Ebeneezer Root

There are numerous reasons why Wayne Allyn Root would be a very bad choice to be either the national chair or the 2012 presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party (he claims to be running for both offices) -- his dubious ethical track record in business (see http://knappster.blogspot.com/2008/02/down-and-dirty-on-wayne-root.html), his self-identification as a libertarian-conservative who considers Ronald Reagan a hero, and his ego-driven, used-car-salesman persona to name three of the biggest.

  But this video clip from last July contains a dramatic example of another Root attribute that I believe should be of real concern to any Libertarian who might be considering giving him the nod to be the public face of the party either this year or two years from now: http://washingtonindependent.com/71931/the-rise-of-wayne-allyn-root

Black female guest (discussing President Obama having a beer with professor Henry
Gates and the cop who arrested him) -- "When you have children starving, when you
have people losing jobs, when you have people that don't have health care, you're
going to have a beer fest at the White House? For what?"

Wayne Allyn Root -- "I'm a little more worried about people who make money and are
going to lose it all to (Obama's) health care, that's what I'm more worried about." (!)

  This was a stunningly insensitive thing to say on national television, although sadly in character for a man whose autobiography "Millionaire Republican" featured a cover photo of himself standing on top of his Hummer in front of his mansion (a book Root has never to my knowledge disavowed since his self-proclaimed libertarian conversion around 2007). But what makes Root's remark above, and other things he's said in a similar vein, all the more stunning is that he seems utterly unaware that he is rhetorically channeling Ebeneezer Scrooge. In Wayne's world, evidently, the wealthy are the main victims of government oppression, and he their righteous and passionate champion. The very notion of rich people being the most oppressed members of a society is practically oxymoronic, but if we are to take the words that come out of Root's mouth at face value, this is how he sees America.

  It's hard to say which possible explanation is worse -- that Wayne Allyn Root's grasp of economic reality is so lacking that he completely fails to understand the massive role that government policies play in causing and sustaining poverty, or that he does understand this and yet *still* has less empathy or compassion for the poor than he does for those who are financially comfortable.

  On second thought, the latter is probably worse. Simple ignorance of the facts can be corrected through education if one is willing to learn, but deep-rooted callousness may be harder to change. It would be wonderful if between now and the LP national convention in May, Root could undergo the experiential equivalent of being visited by three spirits, emerging as a changed man filled with humility, compassion, and libertarian wisdom. Tragically for our party however (or perhaps thankfully, given the other serious problems with Root noted above), Dickensian redemptions of that sort are rare.

Love & Liberty,
          ((( starchild )))

Starchild, In defense of what In my hopefful imagination may be behind Wayne
s words. Depleting the resources of this country through a socialist medical system that consumes hugh resources because it is accountable to no one in an economic sense, will deprive the society of the tools that those resources consumed in medical care waste.
the resources thus depleted will cause deprivation that falls hardest on the poor. The rich will suffer too, but it's just mud on the bumpers on the mercedes. So while Root sounds insensitive, the truth of the matter is that the ideas that he presents are very sensitive to the needs of the poorest among us. Consumuin the societies seen corn in a medical system that has no reason to economize risks impoverishment. This might be acceptable if there was any evidence that people were actually spared the ravages of disease in the process. But there is ample evidence that generous heath subsidies actually help. My best friends father, the first bio statatistics PhD from Berkeley makes a persuasinve arguement that public health improves whn Doctors go on strike.
However, clearly I am alive thruogh the mieacle of modern pharmaceuticals and the overall competance of California Pacific Hospital and I writh this in a rathe impaired state. In a better frame of mind I could make an arguement that freedom and personal responsiility for onself and those for whom feals compassion could produce better results.