Wayne Root on RT America

RT America broadcasts from studios in Washington, DC.

Wayne Root speaks on:

  • Ron Paul’s ongoing campaign to establish libertarian values
  • Libertarian Party Nominee Gary Johnson’s campaign
  • Libertarian ideas entering mainstream thought
  • Ending the Federal Reserve and instituting a gold standard
  • The folly of foreign wars

32 thoughts on “Wayne Root on RT America

  1. Oranje Mike

    Since Mr. Starr now has a lot of time on his hands, one would think he could make one WAR post with links to each story. Nope. He has to flood the page with multiple posts.

  2. paulie

    Aaron was not on the LNC this past term either, so why do you say he now has a lot of time on his hands?

    Also his 4 posts were iirc posted within the same hour. I would not leap to conclude that means he has a lot of free time. I would guess that he is pretty busy with his job, relationship, and various activities and hobbies.

  3. Thane Eichenauer

    @1
    If Wayne Root managed to earn/place four articles in four disparate media then I see no problem with each placement earning a post at IPR.
    It gives something other than the Americans Elect Party to comment on and the topics Root talks about are certainly a bit more relevant than one more AE post.
    Relative to the RT segment embedded above I would challenge those of the Root’s Teeth Are Awesome caucus to tell me which Libertarian Party member would appear on RT if Wayne Root didn’t.
    @3
    It won’t be Root overload for me until I see him on three or more different TV channels 6 days a week so long as he avoids saying anything that could possibly be taken as suggesting that Americans should vote for Mitt Romney.

  4. Robert Capozzi

    Root’s evolution on f.p. discussion here gets me thinking about the “primacy” of f.p. Holtz often correctly points out that US military spending is not the biggest driver of the growth of government.

    OTOH, many economists will point out that all action is on the margin. When military spending decelerates or is cut, US economic growth tends to accelerate, iirc. Post WWII, Korea and Cold War seem to bear that out.

    Perhaps someone knows of a study that illustrates this. Intuitively, I would suggest that military spending beyond pure defense spending is a classic “deadweight loss.” Fighter planes on a tarmac and troops in a bunk contribute nothing to the economy that I can see.

    At least Social Security checks are generally spent on goods and services by and for real people.

    It’s a theory…

  5. paulie

    @6 There are many second, third etc ripple effects of military spending that Brian’s datasets don’t cover. A veteran driven by PTSD to abuse drugs, spouse/kids, commit crimes, collect welfare, go to prison, have all kinds of health issues, etc, does not show up as part of any “defense” budget, but it has a lot to do with war and peace. That’s just one of many examples.

    On the other hand I can’t agree that troops in a bunk aren’t real people who spend money on goods and services. They are and they do. Just like SS recipients. My study of econ basics leads me to believe neither one matches the economic efficiency of a true free market in matching buyers and sellers, producers and distributors, people in need with those with a need to help, and so on.

    What happens instead is that our central planners decide that X amount will go to troops and X amount to SS. Overall, I believe we would agree that the economy would do better if markets (including markets for charity and volunteers) could fill the needs for defense/security and retirement security. We may however disagree that this could happen without worse side effects — starvation or foreign invasion, I guess you would say.

    What is really dwarfing both is the interest on the debt ballooning to massive amounts over time (and more so in projections). If you think one type of spending or the other is unnecessary you can blame it for all of the interest, or split the blame.

    What I would say is that we have to cut both entitlements and military spending. How much? As much as possible. How soon? The sooner we start the better, although a soft landing may be good if there is still time to engineer it. There may not be.

    Wayne gets that now, but I would add other reasons why we would benefit from non-interventionist policies – foreign and domestic, social and economic – even if the government had all the money in the physically possible universe and even if it “cost” nothing.

    I’m not suggesting Wayne has to be the one to make that case. He has a limited time to make his points in interviews.

  6. paulie

    If Wayne Root managed to earn/place four articles in four disparate media then I see no problem with each placement earning a post at IPR.

    Wayne gets way more than four media hits probably just about any day of any week. Johnson is getting a ton of them right now. I don’t think it would be realistic for us to cover every single one, Maybe if I could clone myself or something,.

  7. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Since you ask…

    I think quite a few libertarians have appeared on RT over the past few years.

    Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell come to mind, but I’m sure there were others.

  8. ctomp

    “It won’t be Root overload for me until I see him on three or more different TV channels 6 days a week…”

    That sounds like a biblical plague. Anyway, I suppose the pain threshhold is set differently for each of us.

  9. Thomas L. Knapp

    Posting stories on IPR is work. If Starr does it, instead of complaining about him doing it, read the stories you find interesting and skip the ones you don’t.

    As far as advice goes, if asked I would advise Mr. Starr to use WordPress’s scheduling function. If entering four stories on the same topic, schedule them to come up every 8-12 hours over the course of a day or two. That would improve IPR story flow (assuming other stories were entered by other authors in between), and would also be better for keeping the topic (Root seems to be his usual topic) in people’s minds.

  10. Robert Capozzi

    7 p: On the other hand I can’t agree that troops in a bunk aren’t real people who spend money on goods and services.

    me: Thanks, yes, I didn’t put that well. I assume we agree that fighter jets on the tarmac ARE largely pure deadweight losses, or something close to that. (When they are used unrighteously, economic goods are quickly converted to economic bads of the highest order.)

    Of course, the pay a soldier gets is used in ways similar to a SS beneficiary. I happen to think that intention matters, however. Stripped away, the intention of having surplus troops is to maintain the US’s status as policeman of the world. In my judgment, that is an inappropriate intent.

    While it is not a fact, the intention of SS payments is a social insurance program – a pay back for years of paying in. Ultimately, I don’t support SS, but I do see it as a different thing than protecting the South Koreans from the North Koreans. In rank ordering dysfunction, I have less concern with Americans subsidizing Americans with cash than I do with Americans subsidizing (and to some extent controlling) So. Koreans with in-kind services. At least the former is spent at the senior buffet in Kissimmee, which gives some Americans jobs that, for me, seem productive vs. a Marine buying some kim chee in Seoul when off base.

    In this sense, I’m a nationalist….

  11. Greg

    As if any Ron Paul supporters care what Wayne Root has to say about anything.

  12. Jill Pyeatt

    TLK @ 12: Thanks for mentioning the scheduling feature. I’ll have to check it out.

    I don’t mind 4 related posts, though, and I’m glad to see Aaron posting again. Many of us writing articles lately are Radicals, a group I’m proud to be part of, but we need variety and different viewpoints to keep IPR interesting.

  13. Jill Pyeatt

    However, in the case of this video, Root spoke a bit prematurely about Paul’s campaign being over. I’m not entirely sure what Monday’s press release was meant to convey, but at this point, it doesn’t appear that Dr. Paul was quitting.

  14. paulie

    Good points Jill, Deb and Tom.

    Robert – I’ll have to wait until I’m less tired to try to compose a reply you deserve to that last one.

  15. Bill Wood

    It appears Dr. Paul’s people are thinking the R Convention will go to a second round with many delegates switching their votes to Dr. Paul. Surprised his top man ruled out Dr. Paul giving an endorsement to Gov. Johnson. Be amazed if he backs Romney the father of Obamacare,lol, plus Mitt plans to grow the military by more than 100,000 troops.

    I ordered my Gary Johnson yard sign, bumper sticker and hat today. Three neighbors have Ron Paul signs out, no Romneys so far.

  16. John Jay Myers

    I don’t think this helped with Ron Paul people, I thought it was sad, Wayne was going on and on about what Ron Paul believes, and never mentioned Foreign Policy, even though Ron Paul will bring up Foreign Policy when asked about the Welfare state, or Social Security.
    This lady had to drag Wayne into the Foreign Policy topic where he lost the smile on his face and seemed extremely uncomfortable.

    I think he might have pissed RP off by calling Ron Paul a pacifist, in the same way they get pissed off when people call him an isolationist, and there is a difference between competing currencies and the Gold standard.

    You can see how people who like Ron Paul and understand him, might not want someone who doesn’t seem to understand him to talk about him as if they do. Especially during this very sensitive time where the campaign is winding down weirdly.

  17. Michael H. Wilson

    People need to spend some time looking at the history of the gold standard. A gold standard by itself is no cure all. A lot depends on how it is done and the congress of the U.S. is probably not up to the task if it ever was.

  18. George Phillies

    @19 At least some of Ron Paul’s people have noticed their rules committee noting that state laws on delegate loyalty are not enforceable by parliamentary means on the floor of the convention, and seem to think that they can procure the nomination for their candidate in accord with party Bylaws.

  19. Mark Hilgenberg

    First I must say it is easy for us to sit back and Monday morning quarterback, we aren’t the ones taking live questions on live T.V. or Radio with little preparation, for that I have to give Wayne props.

    I know some of you think he is pure evil; I don’t, misguided in some areas yes, just not PURE evil. 🙂 It is just difficult for many to move beyond comfortable talking points and perceived alliances. We have all been there at one time or another.

    There are plenty of areas I would be more than happy to share with Wayne to make his message resonate with a larger audience, especially the youth. Unfortunately I feel the more he is demonized the more he digs in his heals; it is human nature to do so. I hope we can start to be more positive and helpful here, we are after all on the same team.

  20. JT

    Hilgenberg: “I know some of you think [Root] is pure evil; I don’t, misguided in some areas yes, just not PURE evil.”

    I think Libertarians who believe that Wayne Root is “pure evil” are actually few & far between. There are many, however, who do resent a high-profile Libertarian who goes on radio/TV and misrepresents the LP as the ally of the conservative right & as the enemy of the liberal left. Root has done that many, many times & he strongly believes that’s the approach that the LP should be taking. He’s proud of it.

    As far as having “little preparation,” Root is very experienced being on radio/TV & he also knows what the topic will be in advance. A lot of preparation goes into his interviews, I’m sure.

  21. Jill Pyeatt

    MH @ 24: Sometimes Root has been portrayed as evil, but not lately, and certainly not on this thread. I did offer mild criticism to this video, I suppose, but no one has even bothered to comment on the other 3 new articles.

  22. Mark Hilgenberg

    JT @25 “There are many, however, who do resent a high-profile Libertarian who goes on radio/TV and misrepresents the LP as the ally of the conservative right & as the enemy of the liberal left.”

    I am one of those, unfortunately even many of those who rail against Root sound just as “right wing” to many people.

    I think he is proud of it because he doesn’t see the negatives, he only hears people say “I agree” but he doesn’t hear the vast majority who just ignore us as Ultra Conservatives. This is a common problem.
    .

  23. Paulie

    Mark is exactly right.

    As far as comments on the other 3 posting all 4 in a row probably does not help them get attention.

  24. Robert Capozzi

    20 jjm: Wayne was going on and on about what Ron Paul believes, and never mentioned Foreign Policy, even though Ron Paul will bring up Foreign Policy when asked about the Welfare state, or Social Security.

    me: Untrue. Check the discussion starting at about 8:30.

  25. paulie

    RC – JJM goes on to say “This lady had to drag Wayne into the Foreign Policy topic where he lost the smile on his face and seemed extremely uncomfortable.”

  26. Brian Holtz

    JJM: Wayne was going on and on about what Ron Paul believes, and never mentioned Foreign Policy

    Somebody put a Ron Paul flyer on my Libertarian yard sign, and I noticed that it didn’t mention foreign policy at all. Wondering if this was an anomaly, I checked http://www.ronpaul2012.com/.

    There is currently no mention of foreign policy on the front page.

    The front page features 3 video ads, two of which are on economics, and one is on abortion. Thinking this was a fluke, I checked the first 10 video ads under the “more videos” link. None of them had any antiwar content at all.

    I went to the “issues” page looking for antiwar, and found only a section called “National Defense: strong, secure, respected”. Clicking through, it includes this:

    As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. […] Ron Paul voted to authorize military force to hunt down Osama bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice. […] Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks. […] Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

    Nothing about the “evil” of war or “empire”, and nation-building and world-policing are criticized primarily because “our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries”.

    Yes, the Paul campaign probably downplays anti-war because it’s competing for Republican voters.

    But clearly, Ron Paul does not believe that anti-war is the health of his presidential campaign.

  27. paulie

    Ron Paul mentions it quite a bit in speeches and on the debate stage iirc.

    Certainly the Ron Paul grassroots do. He is clearly associated closely with that issue.

    It’s clear that the people who run the official campaign website and those making at least some of the fliers have other ideas.

Leave a Reply

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