A Queerty Exclusive!

Libertarian VP Hopeful Wayne Root Seeks End To Two-Party Topping, “Legal Bribery”

theroots.jpg
Wayne Allyn Root isn’t your typical politician.

In fact, Root would probably reject to being called a politician, unless it’s – to use two of his own terms – as “the anti-politician” or “a citizen politician.” While that may be true, as the Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential nominee, Root and his running mate Bob Barr are hoping to make a political splash.

The duo, both of whom were once Republicans, most likely won’t win the White House, but most observers agree that their ticket threatens John McCain’s candidacy, becoming this year’s Ralph Nader. Root bristles at such talk, insisting he’s in it to win it – and to set the dominant parties straight.

Root regularly uses the word “corrupt” to describe his political rivals in the Democratic and Republican camps. He also accuses those voting bloc monoliths of “legal bribery,” surely a charge that wouldn’t please John McCain or Barack Obama, with whom Root attended Columbia University, a tidbit he mentioned to our editor no less than three times.

After leaving Columbia, Root went on to work as a sports talk host for NBC radio, a gig which grew to over one hundred stations across the country. From there Root went on to television and print work before moving to Las Vegas, where he currently runs his own sports handicapping business, Winning Edge, and home schools his four children.

With regard to his former Republican ties, Root tells our editor that two main decisions squeezed him out. One was the debate over Terry Schiavo, the brain dead woman whose final moments played out in Congress and the Supreme Court. The second factor, which hit much closer to home, was the Republican-led Congress’ decision to ban online poker. Like a true Libertarian, Root believes the government should have as little involvement in people’s personal lives as possible. What’s more, the ban on online gambling struck through the heart of his American ideal:

We’re a nation of gamblers. Think about it – anybody who didn’t like gambling, they stayed in Germany, they stayed in England, they stayed in China or Ireland or Italy – they never took the chance of a lifetime… All of our ancestors, they made the choice, they were risk takers, they were the ultimate gamblers of their lives and their futures and future generations and they won. They won the lottery.

And there’s no doubt Root’s hoping to win the electoral lottery. Even if he doesn’t win this year, he vows to keep returning until he can help lead the Libertarian Party into power.

Read what else Root has to say on teaching about homosexuality in public schools, the flaws universal health care, why we need to abolish affirmative action and, yes, how he feels about the Defense of Marriage Act, a political stance on which his running mate Barr has been accused of flip-flopping – right now. (We bet you thought we were going to say “after the jump.”)

Andrew Belonsky: Your campaign website includes a quote that I thought was really funny, “Government screws up everything.” So, naturally, my first question is why did you run for the Libertarian nomination?

Wayne Allyn Root: Well, my hope and my plan is to get into office and to prove to people that less government is better government. The less involvement government has in the lives of individuals, the better. As one of my great heroes, Barry Goldwater once said, “The perfect politician is the guy or gal who puts his or hand on the bible and pledges to give the power back to the people.” I call myself the “anti-politician.” My goal is to divest myself of the power I’ve been given on the day I take office, to give it back to the people. I don’t want to run for office so I can take control over people’s lives. I want to run to office so I can give the power back to the people.

AB: You have previously described the two-party system as “corrupt.” Can you expand on your thinking on the government’s structure right now?

WR: I call the Republicans and Democrats “big and bigger and dumb and dumber.” They’re the same party – they have different views on certain issues, but there’s always a difference around the edges, and there’s rarely a difference when it comes to things like bribing.

AB: Bribing?

WR: Legal bribery is what the two parties operate on. Democrats make sure that they bribe poor people, because that’s who votes for them. They steal from the rich and they give to the poor. They bribe the teacher’s union and they bribe bar associations and they bribe environmental groups by passing laws that benefit all of them. And Republicans – well, they bribe big oil and pharmaceutical companies, they bribe corporate welfare like big farms and they bribe defense contractors. Those parties operate and get elected by bribing, legally – our laws allow it – the groups that support them, but neither party does it the right way. Why not just cut government, cut out all the corporate welfare, cut government dramatically. Stop giving people money just because they vote for you! That’s what I want to do – cut expenses, cut spending, cut government and with all the money that’s left over, just give it back fairly to the tax payer.

AB: Along those same lines – as you know, obviously, during the campaign there will be televised debates. From what I understand, the Libertarian party and other third parties are not typically invited to be part of those national televised debates on the networks or cable news channels. I know that you previously worked on the radio and in television, so I’d like to get your perspective on that exclusion.

WR: Well, it’s typical. The two party system doesn’t want anyone to get in and announce that they’re corrupt, that they bribe, that they’re liars and announce that every thing they say at election time winds up being fraud because they never carry it out. That doesn’t mean we won’t get in. You automatically qualify if you get 15% of the vote in the polls the week before the debate – they will automatically let you in. Those are the rules. If we pull 15% or more, they can’t keep us out. Ross Perot got into those debates back in 1992 and 1996 – he was polling those numbers.

AB: Ah, yes. I totally forgot about that.

WR: And Ross Perot’s campaign manager is our campaign manager. Bob Barr and Wayne Root’s campaign manager is Russ Verney, who ran Ross Perot’s campaign in 1996. We’re obviously hopeful that he can bring the same expertise to our campaign that he brought to Ross’ and we can get into those debates. And, if you don’t get 15% of the vote, you can be invited into a debate by the Republicans or the Democrats. Now whether they would do that or not depends. I happen to be Barack Obama’s classmate, class of ’83, Columbia University, so I call on Barack publicly and loudly to include us in those debates and I would like to know why he would want to exclude us from those debates – and perhaps that kind of shaming will cause my classmate to invite us.

barrroot.jpg
AB: With regard to Ross Perot, and also Ralph Nader, the Libertarian Party of this year is looking to be the great spoiler of the election. I’m sure you’ve read the multiple articles on how you and Bob Barr will be taking votes away from Republican John McCain. Now, I understand you used to be a registered Republican, you donated to Republicans – you did donate to some Democrats, but you qualified yourself as a Republican. How do you feel about going up against the party that you once supported whole-heartedly?

WR: Well, I love it. First of all, let me correct you on something – you said that we want to be the big spoilers – no, we don’t.

AB: You are being referred to as spoilers.

WR: Yes, the media’s saying that, but I have no interest in being a spoiler. I have an interest in building a foundation. First of all, I have an interest in winning and if we’re not going to win the election, I have an interest in building a foundation so that four years from now, eight years from now or twelve years from now we can win the White House, whether it’s Bob Barr and Wayne Root or just Wayne Root. I’m a very young guy: 46-years old, like my classmate Barack Obama and I expect to be in this for many years to come. I have no interest in being a spoiler. That’s not my intention, but, having said that, if I can knock some sense into either of the two parties, I’m thrilled to do it.

AB: Switching gears here, getting a little more gay, what’s your stance on DOMA?

WR: Well, my stance is pretty simple. First of all, I believe it’s none of the government’s business to decide marriage at all. It’s a private ceremony or a religious ceremony. A church has a right to define it privately and if a church wants to ban – if the Catholic church or the Protestant church wants to say that two people of the same sex can’t get married, they can do that. It’s a free world and it’s a private enterprise. But, then, you have a right as a gay man or a lesbian woman to go and get married in a private ceremony by somebody who will marry you. It’s not a government’s job to license marriage. The government is a busy body. They try to get involved in people’s live and control us. The real answer is that religion shouldn’t in any way be involved in government and the government shouldn’t in any way license or get involved in religion and therefore I would fight to the death for anyone who is religious to practice their religion and I’d fight to the death for anyone who is not religious to not practice their religion. I’m not coming down on anyone’s side. I’m just saying the government should stay out of the process.

AB: Right, but part of DOMA is that the federal government may not recognize same-sex marriages, even if a state like Massachusetts or California does recognize them. What is your stance on that specific part of DOMA?

WR: Well, as much as I’d like government to be out of it completely, I’ve always been a states’ rights person. If you can’t progress on a federal level, at least you can get it inch-by-inch on a state-by-state level. I think it’s basically good for the people, if they have to be decided at all, first of all – like I said, I keep coming down on the side of fewer laws in general and the less government, the better, state or federal – but if it has to be decided, at least let’s get progress on the state level. That’s what I say about gay marriage or medical marijuana or online gambling. If Massachusetts or California and other progressive states legalize gay marriage, I say “great” and you as a gay person may want to go live there and feel more free, that’s great. If someone’s very deeply religious and they don’t want gay marriage and they therefore want therefore to choose to live in Alabama, Georgia or states with a more religious bent who don’t want to legalize it, then I say more power to those people who want to live in Georgia or Alabama.

rootbarr3.jpg
AB: One more question on the DOMA front, your running mate Bob Barr backed DOMA and then right before the nominating process, he flipped and said he opposed it. There was some talk on gay blogs, including my own, that the gay Libertarian leaders had come to Barr and perhaps twisted his arm and said “you have to switch positions.” Do you know what happened?

WR: Yeah, I don’t think anyone came to either of us and twisted our arms. I’ve spoken to Outright Libertarians on many occasions and you never have to twist my arms. I’m a man who believes in equal rights. I was in the gay pride parade in San Francisco three days ago, I was waving from a convertible to the crowd of hundreds of thousands of people and proud to do it, because I believe in equal rights and I’ve always believed in gay rights. I don’t think anyone had to twist anyone’s arm, in Bob Barr’s case or mine. Bob had made some dramatic changes in his life and in his political thinking and Bob has gone from being the anti-gay crusader and warrior and he has changed on a lot of issues, like civil rights. He’s seen the Libertarian light, and so have I! We’re both what you call Republicans in recovery!

AB: Health care has been a huge issue this campaign, as well as in past campaigns. You support a free market health care. I’m wondering how would you encourage somebody who is low income or below the poverty line, who has HIV/AIDS, to get the expensive, life-sustaining medicine that is necessary?

WR: Well, listen, there’s always going to be exceptions to the rule. What I said is that I don’t support one big blanket universal health care proposal. That I don’t support – where every person in America has every bill paid for by the United States government. I don’t think that makes sense, I don’t think that works, I think it takes away freedom, it takes away competition, it takes away choice. You know, go look at England, go look at Canada and tell me their system works. It doesn’t work. It’s broken. Whenever you universalize or government regulate health care, what happens is that doctors can’t make big money anymore, therefore the best and the brightest don’t become doctors. See, you can’t screw capitalism. It doesn’t work. As soon as you try to defeat capitalism, it finds a way to defeat you. The best and the brightest will become lawyers or they will become business people, but they won’t become doctors anymore. I don’t know about you, but if I was sick – whether it was AIDS or brain cancer – I want a guy who makes a million dollars a year, rather than someone who makes $80,000 a year, whose bills are topped by the government. I just think universal health care is a failure. I don’t have all the answers to every question, including what will happen to a poor person with AIDS. I don’t have the perfect answer for you right now except that the free market should basically take care of it.

AB: Can you please clarify your opposition to affirmative action, which you equate with “reverse racism.” While gay people aren’t part of the measure, certainly they’re impacted by the psychological political impact. Is it not best to have a completely diverse company, organization?

WR: I don’t think diversity in companies should be equated with affirmative action. Diversity is certainly a good thing, but government should not effectively mandate discrimination against some groups in the name of helping others. I whole-heartedly endorse diversity – without supporting affirmative action. It is in the best interest of companies to create a diversified work environment and workforce, and the winners in a free market capitalist system will be smart enough to foster diversity. But to ask government to forcibly require it is more akin to a Big Brother socialist system- and always results in market distortions and unintended negative consequences.

AB: Finally, what’s your stance on teaching about homosexuality in schools?

WR: I encourage choice and parental control in the education system. This topic is one reason why. I believe it is parents who should decide what is appropriate for their children to learn, rather than bureaucrats or teachers unions stuffing an agenda down our children’s throats. There certainly should not be any federal rules on what is said about homosexuality. Curriculums for public education should be a matter only for state and local governments to decide. I would therefore not take a position on what they should teach, since I am running for federal office. That’s a battle for politicians and activists on the state and local level. I believe government should not and cannot become the “thought police.” The gay community was angry and offended when government taught that homosexuality was “bad.” Now many in the gay community want to use the over-reaching power of government to teach that homosexuality is “good.” As a Libertarian, I don’t believe government should be in the morality business. It should not judge or teach that homosexuality is good or bad – the only proper job of educators is to present the facts and let each individual decide for himself or herself.

Don't forget to share:

Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...

We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?

Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated