2006-2008 Libertarian National Committee Vice Chair Chuck Moulton recently posed 10 questions for LNC Chair candidate (and 2008 LP Vice Presidential nominee) Wayne Root. Root today gave his answers, below. (Moulton later posted an admission that if he had known his questions would turn into IPR articles, he would have phrased the last question more diplomatically.) These questions were earlier answered by Chair candidate George Phillies here. Root answered an earlier set of 10 questions for him here. Chair candidate Ernest Hancock says he will be answering these 10 questions for him in a DVD mailed to delegates for the May 28-31 LP convention. More IPR coverage of the LNC Chair race is here.
1. As Chair, to what extent would you rely on counsel from Aaron Starr for administrative decisions of party business (staffing, executive decisions, dealing with LNC business, etc.)?
I consider Aaron Starr a friend and a smart guy. I’d listen to him just as I’d listen to all smart people in the LP. I get ideas and answers from listening to everyone I can. I wouldn’t block out what Aaron has to say, anymore than I’d exclude you or any other thoughtful person from the conversation. All bright, creative, and dedicated Libertarians are welcome at the table- that includes you (Chuck Moulton), David Nolan, Mary Ruwart, John Jay Myers, George Phillies and Mark Hinkle.
2. During media appearances where you will be referred to as Chair of the Libertarian Party, will you be taking the positions listed in the LP platform or your own positions? If the latter, will you make clear to the audience where the Libertarian Party platform differs?
I understand that being the Chairman of an organization creates an obligation to represent its official views to the public. My views are very much in line with the 2008 Party Platform. If the Party Platform should change to be different than my views, I would tend to avoid mentioning such differences. If I do find myself in a position where I have to discuss a personal view at odds with an official stand, I would make it clear that my personal position is different than my Party’s.
Very few people become Libertarians as a result of a single conversation. People evolve. It took me a while to become a Libertarian. I’m glad that I got here and I’m very appreciative of the people who patiently worked with me to get to this point. I continue to listen and learn.
Most people change incrementally. One of my goals as Chair is to get more folks to come to our website and sign up as prospects, members, and donors. Once they are in the door, I expect local folks to reach out to these new people and educate them to become fully developed Libertarians.
3. Some have described you as the Sarah Palin of the LP in that you are great at delivering talking points, but when conversations get more substantive you sometimes do not have the deeper insights that come from scholarly study of issues (in stark contrast to Ron Paul, for example). As valedictorian of your high school class and an ivy league graduate, clearly you have the capacity to learn and convey such information. If elected Chair, will you correct this deficiency by getting in depth briefings from Cato scholars on issues of the day and teach yourself the principles and applications of free-market (Austrian) economics by studying Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard?
I’m not exactly ignorant in the subject of political philosophy. I graduated with honors at Columbia University with a degree in Political Science.
I’ve read Murray Rothbard’s For a New Liberty. I understand from Von Mises and Hayek how manipulation of the credit markets causes a boom-bust cycle. I’ve read the Cato Handbook from front to back. I’m actually a policy wonk who studies every political poll in the country so I can gain an understanding of where the electorate stands and how the LP can position ourselves to capitalize.
I understand the desire of some of us to want to put forward the intellectual arguments for a free society. Unfortunately very few voters know, understand or care about any of the LP’s principled or intellectual stands. If they did, we would have made a lot more progress during the last 39 years.
We are far too intellectual in our approach for the average voter, who is too busy earning a living, raising kids, and trying to pay the mortgage to care. Just because we Libertarians have spent more time pondering issues does not mean the average voter will.
I aim to simplify it all in a positive, pragmatic way to get their attention and support. There is very little difference between what I believe and what my opponents for National Chair believe. But what’s different is style. I don’t scare away voters with radical or extreme language. I try to find common ground and build consensus. I make friends with my viewers and listeners. I try to show them as much of the libertarian philosophy as they’re able to see.
I don’t dismiss those who debate with me as being fools, but try to have a reasoned discussion with them.
I believe you first have to make someone comfortable with you before they will listen.
I’m interested in how to better communicate with the public, so that they will adopt our ideas. We will get more people to adopt our views by studying the communication techniques of Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan, rather than the writings of Lysander Spooner.
I know how to successfully reach and communicate with members of the American public. My bigger struggle is communicating with members of my own party the fact that in this country, at this time, style is the key to selling substance. The question you have to ask yourself when voting for a chairman is which group would you rather he or she be successful at addressing- those who are already with us, or those who have yet to join us? The choice for LP Chair is clear- I am the LP Chairman that stands for expanding our base and spreading freedom and liberty to tens of millions of voters who may not know they are Libertarians- yet. I want to make the tent bigger- with room for all of America’s freedom-lovers. Only then will freedom reign.
4. When you are acting in your personal or business capacity rather than your LP Chair capacity, what steps will you take to separate your pitches as a client for corporations from the Libertarian Party label? In other words, can you be counted on not to be referred to as the 2008 LP Vice-Presidential candidate or the LP Chair when you are producing Internet videos selling products unrelated to the LP?
Okay, this could be the funniest question I’ve ever been asked. I would love it for the LP to be so impressive that merely associating oneself with the name would make you wealthy. If the LP is a “business tool” that impresses people, I wonder why no other LP Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate has ever been able to capitalize on the LP name or image before? I wonder how a party that polls close to zero in national polling…and routinely gets 1% of the vote (or less) in elections could be used as a competitive advantage in business? If I wanted to make money with politics, I should choose a different party.
I’m in this party because its philosophy and ideals match my own. When the names “Wayne Root” and “Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee” are mentioned on national TV, and to crowds of thousands at business events, it is just more branding for the LP. It spreads the name to people that often have never heard it in their lives, or who had negative opinions of the LP. I am slowly changing all that.
5. Why wouldn’t it be a conflict of interest for the person elected Chair in 2010 to run for President in 2012 — even if a “leave of absence” were taken? I believe that Barr’s leave of absence as a LNC member to run for President would be fundamentally different from the Chairman and CEO of the LP taking a leave of office to run for President… why am I wrong?
I don’t see the fundamental difference you seem to perceive.
The LNC has established in its policy manual prohibitions on staff showing favoritism to any Libertarian candidate competing for public or party office.
And as far as I’m concerned, your question doesn’t go beyond the realm of hypothetical. After having run for Vice President, I have come to the realization that we are simply not strong enough yet to support a national campaign that can reach the public in a truly meaningful way.
Being a businessman, I’m more of a practical guy than a theoretician. When I run, I’ll run to win. I’m running for Chair with the intention of growing the LP into a functional, efficient and potent 3rd party capable of challenging and frightening the GOP and Democrats. I believe it’s going to take a lot more than two years to accomplish this, but we need to start today. Of course, I suppose it’s possible you believe that I CAN accomplish this in less than two years, in which case I suppose I should be delighted that you have so much confidence in me.
6. Why should someone who has never served on the LNC be elected Chair of the LNC?
Perhaps I should ask you a question instead. How well has that approach worked for us for 39 long years?
I believe electing a leader and CEO with a fresh perspective, tons of energy, creativity, lots of fresh new ideas, and name recognition can only help turn things around.
In the corporate world it’s pretty simple…if you have a powerhouse company that has been #1 in their field for 20 years, you appoint a new CEO from the top management ranks or the company Board of Directors. Why tinker with success?
But, if you have a company that fails to achieve – or even worse, is dysfunctional – you find a new CEO from outside the ranks to change things, to shake things up, to bring fresh blood and new ideas. I am that new CEO with a proven record of success, new ideas, creativity, dedication, passion and energy that our party needs to grow to the next level.
7. Why is reaching out only to conservatives a good strategy when Ron Paul made his mark and raised much of his money through his opposition to the Iraq war? Given that many college students lean liberal and the young are the future of the LP and the country, why isn’t outreach to young liberals with free time to volunteer and potential to be lifelong LP supporters more important than outreach to old conservatives with lots of money to donate?
In economics, this is a question involving the time value of money. If you want to communicate to people, you first need to have the money to pay for that communication. Sure, we can consume most of our resources going after the young, but that’s a formula for insolvency because it will be years before they contribute enough money to make up for the outlay of funds to reach them.
I will commit to reaching everyone and anyone who agrees that government needs to be smaller in size, scope and power. If a person (whether he is liberal or conservative) agrees with this one overriding core principle, they are welcome, invited and encouraged to join in the fight.
If our membership is willing to donate the money to do it (or colleges are willing to pay for it), I will travel the country to speak at colleges to let young adults know where the LP stands…that government has failed at virtually everything it has ever done…and why would we trust the same people that put us $12 trillion in debt…or $100 trillion counting unfunded liabilities?
If you agree that government is a failure and must be downsized…join us.
If you agree that what is important is allowing people to keep more of their own money…join us.
If you believe in individual rights…join us.
If you agree that government is destroying your future quality of life and saddling your generation with debt…join us.
If you agree that government is ruining lives by putting nonviolent drug offenders making personal choices in prison…join us.
If you think empire building, and fighting wars across the globe, and spending trillions on military bases and national defense for wealthy allies…and wasting your money on giving billions to foreign despots who hate America anyway…is a mistake…join us.
Based on the positive reaction to that very speech I gave to law students at Capital Law School in Columbus, Ohio last week, I’d say we will do very well on college campuses.
To answer your question Chuck, I am aiming to convert EVERYONE who agrees with the message above.
8. Will you be appearing on MSNBC and CNN, or just Fox News? Will you be able to effectively highlight the Libertarian Party’s liberal positions (anti-war, pro-LGBT rights, etc.) to the appropriate demographics?
I sure hope so. I’ll appear at any venue that wants to hear our message. I’ve been making some great inroads onto the left leaning media. In the past few weeks I have appeared on four left-leaning media shows:
CNN – Larry King Live
MSNBC – David Shuster
The Thom Hartman Show
The Young Turks on XM Satellite radio (formerly on Air America).
Since it is only Wayne Root, and not my opponents for National Chairman, who has been invited to appear on these left-leaning MSM venues, I think it’s clear who will have the best chance for the next 2 years as Chair to spread LP philosophy and widen the tent.
9. Will you be firing Wes Benedict as Executive Director if elected Chair? If so, with whom will you replace him?
I will work very closely with Mark Rutherford, who as Vice Chair will take the lead on managing the national office. If he believes that existing staff will take us to the next level, than we’ll most likely go with that. Having a job at the national office is not a reward for being a loyal activist. If someone can do a better job for the national party and our state affiliates, that should be the person who will work for us. Important decisions like this need to be done thoughtfully and methodically to make the right choice. I can tell you this- I will ask Mark to interview far and wide to find the best candidates for each and every job at national. I don’t hire friends- I believe in hiring the best person for a job. I have no bias for or against Wes Benedict. My impression is that he will modify his approach to work with whoever is chair. If he is growth oriented, that will certainly count in his favor.
10. You say you changed your religion from Jewish to evangelical Christian and changed your war views from pro-war to anti-war. It would seem that the first change would be an advantage in business and politics, whereas the latter change would be an advantage in earning Libertarian Party votes for internal office and public office nominations. Were these changes genuine, for political advantage, or both? What other changes in your religion and/or ideology would you be willing to make to become more electable? What is a line you would draw in your principles beyond which you would not be willing to sacrifice or compromise for electability?
Now THAT is an insulting question.
First as a Libertarian, I believe a person’s choice of religion is a private and personal issue between that person and God. It is none of your business…and certainly none of government’s. Secondly, I made the decision to convert to evangelical Christian 20 years ago when I met my wife Debra, and saw her amazing family in action. They are the sweetest, kindest, most loving and genuine people I’d ever met in my life. I knew instantly that these were special people that offered a rare and valuable lesson in faith. I have been proven correct a thousand times over in these past 20 years. When I made that conversion, I wasn’t in business or politics, so it was a personal conversion with no thought to any advantage in any field – other than personal satisfaction and happiness. And by the way, not that it is any of your business, I still recognize, am proud of, and identify with my Jewish heritage.
Secondly, I am the exact opposite of how you paint me. I am as principled as they come. I do not change my views in life to please anyone. I listen to good arguments and I change if someone convinces me I’m wrong and he or she has a better position or solution.
I don’t believe someone should be so set in his ways, that he isn’t willing to listen and seriously consider a different point of view.
Whenever I figure out I’m wrong, I change my view. I assume that you do the same.
What I find strange is when critics will first state that I’m too conservative, and then when they discover that my views have changed, partly due to the arguments they put forward, then I’m considered unprincipled. This is truly a no win situation for anyone and the approach is unproductive, assuming we want to attract new adherents.
During the last three years I’ve had conversations with hundreds of libertarians. Do you believe I should be unaffected by those interactions?
My views on politics have evolved over a long period of time. I think I’ve completed that transformation. Back in 1997 I appeared on Bill Maher’s “Politically Incorrect” and said “I’m becoming less and less of a Republican, and more and more of a Libertarian.” I certainly wasn’t entertaining a run for President at the time.
Carol Moore // Jun 23, 2010:
“Root feels free to lecture libertarians that NO libertarian should ever criticize his favorite state of Israel because “Jewish voters” give half of all money to Demopublicans” ………
[just another move toward the remnants the deform party / reform movement and the shaddowy Israel First American Zionists including John Dennis Coffey, John Blare, Valli Sharpe Geisler, and John Bambey.]
[ They are there, like Bruce Cohen, Tom Blanton, Ernest Hancock and gang, putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of American issues. It ain’t illegal, but it isn’t patriotic —– and they are not patriots!]
Kathy , paragraphs are beautiful things:) just sayin
Now that he’s on the LNC Root feels free to lecture libertarians that NO libertarian should ever criticize his favorite state of Israel because “Jewish voters” give half of all money to Demopublicans and we’ll never get money from them if we allow any libs to criticize Israel. More or less. Full details here: http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/2010/06/wayne-root-shut-up-and-take-jewish.html
The Libertarian Party has contributed much to the public debate but it’s practical influence is highly debatable as many have noted in these posts. I would ask that the fiscal/social-values division, which has resulted in Libertarian Party paralysis for moving ahead to achieve influence, be viewed in the following manner. (FYI, I’m a Capitalist with tolerant social views, and see little need for much government in a free market system under the rule of law.) That said, the great debilitating, incapacitating divide in the Libertarian Party caused by your insistence that both fiscal and social issues are equally important and must be represented as such by political candidates, is a big problem. I submit these issues are most assuredly not equal, that social issues are a subset of fiscal issues, and can only be addressed by a powerful, monied, property-owning class of liberty lovers. Power resides in money, by those who have it, and those who dole it out. As a wise friend of mine once said, “It’s the Golden Rule. Dem’s thats got the gold makes the rules.” Without money, we as ordinary citizens are impotent to do much else about our liberties and will become helpless wards of the state. So, in spite of my intense disagreement with many fiscally conservative political candidates on social issues, if they are truly for limited government, lower taxes, deregulations of private enterprise, global free trade, etc. I will freely vote for them knowing that without my money or property, I would be rendered powerless to then work against them to change any social values I saw as statist, intrusive, and inappropriate for a free people. So, Libertarian Party, if you can agree with this argument, it might be easier to make the social issues less divisive and we can at least work together to hang on to our our money and property, then use these as weapons to beat back the fiscally conservative politicians (who are actively preserving our primary means of defending ourselves) on the social issues. In my view, Rand Paul meets these criteria in spades where as most Republicans do not. My request is that you help us get Rand and others like him elected for the above reasons. To restate, fighting for social liberties is not possible with genuine fiscal conservatives in office. Their own position on allowing people to keep their own money renders them much less powerful to impose their social values. I would be interested to hear from anyone who agrees or disagrees with this analysis and if we can make this argument to the broader Libertarian Party so that we can unify around true fiscal conservatives and thus take back our liberties in two stages. At least the failure of the Libertarian Party over these past decades indicates we might want to try this as an experiment and, if it doesn’t work, we can go back to the old way of doing things. Thank you for listening.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Friendly fire, do not use IPR posts as recruitment tool …………..
I agree with Mr. Knapp, these responses are impressive.
I’m glad to see he was willing to check our Rothbard’s Libertarian Manifesto, and to give its positions consideration. And assuming he’s being honest about wanting to reach out to “liberals” and conservatives equally, my major objections to Root’s nomination is quickly diminishing.
I still maintain that I absolutely cannot stand the phrase “Reagan libertarian,” however.
Mr. Knapp also writes, “Nobody who isn’t already a sycophant lets the candidate off the hook if the ghost writer makes him look like an asshole—so why should anyone object when the ghost writer makes him look good?”
I think we should be clear regarding what constitutes “letting a candidate off the hook.”
Let’s say, just hypothetically, that Mr. Root hires a ghostwriter, and let’s say, just hypothetically, that said ghostwriter writes something racist under Mr. Root’s name.
Would we want to say Mr. Root is responsible for what got published under his name? Would we want to call Mr. Root a racist because of this?
We must recognise that these are two separate questions. If this were to happen, we would absolutely want to hold Mr. Root “responsible,” because (1) he should have been more careful who he hired to ghostwrite for him and (2) he should have been responsible enough to read what was written before allowing it to go to the printers. Because he failed to do this, he should be held responsible for his irresponsibility. (Again, this is a hypothetical scenario. This has not actually happened to Root, to my knowledge.)
But, would we also want to say that Root is a racist (in this hypothetical situation)? No, for there would be absolutely no evidence to support the claim that he is a racist. Irresponsible? Yes. But racist? No.
So, when we discuss the question of people being let off the hook, we have to be clear exactly what constitutes being let off the hook. I’d say that not holding someone responsible for his irresponsible management style would constitute letting someone off the hook, but I’d not say that we should attribute the views of the ghostwriter to the candidate even after the candidate has publicly disavowed them.
Of course, this is all only hypothetical.
Now, to the question of whether or not we should be happy with Root (or any other candidate) after a ghostwriter has written his (or her) responses, I’d say this:
If the candidate has approved of the ghostwritten comments, then there’s no reason we should object when the ghostwriter makes the candidate look good. But, if the candidate had no knowledge of the comments being written on the candidate’s behalf, then there’s no reason we should not object when the ghostwriter makes a candidate look good.
But this is also completely hypothetical, for I see no reason to assume Mr. Root didn’t write his response himself. 🙂
Mr. Capozzi writes, “around, I agree. The Chair should not deviate directly against the platform. I’m more willing to see a candidate deviate, as is often done on the abortion issue, for ex.”
I concur.
Mr. Holtz writes, “It’s not about purity, it’s about non-conformism. The ‘purity’ of your beliefs is measured by how many people find them shocking. If opposing aggression isn’t non-conformist enough for your psychological needs, you can add a side order of anarchism or bogeymen: ’empire’, the Fed, the New World Order, the Trilateral Commission, 9/11, the Bilderberg Group. Then you’re guaranteed to be extraordinarily principled and insightful—just as special as your mother always said you were.”
(1) There is no such thing as non-conformism. Everyone is a conformist, everyone conforms to some standard. I, conform, for example, to to those that appear to me to be in line with natural law. This is conformism—I fully admit it.
(2) I have no objective to shock people. Inevitably, some people will be shocked by my views. I can’t control that. All I can do is try to express my “shocking” views as rationally and pursuasively as I can.
Personally, I’m absolutely shocked and disgusted that there are actually people out there that want the government to intervene and shut down any private business that hires an “illegal” emigrant to the United States.
Personally, I’m shocked that there are actually people out there who think the government should initiate violence against nonviolent gun owners in an effort to disarm them.
Personally, I’m absotively shocked and disturbed that there are actually people out there who would rather the Peter McWilliams of the world die—chocking on their own vomit—than smoke a joint.
I honestly don’t think even a single position I hold is nearly as shocking as any of these “mainstream” positions. (My abortion position, which you know, might come close, however. And I only hold that position because natural law seems to dictate that I must, not because I want to shock people with it.)
Holding allegedly-“shocking” views is not an ends within itself, it is simply the result of sticking to, well, for me, sticking to what seems like the right positions to hold. How you express your ideas is what matters politically, aned what views you hold is what matters philosophically.
(3) My opposition to aggression is the precise thing that ultimately led me toward anarchism.
(4) I would not describe the Federal Reserve as a bogeyman any more than the Department of Education or the Food and Drug Administration. These are all simply unconstitutional federal departments that cause huge, unintended consequences, departments that require being abolished.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak
The LP: 39 years of basically NOTHING in the context of winning big elections. Perseverance is great, but most human beings want to see some RESULTS for all the hard work. I hear about ole Albert Einstein all the time, so shouldn’t it apply to the LP?
When a company or major brand comes on hard times, do they just keep plodding along or do they try to adjust or redefine the BRAND?
Isn’t it time for the LP to try a slight course correction and take a chance.
From my vantage point, “some” of the radicals in the LP are the most unwavering, restrictive, and anti-team players I have ever met. They are actually un-libertarian in their methods and reaction to change.
OK, I said it.
It’s not about purity, it’s about non-conformism. The “purity” of your beliefs is measured by how many people find them shocking.
Master Brian is absolutely correct. Hardcore libertarians don’t really believe in anything other than shocking neolibertarians.
Who could possibly be against the fantastic W.A.R.? Nobody could sincerely believe that Root would be a bad thing for libertarians.
Hardcore libertarians actually want less freedom and they want the entire libertarian movement to fail. Those who reject “Reagan libertarianism” and the transformation of the LP into a populist conservative organization appealing to talk radio listeners and tea party statists are obviously insane.
To suggest that some may have a hidden agenda to neutralize libertarianism by redefining long standing libertarian principles are plainly paranoid lunatics that thrive on being losers.
Root’s big tent strategy and numerous appearances have already proven to be a major success for the LP. Hoards of people like Bruce Olsen are joining everyday. Wes Benedict, obviously a man who envies Root and wants him to fail, is hiding the fact that Root has brought thousands and thousands of new members and big donors to the LP since he has been promoting his book for the last 9 months.
Like “Wake up people” says @ #36:
I sure hope we do have a next election. If you people don’t realize what is going on. It is going to take someone like Root to carry this burden and he already out there.
No one else has the clout or done what Root has done. No one else exceeded this far.
You just can’t argue with that.
Those were great responses and I agree the questions could have been worded more carefully.
It is obvious that some of the negative comments here, you people are afraid Root is going to succeed where it has not been done before. He is already doing it and has gone further than any of you negative people. You need to wake up as there is no more time to fiddle around and do nothing. I sure hope we do have a next election. If you people don’t realize what is going on. It is going to take someone like Root to carry this burden and he already out there.
No one else has the clout or done what Root has done. No one else exceeded this far.
Pragmatist, I was being sarcastic. When you hear someone carping that Root was merely looking for a smaller pond so he could be a big fish, it’s the sound of somebody who needs the LP to be a puddle.
It’s not about purity, it’s about non-conformism. The “purity” of your beliefs is measured by how many people find them shocking. If opposing aggression isn’t non-conformist enough for your psychological needs, you can add a side order of anarchism or bogeymen: “empire”, the Fed, the New World Order, the Trilateral Commission, 9/11, the Bilderberg Group. Then you’re guaranteed to be extraordinarily principled and insightful — just as special as your mother always said you were.
So just because Root has some money, is energetic, and is assertive, we need to “demand to audit” his books.
Sounds real libertarian to me.
I guess some of you guys want people with no money, no charisma, no contacts, etc to lead the party. Is it possible that some of you really do not want the LP to grow? I am trying to get my head and arms around that possibility. SO PURE that only a few would survive.
Tom @15, you’re quite right — I hadn’t thought of that. His strategy is good, then.
After thousands of media appearances promoting the LP, it’s clear that Root is just patiently waiting to betray the cause. How dare Root try to build a side career as a libertarian media star? Every libertarian knows that if one side of a voluntary association is profiting from it, the other side is clearly being exploited.
The only moral way to recognize revenue from libertarian activism is movement vampirism, sucking dues and donations out of the libertarian choir that you preach to. Authentic Libertarians™ wouldn’t get any of their six or seven books published by real publishers, and ranked high in any Amazon categories. They would self-publish their six or seven books through vanity presses or as e-books, and take pride in how they are destined to be ignored by the mainstream media that they wish would pay attention to their years of failed efforts to build a media-based career. And they would jealously and obsessively lash out at any libertarian who achieves any of the media success they wish they had. That’s how we could know Root is authentic.
NatCon delegates should demand to audit the profits that Root is surely making from the tens of thousands of hours and tens of thousands of miles he is investing in the LP.
Audit the W.A.R.! I’ll bring the sodium pentothal. Who’s got a polygraph?
How do you herd butterflies?
You plant butterfly bushes, or, better yet, Monarda.
My objective is to have the National Party support our volunteers, candidates, activists, and donors as they work on the parts of the Libertarian future that they choose to help build.
around, I agree. The Chair should not deviate directly against the platform. I’m more willing to see a candidate deviate, as is often done on the abortion issue, for ex.
Personally, I don’t see the platform as a marketing document so much. It’s mostly a tool for finding internal consensus, and a bit of a technical manual for prospective recruits.
I appreciate that Mr. Root has vision.
But, the primary job of a chair is to be a fair man who facilitates the organization and referees the factions so that they coexist in peace.
The last thing I want is someone with “vision” to start applying that visions to others. That is what will happen if that is the mindset of the chair.
People with centralized plans have a natural expectation that everyone is going to fall in line. When libertarians naturally resist, without concious malice, the situation breeds disappointment and resentment.
I want a decentralized, fair to all man or woman in that seat myself. A man with a plan for “turning it around” is a man with a plan for disaster.
#24 I largely agree with you, but then why have a platform if the Chair and other LNC officials can depart from it if they have other views?
Defend the platform in public and work to change it behind the scenes for the next convention.
So what is the choice guys?
Another 39 years waiting for the LP to win the big one. OR, take a chance on something different, while keeping ones’ principles.
HERE IS THE QUESTION: What would happen if the LP did start to grow, win elections, and was taken seriously? How would some of the members and activists really feel about that? They would suddenly not be so much of a “big fish” in the little pond. The pond would be a lake if we grew.
It works both ways.
Before anyone can put big money into the LP, there has to be something within the organization that justifies the contribution. Some of the states get it– they are fixing their organization and foundation FIRST and that makes it easier to get serious candidates and more fundriaising.
So maybe, just maybe, if the LNC and LP national can get it’s act together, it will encourage libertarian minded candidates and contributors to put their “toe in our water”.
I know plenty of people who’s impression of the LP is NOT kind, due to the whackos out there that have frankly tarnished the brand.
And if a brand has a bad rap, the consumer-voter will not buy or vote for it. Simple marketing 101. Again, the LP needs to clean up its image and then the voters will come.
if Root wanted lots of power and money, why would he choose the LP? … I could be making a ton more with much more prestige in the GOP.
This question has been asked and answered repeatedly.
Before his LP VP nominaiton, Root was a nobody in politics. He was mostly famous (barely) for his gambling and wealth-creation infomercial businesses.
Despite his book Millionaire Republican (which appears to be mostly about wealth-creation), Root was unknown in the GOP. A tiny minnow in a huge ocean.
By moving into the much smaller pond of the LP, Root became a bigger fish.
Seriously, do you think Root could have won the GOP VP nomination in 2008? Or even a senator or governor’s race nomination?
Root had to move to the LP to gain the political creds needed to segue his career into media/political punditry. He was unable to secure nearly as many media gigs during his GOP days.
To suggest that Root could have had more success in the GOP is false.
around, please say what you mean, because it surely isn’t clear.
In my ex., it appears you believe I’m suggesting something that is not prideful. If so, I’m not seeing it.
I AM personally proud that the LP allows for differences of opinion on complex questions, apparently despite the efforts of some plumbliners and dogmatists. My hypothetical represents the truth: That for example there’s a range of opinion on matters like the war in Afghanistan. The LNC — not the LP — has issued 2 resolutions on the issue in recent years, but those reflect the LNC’s view, not the party in convention.
I would, however, be embarrassed if the LP became a cult of thought, including my own!
I heard Wayne speak at the Ohio Libertarian Convention earlier this month. He is an impressive speaker, and even better in answerting written questions. To be honest my only reservation about him was that he was “too perfect”. The responses to this article show clearly that he is human, has made mistakes, and changed his mind. I like him better for it.
#20 If he could have “probably won” against Reid, then that’s what he should have done as that would have really put the LP on the map.
#18 A CEO needs to be, in public, proud of his product. I can’t see, say, the CEO of Coke saying, “you know, this Diet Coke taste is flawed and you shouldn’t buy it until I can persuade my r&d and marketing people to come around to my tastes.”
Q – Is there any truth to the rumor that Root’s “responses” were actually written by Aaron Starr and Brian Holtz?
A – Does it matter?
A – Lots of candidates use ghost writers.
A – You can’t clearly see that he wrote it?
Well, I can see the rumor I wanted to start is just going nowhere.
What about the issue of ibogaine addiction?
And nobody has asked the crucial question. When did Root quit beating his wife?
But seriously, kudos to Root for bringing Bruce Olsen into the LP!
http://www.bruceolsen4gov.com/themesong.htm
At this rate, it won’t be long before Michael Savage quits the Likud Party and joins the LP – on air!
Isn’t it true that Glenn Beck murdered a girl 14 years ago? Great rhetorical trick, but IF you’ve been involved with the LP for the last couple of years, EVERYONE knows Root’s speaking and writing style. You can’t clearly see that he wrote it?
Before everyone starts going off, you all should actually sit down and have a conversation with this guy. Not a speech, but a real conversation. These answers would not have surprised you.
Secondly, I am glad #10 was asked. (If most Libertarian Party members were asked half the questions Root gets thrown at him, they’d be gone. You’ve got to have thick skin in a party that enjoys leadership cannibalism.)
Frankly, if Root wanted lots of power and money, why would he choose the LP? I work for the LP, and I could be making a ton more with much more prestige in the GOP. I do this for the growth of the cause.
He has clearly put a lot of his own time and money in to traveling to national LP events to talk to libertarians, and stump for local parties to raise money. Most of the time, he’s met with 10 people and insulting questions. He could have stayed in NV, run against Harry Reid this year, and probably won!
Oh, but he asked the NV LP not to run someone against Reid! No, he asked the NV LP not to run Jim Libertarian somebody that was a convicted felon for not paying his taxes. Our party cannot run convicted felons. We have to break the stereotypes.
It’s the grown up view of how to run the party. When I joined in 2008 (because of Ron Paul), I was amazed how little this political party understands of running political organizations. It’s time to change that, become effective, and move our politics libertarian.
I was expecting some flamethrowing, but other than one “legend” this has been constructive. There might just be hope for the LP afterall. And the country and future needs a good dose of “hope” from somewhere.
war: If I do find myself in a position where I have to discuss a personal view at odds with an official stand, I would make it clear that my personal position is different than my Party’s.
me: All your answers were excellent, except this one. This is an excellent answer for a candidate for office, not so much for a chair. Let’s say the subject of Afghanistan comes up, and say that you don’t necessarily think exiting is the best course right now. Yet, the LNC has passed a resolution calling for immediate withdrawal.
I’d suggest keeping things a bit vaguer. If you said something like: “Ls have had a difficult time sorting out the Afghanistan war. Unlike the Rs and Ds, Ls are consistently against the US serving as a kind of world policeman, for a lot of good reasons…it’s expensive, it’s meddlesome, and war is hell, after all. People die, and die senselessly. The US SHOULD have learned its lessons in Vietnam, but we didn’t.
“But I’m not a pacificist, nor are Ls. When the US is attacked, we should respond, and respond forcefully to stop further attacks.”
I would not expect a L party official to necessarily cite each and every party line. I don’t expect you to be a robot, and sounding like a robot as party spokesperson is contra-indicated and inappropriate.
I’d heard rumors two years ago that Aaron Starr was ghost writing for Root.
Not because Root’s not a writer, but because Starr knows more about the LP’s internal culture, and preferred buzz words and sound bites.
I’ve no evidence if those rumors are true, but they’ve long circulated LP circles.
But Bruce Cohen can’t write too well, especially about issues that he cares too much about. He tends to lose cool and gets hysterical.
Tom Blanton // Apr 30, 2010:
“any truth to the rumor that Root’s “responses” were actually written by Aaron Starr and Brian Holtz?” [and Brian Cohen ……..]
Jeremy,
Root knows he’s not going to pick up Hancock’s supporters. That’s WHY he’s attacking Hancock.
By positioning himself as the anti-Hancock, Root is also positioning himself as the obvious second choice of — or even someone to go ahead and come over to for — Hinkle, Myers or Phillies supporters.
In a race with more than two major candidates, you attack the opponent you can’t woo supporters away from, not the opponent you hope to woo supporters away from.
Some of them read like Root’s writing style, and others don’t. To my eye, it looks like Root had someone else write or edit the more politically sensitive answers (the stuff about separating his personal views from his defense of the platform, for instance) and wrote the rest himself. In any case, all the answers are very good. The only mistake I think he makes is swiping at Hancock rather than Hinkle or Myers. Does he really think any Hancock supporters are going to consider him? He needs to win over the votes of the other guys.
What Nick said!
Lots of candidates use ghost writers.
Nobody who isn’t already a sycophant lets the candidate off the hook if the ghost writer makes him look like an asshole — so why should anyone object when the ghost writer makes him look good?
Does it matter?
It’s obvious that the responses to the questions here were more thoughtful and carefully crafted than other remarks made in person or on Facebook. I’m not going to hold it against a candidate if he gets help in crafting written responses or speeches.
However, when evaluating candidates, I take into account both prepared and extemporaneous remarks to get a whole picture of their views.
This changes little.
Root is still the rightist playing cootchie coo with the right.
Phillies is still the rad.
Vote rad &put the rightists in their place. membership only. Including Ron Paul.
Then reclaim the progressive vote from Obama.
Is there any truth to the rumor that Root’s “responses” were actually written by Aaron Starr and Brian Holtz?
It’s disappointing that Root is so much better at this than Ernie Hancock, who can’t even be bothered to respond to reasonable questions. Root, or his campaign staff, handled these like a champ.
I like Hancock, but he’s making a joke out of his campaign. One argument for Root/Rutherford is that they are the “grownups” who will run the party responsibly, while Hancock is the irresponsible blowhard who will run the party into the ground. Root shouldn’t be able to get away with this, since he’s been irresponsible in his public presentations lots of times (but not in this questionnaire, which, again, he handled like a champ), but amazingly Hancock is ceding that ground to him by being exactly the undisciplined blowhard he wants us to believe Root is.
Also, it’s interesting that Root seems to consider Hancock his main opponent, just as Hancock clearly considers Root his main opponent. Root’s comments in #3 about scaring away voters with radical and extreme language clearly weren’t aimed at Hinkle.
I agree Wayne Root’s responses were well written. It’s obvious he put some thought into them.
We have all been watching Wayne Root evolve and improve over time. I believe he has a lot of potential and much to give.
Regarding question #10, the crux of the question was not whether Wayne Root’s beliefs are private, but whether he is sincere in his beliefs.
I’m feeling sympathy though toward Chuck Moulton’s statement that he wishes he had asked the question in a more appropriate way. I completely understand. I have posted public comments, which on reflection I wish I had handled more diplomatically. It’s easy to let the heat of the moment get the best of you in the online world.
I have no doubt Wayne Root feels the same about some of his own previous comments.
Anyway, I really have to give Wayne Root credit for answering questions he was under no obligation to answer, from someone who is on record as being in support of another candidate for chair.
Perhaps most impressive to me about Root is how he is willing to listen to and seek counsel from those who have been less than polite with their criticisms toward him.
That bodes well for the party as a whole, if he should become chair.
Lastly, I would like to positively acknowledge those postings I have seen so far on this thread, which have been complimentary toward a person you might have otherwise found yourself in disagreement with in the past.
The instinct sometimes is to only seek out what’s wrong in someone’s response and not be constructive. On this thread I am witnessing a more charitable atmosphere. I hope that this is the beginning of a trend.
Thank you, all.
Brian Holtz wrote (article text):
I was referring to all questions (not just the last one) when I said the below.
Chuck Moulton (@14 in “George Phillies answers Chuck Moulton?s questions for Wayne Root”):
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/04/george-phillies-answers-chuck-moultons-questions-for-wayne-root/#comment-187340
Pretty good answers to some pretty tough questions, though the indignation in the last one was a little much, IMHO.
I agree with # 3 comment. Absolutely HORRIBLE marketing of the LP message. It seems like the LP activists want to talk about so many issues or go headlong into some divisive issue that scares off people. 95% of the population doesn’t understand the LP or even care, so HOW do you reach out to them? How do upstart companies become a household “brand name”.
If the LP and LNC could just realize that all of us have natural or god-given talents and it is important to put the correct people into the correct slots in an organization. If you have a tooth ache, will you go to a auto mechanic? If you have a bad oil leak in your car, will you go to the dentist? Heck NO.
So the answer is to put the pragmatic and articulate speakers, with some business and organization sense, on the front stage, and let the activists have fun at local events, rallies, petition events, etc. Everyone could participate, everyone could have fun, everyone could be the “round peg in the round hole”, and the organization would be better for it.
Come on LP, get your “crap” together– after 39 years, isn’t it time to win some big ones? In 1992 the Perot group passed you up, in 1996 it was the Reform Party, in 2008 it was Ron Paul, and now the Tea Party is doing it to you guys.
Einstein was right, the definition of “insanity” is doing it over and over again, and expecting a different result. That should apply to the LP.
Tom: “Pretty impressive responses.”
Agreed. I’ve criticized him before, but I must say he handled that interview deftly. And those aren’t exactly softball questions. Got to give credit where it’s due.
In question #3 Mr. Root replies; “Unfortunately very few voters know, understand or care about any of the LP’s principled or intellectual stands.”
And I will suggest that is because we have not done a good job at getting the word out.
Great answers!
Pretty impressive responses.
I do take issue with a couple of points.
The first, which I’ve gone into in some depth elsewhere, is that Root is some kind of stellar CEO. I won’t belabor the details yet again, but it’s an issue that the delegates should take a hard look at.
The second is this:
“First as a Libertarian, I believe a person’s choice of religion is a private and personal issue between that person and God. It is none of your business…and certainly none of government’s.”
The problem with this response is that it wasn’t Chuck Moulton who brought Root’s religion into the debate. It was Root himself.
Root put God on the front cover and in the subtitle of his book The Conscience of a Libertarian.
In that book, he asserted the following:
“This revolution cannot happen without the support of God-fearing religious Christians …”
“God is the foundation of my life.”
“Like most people, I am comforted by the idea of our electing public officials who are religious God-fearing and loving men and women. That is generally good for the United States because moral people are less likely to bring about a corrupt government.”
My purpose here is not to argue for or against any of those statements, but simply to point out that Wayne Allyn Root made those statements, made them publicly, and made them as part and parcel of his personal political pitch. That makes them fair game for Moulton’s inquiry.
Even if he had not done so, it’s a simple fact of life that a politician’s religion may be asked about.
Mitt Romney’s a Mormon, and that was an issue in his 2008 presidential campaign.
Barack Obama’s choice of church/minister was put under the microscope in that same election cycle.
When helping Steve Kubby in his own campaign for the LP’s 2008 presidential nomination, I made sure he had answers at the ready for questions about his stated religion (Taoism) and about his previous employment by a church (he worked as a diver for the Church of Scientology — no, he was not a Scientologist). Those questions were never asked, but screaming “off limits” or claiming to be insulted if they had been would have been a non-starter.