More of the bigotry of Wayne Allan Root.

The con man Wayne Allen Root is at it again, besmirching the libertarian label with conservative verbal vomit. The man is a fraud and if the Libertarian Party had an ounce of decency they would boot him out on his fat ass.

Root has a piece that is anti-private property and collectivistic to the core. And he does it while labeling himself as “one of America’s leading Libertarian thinkers.” For the record, I doubt even Root is so stupid as to think he is one of America’s leading libertarian thinkers. Actually he probably knows he not even a libertarian.

Some Muslims are building a center, which includes a mosque, in New York. It will be a couple of blocks away from the site of the Twin Towers. Root is against the idea because: “there are also rights and sensibilities of others to consider in a free society.” Of course, the rights of others are to be respected. But building a mosque doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, no matter how much it offends Mr. Root. No rights are being violated. As for violating sensibilities: what does that mean? Some people, especially the bigoted, are easily offended. Tough shit: in a free society you don’t have a right to go unoffended. And if you are a conservative, like Root, you are usually easily offended. Deal with it.

Root condemns the building of the mosque because it “does nothing to increase religious freedom. “ No it doesn’t and it isn’t obliged to. He says that a mosque instead “inspires hatred, divides our cultures and increases the odds of violence and hate crimes.” Hell, build a Baptist church and the same damn thing happens. But private property is private property and the state has no right to prevent a church, or a mosque, from being built—nor should it.

Root offers lots of bullshit, but then bullshit is his specialty. He says that building it is a sign of disrespect and means to “belittle us.” Who is “us?” I don’t feel belittled or disrespected. And like offense, you have no inherent right to respect. People are free to disrespect you if they wish; they just aren’t free to violate your life, liberty or property.

Root says this center “is to show Muslim contempt for Americans by building a monument to Islam in the shadow of their greatest triumph over America.” Give that some thought for a second. Yes, fanatical Muslims did a horrific thing in the name of their religion. But is there a universal guilt for all Muslims? To call that terrorist attack “their greatest triumph,” and to mean Muslims, is pure, raw, bigoted collectivism.

Mr. Root is a Jew. The Israeli military attacked the USS Liberty in what can only be described as a terrorist attack. Does that action by Israel, mean all Jews are somehow guilty? Obviously not. All Germans aren’t responsible for the atrocities of the Nazis. All whites are not guilty for the attacks of the Klan or Jim Crow laws. All Afrikaners are not responsible for apartheid.

There is no such thing as collective guilt. Hitler preached an anti-Semitic message that was built on the concept of collective guilt for all members of a specific religious minority. Mr. Root, by claiming that the attack of some terrorists was a triumph for Islam, is engaging in the same disgusting form of bigotry as Julius Streicher and his fellow Nazi propagandists.

I have no sympathy for Islam. Nor for that matter do I care about Judaism or Christianity, or any of the inherently intolerant sects of monotheism. It is just wrong, however, to paint all Christians with one brush, or all Jews, or all Muslims. It is a crude form of collectivism and it is irrational.

I dislike Christian theology because I think it is wrong, stupid, and potentially dangerous. I say the same for Judaism and the same for Islam. But I would never say that all Christians are dangerous; all Jews are a threat, or all Muslims are out to get us.

I do think fundamentalism, in all three sects is particularly dangerous. But most Christians are not fundamentalists. Most Muslims were not responsible for 9/11. Most Jews are not responsible for the USS Liberty attack, not even most Israelis are responsible.

As usual the big mouth, self-absorbed con man from Vegas doesn’t even bother to check out the facts. The center being built is called Cordoba House and does house a mosque along with many other things. It is the work of a Muslim cleric who wanted a community center where Muslims and people of other faiths can meet together. The name Cordoba was picked after the Spanish city where Christians, Jews and Muslims once lived together in peace. It is a repudiation of the sort of fanaticism that we saw on 9/11, and the sort of knee-jerk reactionary thinking of Right-wing bigots like Root.

Cordoba House promotes itself as place for interfaith cooperation and social interaction to help promote tolerance and friendship. It is moderate Islam at work. The intolerant fanatics are two-bit charlatans like Root.

Conservatives have been demanding that tolerant Muslims step forward and work in opposition to the fundamentalists—something conservatives themselves refuse to do when it comes to Christian intolerance. Now that such Muslims have done precisely this the Right wing, including faux libertarians like Root, are up in arms over it. Just as decent Muslims need to disassociate themselves from intolerant fanatics, as Cordoba House is doing, so too must decent libertarians repudiate the immature thinking of fake libertarians like Root.

Fake libertarians propose alliance with conservatives.

The con man from Vegas is still lurking around the shell of the Libertarian Party trying to promote a conservative agenda for the LP. Wayne Allen Root, a conservative, keeps promoting himself as the leading LP contender in the next election. The only evidence for that, to date, is his own fertile imagination where he constantly imagines himself as being what he is not.

Root wants the (formerly) Libertarian Party to officially become part of a conservative coalition “to take back America from Obama and his socialist agenda.” Really, only a moron thinks the problem is a socialist agenda. It isn’t. Sure Obama wants socialism. But the problem is a statist agenda, a desire to have Big Government. And the conservatives, who had power for much of the last 30 years, have NEVER pushed through smaller government.

Root wants a coalition of conservatives, who by definition are statists, to join the LP. How will the LP manage this? Clearly the only way to appeal to conservatives is to strip the last vestiges of libertarianism from the party. The LP, to a large extent, has become nothing more than a home for failed conservatives who haven’t a clue.

Root defines “moderate Republicans” as part of the problem. So apparently those Republicans who are not “moderate” are to be our coalition partners. Who exactly would that be, Mr. Root? Root promises that his right-wing book, the misnamed Conscience of a Libertarian, explains what issues the coalition will run on. Remember that book—the one that avoids the war on drugs but worries about gambling (because Root made his living conning gamblers into buying his “advice” on how to lose money more efficiently). His was the book that didn’t mention foreign policy at all.

Libertarianism, under the make-over from Root and the traitors who run the Party, is libertarianism stripped of its non-interventionist foreign policy and with civil liberties underplayed to such a large degree that it is a joke to pretend they are even there. Root wants a libertarianism that is just another version of the failed conservative policies that destroyed the Republican Party.

Roots new policy on immigration is one, which he says, will allow only “skilled upper middle class immigrants [well you can't come out and say "whites only" anymore] with assets of $250,000 or more, to move to America—thereby ending our foreclosure crisis, housing crisis, and national debt crisis, all at one….” Let’s explore this piece of bullshit for a minute.

First, why exactly should only “upper middle class” people be allowed to immigrate to America? That policy, I note would have kept out Root’s own ancestors from America—okay, so that’s a point in its favor. But the same policy would have meant that Milton Friedman would have been born under Soviet control and Ayn Rand would have died in World War II. Interestingly the jobs that go unfilled in America are not the high-paying jobs for the upper middle-class but the more menial work that many immigrants yearn to do. But Root's racism, which is never far below the surface, won't let them in—after all, they're, you know, brown people.

What is Root’s solution? He wants to start pumping up the housing bubble again by forcing immigrants to spend at least $250,000 on a home in order to be allowed into the United States. The whole purpose of this is to use state coercion to force people to purchase houses and to try to push the values back up. State intervention created the housing bubble and Root, in the name of libertarianism, wants to use more state intervention to re-inflate the bubble. The housing crisis he refers to is the bubble created by political hacks pandering to popular wants—which is what Root is doing. The foreclosure crisis hits those people who were pushed into buying property which they weren’t ready to purchase, by the easy terms of government. That problem, sadly for the people involved, has been solved.

How will forcing another group of people to buy houses, that they apparently don’t want, do anything to help the people who lost homes? And how does this end the debt problem? I also have to ask how Root thinks this ends a “Social Security crisis”? The way to end a social security crisis is to end social security. What is Root’s view? Save it with reforms.

In fact Root says he doesn’t want to end several major failed government programs at all. That’s the old libertarian view, not the new Root view. He says he wants to “reform Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid…” Like the conservatives who sold out America, Root wants to reform Big Government, not end it. George Bush told conservatives that big government was their friend. Root is doing a watered down version of the same thing with libertarians.

In one of his supposedly glib moments Root did touch upon “sin,” by which it appears he means social freedom. He described the Nevada “approach” as “legalize it, regulate it, and tax it.” So Root apparently thinks regulation and new taxes are the way to promote social freedom.

Root has also been publicizing an “endorsement of his book” by John Hospers, who was the LP presidential candidate in 1972. That campaign didn’t mean much at the time. Hospers was on only two ballots. Dogcatchers got more votes than Hospers. And Hospers was inactive in the LP from that point onward. Hospers constantly drifted to the Right and fought libertarian impulses. Today, I fear he has few such impulses.

He has always been a weak libertarian, even at his best. His natural inclination is toward conservatism and in his senectude he has literally gone off the deep end. What value Hospers once had, has been more than undone by his war-mongering attitudes, views that have only beome worse as Hospers ages. Now in his 90s, he has basically repudiated libertarianism in practice.

Consider Hospers’ previous endorsement. Before Hospers was praising Root, he was sending out praise for another one of his heroes: George W. Bush. Hospers, who has joined the anti-immigration racists, did criticize Bush for “failing to protect our borders.” Consider, however, that so-called border protection has made it harder for Americans to travel freely. Not a single terrorist crossed our border illegally. but by “securing our borders.” Hospers and other conservatives have stripped Americans of their freedoms. Thank's John, we appreciate it. Now go away.

Hospers praised Bush for taking steps to “protect us” from “weapons of mass destruction, including ‘suitcase’ nuclear devices.” In other words, Hospers repeated the lies told by the Bush administration to justify an attack on a nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Hospers went so far as to basically exonerate the odious Patriot Act, saying that opposition to it was “based more on hysteria and political opportunism than on reality.” This is not libertarianism. John Hospers may have written a book on the topic when he was much younger, but the John Hospers of today is NO libertarian, but a hawkish conservative. His endorsement of Root ought to be an indication of just how bad Root is. As I see it Hospers endorsed Bush, the Patriot Act and Wayne Root. Three destructive forces to liberty, what a record John!

That Root is proud of the support he is getting from Hospers is an indication of how clueless Root is about the history of libertarianism. Otherwise he would know that the last endorsement from Hospers was for the disastrous, destructive George W. Bush. But, no surprises there, Root had endorsed Bush as well. This is how far the libertarian movement has sunk.

Hospers, closer to 100 than to 80, was never that good. So, at least his advanced age gives him an excuse for making stupid decisions. He can call it a "senior moment." Unfortunately, his "senior moment" has lasted decades. Root, was never a libertarian, so that he gets libertarianism wrong is no surprise either. But what excuse do the party hacks at the national level have for betraying libertarianism and trying to turn the LP into a haven for has-been Republicans, who want the “libertarian” label but not libertarian policies?

Under the current national chairman and some of the officers who run the party, the Libertarian Party has ceased being libertarian. It is unlikely it will ever become libertarian again. My guess is that is headed for a long, steady decline (though that has been obvious for some time). The type of candidates that the LP runs will become more statist with each passing election. Some will be outright bigots, but that has already happened. The LP will adopt the hateful message of social conservatives and try to win the Religious Right over to their side by abandoning all support for civil liberties and social freedom. It will eventually become the last haven for the dying remnants of the Moral Majority, a retirement home for has-been theocrats, social conservatives, klanners and sundry bigots and hate-mongers. These are the disgusting types that Root is already getting cozy with. For another example of Root's barely concealed racism go here.

Oddly, in that sense, the LP may save the Republican Party. As the LP moves further away from libertarianism, into the intolerant, Right-wing camp, it will start to attract the dwindling numbers of fundamentalists that are in the Republican Party. The LP will basically draw out the infection that ruined the GOP. Unfortunately the LP will continue to destroy the “libertarian” brand in the process. But with the poisonous bigots and religious morons in the LP maybe the Republicans will discover small government. I wouldn’t count on it, but it might happen. Either way the LP is irrelevant, and the fastest way for the party to prove that it is a destructive force for liberty, is to endorse a conservative like Root.

Photo: Wayne Root along with some of the national officers of the Libertarian Party, discussing how to make the LP more fragrant to the public.

The Conscience of a Bullshit Artist.

I have the unpleasant task of reading Wayne Root’s misnamed book, The Conscience of a Libertarian. The title is, of course, just a rip-off of The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater. There was no need to change titles since Root’s work is clearly the work of a conservative, not a libertarian. Root remains a pretender, a conservative in libertarian clothing.

Early in the book Root defines himself as a “Libertarian conservative.” That is more telling than he would care. First, note that the term “libertarian” is modifying the term conservative. His main identity is that of a conservative not that of a libertarian. A “conservative libertarian” is someone who says they are foremost a libertarian with some conservative sentiments. A “libertarian conservative” is the opposite: someone who is mostly a conservative with some libertarian sentiments.

There is another telling point to Root’s self-labeling. He uses the term “Libertarian” instead of “libertarian.” A big L libertarian is merely a member of the Libertarian Party and these days that is no indication as to whether or not they are libertarian in political terms. The small l libertarian is someone who is a libertarian philosophically. Root identified himself as a “Libertarian conservative” not a “libertarian conservative.” This is even weaker that what I mentioned in the previous paragraph. Here he is not actually claiming to be a libertarian philosophically, merely a Libertarian Party member who is a conservative.

Of course, the whole thing could be imprecise writing and bad editing. Root is no intellectual and it shows. He is a loud-mouthed, brash, self-promoting individual with all the charms of a cross between a used car salesman and Richard Nixon, just without the principles.

Early in the book, Root dismisses discussing issues that separate libertarians from conservatives: social freedom. He does talk about taxes, and taxes, and more taxes. Social freedom is not something he talks about, but then he doesn’t want his conservative, anti-libertarian views too obvious while he tries to con the desperate and dying Libertarian Party into nominating him for President. Consider how Root addresses social freedom:

As a Libertarian, I believe that social and personal freedom issues are quite simply States’ Rights issues. …These issues are none of the federal government’s darn business. Voters should decide these issues on the state and local level.”

There is nothing libertarian about that position. That is a conservative through and through.

Libertarians, by which I mean philosophical libertarians, not LP members, believe in individual rights not states’ rights. No decent libertarian would argue that the rights of anyone should be put up to majority vote of the public. But Root is no decent libertarian; hell; he’s not even an indecent libertarian.

What Root is doing is trying to hide social conservative values by sweeping that entire category of issues under the rug. We will hide social issues behind the mantra of “state’s rights” instead of addressing them. Libertarians have NEVER supported the violation of rights as long as it is the states that are violating those rights. That view is classic conservative thinking and was quite popular with the Dixiecrats, the racist Democrats who wanted to use state law to oppress blacks. Root is speaking in the tradition of Strom Thurmond, not Lysander Spooner.

Root is also ignoring an important question: what should the states do about these matters? Even if he is merely a Libertarian, and not a libertarian, the LP still has state affiliates and those affiliates must take stands on censorship, equality of rights for gays, separation of church and state, and other issues that Root avoids. What stand should they take, Mr. Root? When Root first floated the idea that he was the great savior of the LP, his web site did take stands on social issues and the stands I saw were very conservative. That was losing Root some support. So he pulled the same sort of trick pioneered by that other social conservative, Ron Paul. He called social freedom a state’s rights issue and then ignored it. Easier to keep conservatives happy and hide his true views.

Mr. Root also seems to be taken aim at the many agnostics and atheists that are in the Libertarian Party—including most of the LP presidential candidates, until the conservatives took over. Root says he is “comforted by the idea of our electing public official who are religious God-fearing and love men and women.” Apparently atheists like John Hospers (the first LP presidential candidate) or Ed Clark (the most successful LP presidential candidate) make Root uncomfortable. Worse, Root then equates morality with religion implying that non-religious people are immoral and corrupt. He says that electing “God-fearing” candidates is good for America “because moral people are less likely to bring about a corrupt government.” (Sort of like the non-corrupt, good government of George Bush, right Mr. Right?)

Never before has someone, who was an LP national candidate, taken a swipe at non-believers, implying that because they are not religious they are more likely to be immoral and corrupt. Elsewhere, Root claims he is the perfect candidate because he isn’t an atheist. “I’m the perfect political figure to lead this fight because of who I am. I’m not an atheist. I’m not a liberal, I’m not anti-religion. To the contrary, I’m a proud family man and patriot who strongly supports God, religion and prayer.” Notice he did not include, “I’m not a conservative.”

Root then goes into a discussion of marriage where he proves he is historically as adept as he is philosophical adept. In other words he is totally incompetent. He claims “After the abolishment of slavery, some states began licensing marriages in order to prevent blacks and whites from marrying each other. Prior to this, marriage was a religiously defined institution.” Both of these claims are false. State regulation of marriage goes back to the 1500s and was pushed by the Protestant Reformers who said marriage was a state institution more than a religious one. It was not the result of the abolition of slavery.

And prior to the Reformationists inviting the state to take over, marriage was primarily a non-religious, secular event. It was governed by custom and the will of those involved but not regulated by either church or state. Martin Luther wrote: “Since marriage has existed from the beginning of the world and is still found among unbelievers, there is no reason why it should be called a sacrament of the New Law and of the church alone.” Luther wanted state control over the matter but acknowledged it was primarily a non-religious institution predating the church. Root doesn’t know his history any more than he knows libertarianism.

In Root’s long diatribe about God and morality he seems to be saying that it is a bad idea to have government enforced morality. But how does that jive with his claim that these are all state issues? At first it appears he is saying that government, at any level, should not take on the role of moral enforcer. But that is not the case. He actually qualifies his position by saying: “Do not ask or demand that the federal government impose your choice and values on the rest of us.” It is only Nanny statism at the federal level that offends him. This remains consistent with his stated position that voters have the right to dictate morality at the state level. In the world of Wayne Root, individual rights may be determined by popular vote at the state level.

Social freedom issues are not quite entirely ignored, though they may well have been. He has a short section on medicinal marijuana but little about the destructive effects of the war on drugs as a whole. There appears to be one paragraph in the entire book on this topic. He does have a chapter called The End of Prohibition but that isn’t about drugs. That is about the laws regulating gambling. Root is in the gambling business so his “ principled” stand here is not surprising. True principled libertarians defend the rights of people they don’t like. Mr. Root never does that.

Root has almost nothing to say about civil liberties and social freedom. Also missing is any discussion of foreign policy and the war on terror. Surely the war and the hysteria about terrorists have justified more big brother measures in recent years than anything else. And Root has not a single word to say about them. He doesn’t defend the traditional libertarian foreign policy of non-interventionism. But then Root was a pro-war cheerleader before, who only shut up about it when he realized it might hurt his desire to be an LP candidate. There is nothing condemning the Patriot Act, nothing condemning torture of individuals by the US government, nothing about indefinite incarceration of prisoners by the federal government.

The only things Root talks about are conservative talking points. He avoids most social issues and all issues of foreign policy. He will rant about affirmative action, which pales in significance to foreign policy. He spends page after page on taxes but says nothing about repealing the Patriot Act and bringing the troops home. Root’s book is purely a marketing gimmick. It is not meant to explain libertarianism. How could it? Root has no idea what that term means. The whole purpose of the book is to convince conservatives to complete the take-over of the Libertarian Party and nominate the con man from Nevada for President.

UPDATE: This con man conservative is now trying to become the National Chairman of the Libertarian Party. As hopeless as that party is, no one deserves that fate. The selection of candidates running is not a very good one. But then who really wants to captain the Titanic at the last minute? George Phillies appears to be the best of the lot even though I think he's wrong on global warming and boring as shit. Mark Hinkle is someone I've personally liked but I believe he may be too closely allied with some of the worst, most unprincipled elements in the LP, but I might be wrong on that. Ernie Hancock has more loose screws than your local hardware store. The one merciful thing about a Root win in that race would be that it would speed up the demise of the party. The damn this is dead already, for god's sake bury it and get on with something productive.

The scum seeking the Libertarian Party nomination.

If you think Bob Barr was a disaster, his con man second in command, Wayne Root is even worse. This man is NO libertarian, never has been, and I suspect, never will be. Root is merely a self-promoter with no self worth promoting. He thinks he deserves the LP's nomination. He deserves a kick in the ass but little else.

Radley Balko, an editor at Reason, recently spoke to the Nevada LP convention. For some reason the Nevada LP decided to scrap the bottom of the barrel and have Root as a speaker. Here is Balko's report and his views on Root.

At both events, my own speech was preceded by a speech from Wayne Allyn Root, the party’s candidate for vice president in 2008, and who has apparently already made himself a candidate for the 2012 nomination.

I won’t comment on the bulk of Root’s speeches, because I was invited to both events as a speaker, not as a journalist or a blogger. But I will comment on one thing Root mentioned in both speeches, because it’s essentially public information. In touting his ability to win high-profile media coverage, Root mentioned in both speeches that he is now a weekly commentator on Michael Savage’s weekly radio show.

I’m not a member of the Libertarian Party, so perhaps my advice doesn’t mean much to them. But I’m going to give it, anyway:

Stop this, now. Either persuade Root to stop going on Savage’s show, or show Root the door. I’m all about building coalitions where appropriate. But there’s nothing remotely appropriate about Michael Savage.

Michael Savage is a raving bigot. He regularly uses phrases like “turd-world countries” and “ghetto slime.” He once wished rape on a group of high school girls who make trips into San Francisco to feed the homeless. He’s a blood-thirsty warmonger, and a feverish culture warrior. He once said on the air that, “”When I hear someone’s in the civil rights business, I oil up my AR-15!” On social issues, he’s far to the right of just about every elected Republican official I can think of. He has wished AIDS and death on homosexuals. He regularly denigrates drug users. He is virulently anti-immigration. In short, there’s nothing remotely libertarian about him.

If Root’s aim is to take the LP in the direction of Michael Savage, the LP should distance themselves from Root right now.

There’s nothing honorable to be gained from this.

MORE: It’s worth noting that Root features his Savage commentaries at the very top of his website. I don’t really care how many listeners Savage has. He’s vile, and hostile to any reasonable conception of libertarianism.

For some more background go here. We should be clear, Mr. Root is not remotely libertarian. He is a far right conservative who opposes libertarianism. He was brought into the party by a handful of cockroaches at the LP national office and National Committee. What stars they are for stabbing libertarianism in the back. I personally believe the LP is not just worthless it is now destructive to libertarian ideas. That a bigoted bullshitter like Root can run around LP circles says enough. Per my previous article on regrets --- I deeply, deeply regret ever contributing a dime to the LP, I deeply regret having ever been an LP candidate. I deeply regret helping petition to put LP candidates on the ballot. I deeply regret ever voting for the party. None of this will ever happen again.

I urge you to let your local Libertarian Party know that if they support Root that you will oppose the party with all your might. The LP is a fucking embarrassment.

For the record. Our state LP needs voter registrations to retain ballot status. Even though I had the registration card in front of me I refused to do it. If you are registered to vote as a Libertarian you can change to independent, and let the LP know why. The LP needs to lose ballot status is as many states as possible. Maybe they'll wake up. My guess is that bigots like Root, however, will keep trying to use the party for self-promotion. One thing about losing so many elections is you end up attracting losers.