IPR Interview: Libertarian Presidential Candidate Mike ter Maat on Libertarian National Convention and Challenging Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Debate

Libertarian Party presidential candidate and economist Mike ter Maat recently joined Independent Political Report to talk about his campaign in the final days of the primary race and his recent debate invitation to independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the lead-up to the convention. His official campaign website can be accessed here.

The interview took place over the phone on May 14, 2024. It has been transcribed and edited in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Chicago Manual of Style. Independent Political Report conducts candidate interviews with the aim of providing insight into those running for office for the benefit of the public.

Evans: I’m Jordan Evans, I’m with Independent Political Report, and we are talking with Libertarian presidential candidate Mike ter Maat today. I have a couple of questions for you, Mike, but before I jump into them, just how are you doing today? How have things been going?

ter Maat: Very good. I’m presently in transit from my home state of Virginia, where I was petitioning yesterday for ballot access signatures in and around Charlottesville, to Indiana, and then to Illinois, where I will also be petitioning for ballot access signatures and meeting with the DuPage County Libertarian Party.

Evans: I can’t even imagine how many miles you must have put in this campaign. That leads us to my first question—we’re now a week out from the convention. How do you feel about your chances going into Washington, D.C.?

ter Maat: Excellent. Awesome. Not 100%, but I would say north of 50%.

Evans: Any particular reason why you’re feeling not so hot or anything that you want to address?

ter Maat: No, it’s just the world is an unpredictable place. I think our team feels like we will probably secure the nomination, but if it were already set in stone, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. So, we have a little bit of work ahead, and I have every reason to believe that optimism will be born out as correct.

Evans: Do you have any specific outreach efforts or messaging tactics that you’re prioritizing in this final week?

ter Maat: We’re making a lot of phone calls and doing quite a bit of media, but a lot of phone calls to delegates. We’re in touch with the delegates by email as well, very heavily. We have a couple of direct mail pieces going to delegates, so there are any number of channels that we’re using to stay in touch with everybody in our party. And, of course, we have a debate set up among the candidates at the convention itself in Washington. The convention itself will be a very fun opportunity to interact with everybody in our party.

Evans: I would say the Libertarian National Committee has had a lot of pretty major announcements these past few weeks—and speakers. I would love to hear your thoughts about their decision to invite Republican former President Donald Trump, as well as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Vivek Ramaswamy, to speak at the convention. Do you share their enthusiasm for having them speak, or do you feel a little bit different?

ter Maat: I think there are pluses and minuses. I appreciate the pluses, and the minuses do concern me a little bit. And, by the way, I would hasten to add that I think Angela McArdle would agree with my characterization. She herself would say there are pluses and minuses, and in her view, the pluses outweigh the minuses.

ter Maat (Cont.): The pluses are some added visibility, public relations, outreach, and a lot of media attention. You’re asking me about it, so it’s true that there will be a little more attention, perhaps, than there otherwise would have been. There would have been a great deal anyway, but there will probably be a bit more than there otherwise would be.

ter Maat (Cont.): My concern is that some folks looking at this from the outside might misinterpret the meaning of these folks making appearances. They might imagine that there’s a great deal of philosophical overlap between our party and one or more of these individuals, and that is largely not true, and so I worry about that. I worry about people saying, “Trump is Libertarian” or “The party is MAGA.” That is just clearly untrue, but because our party doesn’t have as high a profile as I wish it did, we’re subject to mischaracterization. That presents a risk.

Evans: Are you concerned that this risk could overshadow your own campaign or those campaigns of your fellow Libertarian candidates?

ter Maat: I don’t think so, no. They are mitigated risks and they’re limited risks. They’re not completely insignificant, but I don’t think that they’re of an order of magnitude that suggests they’re likely to undermine our campaign or anything like that. I think once we get on the other side of the nomination, once we get to Memorial Day and beyond, I think people will recognize the role that these speakers had at our convention, which is largely some media attention and some entertainment.

ter Maat (Cont.): The way I look at it is these folks are paid or unpaid entertainers. They’re there to attract attention and make the event a little bit interesting, but that’s really all there is to it. Once we’re on the other side of it, I think that it’ll largely be in the rearview mirror, and then people will focus on our campaign. Like I said, I believe it’ll probably be my campaign, but it’ll be on the campaign of the nominee of the party—whether it’s me or anybody else. And people will focus on Donald Trump’s campaign for whatever reason somebody would look at that, and the same could be said for RFK.

Evans: On the topic of your campaign, and I asked you this the last time that we spoke back in February—I don’t believe you had an answer at the time, and I didn’t expect you to have one because it was still early—but now that it looks like one of the other Libertarian candidates in the race has chosen who they would prefer to be their vice presidential pick, do you have any thoughts on who you would like to see the delegates choose for your number two position?

ter Maat: I don’t know what my answer was in February, but I hope it was the same as I’m going to give you now, which is to say, I do have very strong thoughts, but not by name. In other words, it’s very important to me that our campaign be focused on two things at the same time. One is running with a great deal of credibility, and one is running on an unapologetically principled libertarian platform. I would be comfortable with a number of people who would be committed to those two things. If I thought that an individual either would not be comfortable with both of those things or would be a distraction from either one of those, then it wouldn’t work out. That’s my view, but I do believe that there are any number of folks who could fill that bill. Let’s put it that way.

Evans: I recall that is what you said last time, too, so don’t let anyone tell you that you’re not being anything but consistent.

Evans (Cont.): So, I saw last week that you sent out a press release with a letter inviting Kennedy to a debate with you. If I recall, you were saying that Trump’s not running for the Libertarian Party nomination, whereas Kennedy has flirted with it in the past, and, realistically, you’re more worthwhile for Kennedy to debate rather than Trump. I want to ask you a few questions, both about the release itself—because you said some pretty interesting things in there—and the letter.

Evans: Looking at the press release first, one thing that I noticed—and I want to leave it to you to define how you want—is that you assert you are the front-runner for the party’s presidential nomination. Could you provide any insight into the metrics or criteria that you’re using to determine your front-runner status?

ter Maat: More delegates support me than support the other candidates, particularly given that the style of our voting is such that we winnow down the field until it’s two candidates left. And I think that even the other candidates would probably tell you—off the record, perhaps—but would tell you that there is not another campaign that could beat my campaign head-to-head. I draw delegates from all over, various factions of the party, whether that’s people in the Mises caucus, the Classical Liberal Caucus, the Radical Caucus, people in no caucus at all, the Medical Freedom Caucus, and the Christian caucus. I have a great deal of support in all of those places.

Evans: And remind the people who will be reading this later, what aspects of your candidacy do you think make you stand out like that? Is there a particular part that you find resonates?

ter Maat: Everybody’s interested in winning. No matter what caucus you’re in, you’re sick of being a loser. And it’s designed to actually disrupt the duopoly. The other campaigns are designed to make some point. They’re designed to do something shy of actually disrupting the duopoly, shy of actually playing a major role in American politics, and I understand that I’m the only candidate who has what I believe are two critical ingredients.

ter Maat (Cont.): One is 20 people on the payroll already, and the other is a background in public policy and public service. Now we can all debate about whether or not those are important things, but as a practical matter, no matter how we feel about it philosophically, the American public is going to expect a threshold of credibility to be cleared before they pay any attention. 

ter Maat (Cont.): If a candidate shows up without any political experience, without any public policy experience, and without any public service experience—all three of which I have, none of those three do any of the other candidates have—there’s a difference. If you don’t show up with those, you’re not going to get the deference from voters, media, and big donors. It matters. So we’re running a very professional campaign. We lean into my background. And we take very seriously our obligation to run with credibility. Particularly because we’re running on such a transformational platform.

Evans: Also in that press release, I noticed you’re demanding time to address the Republican National Convention, citing invitations extended by the Libertarian National Committee to Trump and also President Biden. Now I don’t know—

ter Maat: Fair is fair.

Evans: Of course. Now, I don’t know what you’ve gotten back yet, but assuming they do accept, what message do you intend to convey to a Republican audience, and how?

ter Maat: The Republican party would be better off, and I believe in the long run it will be better off, if it adopted a platform more in line with American values and principles, that better aligned with the ethics of the American public. That means Libertarianism. Libertarianism is the philosophical descendant of the philosophy behind the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Forefathers’ attitude toward putting together a government. The government that was put together to protect our civil liberties. I believe the Republican Party will be more successful when it recognizes that it needs to do a better job of aligning with Americans’ values.

Evans: As we know by now, Biden was also invited, but it looks increasingly unlikely that he won’t take the Libertarian National Committee up on that offer. Assuming he had, would you have also been asking the same of the Democratic National Committee as you’re asking the Republican National Committee?

ter Maat: Absolutely, and the message would be exactly the same.

Evans: You wouldn’t be nervous that the modern Democratic Party is a little bit different from when it originally started? Do you think that same message would still resonate with their voters?

ter Maat: I think that same message has to. I think any party that believes it is not in its long-term strategic interest to do a better job of aligning with Libertarian values is doomed. I believe the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are each, without serious course correction, doomed. I think that is inextricably linked to the fact that the US federal government will see a financial collapse by the middle of this century if it does not make serious course corrections itself. In other words, all three of these institutions are doomed to failure: the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the US federal government.

ter Maat (Cont.): And the problem I have with the US federal government’s collapse is not because I would miss it. It’s not like it’s an organization that’s adding a lot of value to my life or anybody else’s. The point is that if it were to financially collapse, it would bring down the bond market in general and lead to a collapse of the US dollar market. That is a problem. That would plunge the world into an extraordinarily deep depression from which it would be very difficult to climb out of.

Evans: Attached with that press release was the letter that you sent to the Kennedy camp. I understand the week is still young, but as of this interview, have you received a response from the Kennedy campaign to your invitation letter?

ter Maat: No.

Evans: I hope he does give you an answer. I feel like at least you deserve that much as a fellow candidate running for the presidency.

ter Maat: I appreciate that, and I appreciate the difficulty of developing an answer, so I harbor no resentment.

Evans: Good to hear. Let’s say he does accept. Like I said, you still have a few days and I saw that you had a couple dates lined up that he could take you up on your offer.

ter Maat: Nag-gestions. It’s sort of like nagging in a suggestion. It’s a nag-gestion.

Evans: In the letter, I also saw that you highlighted you want to engage in substantive discourse without descending into, as you put it, political obfuscation—

ter Maat: I’m not suggesting I’m a political savant here, but you and I have recognized, witnessed, and observed that sometimes Republican debates and Democratic debates do devolve a little bit, and I get the impression that Kennedy is interested in serious public policy discourse. He impresses me as that kind of guy, so I would be optimistic about that, and I’m just trying to suggest to him “Me too.” I’m not interested in badmouthing him or denigrating his commitment, and he strikes me as a well-meaning, intelligent, patriotic, and serious person. Sure, I see the role of government very differently than he does, but that’s what we want to talk about.

Evans: I saw that a big part of that for you was making sure that if there is a debate—and it sounds like you have faith in Kennedy to be that kind of candidate—you would want it to avoid devolving into personal attacks or other types of sensationalism. I also saw that you said your campaign, in this debate, would handle logistics. Do you have a personal preference for a moderator? In a debate like this, how do you ensure that this moderator remains neutral throughout the debate or that it doesn’t devolve into sensationalism?

ter Maat: I wouldn’t worry too much about that. I’m not worried. As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say that—I’m not going to name names here—we have had situations inside the Libertarian Party in which our moderators could not do what I had hoped they would do, and who did invite a little bit of silliness, and I was pleased to see that my fellow candidates and I were able to keep things largely on track notwithstanding the invitations to silliness. In that same vein, if someone showed up who was biased, I don’t think it would matter that much, if someone showed up who was all about sensationalism. I also would be optimistic that it wouldn’t devolve too deep. For one thing, my own background is not that sensationalizable. Is that a word?

Evans: It can be.

ter Maat: My own background is not so interesting or sensitive that there’d be a lot there that somebody would want to make fun of or anything like that. And anything in that category for Mister Kennedy, we already know. It’s not like he’s an unknown to the American public, and that we would expect some weird bombshell to come out about him.

ter Maat (Cont.): So, I guess I’m not too worried about the downside of that sort of thing. I guess I really don’t care. It could be you. I mean, you’re a reasonable human, and let’s be honest, it’s not brain surgery. To moderate means you need to come up with some questions, you got to ask them, you got to pay attention and make sure the candidates don’t act like jerks, and when someone needs a little extra time for this or that, you be fair about it. That’s kind of what we’re looking for. As a matter of fact, I’ll go you one further. I think we could pull it off without a moderator at all!

Evans: Really?

ter Maat: I think yes. I think if he and I sat down and someone turned on a camera, we’d be just fine. As a matter of fact, you’ve seen me interview other candidates, and I’ve had conversations with other candidates. I’ve been on the phone in the last 48 hours with two of my rivals. We teach that, and I would not have any problem whatsoever.

ter Maat (Cont.): By the way, this offer does not expire. If Mr. Kennedy wanted to—and it doesn’t have to be a debate—if he just wanted to sit down for about an hour or more, or theoretically less, I would be happy to do that. I’ve interviewed plenty of other candidates. I would be happy to interview him. I would be happy to have a discussion with him. As a matter of fact, I’d be happy to have a one-way conversation with him if he wanted. I’ve interviewed other candidates without interjecting my own thoughts plenty of times, and I’d be happy to do that for him. It’s not an offer that expires.

Evans: I hope he does take you up on that, because I’m really curious to hear—and by all means, please feel free to answer this now—but I’m really curious to hear which specific policy positions or areas you differ from Kennedy that are most important to you.

ter Maat: I would ask him about foreign policy, where we have a lot of overlap as a practical matter. But I worry about the basis for his foreign policy because, to me, foreign policy has to be developed as a matter of principle. I get the impression that when he goes in a different direction with regard to Israel than he seems to go with regard to other places around the world, it makes me concerned that he’s not coming at this from a matter of principle, but rather as an ad hoc collection of adjudications regarding which side of each conflict he wants to be on. That concerns me a lot.

ter Maat (Cont.): I would say I’m concerned about his position on, for example, vaccines. We have overlap in the sense that we have been skeptical about the development of vaccines. We wish the government had behaved in different ways, that the government had disclosed things that it did not. I wish the government were completely out of the development of vaccines, from soup to nuts, from the extension of liability protection, to financing, to approval, to communication, to disclosure, and to censoring what other people say about it.

ter Maat (Cont.): Just soup to nuts, I believe we need a separation of science and state, whereas, Mr. Kennedy, I get the impression—and I don’t want to put words in his mouth—but I get the impression that he doesn’t like vaccine mandates because he doesn’t like the vaccines. He wishes the vaccines were better. Well, we all wish the vaccines were better, but to me, to a libertarian, there can never, ever be a vaccine good enough, perfect enough, free enough of cost, free enough of side effects—A vaccine that’s been tested enough and trusted enough that the government should have the right to coerce you into taking it. That’s a different animal.

ter Maat (Cont.): In other words, I laud his attention spent on the development of the vaccines, on the science. He’s done a deep dive, he’s done a lot of research in this area—Good for him. I’m grateful to him for having done so, and I mean that absolutely sincerely. But it is not on such research that our public policy should turn. Our public policy needs to turn more fundamentally on a matter of principle, and that is the government needs to stay out of it. I don’t care how good they are.

Evans: We are nearing the end, which is wild. Like always, since we’re closing out, I want to give you an opportunity to add anything else that you want. Is there anything that you would want to say to supporters as you go into the convention or any other thoughts you have before we finish?

ter Maat: I think that there is, at this point in the race for the Libertarian Party nomination, a fairly clear choice that I don’t think had come into focus until a few days ago. That choice is between the other campaigns that are all looking for secondary objectives because they don’t believe that we can credibly compete with the other parties, and my own campaign, which believes earnestly that we are deeply committed to the idea that we can compete credibly. I’m not going to suggest that we’re a dark horse to emerge victorious—I’m not suggesting that at all—but can we compete with credibility enough to actually disrupt this process? Abso-fucking-lutely. No question about that, otherwise I wouldn’t be in it. I am not in this to run another loser, losing, lost campaign, and I believe that represents a fairly important distinction between our campaign and all of the others.

ter Maat (Cont.): You may have noticed—and I love all these guys—Lars’s idea is to focus on on Maine and Nebraska so that we could earn a couple of electoral votes on the evening of the vote so people take notice of us, and in the vanishingly small probability that it winds up in a tie, we would really disrupt them—that is small-ball thinking. It’s focusing on something other than the big picture, and I believe that is therefore a mistake.

ter Maat (Cont.): And when you hear Chase talking about the campaign, he’s talking about if we run a campaign of energy and empathy and we visit all 50 states, we’re going to bring more people into the party, which is also great. I love Lars’s idea and I love Chase’s idea, but they’re small ball ideas. They’re not THE idea. They’re not the idea of running a credibly competitive campaign that actually disrupts American politics once and for all.

ter Maat (Cont.): And you may have seen the memo that came out from Michael Rectenwald’s campaign—the case for Michael Rectenwald. This was an email blast that discloses what had been whispered for many weeks, which is the strategy of that campaign to focus inside the Liberty movement in order to launch a media company. You already know what I’m going to say about that: If you’re focusing inside the Liberty movement, you have given up on the idea that we can reach the rest of America, that we can play a major role, that Americans are ready for Libertarianism and our party’s message, and that we can disrupt American politics.

ter Maat (Cont.): By the way, if your campaign manager’s goal is to launch a media company, that doesn’t make you Harry Browne, that makes you Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The memo said, “Harry Brown didn’t get a lot of votes, but he turned a lot of heads.” If you’re using the electoral process, using our party, using our ballot access, and using Michael Rectenwald as a launchpad for some ulterior objective, you’re Robert Kennedy Jr.

Evans: Wow, I appreciate these final thoughts. You packed a lot in there, Mike, thank you so much.

ter Maat: Read the memo yourself and you’ll see what I mean.

Evans: I will, and I’ll link to it so people can get a feel for it on the site.

Evans (Cont.): Mike, I really appreciate you coming on. Good luck to you. I’m going to be looking forward to the convention and will try to get down there myself, ideally. But either way, we’re going to have someone from IPR there recording what’s happening. Good luck to you, good luck to all the candidates, and thanks again for stopping by.