore August 19, 2009

    Dondero, Calm down dude. This isn’t “Root Political Report”

    Very well written Peter, but I’m getting contrary reviews. Rob Power states there’s a bit of an anti-gay family message in there. Any truth to that?

  25. libertariangirl libertariangirl August 19, 2009

    Root marched in the gay pride parade while campaigning for Pres. or while VP candidate.

    either way , id say that proves he is not anti-gay

    i really gotta get a copy

  26. mdh mdh August 19, 2009

    I’m not really sure how that statement could be interpretted as anti-gay in any way. It seems like more of a slip-up in terms of thinking of homosexual couples, polyamorous families, single-parent families, etc. I wouldn’t see that as a snub though.

  27. mdh mdh August 19, 2009

    Although I haven’t read the book yet either – Aaron Starr notes “Look at page 78 of Wayne Root’s book, where he writes very clearly, “It does not take a village; it simply takes loving caring parents.” There is no mention of the gender of the parents.”

    I am even more confused now by Mr. Power’s assessment.

  28. Donald R. Lake Donald R. Lake August 19, 2009

    and I concluded YEARS ago that the government, 1880s or 1980s, should stay out the fine tuning marriage.

    Take polygamy —– please! It is, in the real world, self regulating!

    The penalty for polygamy is polygamy itself!

  29. Michael Seebeck Michael Seebeck August 19, 2009

    I may as critical of Root as anyone, but I think it’s safe to say I don’t think that he’s homophobic. In my admittedly limited interactions with him, he’s never acted that way.

    Joe Buchman hit it on the head:

    “If Wayne can articulate the pacifist/leave-us-alone side of Libertarian Liberal issues, as well as continue his hard-core free market economic defense, he’ll get more and more of my support, and I suspect that of others inside and outside the LP as well.”

    Well said.

  30. libertariangirl libertariangirl August 19, 2009

    thanks Mike!
    do i detect a chink in the ‘I hate Wayne ‘ armor?

  31. Thomas M. Sipos Thomas M. Sipos August 20, 2009

    Root marched in the gay pride parade while campaigning for Pres. or while VP candidate. … id say that proves he is not anti-gay

    No, that only proves that Root wanted support from gay libertarians, at that time.

    Root’s website was opposed to gay marriage in 2007.

    Sure, in 2008, Root flip flopped on gay rights.

    I don’t think Root is, in his heart, primarily pro- or anti- gay. Root is primarily an opportunist, who’s message always morphs to please whichever group has something he wants.

    This is why I don’t think Root ever “gets better.” Because he’s always the same — an opportunist. Only his spin gets better or worse, but that’s only spin, not what he believes.

    And I’ve explained why I don’t thrust his flip flops. Because they’re too frequent, too quick, and too convenient.

    Primarily, Root believes in Root.

    Even Barr is more respectable than Root because, however good or bad Barr’s message, I think his words more honestly reflect his views.

  32. Rob Power Rob Power August 20, 2009

    Sipos nailed it.

    Even my Amazon review said that I was perplexed that such a conservative book would be written by someone who had been in the SF Pride Parade.

    Thomas Sipos has provided the only explanation of this disconnect that makes sense to me.

  33. mdh mdh August 20, 2009

    I’m a fairly cynical person, but I think that view may even be too cynical for me. Root’s website advocated a lot of things in 2007 which showed that he lacked a fundamental understanding of libertarianism in general (including things that were not at all right-leaning, such as advocacy of some gun control at the federal level!)

    It’s not impossible for me to believe that, as he gains a better understanding of how freedom works overall, he becomes more pro-freedom in his ideology. At first he seemed to be taken milquetoast baby-steps into the freedom pool, but since then, he seems to have jumped in more than half way. I can respect that.

    Rob, if Aaron Starr is correct then you misquoted Root in a way that made him sound like he was unfortunately and thoughtlessly not considering different parenting situations. However given that Aaron’s quote is correct and yours is not, I don’t see where there’d be any problem with the statement from the perspective of advocates of non-traditional families?

    If you misquoted and interpretted a statement wrong, it seems like you may want to consider just owning up to that and, after reading the book, give us a more accurate review from your perspective. You’re someone whom a lot of us (including myself) respect as an advocate and activist for liberty, so we (or at least I) would like to see a genuine and fully-informed opinion on the book from your perspective. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.