TheAgitator.com
Badnarik
Sunday, October 24th, 2004My Fox column last week laid out the limited government case against both John Kerry and President Bush (yeah, I know, it’s like standing near a barrel). The headline included the word “libertarian.”
This apparently caused quite a bit of consternation in the Badnarik camp, because I didn’t mention him in the article. Commenters over at the Badnarik campaign blog came up with all sorts of conspiracy theories, including that Fox paid me not to mention him, Fox editors edited out any mention of him, and that I’m part of a Big Media conspiracy to shut out third party candidates (which is completely insane, given the actual content of the article).
They also sent about 300 emails of varying degrees of nastiness to my inbox.
I’ll start by saying Fox had nothing to do with why Badnarik didn’t appear in the article. I consciously chose not to mention him, for several reasons. Those reasons?
First, both Fox and my current employer would present problems to me formally endorsing any candidate for president in a column — Fox because it’s against policy, Cato because of Cato’s non-profit status.
Second, the column never purported to be a review of all the available candidates, but rather an attempt to point out to increasingly shrill partisans on either side of this election that the two major candidates really aren’t all that different. I realize the headline made the Badnarik omission more conspicuous, but I don’t write the headlines, or even get the opportunity to approve them.
Third, by the time I laid out the case against Kerry and Bush, I was at 1,100 words in a column that’s recommended to stay under 800. I simply didn’t have space to get to the third party candidates.
Which brings me to the final reason. If I had brought Badnarik up, I would then have had to explain why I won’t be voting for him, and why I think he and the LP are, to say the least, poor messengers for libertarianism. Sorry. But that’s what I think. And rather than air libertarian dirty laundry in public, I thought I’d just explain why neither Bush nor Kerry is a viable option in the Fox piece, and leave it that. Let people draw their own conclusions (incidentally — about a dozen people wrote to tell me that the column convinced them to vote for LP this time around).
Given how close this election is, even if Badnarik does worse than Harry Browne did in 2000, there’s a small chance that the LP could draw enough votes in a few states to tilt the outcome one way or the other. Should that happen, both Badnarik and the LP could get more media exposure than the LP’s gotten in years. I’m sorry, but I’m just not convinced that either Badnarik or the LP speaking on behalf of libertarianism to a national audience with limited exposure to the ideology would ultimately be good for libertarianism, the philosophy.
This is a guy who gives seminars advocating that the federal income tax is optional, who refuses to use zip codes, who says he’d blow up the UN building “after giving occupants a week to vacate,” who has equated FDR to Hitler, and who suggested we chain convicted felons to their beds until their muscles atrophy.
It gets worse. For more, check here and here.
I’ll gladly cast my ballot with the LP when the LP offers a candidate who isn’t an embarassment to libertarianism.
Lots of people I know and respect are voting for Badnarik, though mostly for purposes of message-sending, or out of a sense of irony.
I really had no intention of bashing Badnarik or the LP. In fact, when I turned in the column I specifically told my editor at Fox that I didn’t mention Badnarik because I didn’t want to have to explain why I couldn’t vote for him. I think libertarians spend too much time hitting each other over the head over the few internal things we disagree on as it is. But in comments on this blog and the Badnarik blog, as well as in a flood of email, the Badnarniks have demanded a public explanation for my heresy.
So there you have it.
Flame away.
Non-endorsement watch: Badnarik edition
Radley Balko and Tyler Cowen both explain why they wonââ¬â¢t be voting for Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. Balko: Iââ¬â¢m sorry, but Iââ¬â¢m just not convinced that either Badnarik or the LP speaking on behalf of libertarianism to a nati…
Fear not the flame for most small “l” libertarians feel the same way you do. Its kind of funny and ironic that a group of people getting so worked up about the two party system would give so much crap to someone for not “keeping party line” and endorsing Badnarik. The LP really isn’t really any different then the GOP or DNC party trumps ideas.
Rather then being happy that ideas they support are reaching a broad audience they are pissed that you refuse to endorse their candidate.
I’ll vote for Badnarik but I’ll be holding my nose too. My primary concern for showing up at the polls will be to support my local LP candidates.
I don’t blame you for not voting Badnarik when he clearly does have radical ideas and is completely unprepared to be President, but would you not agree that people’s votes for him might might put some pressure on the Republicans to get back to their economic/small government roots?
The Libertarian Party will never be taken seriously with a candidate like Badnarik. Good luck having your cause heard with a nut like that running the show.
DC Mike, “than”, not “then”.
Kevin, so support your local LP candidates and don’t vote for Badnarik.
James, I’m ideologically opposed to strategic voting. It only encourages prevailing mentalities that there are only two viable parties (and that only parties are viable in the first place).
Lt, that’s why I’m not a member of any party anymore. The name will always be usurped by those who share few or no ideals with me.
But you did title it “Libertarians…” and you did mention Nader.
It does seems weird not to mention even his name.
Right On
I have a lot of issues with Radley Balko. I could even be seen as a borderline Balko basher. (I don’t see myself that way, but I can see how someone who just reads my comments on his site could…
The point you make about being embarrassed by some of Badnarik’s positions is absolutely valid, he has some stuff that would get him laughed out of any serious political discussion. The problem is, any candidate that the LP could run would have positions that would appear that way to many. Even something as basic and defensible as the drastic reduction of the welfare state is completely unpalatable to mainstream America. The Republicans have long since quit making attempts at being genuinely economically conservative in part for this very reason. I’m afraid that we’re eventually going to have to take a stand and put a candidate out there in spite of this fact that we can all get behind. But I’ll concede that Badnarik’s probably one step too far out there to be that candidate.
The irony is that I’ve seen and heard the word “libertarian” correctly used in mainstream political discussion (NPR, CNN, Fox, WashPost, NYT, etc.) more during this election than in any other in the past. It’s frustrating to think that alienated and/or curious undecideds might hear all the talk about “libertarians” this year, then check out the LP and discover that Badnarik isn’t a viable candidate.
As someone who remembers the LP having Ron Paul as a candidate (and nearly nominating Earl Ravenal), and whose brother is running for congress on the LP ticket, it’s sad to think how much the LP might have reaped this year if we’d not turned so completely inward over the past two decades.
To Matthew
Unfortunately voting for Badnarik is supporting my local LP because the number of delegates at convention is determined by how many votes the presidential candidate receives. I know its sad, but I actually hope Badnarik does well in my state so we can hopefully prevent this kind of disaster from happening again in the future!
I have no problems with your column. It is my long held opinion that libertarianism is about freedom of choice.
I can’t vote for Badnarik either. But it’s because of Oklahoma law. I couldn’t run for congress this year by act of the legislature of Oklahoma. In Oklahoma we have no way to know how many voters agree with you, or me, or any other libertarian.
So we go back to the courts again where we have won over and over inch by inch.
I maintain the expectation that I will have the opportunity to appear on the ballot in Oklahoma in 2006.
I’m a Libertarian Party member and I also wish they’d chosen someone other than Badnarik - of those who ran for the LP nomination, I preferred Gary Nolan, who would’ve come across as more respectable and less off-the-wall. But who cares whether Badnarik uses ZIP codes? That’s a foolish criticism. And if the guy has the guts to refuse to pay income tax, good for him! Because I live in a swing state (Ohio), I will probably vote for Bush. I’d rather have him get Ohio’s electoral votes than that lying socialist nut Kerry. But if I lived in a state that was a slam-dunk one way or the other — like California, New York, Massachusetts, Texas or Wyoming — I’d surely be voting Libertarian.
Admittedly, I’ve not looked closely at Badnarik, but from what Radley has related here, it’s probably just as well. The list of statements from Badnarik in this post sounds a lot like the fringe-of-the-flag/militia-movement garbage we saw in the 1990’s.
Regarding the article — I do agree with Radley’s assertion: because we have delegated so much power and authority to the office of President, the wrong man in the office could do a lot of damage to the nation … even if the opposing party controls Congress.
Let me add a couple of other points against gridlock (I was once a supporter of it, in the 1990’s):
>It may slow down some forms of government spending, but does little to nail the pork barrel shut. And the spending that pours out of that barrel is some of the stupidest and most self-serving misuses of our money to come out of Congress. We saw that in 1998 — and it was misplaced military spending, at the direction of Gingrich and Lott, that turned me into an independent.
> It does slow down the ability of government to further intrude into our lives … but it also makes it easy for a relative few to turn important decision points into political-football games, delaying our ability to resolve problems that are the proper purview of government.
Add the two points above to the power of the MSM to steer the agenda (between elections, at least) and influence public opinion, and gridlock doesn’t look that good, IMO.
We saw how long it was effective in the 1990’s … its effectiveness ended when Clinton (with the aid of the MSM) called Newt’s bluff about the government shutdown. That was the point where the pursuit of major elements of the conservative agenda (such as eliminating government departments like Education) began to seriously break down.
I’ve discussed the answer at length before — how we must end the political Cold War we have created, by reducing one, then the other, political party, into insignificance –so I’ll stop for now.
Why I am not voting for Badnarik, Part II
Radley Balko says it all. Make sure you click through all the thinks. Here’s a taste of what you’ll find,…
joel:
Apparently, you didn’t read very carefully:
“I don’t write the headlines, or even get the opportunity to approve them.”
And…
“rather than air libertarian dirty laundry in public, I thought I’d just explain why neither Bush nor Kerry is a viable option in the Fox piece, and leave it that… when I turned in the column I specifically told my editor at Fox that I didn’t mention Badnarik because I didn’t want to have to explain why I couldn’t vote for him. I think libertarians spend too much time hitting each other over the head over the few internal things we disagree on as it is.”
John H.
I’m sorry, but I’m just not convinced that either Badnarik or the LP speaking on behalf of libertarianism to a national audience with limited exposure to the ideology would ultimately be good for libertarianism, the philosophy.
You’d rather libertarianism never be known to a national audience unless that breakout day is completely unembarassing to your affiliation with libertarianism.
But you’d seriously consider voting for Kerry.
Who’s embarrassing the libertarian philosophy more?
tough call.
I saw Mr. Badnarik’s speech here at the University of Michigan last week. He talked about conscription, the War on Everything, and constitutionality. I was somewhat overwhelmed at the time just because it was wonderful to hear something even vaguely libertarian in Ann Arbor - not to mention people actually applauding.
He was quite extreme, though. For instance, he said he would pull troops immediately out of Iraq. No exit strategy. Just anarchy.
I guess I consider myself a moderate libertarian - if there is such a thing.
The more I think about it, the more fringe-tinfoil-hat-wacko-ish he seems. He has my vote, if only to send Republicans a message, but I’m not so enthusiastic about the man himself, or the Party.
Libertas,
Perhaps Radley is more concerned about the triumph of ideas than the triumph of candidates. I know this is a novel concept for everyone who lives in the world of political factionalism, but parties and people change. The Republican party of Lincoln is no longer the Republican Party.
It was the triumph of certain ideas within diverse segments of the population that caused that realignment. Ideas are more permanent and they continue across generations–just as classical liberalism (the thought of the founders) now finds its outlet in an odd mix of conservatism and libertarianism.
Perhaps Radley would rather libertarian philosophy continue in a purer form, with both parties (or all parties) adopting those ideas that triumph than the word “libertarian” take on the same connotations as “Republican” and “Democrat” have today. If libertarian economics, for instance, had been initially equated with a group of nutcase politicians, would free trade have made such stunning leaps forwar d in the last century. Just a thought.
-John
“I’ll start by saying Fox had nothing to do with why Badnarik didn’t appear in the article. I consciously chose not to mention him, for several reasons. Those reasons?
First, both Fox and my current employer would present problems to me formally endorsing any candidate for president in a column — Fox because it’s against policy, Cato because of Cato’s non-profit status.”
Radley, I usually agree with you on many issues, but this one, I’m frankly surprised. First you say that Fox has nothing to do with your decision to not mention Michael Badnarik and then you say that they DID have something to do with it.
While you point to two highly inflammatory articles about Michael, you don’t mention any of the good stuff which I think far outweighs any of the bad. Plus one article was from several months ago and if you were to talk to or interview Michael today, I think you’d see that he’s far more polished.
I also had the pleasure of meeting Michael Badnarik in person this week and have taken his constitution class. While I agree that he seems a tad naive about how he will handle things when he gets into office, I think that those ideas will succumb to reality.
But the fact of the matter is that we have 535 members of Congress and a President who are all sworn to uphold and defend the constitution and they do everything in their power to destroy it and ignore it on a daily basis.
I’m voting for Michael Badnarik because I believe that he would IN FACT protect and defend the constitution of the United States. And because I believe that if enough people who are fed up with the “lesser of two evils” vote for Michael Badnarik then the message that gets sent to the “reigning parties” will be loud and strong for sure.
Jeanne
I was at the convention, and Badnarik was my third choice, behind Nolan and Russo. I understand the concerns of those here that think Badnarik is a little nutty.
But for a small-l libertarian to not vote for him - ESPECIALLY IN A SAFE STATE - is even nuttier.
LD - there are lots of ‘moderate libertarians’ in the party, we’re just outnumbered by the purists such as Badnarik. Try joining your local LP and make a difference.
The LP is obviously dominated by its extreme fringe, but I don’t think they’re any more terrifying than the neocons or the Dems’ far-lefties.
It’s a real shame, though. I think a sane, moderate Libertarian with a scrap of leadership ability would actually represent a majority of Americans’ positions.
Michael Badnarik is a fake Libertarian
Michael Badnarik is a fake Libertarian. Michael Badnarik is in reality a member of the “Sovereign Citizen Movement”. He’s just masquerading as a Liberterian. In fact, the loonies in the “sovereign citizen movement” have had plans to infiltrate…
You are absolutely correct. I agree with the LP on 90% of what they advocate, but the LP needs reform. So I think we should just give up and vote for the other two parties because it’s a lot easier for me to just stop thinking and vote that way.
I mean, that totally makes more sense, thanks for talking me out of wasting my vote on Badnarik. He’s fucking nuts with his whole “Constitution” and “government abiding by the Bill of Rights.” Who ever heard of such crazy shit?
Define a moderate libertarian.
Because from where I stand I used Badnarik as a prime example of one.
He still believes in the state as legitimate after all.
Or do you fault him because he practices what he preaches? Would you fault Thoreau? Would you fault Ghandi or Jesus?
Libertarianism is every libertarian’s sacred cow, yet each has their own fortified position on what the philosophy should be in the political arena.
So it is much more fashionable to disregard those crazy LPers because “they don’t really represent libertarianism” and fall in line with the rest of the apathetic, inactive sheeple doing absolutely nothing to change the political landscape toward freedom.
Educate all you want, and write all you want about libertarian solutions, but if no solution is presented to change the political arena directly, by voting against the major oppressor parties, changing them from the inside, or other reality changing measures (by market solutions or what have you), you’ll only end up with disenfranchised subservient masses of pissed off intellectuals with no ideas but to wait for death (because freedom ain’t coming by itself).
So for a guy who was months in contemplation of voting for Kerry, but won’t even launch a protest vote in favor of massive freedoms now because it might embarrass his delicate sensibilities…. to blast Badnarik for practicing what he preaches?
Lame.
John Brendel,
Because you are in a swing state is the exact reason you should be voting for the LP candidate!!!
No one cares what percentage a third party gets in states that don’t matter. By being in a swing state your vote for the LP has the chance to make a difference. An impact that the third parties need. Please reconsider.
Has anyone heard Badnarik speak? I thought he carried himself very well in the debate against David Cobb, and in the television interview recently posted on his blog.
When he was first nominated, I weeped and moaned for the LP. But since then, he has taken down the crazy criminal punishment positions from his sight and has proved to be a pleasant surprise.
I for one hope Badnarik gets all the media exposure in the world. While I would rather have a more intellectual libertarian running (such as someone from the Cato Institute), it would be hard to find one that had Badnarik’s speaking abilities.
All in all, I like Mike. I’m voting for him. And God bless him. After all this is over I’ll be glad to have him as a guest in my home any time he’s in NC.
“James, I’m ideologically opposed to strategic voting. It only encourages prevailing mentalities that there are only two viable parties (and that only parties are viable in the first place).”
Matthew - Let me take this opportunity to explain that there will never be more than a two party system in this country. In a simple majority, a third party will always coalesce with one of the parties and thus win the election every year. As new parties form, they too will join onto one of the two major parties. Get over it; it can’t change because the only people who can change the system are the ones that got put in power by that very same system. The only hope to bring libertarianism to the forefront of American politics is to turn the Republican (or, 100 times better and 100 times harder, the Democratic) party into a group of libertarians. I think in the end, we’ll have libertarians versus the socialists. We already have the socialists, so now we need to work on the libertarians.
Radley,
Interesting reply to those who criticize you for not mentioning Badnarik in your Fox column.
However, those who thought that perhaps you had been ordered by Fox not to mention him aren’t conspiracy theorists. One prominent Libertarian — Dean Ahmad — was invited onto Fox (”The O’Reilly Factor”) to explain why, as a Muslim, he would not be voting for Bush. He was then told, at the last moment, that he must not mention Badnarik’s name on the air. He ended up declining to appear (and his replacement, who was not known as a partisan Libertarian, DID mention Badnrik, apparently to O’Reilly’s consternation).
It was that event which some had in mind when they speculated about the non-appearance of Badnarik in your column.
Apart from that? Well, I’m glad you didn’t mention him, given your apparent dislike for him as a candidate. I don’t share that dislike (I work for the campaign), but I’m glad that you went after the bad guys instead of after a good guy you’d have felt compelled to say bad things about. Thanks for a good column, and I’m sorry that the response provoked you into saying things that you’ll hopefully regret later.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
I’ve been involved in Libertarian politics for a while, and while I’m not happy with the course the party has taken, I’m more frutrated with libertarians in general. It takes only a few activists to take over the Libertarian Party leadership in most any state. If the people whining about LP candidates would actually do something about it…
It was very ‘illuminating’ to read the posts on this threat - sarcasm and all. There are still plenty of libertarian sympathesizers who willing to put up with politically corrupt elections and vote for the ‘lesser of two evils’. That these seem to be the only ‘practical’ alternatives only shows how impractical our political system really is. I contend that libertarians and the LP need to jump with both feet in the middle of a ‘moderate’ issue: election reform. For some ideas see my site at http://www.robinsonforthecongress.com
If some you have perspectives that so are so narrow that Badnarik seems ‘fringy’ then you’re going to are probably going run sputtering when you peek at my proposals like mandatory anonymous campaign financing, enlarging the U.S. House of Representatives, allowing voters to CHOOSE the congressional constituency they wish to vote in, how an enlarged House would greatly diminish the tie(close) vote issue in the Electoral College issue, why electronic vote machines are a car load of scrap, etc., etc.
See you on the ballot in 2006?
I’m a conservative not a libertarian, largely because of people like Badnarik. Their “party” is a joke and will never appeal to enough people to elect more than a few local officials.
I think that liberalism is dying and will become divided between the liberals, in the sense of supporting freedom, and liberals in the sense of being left-leaning. A lot of Republicans will join the former, but more will remain conservatives. I think that the left in this country will wither into the kind of political force represented today by American Socialists.
Debating Badnarik
Radley Balko explains why Badnarik is unacceptable:Given how close this election is, even if Badnarik does worse than Harry Browne…
Nobody For President
Yeah, that’s how I feel. I’m not completely in agreement with Radley Balko, but he makes several good points about why neither Bush nor Kerry is much of a choice.
The recent news Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s thyroid cancer has supposedly made t…
Some of us party members are trying to nudge the LP into the realistic political camp.
http://timwest.blogs.com
It’s a lonely job, and it dont pay well.
Badnarik’s Faults
Radley Balko and others have been writing about some glaring problems with Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. This is a guy who gives seminars advocating that the federal income tax is optional, who refuses to use zip codes, who…
I think the party (I’m not a member, though I’ve considered it off and on) would make better use of its membership and resources to abandon national politics and concentrate exclusively on local offices and issues — township trustees, city councils, school boards, etc. Build a political culture of libertarianism rather than a political party.
Libertarian endorsements
John Hospers, founder of the Libertarian Party and a leading light of the movement, endorsed George Bush for President. Meanwhile