It is true that “Jacksonians” on the right lose patience with nation-building, but they also have nationalist convictions that our interventions abroad are always benevolent and initially they are very keen to repeat the propaganda that we are fighting wars of liberation or wars against tyranny (or evil or some new form of fascism).

Jacksonians’ instinctive deference to the executive and their belief that criticizing a President in wartime is a kind of disloyalty force them to focus on nation-building and “political correctness” (i.e., refraining from bombing civilians) (as Rep. Chaffetz did) in order to criticize a President and his conduct of a war without suggesting that they lack in support for the military and military interventions in general.

What makes “Jacksonians” weary of nation-building is not the goal of establishing new political institutions in another country. It is instead the time that it takes to do this and the “ingratitude” of the alleged beneficiaries of our interventions that tend to turn them against prolonged deployments. The charge of “ingratitude,” of course, is inevitable if you believe that you have been doing another nation a favor by invading and wrecking their country.

“…movement conservatives have become accustomed over the last three decades to advocating for both a larger military and for a greater willingness to use force around the world. Skepticism of peacekeeping and humanitarian missions has tended to come from the belief that threats are ubiquitous and the military cannot be distracted by such irrelevancies, but this is absolutely not skepticism about deploying forces overseas and initiating force against a variety of other state and non-state actors. It is actually evidence of the depressing lack of skepticism Republicans have when it comes to entering into or starting wars.”

Could it be that Wayne Root supports strong national defense but opposes using US military for internal policing operations of other nations? Wayne Root would not have been the only person to buy into the “imminent threat” posed by Iraq nonsense.

Maybe he also buys into the nonsense about radical Islamist groups hating our freedom and posing a significant threat to the US, and is upset in the manner in which Obama plans to implement the “surge”.

In either case, he would not be the only person in the LP to do so. I don’t know that the waffle is as bad as is indicated, nor do I think Wayne Root was or is a die hard non-interventionist. He still thinks there are “American interests” overseas, and I don’t believe that has changed. If he were to become non-interventionist, I would be more inclined to support him.

Wayne Root wants to be the LP Presidential nominee, he has said that directly, so he is not trying to hide anything. Maybe part of the reason he wants the nomination is because of the massive media attention it will bring him, I don’t know.

What the delegates have to decide is if they want him to be the candidate representing them. This most recent change in position would tend to make me more inclined to support him rather than less. If he can broaden this latest revelation into a greater foreign policy I might even be more inclined to support him.

That phrase can also mean that X did what Y was suggesting, even if X wasn’t aware that Y was suggesting it. That’s a common usage.

In that sense, Obama did indeed follow Root’s advice. Root called for an Afghan surge, and Obama delivered. So Root lacks moral credibility to bash Obama, irrespective of whether Obama specifically listened to his classmate.

LG, of course people can change their minds. But Root doesn’t consistently move in any one direction. He changes back and forth and back and forth.

He supported an Iraq War. Then he became a born again non-interventionist. Then he supported an Afghan surge. Then he reverted yet again and opposed an Afghan surge.

Root opposed gay marriage. Then he marched with Outright Libertarians in San Francisco, presumably in favor of gay marriage. Then when it came time to sell his book on Fox News and conservative talk radio, he changed back again, favoring states rights on the issue.

(No, I’ve not read his book; I’m relying on book reviews.)

Also, he is still selling a book, so he can’t stray too far from those themes.

Sure he can. Since he’s getting media attention for his book, this is the perfect time for him to say: “Here’s what I believe.” Then offend conservatives in the audience. Instead, he seems to think: “What message does this audience want to hear?”

What’s the point of having X as a libertarian spokesperson, if X dilutes the libertarian message because he’s selling books to conservatives?

What Root claims to believe seems to rest on whether he’s addressing LP delegates, or a Fox News audience, or Outright Libertarians, or Mike Savage’s audience, or whoever he’s selling to at the time.

Root reminds me of Lonesome Rhodes, the Andy Griffith character in the 1957 film, A Face in the Crowd. Rhodes was a narcissist who needed to be loved by his audience. A great scene has Rhodes talking to a turned off TV camera, explaining that: “Ya gotta make them love ya! I mean, they gotta loooove ya!.

That’s the impression I get of Root. A narcissist who desperately craves the adulation of crowds.

Root wouldn’t bother me (the world is full of Roots), except that he wants to be the face of Libertarians. And I don’t want him to represent me, or my philosophy, or my party, or represent me to the public in any way. I don’t want to tell people that I’m a libertarian, and hear, “Oh, you mean like that Root fellow.”

So far that’s never happened. Ron Paul is the name I hear. But Root would like to be the face of libertarianism to the public, and I don’t want him to be my public face.

Let’s keep it real, shall we.

Also, he is still selling a book, so he can’t stray too far from those themes. I do find it odd that he is now upset with Obama for taking his advice. Perhaps this is an opportunity to learn to be careful what you wish for.

me: I’m curious whether this is a matter of PRINCIPLE, or a judgment. Would liquidation be principled, but nation-building UNprincipled?

I honestly don’t have an opinion. I have a presumption against violence, but sometimes forceful action is necessary. Whether liquidation would be the only principled action given this fact set, though, it’s hard to say. Would AQN not be a threat if OBL had been apprehended/killed…dunno.

I’m not a mind reader. And I don’t find it healthy or productive to speculate about other people’s motives…keeping my OWN intentions straight is hard enough!

So, I cannot relate to your speculate about Root’s motives in 24.

I can share with you that HOW an L candidate arrives at his or her positions I don’t really care about. This ain’t a religion! Conversion stories bore me.

Still, it is my tendency to believe the best of people. Perhaps before too long, he will become more appropriately a conservative Libertarian instead of a libertarian Conservative, and he will be in a better position to use his not inconsiderable skills to help build the party.

Myself and most other Libs who werent “pure” or 100% when they get here change their veiws and opinion as they see fit thru the learning process.
To me , Id rather have someone who admits they were wrong and changes course than someone who clings to their present veiw for the sake of being consistent . It takes more courage and character to admit you were wrong than it does to always be right.

I think that “how Root’s foreign policy views have changed over time” is the key issue here.

Is there some kind of logical progression, or does he simply pick up whichever line he thinks will get him the biggest popularity boost, even though that means frequently reversing himself?

The latter conclusion fits the data better. Not just on foreign policy, but on a number of issues, Root makes John “I voted for it before I voted against it” Kerry look like the very model of steadfast shall-not-be-moved-ism.

Consistency isn’t always a virtue, of course. It’s better to abandon error than to cling to it. But on this issue, I’m happy to contrast my record with Root’s.

I went on the public record against the war in Afghanistan at least as early as October 2001, when as an alternate on the LNC I urged that body to adopt a statement opposing it rather than the wishy-washy “kind of support, maybe a little oppose” resolution they passed.

My opposition to the war became effective as soon as the Bush administration made it obvious that it intended to engage in “regime change / nation-building” in Afghanistan at the expense of the reasonable objective of liquidating al Qaeda’s command/control apparatus. I predicted a quagmire and an eventual de facto US defeat, and for eight years now the actual facts on the ground have continued to accord with that prediction.

As recently as last year, Root was publicly saying that the war in Afghanistan had already been won — then changing his mind and calling for a “surge” there. Now this year he’s against it, the only thing having changed is that he’s noticed Obama’s for it (Obama was for it during the 2008 campaign, but apparently Root, like many Americans, didn’t notice).

I’d rather have a candidate who abandons error than one who hangs with it. But I’d also rather have a candidate who’s consistently right than one who changes his position more often than some people change their underwear, who’s wrong about as often as he’s right, and whose changes don’t appear to be grounded in any kind of identifiable logic.

“Despite my conservative, pro-military background, I no longer support this war.”

Some examples:

TS@1: Obama inherited this war. And he remains the puppet, not the one pulling the strings.

COMMENT: Yes, it’s a fact that BO inherited the war. But he is president, with many, many options about what to do in Afghanistan. If he’s a puppet, prove it! Making such an unsubstantiated assertion of this nature sounds highly conspiratorial, IMO. Please name BO’s puppet masters, for starters.

TS@1: He says this: “Is Root implying that Iraq war is a good war?” to Root’s “Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is a country comprised of people without national identity, with only family and tribal loyalties.”

COMMENT: TS truncates Root’s sentence at “comprised of,” which requires the reader to go back to Root’s original sentence. On its face, it appears HIGHLY misleading on TS’s part, if not outright duplicitous.

TS@1: But my main problem with Root is not about what he says, but in that I don’t trust him. He’s an unreliable “libertarian,” because he flip flops according to where the money is. Who are his book customers? What does he have to say now to please LP delegates, Fox News viewers, or whoever he’s selling to?

COMMENT: I appreciate that TS here makes it clear that these are his opinions. Surely he must know that many Ls take the view that – at first – some military action in Afghanistan was justified. I’m one. So it appears that Sipos would say that these many Ls are “flip floppers,” including me. Fair enough. He doesn’t trust us. Fair enough, too. But I’d hope TS realizes that those of us who believed some military action (or M&R) was justified to root out the leaders of an organization that admits it masterminded 9/11 CAN ALSO believe that the war in Afghanistan is no longer justified. Sipos can be black-and-white about this; he can “not trust” those of us who are NOT black-and-white about this. What he does NOT do is make the case that Root has changed his position for financial or pandering reasons. Such an unsubstantiated assertion does not promote honest dialog, however. IMO, of course.

TS@4: Root can take unpopular stands, from which he has nothing to gain. Harry Browne opposed the Afghan War on 9/12 — a most unpopular position with most Americans, and many libertarians. It’s one reason why Browne was trustworthy. He clearly had nothing to gain from his position.

COMMENT: My goodness, I’d like to hear more about THIS view. Sipos trusts those who take unpopular stands, distrusts those who don’t…do I have that right? And people wonder why I bring up “out there” theoretical positions that some Ls take about private nukes, baby selling, and personal secession! I would appreciate Sipos or someone else doing an essay on why taking unpopular positions deserve trust and popular ones distrust. I guess I just don’t understand that perspective

TS@4: Unless someone is antiwar in his heart, you can’t trust them to preemptively oppose the next war.

COMMENT: Perhaps Sipos is a pacifist, I dunno. But I’ve never heard even a pacifist link his or her pacifism to whether non-pacifists PREEMPTIVELY (and presumably actively) oppose the next war. In fact, I’m not sure what the next war will be. Could be Pakistan. Could be Iran. Could be Brazil, fer chrissakes! If Sipos wants to advance pacifism as a litmus test for Ls, he should do so. Personally, I toy with pacifism, consider myself a peacenik, but I can’t quite buy pacifism, and I certainly don’t believe that most Ls are pacifists. I’ve never seen the case made, although Anthony Gregory kind of gets close. It strikes me that Sipos would be on more solid ground if he simply said, “Root isn’t a pacifist, therefore I don’t trust him, nor do I trust any non-pacifists.” That, at least, is comprehensible.

KNAPP@19: I can’t claim to be totally objective myslef here, but I do believe that an objective evaluation of Root’s progression (for the Iraq war — against the Iraq war but for war with Iran — “non-interventionist” — for an Afghanistan surge when running — against an Afghanistan surge after the other guy wins) at the very least leaves Root open to the charges Sipos makes against him.

COMMENT: Now this is IMO respectful, useful dialog. Yes, Root has changed his views over time. I suspect we all have to one degree or another. Haven’t we? I agree with Knapp that Root would be more credible if he explained how and why his foreign policy views have changed. I’ve not read CONSCIENCE OF A LIBERTARIAN, so, to be fair, perhaps he’s done so there. Dunno. We readers can’t expect such exposition in every single essay Root writes, for such discussion is more long form than Root’s columns. Near as I can tell, he’s doing all this pretty much on the fly. I find that understandable, but there is room for improvement. And, oh, yes, at this point, I’m still liking Root more as a pundit than as our standardbearer.

Me: Notice that my quick post 15 – written on my phone, btw – doesn’t quote Sipos, it paraphrases him. Sipos’s ACTUAL quote (#9) is: “And now Root is frothing at the mouth, now that Obama has followed Root’s advice.”

So, I guess one COULD say that TB is technically accurate but unfair. I’d say highly misleading, or perhaps just mistaken. I welcome YOUR correction, TB, but it appears from our dialog that you never admit to mistakes in such matters. You might give it a try, though, especially on an easy one like this. It’s quite personally liberating, IMO! Promotes peace, too!

Alternatively, you can get hyper-technical and give us dictionary definitions of “foaming” and “frothing” and make the case that there is a substantive difference between the two.

Your choice….

I can’t claim to be totally objective myslef here, but I do believe that an objective evaluation of Root’s progression (for the Iraq war — against the Iraq war but for war with Iran — “non-interventionist” — for an Afghanistan surge when running — against an Afghanistan surge after the other guy wins) at the very least leaves Root open to the charges Sipos makes against him.

It’s not like they’re entirely baseless by any means. The odor of “what do I think my audience wants to hear this week?” seems to rather follow Root around.