At one time the LP used the phrase Peace-Prosperity & Freedom on its masthead.
Time to bring that back.
I like mine better. “Civil liberties” is more policy-specific than “freedom,” which is too open ended to mean anything concrete…does it mean freedom in the sense of liberty, in the sense of liberventionist foreign policy, freedom from want and hunger? Kind of like a rorschach test…and as for prosperity, that doesn’t say much about how we wish to achieve it – many people think a lot of government intervention is what produces prosperity. I like “free markets” better.
@49 – As I recall, Armey’s website and the lp.org site began using the almost-identical slogans at just about the same time. Whether this was simply coincidence or a deliberate attempt to “soften” the LP’s image and appeal to Armey’s supporters, I do not know.
And I really don’t give a rat’s ass what Dick Armey says on his site, but I do have a problem with the LP using such timid language. Smaller, lower, less, more … all relative concepts. Smaller than what? Lower than what? What we have today? Obama’s grandiose socialist/fascist plans? Whatever happened to the idea of standing up for absolute rights: self-ownership, non-initiation of force, etc.? Too scary? Too radical? I think not. And by aping the rhetoric of people like Dick Armey, we dilute our unique selling proposition.
Any politician, of any party, can sling around vague terms like “less” and “more.” Indeed, most of them often do. Only Libertarians have the integrity (or should!) to say that your life and what you produce are yours, not the government’s, and you are entitled to keep 100% of what you earn. (In his interview, Root takes a vague stab at this, but quickly backs off and starts talking about “fairer” and “more efficient” ways to tax people. Sigh.)
Advertise. Social Networking. Local organizations. Growth. Run more candidates. Outreach to young people, women, minorities…folks who are too thin on the ground at our National Convention.
Avoid behaviors that lead people to conclude we’re simply tightwad progressive Democrats or Repubicans lite.
You write: “The reason why most people have no idea where we stand on this issue is because they have no idea where we stand on ANYTHING. They have never heard of us and they are not looking for us. They don’t care because we do not have an impact on their lives. We are, at best, a theoretical construct, in their minds. ”
P: Not entitely true. I would venture the lady in question, and others I have in mind, have an idea – ranging from vague to fairly specific – about where they think we stand on a variety of issues. In this case her impression was mainly informed from someone in her home town/neighborhood, but perhaps some media mentions/interviews of (l)ibertarians over the years played a role. At some point, she/they may have seen the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, etc. This is not to dispute what you say,
p) This library computer doesn’t play sound, but I doubt I would be surprised. I have a fairly well-tuned “ear to the ground” of what the general public knows, thinks, or thinks they know about the L-word due to my work in ballot access (among other things). I also have a fairly good sense of how this has changed over the last 15 years and, how it breaks down among various demographics, etc.
You also write,
“Putting one more press release on our website about our position against non-defensive wars (or any other position we have) will not educate this woman in particular or the public in general. ”
p) I would agree with that, although each one does have some incremental effect.
However, what Michael was originally suggesting — which led to this sub-thread of the conversation — went beyond that. I believe he was saying that we should make our generally anti-interventionist foreign policy a key part of our branding, as (for example) Ron Paul did/does.
“Smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom” does not do that. The only area of policy that is specifically addressed is economic, and there, only the tax side and not the spending side. It can be argued that “smaller government” and “more freedom” covers every other aspect of public policy, but if so, why would “lower taxes” need to be re-emphasized specifically?
1) Two of their three items are expressed in terms of opposition rather than support. It’s easy enough to flip “anti-war” to “(pro) peace.”
2) For political party purpose, “anti-state” seems to me – besides being negative, which I consider suboptimal – to be both too vague and too extreme (although, as an anarchist, I personally agree with it). I would replace it with “pro-civil liberties.”
Thus, my three ideal terms to brand the party would all be expressed in positive terms, and each would cover one of three main areas of public policy: economic, social, and foreign/military policy.
My attempt for the (now mothballed, but still existing) allparty.wordpress.com:
Peace – Civil Liberties – Free Markets
There may be a better way of putting it; I would be interested in other people’s opinions.
You continue,
“I suspect the REAL reason why some of us are enamored with putting out public pronouncements, whether they are press releases or resolutions, or what have you, is so that WE feel good about addressing issues we care about. ”
p] I think you’re right. We do. I think the same is true of you, even if you are not consciously aware of it.
But, I would disagree if you mean to imply that the type of branding Michael and I are suggesting is self-expression at the expense of effective outreach.
In my own case, I beleive this type of branding would make for more effective outreach than we have at present.
The desire for self-expression/venting is secondary, although it happens that in my case, they coincide.
My desire for venting would also lead me to make shrill and extreme statements, such as I often did in the past, but which I am consciously trying to stop/minimize myself from doing now. Thus my objection to the anti-state term – no matter that it gives me a warm feeling personally – or expressing our support for peace and free markets in negative terms, for that matter.
Furthermore, you say “However, it has almost zero impact on changing people’s minds because they are not searching for our web site.”
p] Mileage varies. Some people ARE searching for our website. Others stumble across it through some link or mention elsewhere. Whatever the case may be, what they find there – especially in the headline at the top – will make a difference, over time, in who and what we are.
Robert Capozzi
April 19, 2010
gp: Avoid behaviors that lead people to conclude we’re simply tightwad progressive Democrats or Repubicans lite.
me: Are Ls engaging in this sort of behaviors now, and, if so, what are those behaviors? Please supply examples.
Advertise. Social Networking. Local organizations. Growth. Run more candidates. Outreach to young people, women, minorities…folks who are too thin on the ground at our National Convention.
Avoid behaviors that lead people to conclude we’re simply tightwad progressive Democrats or Repubicans lite.
Michael H. Wilson
April 19, 2010
@ 63 thanks paulie for that link.
@64 Aaron how do you suggest we change that situation and make ourselves better known?
Melty
April 19, 2010
darn, I wasn’t able to get any of those John Stossel links
It’s not a secret, yet many people are not aware of it. Branding is about making our views well known and easily identified, not merely making them publicly available.
I can tell you, anecdotally, that when I identified myself as a Libertarian at an antiwar rally, a lady standing next to me said “I did not know Libertarians are antiwar, I know one in my town and he is pro-war.” Nor is this by any means the only instance I have encountered of people who thought the LP supports the war and/or have no idea either way of what our foreign policy views are.
The reason why most people have no idea where we stand on this issue is because they have no idea where we stand on ANYTHING. They have never heard of us and they are not looking for us. They don’t care because we do not have an impact on their lives. We are, at best, a theoretical construct, in their minds.
Putting one more press release on our website about our position against non-defensive wars (or any other position we have) will not educate this woman in particular or the public in general.
I suspect the REAL reason why some of us are enamored with putting out public pronouncements, whether they are press releases or resolutions, or what have you, is so that WE feel good about addressing issues we care about.
However, it has almost zero impact on changing people’s minds because they are not searching for our web site.
By the way, I believe John Stossel is very effective at communicating libertarian ideas.
George @17, my chart is spending by function, not by department. In the table “Federal Outlays By Detailed Function” in the Statistical Abstract of the U.S., “atomic energy defense activities” roll up under “national defense”.
As for “the spying budget”, I only report on the government spending that the government itself documents in its official sources. If you have numbers for secret off-budget government espionage, I’ll include them in my next revision.
Paulie, if people keep telling you that the LP members they know aren’t as antiwar as you, that doesn’t exactly help whatever argument you’re trying to make here.
Nice try, Brian, but they’re not just telling me that LP members they know aren’t as antiwar as me. They are telling me that they thought the LP as a whole is pro-war in the same way (or more so) than the Republican Party. One common formulation is that Libertarians are “like Republicans on steroids.” Another is that we are “Republicans who smoke pot.” Neither paints a picture of a party that opposes the wars and wants to bring the troops home.
My argument was a response to Aaron Starr, who was trying to say that our antiwar positions are already well known in response to Michael Wilson’s suggestion that they be made more prominent on the LPHQ’s website.
My point is that our antiwar position, while no secret, is in fact not known to many people who may be more receptive to libertarianism if they knew we are antiwar.
This does not mean that many, or most, people at antiwar rallies would be receptive to libertarianism – or the LP – if they knew we are are antiwar. Likewise, I don’t think most Tea Partiers are receptive to the LP just because we are anti-tax. However, I believe both gatherings contain large numbers of people who are libertarians and don’t know it yet, some of whom would be open to joining or otherwise supporting the LP if they were being informed and asked.
As for patriotism on the LPAL site, let’s review one of the commercials for which Ron Paul made statewide buys in Iowa and New Hampshire
It’s not patriotism that is the problem, but “patriotic” jingoism. Terrible branding.
I think Ron Paul’s official campaign’s paid for TV ads sucked, and this one is not even the worst. They were part of what I consider a massively misguided strategy of targeting conservative Republican voters who frequently vote in Republican primaries, rather than the young, antiwar, independent and crossover voters that the Paul campaign should have been targeting (as should the LP now).
The only county Ron Paul actually won in Iowa, Jefferson County, actually had Ron Paul supporters who did it the right way. The rest of the state was a bust, and the failure was entirely avoidable.
And New Hampshire was where the mismanagement really took a high turn, since independents and crossover voters were allowed to vote in the Republican primary. But, the paid Paul campaign blew that, and left them to stay home or go to the Democratic primary to vote for Obama, in an amazingly dunderheaded (and, predictably and predictedly, failed) attempt to win over Tancredo/Duncan Hunter voters.
After that, the Paul campaign never really recovered, and wasted the potential to fully capitalize on its grassroots support.
On a much smaller scale, the LP continues to make the same mistake, never seeming to learn from it.
Michael H. Wilson
April 18, 2010
Brian, who must be some what delusional writes;
“Michael, references to “economic competitors” sound like pandering to protectionists and xenophobes. Libertarians believe that free trade is positive-sum.”
Brian the fact is that we are subsiding other countries. If you have a better way to get the message across speak up.
btw you still have not replied to my request for the source of your graph.
Michael, references to “economic competitors” sound like pandering to protectionists and xenophobes. Libertarians believe that free trade is positive-sum.
I never could figure out why the “Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, More Freedom” motto bothered Blanton so much. Then he started questioning why FICA taxes aren’t raised on high earners, and I deduced that perhaps the middle part of the slogan is what bugs him.
Paulie, if people keep telling you that the LP members they know aren’t as antiwar as you, that doesn’t exactly help whatever argument you’re trying to make here. 🙂
As for patriotism on the LPAL site, let’s review one of the commercials for which Ron Paul made statewide buys in Iowa and New Hampshire:
Michael H. Wilson
April 18, 2010
Re # 34 Aaron might I suggest the Wayne find a short version of what he has written. Here’s my suggestion.
“We need to cut spending. In this global economy the American workers are paying taxes to defend their economic competitors. We have 750-800 military bases worldwide in some 120 or more countries. The three countries where we have the most troops stationed are also the three we import the most cars from. We have between 50-70,000 troops in Germany, 30-35,000 in Japan and about 30,000 in Korea.”
That little piece takes about 20 seconds to say.
This also comes from a piece I am working on.
Robert Capozzi
April 18, 2010
pc, hmm, come to think of it, I agree. Both should be lost.
Someplace after losing the term “states’ rights,” I’d suggest that Root lose the allusion to watching Oprah all day long.
Lose the reference to watching Oprah first.
At least “states rights” is a term that mixes good (decentralization) with bad (state power, linked in the public mind to slavery and racism). Whereas, the Oprah-watching stereotype is quite bad and slams women (especially if they are out of work or working at home), black people and poor people by strong implication.
Should we do that because it will convince people of the merits of our position?
Or is the purpose of doing this to simply make you feel better?
It’s not as though our Party’s position on non-defensive war is a secret.
It’s not a secret, yet many people are not aware of it. Branding is about making our views well known and easily identified, not merely making them publicly available.
I can tell you, anecdotally, that when I identified myself as a Libertarian at an antiwar rally, a lady standing next to me said “I did not know Libertarians are antiwar, I know one in my town and he is pro-war.” Nor is this by any means the only instance I have encountered of people who thought the LP supports the war and/or have no idea either way of what our foreign policy views are.
A casual glance at the site – and that is all most people will give us – reveals Admiral Colley in military uniform in front of a US flag with gold fringe. It’s one of the most visually prominent items on the front page of the site. This is a visual cue that will communicate “pro-war” to a lot more people than will read a lot of detail on the site, including the article that image links to, which does say, among other things, “That said, those (p: armed) forces should only be used to defend our society from external coercion and substantive threat. They should not be used to sally forth in an effort to change or influence the actions of other sovereign states unless our own national security is clearly at stake.. ”
By contrast, the site that I made for the party at http://allparty.wordpress.com/ says Peace – Civil Liberties – Free Markets prominently at the top, and has links to antiwar.com among other things. For a brief couple of months that was our official state website as linked to by national, but to my great dismay the state committee voted (behind my back – even though I am on the committee) to revert yet again to the old site, which I consider a mistake.
Before people will take time to be convinced, or not, of the merits of our positions, they would have to have some clue as to what our positions are.
I know Brian has lists of past articles on our national website that are antiwar, yet somehow that message escaped the antiwar demonstrator(s) I have spoken to, and many other people as well.
Certainly, I did not see an organized and visible LP presence at antiwar rallies or any attempts by the LP to persuade members to find new recruits there, as we’ve been encouraging people to do at TEA parties, CPAC, etc.
Nor is there a clue to our position on war, military spending or foreign policy from the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, as much as I like it.
Maybe the LP could counteract that by making its website sound less Republican and more, ya know, Libertarian.
Time to squish this urban legend yet again.
Let’s roll back the clock, to the last pre-Benedict snapshot of lp.org in the Internet archive. The top 3 out of 4 headlines are antiwar and anti-intervention, while the 4th is about gun rights.
OK, now let’s look for July 1 and Jan 1 snapshots going backward, or as soon after those dates as the archive contains.
July 2007: 3 out of 4 headlines are antiwar, as is the poll.
Feb 2007: two items attack Bush/GOP as big-government, and a blog link attacks nation-building in Iraq.
Jul 2006: The first non-party-business headline is antiwar, two blog headlines promote medical marijuana, and another attacks GOP “values”.
Jan 2006: The top story attacks the Bush over mismanagement of 9/11 recovery loans. All three blog headlines are anti-war or anti-war-on-terror.
Jul 2005: The top headline calls for exit from Iraq; another headline echoes the Downing Street Memo allegations. The poll and top blog entry are also about Iraq.
Jan 2005: Only three issue links: supporting Bill of Rights, attacking corporate welfare for sports teams, and something about toll roads in Texas.
Jul 2004: Top two issues headlines: defending “Fahrenheit 9/11″, and protesting the Iraq war at the GOP convention.
Jan 2004: Only three issue links: taxes, campaign finance, and fathers’ rights.
Jul 2003: Pledge of allegiance, opposing eminent domain used for corporate welfare, opposing the broadness of disorderly-conduct ordinances.
Jan 2003: A picture of Bush and a headline attacking his “global warfare” —even before the Iraq war started.
OK, that takes our sampling all the way back to before the Iraq war. It’s simply nonsense to say the LP hasn’t been antiwar, or that the LP.org site hasn’t disagreed with the Right loudly and often. Antiwar and anti-right Libertarians need to stop making stuff up.
Aaron Starr
April 18, 2010
Melty @38
“My main qualm is that Wayne always frames everything as conservative versus liberal. Again in this interview he’s indistinguishable from a Republican. If only he would sound even incrementally different from a Obama-bashin Repub Party pundit.”
That’s because of the subject being discussed. Remember, this interview is being conducted on April 15 — Income Tax Day. He was not given permission by the host to hijack the show to discuss a broad number of other topics. They want to discuss the topic that is of interest to their viewers that day.
As far as how to frame an issue, when you are on television or radio, you only have five minutes to present a point of view.
You simply don’t have the luxury of spending the first four minutes defining new terms to the audience, unless you have no intention of ever being invited back.
Most people understand the dynamic of left versus right. They don’t use terms like “statist” and “libertarian” in their everyday conversations.
I’m impressed he’s able to get away with using the word libertarian at all while he is on the air.
Aaron Starr
April 18, 2010
Melty @38,
“I too could support the several states collecting and delivering each their federal tax as a transitional idea.”
A transition to what?
In Chapter 16 of his book, Wayne Root proposes eliminating EVERY tax imposed by the United States government (even others currently allowed by the Constitution) except for one: a tax on each state in proportion to its population.
There would be no IRS. The Treasury’s job would be to collect checks from 50 states each year.
Imagine how difficult it would be for Congress to impose federal mandates and threaten to withhold highway funds from states. Instead, Congress would have to worry that states might refuse to remit taxes to the Federal government, if Congress engaged in out-of-control spending.
Most states base their own income tax systems on their residents by leveraging the current system of W2s and 1099 filings, starting with the Federal income tax calculations to calculate their own income tax. The Federal government and states also share information from audits.
Most states would have no choice but to abandon using the income tax as a method of raising money because it would be too expensive to set up the tax levying infrastructure.
But Wayne Root then goes further than this.
He proposes introducing legislation to “update Public Law 86-272 to prohibit states from taxing the business activity of any person or enterprise engaging in interstate commerce, and define this broadly enough to include even the solicitation of customers in more than one state.”
Many of you many not realize my background as a CPA, so I understand how Root’s proposed change has extremely broad implications.
Passed in 1959, Public Law 86-272 is the lynch pin that defines the conditions under which states may impose income taxes on businesses with multi-state activities without violating Interstate Commerce.
What Wayne Root is proposing here is pure genius, using the Interstate Commerce Clause as a tool to REDUCE government dramatically at the state level, since it virtually prohibits states from levying a tax on income or any other business activity.
Most states would be limited to raising money through property taxes.
To most people, this approach sounds almost like anarchy, yet Root manages to make it seem palatable and in keeping with the Constitution.
Aaron Starr
April 18, 2010
Melty @38,
“Wayne does not shy away from the absolutist “taxation is theft” message, but sez nothing, incremental or otherwise, about spending. He frames it all wrong, to my notion.”
You need to look at the context of what Wayne Root stated in this short segment, where he describes different options available to levy less taxes on the American people.
At the end he states “it’s immoral to raise taxes.” If he was an absolutist, he might have said that it’s immoral to levy a tax, but Wayne is coming from the perspective that government is a necessary evil and it needs to be much smaller than today.
Regarding spending, you need to read his book. He dedicates Chapter 15 to how the President can use a process known as Constitutional Impoundment to not spend money on unconstitutional expenditures. He describes how several Presidents, including Thomas Jefferson used this method in a very limited way.
Root then lists two-and-a-half pages of governmental agencies in violation of the Constitution, some I had never heard of, where he states that even if Congress authorized the money, they would be de-funded under a Root administration. He even includes the Drug Enforcement Administration.
I don’t find too many Republicans who would say this, much less publish it in a book.
The penultimate paragraph of the chapter states:
“When we are done, the U.S. government will be so small that it will be a one-line listing in the white pages of your local telephone directory.”
To the American people reading this, this is a very radical message. Yet Wayne Root is able to present it in a way that doesn’t frighten them.
Robert Capozzi
April 18, 2010
tk, it seems indicated that this be parsed a bit more then. Root in the same ‘graph said: “It’s not greedy to want to keep more of your own money.”
“[m]ore” implies — in context and in the totality of Root’s statement — that he wasn’t necessarily suggesting that absolutist bumpersticker of “taxation is theft.”
I don’t take it the way you do and I don’t think someone is “too fucking stupid” if they also don’t take it that way. I recognize that I’m biased because I’ve seen Root enough to recognize that he’s not an abolitionist L. I’m merely speculating that most casual viewers would not interpret Root’s words the way you do.
Watching the talking heads shows this AM, and I saw that Rep. Bachman used the term “gangster government.” It’s a provocative, non-literal statement, I suspect, since Bachman is herself a member of the gang!
Unlike you, I believe that most English-speakers have a basic understanding of English.
Anyone who has a basic understanding of English is going to interpret “stealing … at gunpoint” as theft.
Anyone who doesn’t so interpret is too fucking stupid to find his or her way to a voting booth without falling in a ditch and drowning in the two-inch mud puddle at the bottom of it because he won’t think to lift his head up, and thus not really part of the listener mix that we need to consider.
Robert Capozzi
April 18, 2010
tk, since language usage is not physics, but rather a construct that is used to communicate ideas to others, if this passage was tested with an unaffiliated audience and a list of possible interpretations was offered to them, few would interpret those words to mean — literally — “taxation is theft.”
“Did Root actually say ‘Taxation is theft?’ I missed it.”
Here’s a transcription of his opening remark:
“Let me start with a definition. It’s not greedy to want to keep more of your own money. It’s greedy to ask government and the IRS, at gunpoint and threat of prison, to steal it from others who earn it and redistribute it to those who don’t. That’s the definition of greed.”
Is there any reasonable way to understand that statement to mean something OTHER than “taxation is theft?”
Robert Capozzi
April 18, 2010
Someplace after losing the term “states’ rights,” I’d suggest that Root lose the allusion to watching Oprah all day long.
Robert Capozzi
April 18, 2010
Did Root actually say “Taxation is theft”? I missed it.
Melty
April 18, 2010
Wayne does not shy away from the absolutist “taxation is theft” message, but sez nothing, incremental or otherwise, about spending. He frames it all wrong, to my notion.
I too could support the several states collecting and delivering each their federal tax as a transitional idea.
I agree with Robert that “state’s rights” is a bad buzzword to go around repeating.
My main qualm is that Wayne always frames everything as conservative versus liberal. Again in this interview he’s indistinguishable from a Republican. If only he would sound even incrementally different from a Obama-bashin Repub Party pundit. Maybe the LP could counteract that by making its website sound less Republican and more, ya know, Libertarian.
Michael H. Wilson // Apr 18, 2010:
“Why do we have 10,000 troops in England? Do we expect the Normans to attack as they did in 1066?”
And remember (I was there personally) that there were two battles for Harold! One with relatives in the mid lands and then, days later, with Edward the Conqueror at Hastings!
Also, if the Brits want to mess around concerning Argentina or Gibraltar or Ireland —– we can hold down the home front for our Anglican buddies!
200 foreign military bases! Sounds like ’empire’ to me! We have been a global, imperial occupier since about 1883! More and more as time goes along!
Aaron Starr
April 18, 2010
Something else worth mentioning.
It was pointed out to me a couple of days ago that Wayne Root’s book is still- 10 months after publication- the top selling Libertarian book at Amazon…it hit #3000 last week out of all 4 million books at Amazon.
To put it in comparison…David Boaz of CATO’s top selling book is ranked #222,000.
Charles Murray’s top selling book is ranked #103,000
Mary Ruwart’s top selling book is ranked #548,000.
Michael Cloud’s best-selling book on the Art of Libertarian Persuasion is NOT even ranked.
Wayne Root seems to be reaching more people with a non-interventionist message than the Libertarian Party does.
Aaron Starr
April 18, 2010
I meant Michael @ 32 and 33
Aaron Starr
April 18, 2010
Michael @ 31 and 32
It appears Wayne Root sees it the same way you do. Here is what he writes on page 222 of his book:
“I haven’t even mentioned the savings possible from cutting military bases all over the world. Why are we paying for the national defense of wealthy countries like Japan, South Korea, and Germany? Let them pay for their own defense. World War II has been over for half a century. The Cold War has been over for almost 20 years. It’s time to ask our allies to take responsibility for defending their own nations. Do you realize that by paying for the defense of these wealthy allies we free up billions of dollars from their budgets to be used to subsidize their economies, and prop up their automakers and electronics manufacturers, thereby competing against U.S. manufacturers? Now that makes a lot sense, huh? We’re wasting billions of dollars on other people’s defense (who could afford it themselves) and defeating ourselves economically at the same time. This is a welfare program for our allies. So now in addition to wasting billions on welfare for individuals and corporations, it becomes clear the American taxpayer provides it for entire countries.
“I believe that the United States should stop subsidizing prosperous and populous allies. And we must give up on the idea of ‘nation building’ once and for all – who cares if Iraq is democratic or not? How does that change anything in the United States? How does that benefit a taxpayer in Nebraska or Wyoming? Why should our soldiers die for their democracy? Who cares if Afghan farmers grow poppies or not? Why should our soldiers die wiping out their poppy crops? In the end, we’re blamed, demonized, hated, and murdered for our efforts. So I say it is time to stop worrying about other countries. I propose dramatically cutting foreign aid, military bases, and military spending all over the world. Bring our boys and girls of the military home to concentrate on one thing only: defending the United States.”
Root states the case for non-interventionism in an appealing way to a general audience.
Michael H. Wilson
April 18, 2010
@ 31 Aaron how about doing it because it is time the American workers stopped subsidizing their competition! BIG exclamation point.
Michael H. Wilson
April 18, 2010
Okay Aaron how about getting Wayne to ask a simple question? Why do we have 10,000 troops in England? Do we expect the Normans to attack as they did in 1066?
Aaron Starr
April 18, 2010
Michael @ 28
Should we do that because it will convince people of the merits of our position?
Or is the purpose of doing this to simply make you feel better?
It’s not as though our Party’s position on non-defensive war is a secret.
Aaron Starr
April 18, 2010
Melty @ 27
I believe the way Wayne Root gets most of his television and radio interviews is by finding an attention-grabbing way of pitching a particularly limited topic that the hosts (or their programming directors) believe their audience will find interesting.
If Root pitches something that is not interesting, he won’t get invited.
Often Root will be given only a few minutes to present a point of view. If he were to veer off into an assortment of different topics, than it would only serve to tick off the host.
Assuming Root honors the commitment to the host and successfully entertains the audience to the host’s satisfaction, he increases the likelihood of being invited back for a future program.
If you want Root to lecture an audience in a more in depth manner, entertainment-oriented television or radio is simply not the appropriate venue to accomplish this.
I believe we Libertarians, in general, feel more comfortable listening to an absolutist, moralist position in our communications. It’s what excites our small libertarian base. Unfortunately, it does not seem to really excite anyone else.
Root seems to take a different approach. He uses an incrementalist approach to communicating to the public, believing that it begins a long-term conversation that causes people to evolve to our position.
He seems to believe that purposely scaring them or shocking them causes them to shut down and not listen.
I watch how people who are not quite yet libertarian react to Root and it encourages me.
I’ve become persuaded over time that Root’s approach will probably bring more people to our way of thinking.
So, which do I prefer? Someone who excites us with an absolutist message or someone who excites many more people with an incrementalist message?
I have been a Libertarian for 30 years.
And as much as I hate to admit that I was using the wrong approach, I believe that really is the case. I am becoming more convinced over time that Root’s incrementalist approach will actually increase the net amount of freedom in the world.
Aaron Starr
April 18, 2010
Melty @ 27
I actually like how Root addressed the issue of tax cuts versus spending cuts, when he wrote:
“I disagree with the premise that a tax cut is merely a shift of the tax burden to other people. The government uses additional tax revenues to support larger bond issues. If the government increases revenues by raising marginal tax rates, they would run an even bigger deficit because prospective bondholders would be more willing to extend credit to the federal government. See the financial disaster in Greece as Exhibit A.”
I believe Root is correct on this one. Government will maximize the cash flow it brings in to reward their favored interests. By increasing tax revenues, they simply use the opportunity to increase debt even more.
When you reduce the tax burden it is likely that you also minimize the potential amount a government can successfully borrow. At the very least, the only ones who will provide the additional cash to the government to make up for the short-fall are those who voluntarily loan money in the form of Treasury Bonds.
At least I would have a choice. Today, being taxed, I have no choice.
Personally, I believe that it is foolish to lend money to the government because eventually they will default, as most all governments are prone to do once it serves their interests. Today, the US government simply rolls over the old debt and borrows more. Eventually, they will not be able to do so.
Michael H. Wilson
April 18, 2010
Say it again Melty! Bring the troops home!
Aaron you are on the LNC so get us a banner headline on the website that says
“Bring all the Troops Home!” In big large letter!
That is the one issue we cannot run away from if we are to be Libertarians.
Melty
April 18, 2010
The only true tax cut is a spending cut.
I was happy to read the above quote here the other day, Aaron, and I want to believe he means it. Will Root say such things where people will hear him, like on TV and Radio? I’ve heard him speak to the contrary in TV interviews before. If this is really his new stance, and not just an instance of telling whomever whatever it is they want to hear, then I look forward to hearing Root deliver a strong libertarian statement on foreign policy to the wider public. Of course, it didn’t happen in this interview, though it was a prime opportunity to do so.
I think it is obvious that Root needs to update his image with a total makeover. Here are my suggestions:
1. Root’s hair should be dyed bright yellow
2. Root needs to lose the necktie and get a large gold zodiac medallion necklace
3. The white shirts have to go. He should be wearing a black silk shirt unbuttoned down to his naval
4. Tight white pants
5. Fire engine red cowboy boots with his white pants legs tucked into the boots
6. A gold tooth would give his infectious smile a new dimension
7. He should always be wearing mirrored sunglasses, removing them only when he talks
8. Dollar sign tattoos on each forearm
Aaron Starr
April 18, 2010
Melty @ 24
I believe the libertarian answer is to cut BOTH spending and taxes.
You write: “The easiest cut to speak of should be “cut off all foreign aid.” If Root would say that, I’d be pro-Root, but he won’t. He’s a born-again Israel expansionist.”
Here is what Root wrote in response to Brian Holtz’s questions posted to IPR on April 6:
In the end, I’ve come to understand that wars, foreign aid, and military bases all over the globe are a big mistake. They are costly and eventually lead to the bankruptcy of a hopelessly over-stretched superpower. Wars are to be fought only as a last resort, and then only when we are directly threatened (and only with the approval of Congress and the American people). I am NOT a fan of “nation building” or “spreading Democracy.” I think both the wars we are currently fighting have proven those ideas to be failures and more importantly, unaffordable. Unlike most politicians, I listen to opposing viewpoints and I learn from mistakes. Making a mistake is a part of life, but not learning from it is a sin.
Melty
April 17, 2010
Darn . . . I guess we’re stuck with Root. Just so we don’t make him “CEO” of the LP.
What Michael sed.
Root’s sounds like a teabagger here, and it would help if the people could tell the LP apart from that. The difference between the tea party and Libertarian Party is, or should be, Tea Party’s obsessed with cutting taxes, Lib Party’s obsessed with cutting spending. The libertarian answer to how to end federal income tax is “cut spending.” No?
The easiest cut to speak of should be “cut off all foreign aid.” If Root would say that, I’d be pro-Root, but he won’t. He’s a born-again Israel expansionist.
Michael H. Wilson
April 17, 2010
Brian in case you should drop by again may I remind you that the founders of this nation did not think much of a large standing army for a reason. Maybe Libertarians who support a large military should take those thoughts into consideration.
Robert Capozzi
April 17, 2010
tk, no, I doubt people filter out an anti-tax message, I suspect they DON’T take it LITERALLY. Politics is a stage, and things are said for EFFECT, not for logical conclusions. Expecting logically conclusive absolutism is a setup for failure.
IMO.
Mik Robertson
April 17, 2010
I thought this was one of Wayne’s better performances. The idea of the states collecting the revenue and then it going to the federal government is a good one.
As a former ‘rocket science’ for DoD, I once, young and dumb, ‘bought’ the message of atomic deterrence. Let’s be realistic here in the 21st Century! India, Russia, China, the USA do not need the misdirected nuclear umbrella.
Look how ‘fourth world’ seven century cavalry charge regions like Afghanistan hold up! The 2nd Amendment alone would stall an invasion.
Maybe Israel, Pakistan, Japan, Chile and the like would actually benefit from nuks …….ya know, medium to medium small industrials. Like NASCO ‘Small Cap’ stocks.
Extra air craft carriers, sell them off to some one (Japan ??? Brazil ????) whom wants them!
Ah Brian Holtz, aka Bruce Cohen, Junior: kill jock and Israel First Jewish Zionist fascist!
[Told ya so, told ya so ……….]
Michael H. Wilson
April 17, 2010
Btw Brian I asked for the source of your graph above a number of days ago. Did you miss that request or are you ignoring me?
Michael H. Wilson
April 17, 2010
Brian I’ve been in the big leagues for a long time. What’s your problem?
By the way, that chart appears to be missing the Department of Energy, which is about half true miitary spending, it appears to be missing the Spying budget,
Oh, nonsense. For example, mothballing nine aircraft carriers means you do not spend all the money on fuel, etc. Returning someone to the private sector, in the event they need unemployment, is much less that what they are now paid. Terminating F-35 procurement saves several hundred billion right there. Leaving Afghanistan means no more shipping gasoline to Afghanistan, where it effectively costs about $100 a gallon. etc.
Michael, “bringing troops home” doesn’t really save much money unless you fire them, and don’t give them unemployment or welfare. And if you’re willing to kick people off of unemployment and welfare, then you’re ready to step up to the big leagues of cutting government spending.
No Complaints
April 17, 2010
I have no complaints about WAR’s performance. But TB@5 quoting Pope Frank just about killed me.
Thane Eichenauer // Apr 16, 2010:
“Who is going to out-appear Wayne Allyn Root? Who is going to out-sell his books? He has the connections and he will happily grab the extra minute of tv time when he can ……….”
Richard Nixon says ………..all together now class: “counter productive ………”
Michael H. Wilson
April 17, 2010
Let’s help Wayne out since his followers aren’t doing such a hot job.
Here are a few ideas on cutting the feds and saving tax dollars. Help grow the list.
Bring the troops home from some 120 or more nations around the world:
savings – $250 billion
Abolish corporate welfare:
savings – $100 billion
Abolish agriculture subsidies: savings: $20 billion
End the drug war: savings $50 billion
Abolish the Department of Education: savings: $65 billion
Abolish the FDA savings: $3 billion
It may be that most viewers spaced/filtered out the initial “taxation is theft” rhetoric and just heard/took to heart the other parts.
If so, I guess that’s a good thing from the standpoint of message coherence even though I disagree with the message.
But … why court cognitive dissonance, even if one doesn’t achieve it?
Either follow the “taxation is theft” claim to its logical conclusion, or don’t throw it out there in the first place.
Robert Capozzi
April 17, 2010
tk, I doubt that’s the narrative that most VIEWERS hear. They likely hear, “The government takes our money but some of what they do is a ‘necessary evil,’ but most of it is wasted. They should take as little as possible, and compliance should not be as onerous as it is.” Root is connecting with that narrative reasonably skillfully, IMO.
They don’t think taxation is theft literally, but rather metaphorically.
Whether they are conscious of it or not, most are not absolutists, at least not about most things. When one looks at this video through an absolutist lens, they likely see what you see. The rest look at is through a relativistic lens, and an entirely different picture emerges.
It’s a bad idea to open with “taxation is theft,” and then move on to “here’s a whole bunch of ideas I have about how government can steal your money better/more efficiently/more simply than it does now.”
Better to either not mention that taxation is theft at all, or if you do mention it, limit your follow-up to ways to reduce or end the theft instead of just counting off “better” burglars’ tools.
But hey, he got out and took a swing. Eichenauer and Rumsfeld are right.
Eichenauer: Root’s the one getting out there and getting the media.
Rumsfeld: You go to war with the army you have.
Paulie
April 17, 2010
Can’t we just give Root to the Constitution Party?
You could ask. I don’t think they would care for the gambling part, although they’d be happy with God, Guns and Tax Cuts. He would pretty much have to renounce and denounce his gambling-related career, I think.
Then again, they have less money, less party name recognition* and less ballot access, so I don’t think he would be interested.
*Sure, everyone knows what the Constitution is, or think they do, but when I say “Constitution Party” most regular people have no idea what that is. Nowadays most people have some idea, even if it’s vague and/or wrong, of what “libertarian” is. Certainly a lot more than did 15, 10 or even 5 years ago, in my experience.
Robert Capozzi
April 17, 2010
A- appearance in my book. The idea of the states being the tax collector and sending proportional revenues to the FedGov is intriguing…I’ll need to think about that some more, but my gut reaction is, not a bad idea there. Might even be workable. It’d likely change the pork/earmark dynamic quite a bit, and might even make the states less prone to go along with military adventurism.
I would SO lose the term “states’ rights,” however.
Wayne’s style still seems more pundit than presidential.
Melty
April 17, 2010
Can’t we just give Root to the Constitution Party?
How does a flat tax eliminate income tax? It is an income tax!
Seeing future President Root all cranked up like a meth junkie talking to Psycho Barbie made me think of an old Zappa tune…
Ladies & Gentelmen . . . the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES!
Fella Americans . . .
DOOT, DOOT, DOOT . . . DOOT . . .
He’s been sick.
DOO-OO-OOT . . . DOOT! DOOT!
(Teet-Teet . . . Teet-Teet . . . Teet-Teet . . . Teet-Teet-Teet)
And I think his wife is gonna bring him some chicken soup.
DOOT, DOOT (Teet-Teet)
Plastic people
Oh baby, now . . .
You’re such a drag
(I know it’s hard to defend an unpopular policy every once in a while . . . )
Plastic people
Oh baby, now
You’re such a drag
(And there’s this guy from the CIA and he’s creeping around Laurel Canyon . . . )
A fine little girl
She waits for me
She’s as plastic
As she can be
She paints her face
With plastic goo
And wrecks her hair
With some shampoo
Plastic people
Oh baby, now
You’re such a drag
(I dunno . . . sometimes I just get tired of ya, honey . . . it’s – Ah – your hair spray . . . or something.)
Plastic people
Oh baby!
You’re such a drag
(I hear the sound of marching feet . . . down Sunset Blvd. to Crescent Heights, and there, at Pandora’s Box, we are confronted with . . . a vast quantity of PLASTIC PEOPLE.)
Take a day
And walk around
Watch the nazis
Run your town
Then go home
And check yourself
You think we’re singing
‘Bout someone else . . . but you’re
Plastic people!
(Woooooooooooooooooooh!)
Oh baby, now . . .
You’re such a drag
Ooo-Ooo-Ooo Ooo-Ooo-Ooo Ooo-Ooo-Ooo Ooooooooh!
Me see a neon
Moon above
I searched for years
I found no love
I’m sure that love
Will never be
A product of
Plasticity
A product of
Plasticity
A product of
Plasticity:
FZ:
PLASTIC! PLASTIC PEOPLE!
PLA-HA-HA-HA-HA . . .
PLASTIC . . . PEOPLE
PLASTIC PEOPLE . . . OO-OOOH OO-OOH . . .
PLASTIC . . .
A prune is a vegetable . . . no, a prune is not a vegetable. Cabbage is a vegetable . . . makes it O.K. PLASTIC PEOPLE . . . PLASTIC PEOPLE, PLASTIC PEOPLE!
Ooo-Hoo-Hoo . . . Ooo-ooh-ooh-ooh Hoo-Hoo
Ooh-ooh Ooh-Hoo-Hoo-Hoo
Who is going to out-appear Wayne Allyn Root? Who is going to out-sell his books? He has the connections and he will happily grab the extra minute of tv time when he can.
Perhaps he can recuit Teller to run for President.
Libertarian Party fan
April 16, 2010
The stunning…
dynamic…
Wayne Root of the Libertarian Party does the party proud!
As National chairman, we are sure he will help recruit a viable Libertarian Presidential contender, such as Ross Perot, Donald Trump, or perhaps Jena Jameson.
Michael H. Wilson
April 16, 2010
Very nice of Wayne to mention the LP on the program. Now if we could just get him to mention that we need to cut spending by doing such things as getting our troops the hell out of other countries. Abolishing corporate welfare. Bring our naval forces in the seventh and sixth fleets home and on and on.
Michael @ 68
Running serious campaigns for local, winnable offices helps tremendously.
When we insist on only running for unwinnable races, we get the one obligatory article in the paper and that’s about it.
Becoming a local, elected official allows you to be quoted on a regular basis presenting views from a libertarian perspective.
People prefer to associate with and listen to winners. Winning causes people to take us and our opinions more seriously.
I’ve seen this first-hand with a number of Libertarians elected to office.
I like mine better. “Civil liberties” is more policy-specific than “freedom,” which is too open ended to mean anything concrete…does it mean freedom in the sense of liberty, in the sense of liberventionist foreign policy, freedom from want and hunger? Kind of like a rorschach test…and as for prosperity, that doesn’t say much about how we wish to achieve it – many people think a lot of government intervention is what produces prosperity. I like “free markets” better.
@49 – As I recall, Armey’s website and the lp.org site began using the almost-identical slogans at just about the same time. Whether this was simply coincidence or a deliberate attempt to “soften” the LP’s image and appeal to Armey’s supporters, I do not know.
And I really don’t give a rat’s ass what Dick Armey says on his site, but I do have a problem with the LP using such timid language. Smaller, lower, less, more … all relative concepts. Smaller than what? Lower than what? What we have today? Obama’s grandiose socialist/fascist plans? Whatever happened to the idea of standing up for absolute rights: self-ownership, non-initiation of force, etc.? Too scary? Too radical? I think not. And by aping the rhetoric of people like Dick Armey, we dilute our unique selling proposition.
Any politician, of any party, can sling around vague terms like “less” and “more.” Indeed, most of them often do. Only Libertarians have the integrity (or should!) to say that your life and what you produce are yours, not the government’s, and you are entitled to keep 100% of what you earn. (In his interview, Root takes a vague stab at this, but quickly backs off and starts talking about “fairer” and “more efficient” ways to tax people. Sigh.)
“Peace – Civil Liberties – Free Markets” sounds fab!
@ 71 paulie writes; “Peace – Civil Liberties – Free Markets”.
At one time the LP used the phrase Peace-Prosperity & Freedom on its masthead.
Time to bring that back.
P.s. have followed this much cuz got too much work to do.
I agree.
Aaron,
Thanks for your reply.
You write: “The reason why most people have no idea where we stand on this issue is because they have no idea where we stand on ANYTHING. They have never heard of us and they are not looking for us. They don’t care because we do not have an impact on their lives. We are, at best, a theoretical construct, in their minds. ”
P: Not entitely true. I would venture the lady in question, and others I have in mind, have an idea – ranging from vague to fairly specific – about where they think we stand on a variety of issues. In this case her impression was mainly informed from someone in her home town/neighborhood, but perhaps some media mentions/interviews of (l)ibertarians over the years played a role. At some point, she/they may have seen the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, etc. This is not to dispute what you say,
“If you look at this short John Stossel piece, you’ll be surprised how few people know or care about us, even after our being around for almost 40 years.
http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/john-stossel-discusses-libertarianism-thu-8-pm-et”
p) This library computer doesn’t play sound, but I doubt I would be surprised. I have a fairly well-tuned “ear to the ground” of what the general public knows, thinks, or thinks they know about the L-word due to my work in ballot access (among other things). I also have a fairly good sense of how this has changed over the last 15 years and, how it breaks down among various demographics, etc.
You also write,
“Putting one more press release on our website about our position against non-defensive wars (or any other position we have) will not educate this woman in particular or the public in general. ”
p) I would agree with that, although each one does have some incremental effect.
However, what Michael was originally suggesting — which led to this sub-thread of the conversation — went beyond that. I believe he was saying that we should make our generally anti-interventionist foreign policy a key part of our branding, as (for example) Ron Paul did/does.
“Smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom” does not do that. The only area of policy that is specifically addressed is economic, and there, only the tax side and not the spending side. It can be argued that “smaller government” and “more freedom” covers every other aspect of public policy, but if so, why would “lower taxes” need to be re-emphasized specifically?
I think a better approach is http://lewrockwell.com/'s “anti-state, anti-war, pro-market.”
However, I would change two things:
1) Two of their three items are expressed in terms of opposition rather than support. It’s easy enough to flip “anti-war” to “(pro) peace.”
2) For political party purpose, “anti-state” seems to me – besides being negative, which I consider suboptimal – to be both too vague and too extreme (although, as an anarchist, I personally agree with it). I would replace it with “pro-civil liberties.”
Thus, my three ideal terms to brand the party would all be expressed in positive terms, and each would cover one of three main areas of public policy: economic, social, and foreign/military policy.
My attempt for the (now mothballed, but still existing) allparty.wordpress.com:
Peace – Civil Liberties – Free Markets
There may be a better way of putting it; I would be interested in other people’s opinions.
You continue,
“I suspect the REAL reason why some of us are enamored with putting out public pronouncements, whether they are press releases or resolutions, or what have you, is so that WE feel good about addressing issues we care about. ”
p] I think you’re right. We do. I think the same is true of you, even if you are not consciously aware of it.
But, I would disagree if you mean to imply that the type of branding Michael and I are suggesting is self-expression at the expense of effective outreach.
In my own case, I beleive this type of branding would make for more effective outreach than we have at present.
The desire for self-expression/venting is secondary, although it happens that in my case, they coincide.
My desire for venting would also lead me to make shrill and extreme statements, such as I often did in the past, but which I am consciously trying to stop/minimize myself from doing now. Thus my objection to the anti-state term – no matter that it gives me a warm feeling personally – or expressing our support for peace and free markets in negative terms, for that matter.
Furthermore, you say “However, it has almost zero impact on changing people’s minds because they are not searching for our web site.”
p] Mileage varies. Some people ARE searching for our website. Others stumble across it through some link or mention elsewhere. Whatever the case may be, what they find there – especially in the headline at the top – will make a difference, over time, in who and what we are.
gp: Avoid behaviors that lead people to conclude we’re simply tightwad progressive Democrats or Repubicans lite.
me: Are Ls engaging in this sort of behaviors now, and, if so, what are those behaviors? Please supply examples.
@68
How…?
Advertise. Social Networking. Local organizations. Growth. Run more candidates. Outreach to young people, women, minorities…folks who are too thin on the ground at our National Convention.
Avoid behaviors that lead people to conclude we’re simply tightwad progressive Democrats or Repubicans lite.
@ 63 thanks paulie for that link.
@64 Aaron how do you suggest we change that situation and make ourselves better known?
darn, I wasn’t able to get any of those John Stossel links
Pretty much every John Stossel link is worthy of viewing.
Here are some other great John Stossel links worthy of your viewing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsgzm6Br4ow&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQzYDgtBLLk&feature=channel
Paulie @ 52
It’s not a secret, yet many people are not aware of it. Branding is about making our views well known and easily identified, not merely making them publicly available.
I can tell you, anecdotally, that when I identified myself as a Libertarian at an antiwar rally, a lady standing next to me said “I did not know Libertarians are antiwar, I know one in my town and he is pro-war.” Nor is this by any means the only instance I have encountered of people who thought the LP supports the war and/or have no idea either way of what our foreign policy views are.
The reason why most people have no idea where we stand on this issue is because they have no idea where we stand on ANYTHING. They have never heard of us and they are not looking for us. They don’t care because we do not have an impact on their lives. We are, at best, a theoretical construct, in their minds.
If you look at this short John Stossel piece, you’ll be surprised how few people know or care about us, even after our being around for almost 40 years.
http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/john-stossel-discusses-libertarianism-thu-8-pm-et
Putting one more press release on our website about our position against non-defensive wars (or any other position we have) will not educate this woman in particular or the public in general.
I suspect the REAL reason why some of us are enamored with putting out public pronouncements, whether they are press releases or resolutions, or what have you, is so that WE feel good about addressing issues we care about.
However, it has almost zero impact on changing people’s minds because they are not searching for our web site.
By the way, I believe John Stossel is very effective at communicating libertarian ideas.
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=5827
Brian I will not ask you to fix anything I write. I’ll take care of that myself if need be.
I will offer you an apology for the comment about the graph. I had not realized that you had replied. My apology.
George @17, my chart is spending by function, not by department. In the table “Federal Outlays By Detailed Function” in the Statistical Abstract of the U.S., “atomic energy defense activities” roll up under “national defense”.
As for “the spying budget”, I only report on the government spending that the government itself documents in its official sources. If you have numbers for secret off-budget government espionage, I’ll include them in my next revision.
Michael, you can either call me “delusional” or ask me to fix the mistakes in what you write, but not both. 🙂
He did. He said he made it himself.
Paulie, if people keep telling you that the LP members they know aren’t as antiwar as you, that doesn’t exactly help whatever argument you’re trying to make here.
Nice try, Brian, but they’re not just telling me that LP members they know aren’t as antiwar as me. They are telling me that they thought the LP as a whole is pro-war in the same way (or more so) than the Republican Party. One common formulation is that Libertarians are “like Republicans on steroids.” Another is that we are “Republicans who smoke pot.” Neither paints a picture of a party that opposes the wars and wants to bring the troops home.
My argument was a response to Aaron Starr, who was trying to say that our antiwar positions are already well known in response to Michael Wilson’s suggestion that they be made more prominent on the LPHQ’s website.
My point is that our antiwar position, while no secret, is in fact not known to many people who may be more receptive to libertarianism if they knew we are antiwar.
This does not mean that many, or most, people at antiwar rallies would be receptive to libertarianism – or the LP – if they knew we are are antiwar. Likewise, I don’t think most Tea Partiers are receptive to the LP just because we are anti-tax. However, I believe both gatherings contain large numbers of people who are libertarians and don’t know it yet, some of whom would be open to joining or otherwise supporting the LP if they were being informed and asked.
As for patriotism on the LPAL site, let’s review one of the commercials for which Ron Paul made statewide buys in Iowa and New Hampshire
It’s not patriotism that is the problem, but “patriotic” jingoism. Terrible branding.
I think Ron Paul’s official campaign’s paid for TV ads sucked, and this one is not even the worst. They were part of what I consider a massively misguided strategy of targeting conservative Republican voters who frequently vote in Republican primaries, rather than the young, antiwar, independent and crossover voters that the Paul campaign should have been targeting (as should the LP now).
The only county Ron Paul actually won in Iowa, Jefferson County, actually had Ron Paul supporters who did it the right way. The rest of the state was a bust, and the failure was entirely avoidable.
And New Hampshire was where the mismanagement really took a high turn, since independents and crossover voters were allowed to vote in the Republican primary. But, the paid Paul campaign blew that, and left them to stay home or go to the Democratic primary to vote for Obama, in an amazingly dunderheaded (and, predictably and predictedly, failed) attempt to win over Tancredo/Duncan Hunter voters.
After that, the Paul campaign never really recovered, and wasted the potential to fully capitalize on its grassroots support.
On a much smaller scale, the LP continues to make the same mistake, never seeming to learn from it.
Brian, who must be some what delusional writes;
“Michael, references to “economic competitors” sound like pandering to protectionists and xenophobes. Libertarians believe that free trade is positive-sum.”
Brian the fact is that we are subsiding other countries. If you have a better way to get the message across speak up.
btw you still have not replied to my request for the source of your graph.
Michael, references to “economic competitors” sound like pandering to protectionists and xenophobes. Libertarians believe that free trade is positive-sum.
I never could figure out why the “Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, More Freedom” motto bothered Blanton so much. Then he started questioning why FICA taxes aren’t raised on high earners, and I deduced that perhaps the middle part of the slogan is what bugs him.
Paulie, if people keep telling you that the LP members they know aren’t as antiwar as you, that doesn’t exactly help whatever argument you’re trying to make here. 🙂
As for patriotism on the LPAL site, let’s review one of the commercials for which Ron Paul made statewide buys in Iowa and New Hampshire:
Re # 34 Aaron might I suggest the Wayne find a short version of what he has written. Here’s my suggestion.
“We need to cut spending. In this global economy the American workers are paying taxes to defend their economic competitors. We have 750-800 military bases worldwide in some 120 or more countries. The three countries where we have the most troops stationed are also the three we import the most cars from. We have between 50-70,000 troops in Germany, 30-35,000 in Japan and about 30,000 in Korea.”
That little piece takes about 20 seconds to say.
This also comes from a piece I am working on.
pc, hmm, come to think of it, I agree. Both should be lost.
Lose the reference to watching Oprah first.
At least “states rights” is a term that mixes good (decentralization) with bad (state power, linked in the public mind to slavery and racism). Whereas, the Oprah-watching stereotype is quite bad and slams women (especially if they are out of work or working at home), black people and poor people by strong implication.
It’s not a secret, yet many people are not aware of it. Branding is about making our views well known and easily identified, not merely making them publicly available.
I can tell you, anecdotally, that when I identified myself as a Libertarian at an antiwar rally, a lady standing next to me said “I did not know Libertarians are antiwar, I know one in my town and he is pro-war.” Nor is this by any means the only instance I have encountered of people who thought the LP supports the war and/or have no idea either way of what our foreign policy views are.
For another example, see http://www.lpalabama.org/
A casual glance at the site – and that is all most people will give us – reveals Admiral Colley in military uniform in front of a US flag with gold fringe. It’s one of the most visually prominent items on the front page of the site. This is a visual cue that will communicate “pro-war” to a lot more people than will read a lot of detail on the site, including the article that image links to, which does say, among other things, “That said, those (p: armed) forces should only be used to defend our society from external coercion and substantive threat. They should not be used to sally forth in an effort to change or influence the actions of other sovereign states unless our own national security is clearly at stake.. ”
By contrast, the site that I made for the party at http://allparty.wordpress.com/ says Peace – Civil Liberties – Free Markets prominently at the top, and has links to antiwar.com among other things. For a brief couple of months that was our official state website as linked to by national, but to my great dismay the state committee voted (behind my back – even though I am on the committee) to revert yet again to the old site, which I consider a mistake.
Before people will take time to be convinced, or not, of the merits of our positions, they would have to have some clue as to what our positions are.
I know Brian has lists of past articles on our national website that are antiwar, yet somehow that message escaped the antiwar demonstrator(s) I have spoken to, and many other people as well.
Certainly, I did not see an organized and visible LP presence at antiwar rallies or any attempts by the LP to persuade members to find new recruits there, as we’ve been encouraging people to do at TEA parties, CPAC, etc.
Nor is there a clue to our position on war, military spending or foreign policy from the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, as much as I like it.
I agree.
@49
I really could care less what Dick Armey does with his website.
Does Dick Armey or the Republicans own the rights to these concepts?
What makes them more entitled than we are to advocate these?
If Armey’s website soon proclaims they are against non-defensive war should we then abandon that, too?
Maybe the LP could counteract that by making its website sound less Republican and more, ya know, Libertarian.
I’m not so sure this is a myth as long as the LP continues to use Dick Armey’s little motto from his Freedom Works website.
Mantra of the dick army:
Lower Taxes, Less Government, More Freedom
LP.org ripoff:
Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, More Freedom
Maybe the LP could counteract that by making its website sound less Republican and more, ya know, Libertarian.
Time to squish this urban legend yet again.
Let’s roll back the clock, to the last pre-Benedict snapshot of lp.org in the Internet archive. The top 3 out of 4 headlines are antiwar and anti-intervention, while the 4th is about gun rights.
OK, now let’s look for July 1 and Jan 1 snapshots going backward, or as soon after those dates as the archive contains.
July 2007: 3 out of 4 headlines are antiwar, as is the poll.
Feb 2007: two items attack Bush/GOP as big-government, and a blog link attacks nation-building in Iraq.
Jul 2006: The first non-party-business headline is antiwar, two blog headlines promote medical marijuana, and another attacks GOP “values”.
Jan 2006: The top story attacks the Bush over mismanagement of 9/11 recovery loans. All three blog headlines are anti-war or anti-war-on-terror.
Jul 2005: The top headline calls for exit from Iraq; another headline echoes the Downing Street Memo allegations. The poll and top blog entry are also about Iraq.
Jan 2005: Only three issue links: supporting Bill of Rights, attacking corporate welfare for sports teams, and something about toll roads in Texas.
Jul 2004: Top two issues headlines: defending “Fahrenheit 9/11″, and protesting the Iraq war at the GOP convention.
Jan 2004: Only three issue links: taxes, campaign finance, and fathers’ rights.
Jul 2003: Pledge of allegiance, opposing eminent domain used for corporate welfare, opposing the broadness of disorderly-conduct ordinances.
Jan 2003: A picture of Bush and a headline attacking his “global warfare” —even before the Iraq war started.
OK, that takes our sampling all the way back to before the Iraq war. It’s simply nonsense to say the LP hasn’t been antiwar, or that the LP.org site hasn’t disagreed with the Right loudly and often. Antiwar and anti-right Libertarians need to stop making stuff up.
Melty @38
“My main qualm is that Wayne always frames everything as conservative versus liberal. Again in this interview he’s indistinguishable from a Republican. If only he would sound even incrementally different from a Obama-bashin Repub Party pundit.”
That’s because of the subject being discussed. Remember, this interview is being conducted on April 15 — Income Tax Day. He was not given permission by the host to hijack the show to discuss a broad number of other topics. They want to discuss the topic that is of interest to their viewers that day.
As far as how to frame an issue, when you are on television or radio, you only have five minutes to present a point of view.
You simply don’t have the luxury of spending the first four minutes defining new terms to the audience, unless you have no intention of ever being invited back.
Most people understand the dynamic of left versus right. They don’t use terms like “statist” and “libertarian” in their everyday conversations.
I’m impressed he’s able to get away with using the word libertarian at all while he is on the air.
Melty @38,
“I too could support the several states collecting and delivering each their federal tax as a transitional idea.”
A transition to what?
In Chapter 16 of his book, Wayne Root proposes eliminating EVERY tax imposed by the United States government (even others currently allowed by the Constitution) except for one: a tax on each state in proportion to its population.
There would be no IRS. The Treasury’s job would be to collect checks from 50 states each year.
Imagine how difficult it would be for Congress to impose federal mandates and threaten to withhold highway funds from states. Instead, Congress would have to worry that states might refuse to remit taxes to the Federal government, if Congress engaged in out-of-control spending.
Most states base their own income tax systems on their residents by leveraging the current system of W2s and 1099 filings, starting with the Federal income tax calculations to calculate their own income tax. The Federal government and states also share information from audits.
Most states would have no choice but to abandon using the income tax as a method of raising money because it would be too expensive to set up the tax levying infrastructure.
But Wayne Root then goes further than this.
He proposes introducing legislation to “update Public Law 86-272 to prohibit states from taxing the business activity of any person or enterprise engaging in interstate commerce, and define this broadly enough to include even the solicitation of customers in more than one state.”
Many of you many not realize my background as a CPA, so I understand how Root’s proposed change has extremely broad implications.
Passed in 1959, Public Law 86-272 is the lynch pin that defines the conditions under which states may impose income taxes on businesses with multi-state activities without violating Interstate Commerce.
What Wayne Root is proposing here is pure genius, using the Interstate Commerce Clause as a tool to REDUCE government dramatically at the state level, since it virtually prohibits states from levying a tax on income or any other business activity.
Most states would be limited to raising money through property taxes.
To most people, this approach sounds almost like anarchy, yet Root manages to make it seem palatable and in keeping with the Constitution.
Melty @38,
“Wayne does not shy away from the absolutist “taxation is theft” message, but sez nothing, incremental or otherwise, about spending. He frames it all wrong, to my notion.”
You need to look at the context of what Wayne Root stated in this short segment, where he describes different options available to levy less taxes on the American people.
At the end he states “it’s immoral to raise taxes.” If he was an absolutist, he might have said that it’s immoral to levy a tax, but Wayne is coming from the perspective that government is a necessary evil and it needs to be much smaller than today.
Regarding spending, you need to read his book. He dedicates Chapter 15 to how the President can use a process known as Constitutional Impoundment to not spend money on unconstitutional expenditures. He describes how several Presidents, including Thomas Jefferson used this method in a very limited way.
Root then lists two-and-a-half pages of governmental agencies in violation of the Constitution, some I had never heard of, where he states that even if Congress authorized the money, they would be de-funded under a Root administration. He even includes the Drug Enforcement Administration.
I don’t find too many Republicans who would say this, much less publish it in a book.
The penultimate paragraph of the chapter states:
“When we are done, the U.S. government will be so small that it will be a one-line listing in the white pages of your local telephone directory.”
To the American people reading this, this is a very radical message. Yet Wayne Root is able to present it in a way that doesn’t frighten them.
tk, it seems indicated that this be parsed a bit more then. Root in the same ‘graph said: “It’s not greedy to want to keep more of your own money.”
“[m]ore” implies — in context and in the totality of Root’s statement — that he wasn’t necessarily suggesting that absolutist bumpersticker of “taxation is theft.”
I don’t take it the way you do and I don’t think someone is “too fucking stupid” if they also don’t take it that way. I recognize that I’m biased because I’ve seen Root enough to recognize that he’s not an abolitionist L. I’m merely speculating that most casual viewers would not interpret Root’s words the way you do.
Watching the talking heads shows this AM, and I saw that Rep. Bachman used the term “gangster government.” It’s a provocative, non-literal statement, I suspect, since Bachman is herself a member of the gang!
Bob,
Unlike you, I believe that most English-speakers have a basic understanding of English.
Anyone who has a basic understanding of English is going to interpret “stealing … at gunpoint” as theft.
Anyone who doesn’t so interpret is too fucking stupid to find his or her way to a voting booth without falling in a ditch and drowning in the two-inch mud puddle at the bottom of it because he won’t think to lift his head up, and thus not really part of the listener mix that we need to consider.
tk, since language usage is not physics, but rather a construct that is used to communicate ideas to others, if this passage was tested with an unaffiliated audience and a list of possible interpretations was offered to them, few would interpret those words to mean — literally — “taxation is theft.”
I DO see why YOU interpret it that way.
Bob,
You write:
“Did Root actually say ‘Taxation is theft?’ I missed it.”
Here’s a transcription of his opening remark:
“Let me start with a definition. It’s not greedy to want to keep more of your own money. It’s greedy to ask government and the IRS, at gunpoint and threat of prison, to steal it from others who earn it and redistribute it to those who don’t. That’s the definition of greed.”
Is there any reasonable way to understand that statement to mean something OTHER than “taxation is theft?”
Someplace after losing the term “states’ rights,” I’d suggest that Root lose the allusion to watching Oprah all day long.
Did Root actually say “Taxation is theft”? I missed it.
Wayne does not shy away from the absolutist “taxation is theft” message, but sez nothing, incremental or otherwise, about spending. He frames it all wrong, to my notion.
I too could support the several states collecting and delivering each their federal tax as a transitional idea.
I agree with Robert that “state’s rights” is a bad buzzword to go around repeating.
My main qualm is that Wayne always frames everything as conservative versus liberal. Again in this interview he’s indistinguishable from a Republican. If only he would sound even incrementally different from a Obama-bashin Repub Party pundit. Maybe the LP could counteract that by making its website sound less Republican and more, ya know, Libertarian.
Michael H. Wilson // Apr 18, 2010:
“Why do we have 10,000 troops in England? Do we expect the Normans to attack as they did in 1066?”
And remember (I was there personally) that there were two battles for Harold! One with relatives in the mid lands and then, days later, with Edward the Conqueror at Hastings!
Also, if the Brits want to mess around concerning Argentina or Gibraltar or Ireland —– we can hold down the home front for our Anglican buddies!
200 foreign military bases! Sounds like ’empire’ to me! We have been a global, imperial occupier since about 1883! More and more as time goes along!
Something else worth mentioning.
It was pointed out to me a couple of days ago that Wayne Root’s book is still- 10 months after publication- the top selling Libertarian book at Amazon…it hit #3000 last week out of all 4 million books at Amazon.
To put it in comparison…David Boaz of CATO’s top selling book is ranked #222,000.
Charles Murray’s top selling book is ranked #103,000
Mary Ruwart’s top selling book is ranked #548,000.
Michael Cloud’s best-selling book on the Art of Libertarian Persuasion is NOT even ranked.
Wayne Root seems to be reaching more people with a non-interventionist message than the Libertarian Party does.
I meant Michael @ 32 and 33
Michael @ 31 and 32
It appears Wayne Root sees it the same way you do. Here is what he writes on page 222 of his book:
“I haven’t even mentioned the savings possible from cutting military bases all over the world. Why are we paying for the national defense of wealthy countries like Japan, South Korea, and Germany? Let them pay for their own defense. World War II has been over for half a century. The Cold War has been over for almost 20 years. It’s time to ask our allies to take responsibility for defending their own nations. Do you realize that by paying for the defense of these wealthy allies we free up billions of dollars from their budgets to be used to subsidize their economies, and prop up their automakers and electronics manufacturers, thereby competing against U.S. manufacturers? Now that makes a lot sense, huh? We’re wasting billions of dollars on other people’s defense (who could afford it themselves) and defeating ourselves economically at the same time. This is a welfare program for our allies. So now in addition to wasting billions on welfare for individuals and corporations, it becomes clear the American taxpayer provides it for entire countries.
“I believe that the United States should stop subsidizing prosperous and populous allies. And we must give up on the idea of ‘nation building’ once and for all – who cares if Iraq is democratic or not? How does that change anything in the United States? How does that benefit a taxpayer in Nebraska or Wyoming? Why should our soldiers die for their democracy? Who cares if Afghan farmers grow poppies or not? Why should our soldiers die wiping out their poppy crops? In the end, we’re blamed, demonized, hated, and murdered for our efforts. So I say it is time to stop worrying about other countries. I propose dramatically cutting foreign aid, military bases, and military spending all over the world. Bring our boys and girls of the military home to concentrate on one thing only: defending the United States.”
Root states the case for non-interventionism in an appealing way to a general audience.
@ 31 Aaron how about doing it because it is time the American workers stopped subsidizing their competition! BIG exclamation point.
Okay Aaron how about getting Wayne to ask a simple question? Why do we have 10,000 troops in England? Do we expect the Normans to attack as they did in 1066?
Michael @ 28
Should we do that because it will convince people of the merits of our position?
Or is the purpose of doing this to simply make you feel better?
It’s not as though our Party’s position on non-defensive war is a secret.
Melty @ 27
I believe the way Wayne Root gets most of his television and radio interviews is by finding an attention-grabbing way of pitching a particularly limited topic that the hosts (or their programming directors) believe their audience will find interesting.
If Root pitches something that is not interesting, he won’t get invited.
Often Root will be given only a few minutes to present a point of view. If he were to veer off into an assortment of different topics, than it would only serve to tick off the host.
Assuming Root honors the commitment to the host and successfully entertains the audience to the host’s satisfaction, he increases the likelihood of being invited back for a future program.
If you want Root to lecture an audience in a more in depth manner, entertainment-oriented television or radio is simply not the appropriate venue to accomplish this.
I believe we Libertarians, in general, feel more comfortable listening to an absolutist, moralist position in our communications. It’s what excites our small libertarian base. Unfortunately, it does not seem to really excite anyone else.
Root seems to take a different approach. He uses an incrementalist approach to communicating to the public, believing that it begins a long-term conversation that causes people to evolve to our position.
He seems to believe that purposely scaring them or shocking them causes them to shut down and not listen.
I watch how people who are not quite yet libertarian react to Root and it encourages me.
I’ve become persuaded over time that Root’s approach will probably bring more people to our way of thinking.
So, which do I prefer? Someone who excites us with an absolutist message or someone who excites many more people with an incrementalist message?
I have been a Libertarian for 30 years.
And as much as I hate to admit that I was using the wrong approach, I believe that really is the case. I am becoming more convinced over time that Root’s incrementalist approach will actually increase the net amount of freedom in the world.
Melty @ 27
I actually like how Root addressed the issue of tax cuts versus spending cuts, when he wrote:
“I disagree with the premise that a tax cut is merely a shift of the tax burden to other people. The government uses additional tax revenues to support larger bond issues. If the government increases revenues by raising marginal tax rates, they would run an even bigger deficit because prospective bondholders would be more willing to extend credit to the federal government. See the financial disaster in Greece as Exhibit A.”
I believe Root is correct on this one. Government will maximize the cash flow it brings in to reward their favored interests. By increasing tax revenues, they simply use the opportunity to increase debt even more.
When you reduce the tax burden it is likely that you also minimize the potential amount a government can successfully borrow. At the very least, the only ones who will provide the additional cash to the government to make up for the short-fall are those who voluntarily loan money in the form of Treasury Bonds.
At least I would have a choice. Today, being taxed, I have no choice.
Personally, I believe that it is foolish to lend money to the government because eventually they will default, as most all governments are prone to do once it serves their interests. Today, the US government simply rolls over the old debt and borrows more. Eventually, they will not be able to do so.
Say it again Melty! Bring the troops home!
Aaron you are on the LNC so get us a banner headline on the website that says
“Bring all the Troops Home!” In big large letter!
That is the one issue we cannot run away from if we are to be Libertarians.
The only true tax cut is a spending cut.
I was happy to read the above quote here the other day, Aaron, and I want to believe he means it. Will Root say such things where people will hear him, like on TV and Radio? I’ve heard him speak to the contrary in TV interviews before. If this is really his new stance, and not just an instance of telling whomever whatever it is they want to hear, then I look forward to hearing Root deliver a strong libertarian statement on foreign policy to the wider public. Of course, it didn’t happen in this interview, though it was a prime opportunity to do so.
I think it is obvious that Root needs to update his image with a total makeover. Here are my suggestions:
1. Root’s hair should be dyed bright yellow
2. Root needs to lose the necktie and get a large gold zodiac medallion necklace
3. The white shirts have to go. He should be wearing a black silk shirt unbuttoned down to his naval
4. Tight white pants
5. Fire engine red cowboy boots with his white pants legs tucked into the boots
6. A gold tooth would give his infectious smile a new dimension
7. He should always be wearing mirrored sunglasses, removing them only when he talks
8. Dollar sign tattoos on each forearm
Melty @ 24
I believe the libertarian answer is to cut BOTH spending and taxes.
You write: “The easiest cut to speak of should be “cut off all foreign aid.” If Root would say that, I’d be pro-Root, but he won’t. He’s a born-again Israel expansionist.”
Here is what Root wrote in response to Brian Holtz’s questions posted to IPR on April 6:
In the end, I’ve come to understand that wars, foreign aid, and military bases all over the globe are a big mistake. They are costly and eventually lead to the bankruptcy of a hopelessly over-stretched superpower. Wars are to be fought only as a last resort, and then only when we are directly threatened (and only with the approval of Congress and the American people). I am NOT a fan of “nation building” or “spreading Democracy.” I think both the wars we are currently fighting have proven those ideas to be failures and more importantly, unaffordable. Unlike most politicians, I listen to opposing viewpoints and I learn from mistakes. Making a mistake is a part of life, but not learning from it is a sin.
Darn . . . I guess we’re stuck with Root. Just so we don’t make him “CEO” of the LP.
What Michael sed.
Root’s sounds like a teabagger here, and it would help if the people could tell the LP apart from that. The difference between the tea party and Libertarian Party is, or should be, Tea Party’s obsessed with cutting taxes, Lib Party’s obsessed with cutting spending. The libertarian answer to how to end federal income tax is “cut spending.” No?
The easiest cut to speak of should be “cut off all foreign aid.” If Root would say that, I’d be pro-Root, but he won’t. He’s a born-again Israel expansionist.
Brian in case you should drop by again may I remind you that the founders of this nation did not think much of a large standing army for a reason. Maybe Libertarians who support a large military should take those thoughts into consideration.
tk, no, I doubt people filter out an anti-tax message, I suspect they DON’T take it LITERALLY. Politics is a stage, and things are said for EFFECT, not for logical conclusions. Expecting logically conclusive absolutism is a setup for failure.
IMO.
I thought this was one of Wayne’s better performances. The idea of the states collecting the revenue and then it going to the federal government is a good one.
As a former ‘rocket science’ for DoD, I once, young and dumb, ‘bought’ the message of atomic deterrence. Let’s be realistic here in the 21st Century! India, Russia, China, the USA do not need the misdirected nuclear umbrella.
Look how ‘fourth world’ seven century cavalry charge regions like Afghanistan hold up! The 2nd Amendment alone would stall an invasion.
Maybe Israel, Pakistan, Japan, Chile and the like would actually benefit from nuks …….ya know, medium to medium small industrials. Like NASCO ‘Small Cap’ stocks.
Extra air craft carriers, sell them off to some one (Japan ??? Brazil ????) whom wants them!
Ah Brian Holtz, aka Bruce Cohen, Junior: kill jock and Israel First Jewish Zionist fascist!
[Told ya so, told ya so ……….]
Btw Brian I asked for the source of your graph above a number of days ago. Did you miss that request or are you ignoring me?
Brian I’ve been in the big leagues for a long time. What’s your problem?
By the way, that chart appears to be missing the Department of Energy, which is about half true miitary spending, it appears to be missing the Spying budget,
@15
Oh, nonsense. For example, mothballing nine aircraft carriers means you do not spend all the money on fuel, etc. Returning someone to the private sector, in the event they need unemployment, is much less that what they are now paid. Terminating F-35 procurement saves several hundred billion right there. Leaving Afghanistan means no more shipping gasoline to Afghanistan, where it effectively costs about $100 a gallon. etc.
Michael, “bringing troops home” doesn’t really save much money unless you fire them, and don’t give them unemployment or welfare. And if you’re willing to kick people off of unemployment and welfare, then you’re ready to step up to the big leagues of cutting government spending.
I have no complaints about WAR’s performance. But TB@5 quoting Pope Frank just about killed me.
Thane Eichenauer // Apr 16, 2010:
“Who is going to out-appear Wayne Allyn Root? Who is going to out-sell his books? He has the connections and he will happily grab the extra minute of tv time when he can ……….”
Richard Nixon says ………..all together now class: “counter productive ………”
Let’s help Wayne out since his followers aren’t doing such a hot job.
Here are a few ideas on cutting the feds and saving tax dollars. Help grow the list.
Bring the troops home from some 120 or more nations around the world:
savings – $250 billion
Abolish corporate welfare:
savings – $100 billion
Abolish agriculture subsidies: savings: $20 billion
End the drug war: savings $50 billion
Abolish the Department of Education: savings: $65 billion
Abolish the FDA savings: $3 billion
Bob,
It may be that most viewers spaced/filtered out the initial “taxation is theft” rhetoric and just heard/took to heart the other parts.
If so, I guess that’s a good thing from the standpoint of message coherence even though I disagree with the message.
But … why court cognitive dissonance, even if one doesn’t achieve it?
Either follow the “taxation is theft” claim to its logical conclusion, or don’t throw it out there in the first place.
tk, I doubt that’s the narrative that most VIEWERS hear. They likely hear, “The government takes our money but some of what they do is a ‘necessary evil,’ but most of it is wasted. They should take as little as possible, and compliance should not be as onerous as it is.” Root is connecting with that narrative reasonably skillfully, IMO.
They don’t think taxation is theft literally, but rather metaphorically.
Whether they are conscious of it or not, most are not absolutists, at least not about most things. When one looks at this video through an absolutist lens, they likely see what you see. The rest look at is through a relativistic lens, and an entirely different picture emerges.
Not one of Root’s better performances.
It’s a bad idea to open with “taxation is theft,” and then move on to “here’s a whole bunch of ideas I have about how government can steal your money better/more efficiently/more simply than it does now.”
Better to either not mention that taxation is theft at all, or if you do mention it, limit your follow-up to ways to reduce or end the theft instead of just counting off “better” burglars’ tools.
But hey, he got out and took a swing. Eichenauer and Rumsfeld are right.
Eichenauer: Root’s the one getting out there and getting the media.
Rumsfeld: You go to war with the army you have.
Can’t we just give Root to the Constitution Party?
You could ask. I don’t think they would care for the gambling part, although they’d be happy with God, Guns and Tax Cuts. He would pretty much have to renounce and denounce his gambling-related career, I think.
Then again, they have less money, less party name recognition* and less ballot access, so I don’t think he would be interested.
*Sure, everyone knows what the Constitution is, or think they do, but when I say “Constitution Party” most regular people have no idea what that is. Nowadays most people have some idea, even if it’s vague and/or wrong, of what “libertarian” is. Certainly a lot more than did 15, 10 or even 5 years ago, in my experience.
A- appearance in my book. The idea of the states being the tax collector and sending proportional revenues to the FedGov is intriguing…I’ll need to think about that some more, but my gut reaction is, not a bad idea there. Might even be workable. It’d likely change the pork/earmark dynamic quite a bit, and might even make the states less prone to go along with military adventurism.
I would SO lose the term “states’ rights,” however.
Wayne’s style still seems more pundit than presidential.
Can’t we just give Root to the Constitution Party?
How does a flat tax eliminate income tax? It is an income tax!
Seeing future President Root all cranked up like a meth junkie talking to Psycho Barbie made me think of an old Zappa tune…
Ladies & Gentelmen . . . the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES!
Fella Americans . . .
DOOT, DOOT, DOOT . . . DOOT . . .
He’s been sick.
DOO-OO-OOT . . . DOOT! DOOT!
(Teet-Teet . . . Teet-Teet . . . Teet-Teet . . . Teet-Teet-Teet)
And I think his wife is gonna bring him some chicken soup.
DOOT, DOOT (Teet-Teet)
Plastic people
Oh baby, now . . .
You’re such a drag
(I know it’s hard to defend an unpopular policy every once in a while . . . )
Plastic people
Oh baby, now
You’re such a drag
(And there’s this guy from the CIA and he’s creeping around Laurel Canyon . . . )
A fine little girl
She waits for me
She’s as plastic
As she can be
She paints her face
With plastic goo
And wrecks her hair
With some shampoo
Plastic people
Oh baby, now
You’re such a drag
(I dunno . . . sometimes I just get tired of ya, honey . . . it’s – Ah – your hair spray . . . or something.)
Plastic people
Oh baby!
You’re such a drag
(I hear the sound of marching feet . . . down Sunset Blvd. to Crescent Heights, and there, at Pandora’s Box, we are confronted with . . . a vast quantity of PLASTIC PEOPLE.)
Take a day
And walk around
Watch the nazis
Run your town
Then go home
And check yourself
You think we’re singing
‘Bout someone else . . . but you’re
Plastic people!
(Woooooooooooooooooooh!)
Oh baby, now . . .
You’re such a drag
Ooo-Ooo-Ooo Ooo-Ooo-Ooo Ooo-Ooo-Ooo Ooooooooh!
Me see a neon
Moon above
I searched for years
I found no love
I’m sure that love
Will never be
A product of
Plasticity
A product of
Plasticity
A product of
Plasticity:
FZ:
PLASTIC! PLASTIC PEOPLE!
PLA-HA-HA-HA-HA . . .
PLASTIC . . . PEOPLE
PLASTIC PEOPLE . . . OO-OOOH OO-OOH . . .
PLASTIC . . .
A prune is a vegetable . . . no, a prune is not a vegetable. Cabbage is a vegetable . . . makes it O.K. PLASTIC PEOPLE . . . PLASTIC PEOPLE, PLASTIC PEOPLE!
Ooo-Hoo-Hoo . . . Ooo-ooh-ooh-ooh Hoo-Hoo
Ooh-ooh Ooh-Hoo-Hoo-Hoo
That would be a neat trick.
For his next trick, will he pull a bunny out of a hat, saw Lady Liberty in half, or make the Libertarian Party disappear? Stay tuned….
Who is going to out-appear Wayne Allyn Root? Who is going to out-sell his books? He has the connections and he will happily grab the extra minute of tv time when he can.
Perhaps he can recuit Teller to run for President.
The stunning…
dynamic…
Wayne Root of the Libertarian Party does the party proud!
As National chairman, we are sure he will help recruit a viable Libertarian Presidential contender, such as Ross Perot, Donald Trump, or perhaps Jena Jameson.
Very nice of Wayne to mention the LP on the program. Now if we could just get him to mention that we need to cut spending by doing such things as getting our troops the hell out of other countries. Abolishing corporate welfare. Bring our naval forces in the seventh and sixth fleets home and on and on.