Root hints at 2012 in Fox News interview

Libertarian vice presidential nominee Wayne Allyn Root made another appearance on Fox News’s Your World with Neil Cavuto earlier this week. Root said in part, “We have got socialism under Republican George Bush with a bailout bill that nationalizes our banks and Wall Street, and now we will go all the way to Marxism with our good friend Barack Obama. And I think the best thing that can happen to an alcoholic is that you have got to hit rock bottom before you can ever turn it around. And the best thing that could ever happen to this country may very well, I’m sad to say, be the Marxism of Barack Obama. Four years of redistribution of our wealth, killing the job creators, destroying the successful people, punishing success, and I think, four years from now, America will be in a great mood for a real political revolution, a new Barry Goldwater. And I hope that is me and the Libertarian Party.”

30 thoughts on “Root hints at 2012 in Fox News interview

  1. Mike Gillis

    Can Root ever NOT sound like a douchebag?

    And does he seriously think he has a shot at the nomination in 2012? Really?

    He was a divisive figure before, just imagine how he’ll be received after being part of the Barr-Root ticket?

  2. paulie cannoli

    And does he seriously think he has a shot at the nomination in 2012? Really?

    Yes, as well as 2016 and 2020, with a win in 2020 and a start on a Rootintootinatarian America in 2021.

  3. Dodge Landesman

    Paulie’s right, and Root hasn’t hinted at anything. He officially announced his candidacy once he immediately lost the nomination (a little early in my opinion) this year. Barr will probably do as well as Badnarik this year, and we won’t make the same mistake twice.

  4. svf

    Barr will probably do as well as Badnarik this year, and we won’t make the same mistake twice.

    You mean “we won’t make the same mistakeS THREE TIMES”, right…?

  5. Nexus

    Root sets his goals high and goes for it. That is how he operates. His long-term goal is to sit in the oval office. He takes setbacks (like coming in 3rd for the LP nomination) in stride, makes the best of the situation, and moves on. Don’t fault the man for being tenacious.

  6. rdupuy

    I think it would be a huge mistake to start over with another fresh faced newbie to LP politics.

    Barr will not be new in 4 years. If he chooses to run again, he will be an ideal candidate, because he will build on experience.

    He’s a great Libertarian. He’s still a former congressman. He is a great speaker and his ability to get media attention should not be ignored.

    His mistakes this time around: allowing his competition to define him. You see that even now, Libertarians who are basically repeating the talking point of CP activists, not realizing just how much they are engaging in a ‘group think’ here.

    Barr made some strategic mistakes (or Verney)…one, run a smaller campaign, more efficient, more targetted. Secondly, understand this, just as Republicans are on CNN making their talking points about Barr (Repubs are not ignoring Barr, they are dead serious about removing the threat, despite their 100 to 1 size advantage over the LP).

    By the same token, we are much bigger than the CP, don’t give them any undo respect, but, get dead serious about removing the threat they really pose, as they have proven they can pose this year. Address them, expose them, bring their theocratic values to light. Fight for the 3rd party vote.

    Barr would be a great candidate in 2012, and I hope he runs.

    Don’t care about Root that much, but, maybe he’d get the nod again for VP.

  7. Thomas M. Sipos

    sfv: You mean “we won’t make the same mistakeS THREE TIMES”, right…?

    Badnarik wasn’t a mistake.

    It’s a given the LP will get low vote totals, no matter the candidate. The mistake was compromising on principles for the fantasy goal of winning.

    Nexus: Root sets his goals high and goes for it… Don’t fault the man for being tenacious.

    I don’t. I fault him for using the LP to achieve his personal goals. The LP is merely a gig for him — a vehicle to achieve fame and fortune (or so he imagines). A launching pad for a book or movie deal, or perhaps a radio or cable TV talk show.

    Read what his former employee says about Root’s character:

    Maybe Root’s infomercials and sports betting boiler rooms weren’t panning out, and he needed a new gig?

    Yeah, he’s tenacious. So are leeches.

  8. Austrian Economist


    You mean we have to wait 4 years for Root to run his mouth off again and be offensively ignorant on the supposedly “Libertarian” issues he advocates?

    My favorite is when he talks about unchecked offshore drilling, coal, and nuclear. All industries that only exist and thrive via massive government welfare. Which Root is against.

    He doesn’t *quite* connect all the dots.

    Root 2012? Lemme bust out the valium now to contain my excitement.


  9. paulie cannoli

    If you don’t mind, would you please score off half that valium for me? I’ll crush it, chop it into lines and roll up my own dollar bill myself. Much obliged.

  10. Steve LaBianca

    rdupuy says about Barr – “He’s a great Libertarian. He’s still a former congressman. He is a great speaker and his ability to get media attention should not be ignored.”

    First, Barr isn’t libertarian . . . he is strictly conservative. Yes, he’s a Libertarian, meaning a member of the LP, but I fail to see what is so “great” about that. Secondly, if Barr was running as an independent, without the ballot access afforded him by the LP, with say 10 states secured for the ballot, would he then get “media attention”? Hardly. Barr NEEDS ballot access to get media attention for the election. He cannot get it on his own (as a candidate). Thirdly, Barr is an adequate speaker, though he does have a very good “radio voice” so to speak.

    rdupuy also says, “Barr would be a great candidate in 2012, and I hope he runs.” There isn’t anything, in my mind that would improve his candidacy above his abysmal campaign this year. He is a poor fit for the LP, mainly because he isn’t a libertarian. Secondly, he will always surround himself with conservatives, which is, surprise, surprise, not a good fit for the LP.

    Regarding W.A.R., I also do not fault him for setting his goals high. I do however, fault him for towing the neo-con line about “them terrists”.

    IF (and that’s a big IF) W.A.R. actually educates and embraces libertarianism, while toning down the “Ron Paul on steroids”, motor-mouth style, he could actually have a chance of winning the nomination in 2012. I’m very skeptical that he will ever embrace the “just war” theory, learn free market economics (I don’t mean business acumen), i.e. Austrian Economics, and integrate these into his belief system and become a libertarian. I think his “tell them what they want to hear” attitude will trump any actual attempt at understanding libertarianism for him to do this.

  11. paulie cannoli

    I have high hopes for both Barr and Root in their further development as philosophical libertarians.

    As best I can tell, they are both becoming more libertarian over time. I still think they should have stuck around the party a little longer, run for lower level office as Libertarians, etc., first, but I won’t preclude them from future consideration just based on this year.

    However, they won’t get my support for the nomination unless and until they become more purely libertarian. Not that this will keep them awake at nights or anything.

  12. Steve LaBianca

    paulie cannoli // Oct 30, 2008 at 12:47 pm

    I have high hopes for both Barr and Root in their further development as philosophical libertarians.

    Paulie, I have no hope of this, that is, I neither hope or don’t hope. However, I have LOW expectation of this.

    Barr, with virtually a lifetime of employment in the federal government, upholding “law and order” as the highest ideal, in my view makes it extremely difficult for the 60+ year old Barr to make a sea change in philosophy. Barr has moved 90% of the way he is going to move, and any changes he embraces will be subtle and inconsequential.

    W.A.R., though younger (at 47 now), embraces the concept of “support Israel”, as if it’s the 51st state. His foreign policy views will likely be forever be clouded by this, as such a viewpoint is very strongly ingrained in his upbringing and outlook. I am very skeptical that he can ever embrace non-interventionism completely, as he will always make an exception for Israel, and by extension, his whole outlook toward Middle East foreign policy.

    It’s like Ron Paul says, being for liberty is not a “pick and choose” buffet. Either you believe in liberty, or you don’t. W.A.R. tries to pick and choose. I, personally don’t like his “choices”.

  13. Nexus

    “I don’t. I fault him for using the LP to achieve his personal goals. The LP is merely a gig for him — a vehicle to achieve fame and fortune (or so he imagines). A launching pad for a book or movie deal, or perhaps a radio or cable TV talk show.”

    Is there evidence Root is using the LP as a launching pad or are you just being cynical?

  14. Steve LaBianca

    Lots of people use political parties to “achieve personal goals”. Are some “personal goals” more noble than others?

    I say there are, but as self interested beings, do we then chastise business folks for attempting to “achieve personal goals”? Or alienate friends and acquaintances for being self-interested in associating with us?

    I guess we all have to make these decisions in supporting a candidate, buying from a business, and just generally interacting with various people who are “self-interested”.

    My view is, if a political candidate holds the same values and is working to achieve the same ends as I do, then I will likely not be concerned about the motives of the candidate.

    My departure from Barr and W.A.R., whom I believe both are running to “achieve personal goals”, is that I don’t support their values or goals.

    Harry Browne wrote (in Why Government Doesn’t Workthat he was running for president, to work toward achieving liberty in his lifetime, so he could go back home and spend the rest of his years in relative liberty.

    This was, as stated by Harry himself, “using the LP to achieve his personal goals.” Does anyone have a problem with that?

  15. Steve LaBianca

    Note: In my previous post, I wasn’t indicating that Harry Browne explicitly stated that he was “using the LP to achieve his personal goals.” He did state his objective in running for president, which was

  16. VTV

    If our party makes the mistake of nominating in 2012 after this debacle that will be the final nail in the coffin of my membership in the Libertarian party.

  17. Michael Seebeck

    ” paulie cannoli // Oct 30, 2008 at 3:48 am

    And does he seriously think he has a shot at the nomination in 2012? Really?

    Yes, as well as 2016 and 2020, with a win in 2020 and a start on a Rootintootinatarian America in 2021.”

    I think that may be true if he limits his campaign to IHOPs.

    If he runs in 2012, the LP, assuming it lives that long, is in trouble.

  18. Mike Theodore

    Now he and Jingo said that if they lost, they would be back in 2012. I’ve emailed Jingozian, and he’s confirmed (pretty much) a second run, as promised to his supporters.

  19. Thomas M. Sipos

    Nexus: Is there evidence Root is using the LP as a launching pad or are you just being cynical?

    I look at Root’s whole career. He’s a huckster. A boiler room operator. A self-promoter.

    From his “I am great” book about his favorite topic — himself — to his self-promotional “I came from nowhere and want to be your leader” and “I am great for the LP” talks.

    He’ll say and do anything to win. Unable to get on Nevada’s small delegation, he carpet-bagged his family to California to get into the California delegation, even getting his 16-year-old daughter delegate status.

    All newly minted “libertarians.”

    (As someone familiar with California LP conventions, I regret that we have an almost rubber stamp process for qualifying delegates; we have enough open seats so that anyone who wants a seat usually gets it.)

    Root is an aggressive promoter of himself and his interests. So I assume he sees the LP as just another vehicle for his personal fame and glory.

    If not, then why doesn’t he settle into a modest activist position for 10 years or so, prove his worth through thankless hard work, and work his way up to top status?

    Because it’s not about advancing liberty, it’s about him getting the fame and glory for being liberty’s “leader.”

    If not, then why doesn’t he open his wallet and fund his own VP campaign?

    If not, then why did he join the California LP’s Coffee Club (a monthly donor’s club) while he was running for the nomination, but drop his Coffee Club membership once he had safely secured the nomination?

    Root is all about Root.

    I’m glad I live in California and can write-in Ron Paul for president and Gail Lightfoot for VP (the officially certified candidates, whose votes will be counted).

  20. Jake Witmer

    I have supported Wayne for President since late 2006.

    Unfortunately for Root, a few “pro-war” jerks also support him, who then hide behind the label “pro-defense” (when they are actually ‘pro-war’, and ‘pro-interventionism’ and admit as much behind closed doors). Well, all Libertarians, by definition are “pro-defense”. That “just war” theory denies pre-emptive war is not a controversial point with Root. (Although Bruce Cohen tainted Root’s perceptions/ability to win over the Ron Paul crowd early on, Root gradually saw the light, and altered his position on preemptive war, much to Bruce’s seeming dismay. Bruce and Eric at first retarded Root’s learning curve when it came to military adventurism and the financial pressure exerted by the Fed and AIPAC. Luckily, Root educated himself. …He’s a quick study.)

    In 2007, Root began more seriously investigating libertarian ideas, and as a result, his thinking and speaking on libertarian issues matured as he got closer to and then passed the 2008 election. (He never stopped writing press releases.) In Root’s defense, he has never been politically delusional, and avoids political “third rail positions” that he has not yet figured out how to speak to. …This is simply common sense.

    I won’t speak much more about his current areas of weakness, since he’s correcting them, and developing his own speaking points with regard to them.

    Regarding the waning influence of Dondero and Cohen: Around mid 2007, I began to see signs that Eric Dondero was completely insane. Bonkers. Loony. (I had disagreed with him almost from the beginning, but I had also saw fit to give him enough rope to hang himself, which he finally managed to do.) So it wasn’t really difficult for me to say ‘bon voyage’ to him, when he decided he “could no longer be friends with me”, since I refused to support his group (of one) “libertarians for Rudy Giuliani”. No big loss. He took a while to circle the drain, but I’m glad he’s no longer taken seriously. Lately, he shows up less and less in google searches (he’s at around 33,100 google pages), as he becomes and less less relevant. Recently, Bruce Cohen also decided that he and I “could no longer be friends”, because I wouldn’t alter my philosophy to unconditionally support Israel (I support neither Israel or Hamas. I support my own life, liberty, and entirely-USA-contained property).
    I’m getting the impression he’ll circle the drain a little longer than Dondero did, which is unfortunate, since he’s an equally mean-spirited and derisive person. (He definitely clings to Root in an ongoing effort to regenerate his deservedly lost credibility in the CA LP. At first, I admit, I bought into the myth of the sane and ‘adult’ Bruce Cohen. I suppose I’m glad that the lapel-grabber “My-Country(Israel)-Right-or-Wrong” Bruce Cohen revealed himself to me last month, with the Gaza debacle. Bruce called me up and demanded that I unconditionally accept his version of Israel’s history or challenge what he was saying on the spot. I refused. Of course, his absurd demand was basically barnyard behavior, not the behavior of a rational human being.)

    Soooooo, 2/3 of my “pro war libertarian” friends are now history, and good riddance, (because they have also shown they are without personal honor), and simply wanted to be “friends” with someone they thought they could push around. My remaining objectivist-tinged “pro-war” libertarian friends appear to be cooler-headed than those that have now excised themselves from my life. I still enjoy debating them.

    Root is not in the “pro-war” category. He is also not a temper-tantrum throwing child. He avoids hysterical demands and emotional displays in private debate, (although he is able to muster emotion to make a point in a public debate, as he did while arguing against a Fox commentator recently).

    Those who think Root is “pro-war”, are reading outdated material from him. This is understandable (noone can keep abreast of every new development), but unfortunate. It is also unfortunate when people do not trust that Wayne’s intentions are good, since he’s only given evidence that they are.

    Although I am glad that Eric and Bruce are out of my life, I don’t begrudge them their philosophy, even if I may disagree with large portions of it. I don’t want to “purge them” from the LP. In fact, I wouldn’t mind if people who shared similar beliefs ran for office, or significant positions within the LP. The only reason I dislike the idea of Bruce in a leadership position is the hysterical “admit I’m right” temper tantrum he recently threw with me. Such behavior is completely childish, and would be equally childish if his philosophy were radically anti-war. Certainly, Bruce and I share a common political cause on much domestic policy (although I think he doesn’t really understand the power of jury rights). We also agree in our mutual goal that the LP retain in its platform the support of at least some military protection of the USA (in my case, it’s an interim step to the free market, in his case, that’s as far as his imagination goes). The point of philosophical difference is clear: Bruce prefers that all of his personal friends swear allegiance to Israel, and sees nothing wrong with AIPAC milking the US taxpayer (so that’s where we part ways).

    That said, there are some people who personally and vocally support Israel’s defensive actions who are solid philosophical Libertarians in every way (Vin Suprynowicz comes to mind, as do some objectivist scholars at TOC, etc…). Were these people to argue that the US taxpayer should also be beholden to support Israel’s military, then there would be basis for definitional disagreement, as that would technically be a non-libertarian position. Even so, does libertarianism demand orthodoxy? To some degree, yes, but there’s a hell of a lot of time wasted in arguing to what degree! I’m inclined to state that no candidate for office will ever be 100% libertarian and 100% electable.

    I’m willing to shoot for high marks in both categories, and if they make it over 50-75% in both, then great. Pass go, collect $200, and give your life over to a grueling and possibly thankless political battle in search of a highly uncertain reward.

    All Libertarians are –by definition– “pro-defense” (although we all argue about what amounts to “defense”), because we all have a different idea about the likelihood of foreign military attack, as well as whether or not various military actions are likely to prevent such attack, or likely to actually “retaliate”. No libertarian believes that if Chinese soldiers were storming American beaches that we would be compelled to allow them to invade (definitionally, we’re not pacifists). (For a good exposition of this viewpoint, I recommend reading Vin Suprynowicz’s comment to the “anti-war?” question: ) …Perhaps the majority of libertarians don’t want their tax dollars going to fight military conflicts designed to make military contractors (and their bankers) rich, and recognize that this is a serious risk. …Good. That means we’re not gullible, and accepting definitions as perfect referents to reality. (It’s important for libertarians to understand the perverse incentives that can make the military function in an unjust and immoral way. I think that Ron Paul, G. Edward Griffin, and Harry Browne were/are all fairly aware in this regard.) There is a wide range between the two extremes, though, and there is no definitively “right” answer. The rightness of “the answer” changes according to the subtleties of the situation, and the information available at the time (Although this can be misinterpreted to mean that I favor the opaque and war-determined “neocon” path, it would be a mistake to conclude that from the limited amount I have written. It’s a complex enough subject to fill a book, and Browne, Griffin, et al. have done that quite well, so I don’t have to.). The definition of “libertarian” is suitably vague to encompass all views within the range covered by “favoring only the retaliatory use of force, and a military for such an enventuality”. (The platform doesn’t use this exact language, but it’s pretty close. It does explicitly call for the existence of a military, court system, and police, as do Rand, Heinlein, Paul, etc…)

    Libertarians tend to favor decentralization as well, which means that as long as we have our own weapons, we feel pretty secure, because we know how responsible we are for our own defense. This is a good view, but if we say we hold only this view, and believe there should be no military at all, and it contradicts the publicly-stated LP platform. The LP platform was written to allow as big of a “tent” as possible without being decidedly anti-liberty. This “big tent” is fine for those anarchists (or other deviations from the platform) who want to be involved, as per the Dallas Accord, but it is not fine if they want to dictate LP policy and candidate statements to contradict the technical libertarian consensus position (conversely, the anarchist small-L libertarians should be always allowed to discuss and debate anarchist ideas, and should not be uncivilly hooted down for doing so as per: ). (I believe that until we achieve electoral minarchism, anarchism as an electoral position is politically untenable and absurd in the USA, and cannot attract a serious candidate, even if it is a viable personal position to take. Moreover, such a candidate would be virtually silenced by the major media. In addition to that, such an electoral approach would ignore the fact that anarchism often succeeds and thrives through simple noncompliance and counter-economics. In essence, electorally asking the state’s supporters –voters– to nullify the validity of the vote, is absurd.)

    Electoral politics is separate from other kinds of pro-freedom activities. It is weaker in any area in which a broad consensus cannot be built, and stronger in areas where it can be built. It is a “hard limit” to the worst of state destruction (mass murder by government).

    We should also seriously consider the possible changes to the US public that could happen if there were several more suicide attacks, and things got to the point where it looked like radical islam was becoming a seriously-advanced threat. (Instead of scientifically backwards religious thugs incapable of developing serious existential threats.) What if the near universal lack of a gun culture in the USA actually makes our defenses weak enough that the prior scenario becomes our reality even without the scientific advancement of islam? At very least, the Irvine Randites seem to think think this is a serious possibility (I somewhat disagree, although I also hold islam in low regard). I know that the core reason for Islamic attack would have then been the failure to pursue a free market, but that wouldn’t make our loss in the polls acceptable, in fact, it would mean the electoral elimination of our peaceful alternative. Who does it benefit to close off strategical avenues for damage control? Should we not leave the option open for a militarized but relatively libertarian peace? (Before you answer, read “Starship Troopers”, and just pose the question of such a possibility or partial possibility to yourself.) It would be our political reality at that point in time, regardless if prior to that point the anarchists were 100% correct. An occurrence like that would mean that the current radical “anti-war-at-all-costs” faction of the LP would have literally no chance for electoral success, for the then foreseeable future.

    Why limit our options? Root is intelligent enough to withstand the pressure of the Federal Reserve (to invite continual war). (And if he’s not, then noone electable is, so the equation doesn’t change much.) He has recently displayed a commitment to shrinking the military, as a matter of public stance. So long as he is consistent (as he has been), there is little cause for alarm. (Primarily because alarm can’t do anything. Elections are weak. I’d much rather have Root rnning, even if he was a lot less principled, than someone with low character and integrity.)

    The possibility of serious attack alone, means that the LP should remain a “big tent party”, that encourages heated internal debate, but that ultimately supports the standard bearer of the party, and passionate and outspoken “fellow travelers”. Just because a candidate is supported doesn’t mean that every aspect of that candidate is supported. I suggest supporting Wayne Root because he
    1) Fits the dictionary definition of “libertarian”
    2) Works tirelessly to promote the Libertarian Party, and libertarian solutions.
    3) Supports jury rights/ FIJA outreach, which is a powerful non-electoral approach to winning freedom that can be advanced concurrently to his many media appearances.

    (I am personally a consistent libertarian anarcho-capitalist who also favors an incremental approach towards achieving my desired goal. Alas, “small tent” movements don’t ever elect anyone, don’t ever scare the status-quo, and thusly don’t ever successfully protect the innocent from state bullying. I want the LP to run a candidate who can do those things, because they are good partial victory results even if the primary goal falls short. This is known as a “gracefully decaying” strategy that “loses information, and loses positives gradually”, rather than being “all or nothing”.)

    Wayne supports the existence of a military, police, and court system. He believes that the military could be dramatically reduced in size, and still effectively protect the USA. He also believes in shrinking or eliminating every other government agency. He thus qualifies as a libertarian, according to the commonly-understood definition of the term. If he isn’t as radical as Harry Browne is, then that’s simply because there is a range of acceptable values within the term “libertarian”, not because he’s “not a libertarian”.

    I think Root is a good salesman for the concept of political liberty.

    Wayne set aside his personal pride, and stated that he would step aside and endorse Ron Paul, if Ron showed up at our convention (because he could see how popular Paul was, and was forced to admit that if Paul went LP in 2008, it could mean winning the whitehouse). How many other self-interested politicians would do such a thing? …Barr sure didn’t do so! (He made a fool of himself suggesting that Wayne offer to step down, and offer Paul the #2 slot when Paul could have won the #1 slot with ease. A few years ago, Chris Rock mocked the idea of Colin Powell running with Bob Dole in 1996 for the same reason: Nobody runs as the #2 man for someone they can easily beat at the time of the offer. …Duh.) All of this is silly, but it shows that Wayne is running because he actually wants individual freedom, not because he is “an egomaniac” or “purely self-promoting”.

    Or do you think he thought Verney was a strategical genius? …Please!

    Wayne has put up with a lot of silly shit from the LP in 2008, including things that would have sent lesser men home in disgust with the ineptitude of the organization. Instead, he strives to make it better, and he’s bearing most of the burden of doing so.

    I think Wayne has gotten a bunch of flack from libertarians tending to focus on how they disagree with him, rather than how they agree with him. There is a natural tendency for those in the LP to sacrifice the good to the perfect. After all, winning elections isn’t as important to them as ideological consistency, otherwise they would simply be trying to infiltrate the major parties (like Ron Paul did).

    Wayne can see that the Republicans’ elephant is no longer in the land of the living. Even though he could have pulled a victory out of them in NV, he stands for a more principled freedom. I think we owe it to him to hear him out. He can use some guidance, like we can use his media savvy. It’s an equal trade.

    Take a look at all the work Wayne is doing for the LP. Noone has been on TV and radio as often, or as vocally Libertarian as Wayne has. He’s been on Fox almost every week since the election, touting the Libertarian solution to the “bailout”. “Destroy the Fed, Before It Destroys Us!”

    Does he have a little bit to learn about promoting the LP brand to leftists and centrists? Sure. …Nobody’s perfect. (None of our prior presidential candidates were either.)

    But Wayne has constantly grown, constantly learned, and constantly progressed in his thinking. I’d like it if people took into account his hard work and effort, and then were maybe just a tad less vitriolic and hateful in their attacks on him. After all, what then happens to those who once attacked him when he wins in 2012 or 2016? Drop out of the party in anger?

    …That’s a typical loser response.

    Since when has that accomplished anything? It’s much more effective to offer constructive criticism from within, than damnation from without. (This is true because the LP is not a corrupt party, because its platform is specific, and overtly limits government power. If the platform is ever fully gutted, then the LP will simply be Demopublican Party #3 -IMHO, but even then it would serve as a weak check on the worst of government abuses.)

    Moreover, ideally, if you disagree with Root, it would be best to attack his positions, and not his character. I understand that tempers can get hot, but it does no good to alienate Root with smears like “Neocon”. Do you think that will get you what you want, if you want him to adopt a position closer to your own?

    …Not likely. In fact, what it will do is make him likely to say “I’m not a neocon, so this person is full of crap, so I don’t need to take them seriously.”

    This is just common sense, seeing that he has not personally attacked anyone in the Libertarian movement, and has encouraged a “big tent” view of LP politics. Also, he favors a 20 year unrelenting “long term” approach, which might be the only kind of approach that makes our success possible. (And even if not, it means Wayne will be making a lot of TV appearances.)

    The LP News used to fawn over the random LP member that made it on cable access. That Root is all over the mass media says a lot about the value of his tenacity.

    My .02


  21. paulie cannoli

    I believe that until we achieve electoral minarchism, anarchism as an electoral position is politically untenable and absurd in the USA, and cannot attract a serious candidate, even if it is a viable personal position to take. Moreover, such a candidate would be virtually silenced by the major media. In addition to that, such an electoral approach would ignore the fact that anarchism often succeeds and thrives through simple noncompliance and counter-economics. In essence, electorally asking the state’s supporters –voters– to nullify the validity of the vote, is absurd.

    Not necessarily. An openly anarchist candidate with good political showmanship would be a media hook. Noncompliance and countereconomics are great, but electoral politics help spread the ideas – even if they are only watered down ideas that lead only a few people to explore the more radical ideas underlying them – to audiences whom they would otherwise not reach.

    Voters are not automatically state supporters – some anarchists vote as a defensive measure, and this means that such could theoretically win a state election at some point. Clearly, that point is not now – but then, neither are anarchists anywhere near ready to win by any other tactic given the current public mindset. Or minarchists, for that matter.

  22. Michael Seebeck

    My own criticism of Root is that his abundance of enthusiasm comes across as hyper and fake. He simply needs to tone it down a little vocally and energetically to come across as genuine instead of a clean-shaven Billy Mays. Yes, he has improved on his issue stances, and yes, he does need to improve on marketing to the left, as most libertarians (but not all) need to do. I agree with Jake that he is working on it, and right now time is an ally.

    If he can improve that and keep at his other efforts, he can be a star. I hope for everyone’s sake he does so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *