The folks over at Reason clipped Libertarian VP nominee, Wayne Root, pretty hard during the last cycle. Just as the final stretch was unfolding in the campaign, the boys caught him at the Republican bar yammering on about Obama being a radical militant when they served together at Columbia. Apparently Wayne didn't check his political 'id' at the door and felt unencumbered by any implied journalistic promise of confidentiality or libertarian camaraderie. What went on the record should have been enough for any self described big L libertarian to take umbrage of their candidate's lack of self awareness while on the attack amongst assumed allies.
Root's description of the gaffe at the LNC meeting in San Diego in December shrugs the whole affair off as meaningless and a deception by Reason. Just a couple beers with the boys kinda thing. While the LNC and it's audience got to their feet after his presentation, my own response was less forgiving.
While controversy with the impending arrival of what is sure to be only be a shrill unforgiving rehash of fiscal conservatism and social 'tolerance' Vegas style, in the form of a new book, might be considered good marketing in some circles, it only intensifies the pain amongst those of us unable to be on constant libertarian tour because we have real jobs/businesses. Root is taking some real heat from Reason's own Radley Balko about appearing on the Michael Savage radio show. Root has subsequently defended himself in a letter back to Balko. I'm not sure if it's been publicly released, so I'll only leak a small segment that gets to the root of the problem . . .
Root explains to Balko;
" I voice a 8 minute commentary that I write to give a Libertarian viewpoint on issues. This guy that you seem to think is such a bad guy (Savage) has given a Libertarian (me) a major platform in front of over 8 million listeners...without one single demand. I write and voice my own material...and so far it has never been changed or edited in any way. Now explain to me how that is bad for the LP or (small l) libertarian movement? "
In one of those commentaries (see below about a minute into the segment) he makes a startling statement;
" We used to make fun of welfare mom's in Detroit with five kids or illegal immigrants in school with six kids getting free lunchs . . . "
Of course he goes on to explain about the victim mentality and the effects of the bailouts etc. The problem is, once again, he is pandering to a particular audience with a xenophobic un-compassionate voice while claiming some type of conservative innocence. This is in fact a problem for the movement and the Party aside from anything that Savage may yammer himself in this regard on any given day.
He continues in the missive;
"All I've done is spread liberty to 8.25 million new listeners...while retaining my Libertarian principles and dignity."
Where's the libertarian dignity in making fun of welfare recipients and immigrants, even if it were a past transgression ?
Sorry Wayne, libertarians should express a lot more remorse about those type of actions if true, than some kind of segway to a cute point about free lunches ala Heinlein. We just know better. The bigger point here is not who will have you on their show and how many people listen to it. As a recent candidate who got a lot of earned media, I never felt that I had to pander to a particular audience or go beyond my values as a libertarian. It's one thing to be a guest on a potentially hostile show, it's another thing to go along with the general rottenness that invariably follows.
Just because your goal is to 'win' and you make commentary to supposed audience of 8 million, doesn't mean that your message is correct or that it will translate to any real results. In fact, the segment in question here, doesn't even introduce you as anything more than a 'financial expert', the laughable quality of which is some quick browsing around the Internet about his own failed ventures. Any search on 'Scamdicapper' reveals a quick Root result.
I have watched in amazement as Libertarian Party convention goers eat up Root's curious message of promised victory, self congratulation and presumed dynamic content and wonder how and why this goes over so well. While the 'cool' people may 'get' Wayne for all his fluff and false bravado, some of the old faithful are just caught in the rut of hope when it comes to their own heavily internalized message of freedom that they have carried so long. They have become so desperate for a dynamic messenger that they can't muster or train amongst their own, that they just love this schtick. Ugh.
No matter how you shake it, Wayne Root couldn't carry anymore votes than the last guys who tried. He barely made the VP slot, but for some reportedly disgruntled radicals who abandoned Kubby at the last minute. Any claim of victory or a presumed winning edge is false hope worse than anything his nemesis Obama tries to foist on weepy crowds in Denver. Libertarians ought to be grisled warriors of freedom who expect to be viciously cut down in Rome's fixed Coliseum's games. Perhaps to rise up and try again and again like clamoring berserkers from Valhalla (sorry the personal hopes here). A nice suit, flashy smile and blown dried hair may sell some books and get you on sympathetic shows in a new age of collectivism, but it does miss the point entirely.
Rest assured, Mr. Balko, there is a lurking faction who clings to the LP beyond your fellow hipsters in D.C. or the academics and token thinkers/writers grinding at their paid, pluralistic pandering liberty gigs. A smart dynamic, youth oriented cabal unwilling to let the Wayne Root's of the party come in and show off their garish Trans AM parked on the front lawn of the house party while the economical used sedans meekly stay by the curb so as to not roust attention.
His comments about poor folks getting welfare and free lunches were gratuitous at best. I don't recall anyone ever making fun of those people, though. At least, nobody for whom I had any respect ever did. Whether or not we approved of government charity, the folks I know have always empathized with the people who needed it.
What really gives me the creeps, though, is that manic, demagogic style of his. It's undignified, it's more than slightly mean-spirited, and it certainly doesn't appeal to one's intelligence. I just don't trust this guy and I hope we find a better alternative in 2012.
Insightful, as always. My only beef is with your suggestion that the conservatarians have any hint of "cool". The Ron Popeil infomercial schtick may play well with aging frat boys, but that ain't what rock stars are made of.
Morey - I was referring to our own cool sect that has figured the Waynester out . . . they see the fluff etc., while the sections of the old guard, who rarely fit that category, buy the old Root schtick and see as some sort of 'hope' or dynamism that we need. Hell, if you think about it, even the self-ascribed cool ones, aren't even so in the eyes of the rabid bloggers, the institute fed types (Cato, Mises) and of course the ultra hip Reasonoids.
Eric, you are engaging in self-policing, just as I am. Rightfully, so.
Carl - I'll assume this is a response to my comment about simplistic libertarians. In your case, you have no party affiliation anymore, correct ? Thus, your attempt to qualify types of libertarians is a little more broad based. Owing to your comment here, I would counter that my 'policing', at least in regard to Mr. Root, is more practical in terms of actual political perception, rather than say a whole ideological put out.
Fair enough, but do note when those who claim the title of "real libertarians" besmirch the name with faulty reasoning or defenses of slavery or racism, then the Libertarian Party is affected.
Ironically, I started off some years back by trying to counter the existing policing of the l word. I raised a firestorm by suggesting you didn't have to be an anarchist to be a libertarian. After repeated efforts at policing, done in an impolite and insulting manner, I've decided to take off my gloves and reply in 0.3 kind. If they want small tent, I'll give them small tent. If they want guardians of purity, I'll point out their inanity.
This is not a call that every vocal libertarian needs to have an econ degree and an I.Q. of 170 to speak out. It's about admitting uncertainties where they exist, toning down the smugness and listening to the counter-arguments. Oftimes, people hear a libertarian message and reject it because they understand it.
Note that this plenty of room for attacks and ridicules of statists; they make plenty of evil and/or stupid proposals. However, sometimes they come up with strong arguments, worthy of respectful analysis and debate. Furthermore, a love of liberty is not an automatic PhD in economics; behave accordingly.
Carl - I'm not sure I'm prepared to engage in the whole ethos of what I perceive as the 'free liberal' approach.
You make quite a leap when transitioning from faulty reasoning to racism and slavery. Not quite the same sins if you will. Again, is the idea that some of the folks in the Mises crowd fall into the racist category in your estimation ? If true (which I'm skeptical about), then even that crew currently eschews any real party affiliation anyway.
Concerning your own ability to deliver 'small tent', is that basically as a result of your current non-affiliation ? Likewise I'm always skeptical about the guardians of purity line. Are these same 'simplistic libertarians' the ones requiring high IQ's and econ degrees ? Certainly if we lock into some of the strife in the last few years regarding the direction of the party, I would contend that any third party in this type of system is better unified under a real ideological entity than any attempt to mainstream or big tent it. That will only tear apart what little focus they can maintain in an either/or dominated game. The Reform Party being the primary example.
I agree that civility in discourse is proper and more palatable. It is true that if threatened, some people fight in nasty ways. As an anarchist with a taste for real world politics, I rarely lead with statist denunciations when doing battle in their own arenas. Go back and look at my most recent campaign, very mainstream and proper, I would maintain. So I guess I get a little 'tight' when I see a constant effort on the 'free liberals' part to vilify and find impractical their mythical anarchists within the party per se. Thus the nuclear weapons and historical proof litmus tests get kind of tiresome for me from that sect. I'm perfectly capable of working with minarchists, conservative or lefty libertarians in the proper political context (Greens or other flavors of independents for that matter). But if push comes to shove in our own little sandbox, I might very well maintain that private nukes are perfectly within someone's right to own, more so than any group deigned worthy based on false authority or presumed legitimacy. Appropriate for a campaign handbill ? Hardly.