Michael Badnarik from Austin, Texas was selected as the 2004 presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party on Sunday, May 30.
Badnarik has a background as a computer programmer and technical trainer. He's known among Libertarians as a constitutional scholar. He offers an 8 hour course on the constitution.
In my limited exposure, he comes off as a low-key but quietly intent rumpled college professor. I dig that feel a lot, at least in this guy. A related comparison: Michael Badnarik may be the party's closest approximation to Lieutenant Columbo.
Even within the party, Badnarik was the underdog. He was a distant third in expectations coming into the convention. We had Hollywood producer Aaron Russo and fairly well known radio talk show host Gary Nolan as frontrunners. Both had better nominal professional skills in public speaking, better name recognition and certainly more money. Badnarik did, however, have what was widely regarded as a good performance in the Saturday debates.
It took three ballots to clinch the nomination. This seems conveniently like just about right dramatically- enough to peak interest, then getting to the denouement fairly quickly before it got boring. Nolan bowed out after the second ballot, offering his support to Badnarik. 405 votes for a majority were required for nomination. Badnarik beat Russo decisively on the third ballot, 423 to 344.
It appears that basically Nolan and Russo significantly enough alienated one another's supporters as to knock them both out. Russo was graceless enough to say on stage (and on C-Span) that he was pleased to support Badnarik, and was just glad that it wasn't Nolan. Bad form, Aaron. Feel free to redeem yourself by raising a couple million dollars for Badnarik.
I don't know just how good Badnarik will do. We've never had much luck at this high level. For all his good efforts and professionalism and best intentions, Harry Browne didn't do much good- even with two bites at the apple. Badnarik probably couldn't do much worse, but he's not nearly the smooth politician that some of our candidates have been.
For example, I was in the room during this hospitality suite exchange between Mr. Badnarik and Mike Kole at our Indiana state convention last month. I concur with brother Kole that he was not particularly impressive there as a politician, specifically. [Little known bonus tidbit: Badnarik is clearly a genuine connoisseur of N/A beer.]
On the other hand, that might not work against him so much as a candidate trying to honestly earn votes. He's not at all any form of professional gladhander. Again, think Columbo stylistically.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ Elliott
Informative write-up, Al.
Sadly, the mainstream media will ignore the Libertarian Party's candidate (as they always do), while heaping attention upon borderline-communist Ralph Nader.
(The irony is, this actually ends up helping the GOP, who does not have to contend with a well-known candidate sucking off votes from its base.)
2 - bhw
What differentiated Badnarik from the other two candidates, aside from his Columbo-like demeanor? What does he and doesn't he stand for, politically speaking?
I guess I'm interested in knowing where the Libertarian battlefields are.
3 - Andrew Ian Dodge
I highly recommend the Boaz book to anyone interested in the basics of libertarianism. Not only is he a good author but my dealings with him have proven to me that he is a nice bloke as well.
4 - Al Barger
BHW- Libertarian Party members mostly tend to have pretty similar overall policy views. For a bite-size way of getting at a lot of complicated stuff, Libertarians generally put a lot of emphasis on strictly following the constitution.
The government should only be doing the few things it is specifically authorized to do in this charter, and nothing more- as per the 9th and 10th Amendments. In practice, this would mean that we'd like to cut out most of what the government does. The federal government by rights should mostly be limited to military defense of the country, and a few sundry issues specifically mentioned in the constitution.
For starters, where is there constitutional authorization for a Social Security administration or any other form of social welfare, such as farm subsidies? Besides being a very bad idea to begin with, there's just flat NO authority for the federal government to outlaw any drug.
Note however- and this is where things start to get more complicated- that we don't put such emphasis on the constitution because of some fetishistic worship, but because it mostly reflects very well some basic philosophical principles of individualism. (Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein are particularly favored authors in our circles.)
The differences between Libertarian Party members tend to come down more to emphasis and style. Different people have their own pet issues. Russo, for example, was the "peace candidate." Most Libertarian Party members oppose the current war (I'm in the minority with my support), but Russo is pretty particularly strident. He also opposed the Afghanistan war, which even most Libertarians supported.
My knowledge of Badnarik specifically is somewhat limited yet. He was fairly much an unknown dark horse even within the confines of our party faithful until this convention- though he has been diligently traveling the country state by state to meet party members one to one.
What I have gotten from him is an emphasis on the big picture of constitutionally limited government. He doesn't seem to be particularly animated by one or two pet issues, as many of us are. I'll be interested to see what exact policy issues he will focus on.
5 - Bob A. Booey
Libertarians are impotent nerds. No one cares about the nomination process for a candidate who won't even get 0.5% of the vote. Go worship Ayn Rand, you simpletons and cultural illiterates.
The "Brother Kole," beer, and "common as an old shoe"/Columbo comments are funnier than you realize. I refuse to dignify your silly eunuch cult with any more comments.
That is all.
6 - RJ Elliott
BAB:
Are you intentionally trying to make enemies on this site? Have you ever once praised anybody here?
I mean, it's entirely up to you how you behave. If you want to be insulting, go right ahead. It must be fairly easy to do when you post anonymously...
7 - Bob A. Booey
No, I don't want to make enemies or friends. I don't try to insult anyone. I honestly think your political affiliation is a joke; so sorry if that offends you.
I praise people when they deserve it and test their ridiculous views when those deserve testing.
You got some praise yourself. "Ripley? RIPLEY?!!! I'd rather do the Alien" comes to mind.
Stick to what you know.
That is all.
8 - RJ Elliott
Don't get me wrong, BAB. I think you're hilarious.
But you paint with a rather broad brush at times. For instance, I am a "libertarian" and not a "Libertarian." Believe it or not, this makes quite a bit of difference.
Anyway, carry on. I now enjoy this site even more than I previously had, due in part to your prescence.
9 - Bob A. Booey
I think this'll be my last comment for the day because I just saw that I'm the leading poster of the day for the first time. That frightens me and means I'm officially part of your "family." I guess I'd be the adopted nephew.
Thanks for the nice words, RJ, I think.
Let me re-phrase one thing, though, to address your big-L, small-L distinction:
"I honestly think your political PHILOSOPHY is a joke; so sorry if that offends you."
That's all for today. Happy Memorial Day, folks.
10 - RJ Elliott
Libertarians, at least of the small-l variety, are a large and growing segment of the electorate.
They won;t be winning any national elections soon, of course. But they actually have fresh and exciting IDEAS, something which both major parties seem to lack nowadays...
11 - Mac Diva
I got quite a kick reading up on on Michael Badnarik. He:
*Would repeal all tax laws and abolish the IRS.
*Believes the Constitution does not limit individual ownership of guns and other deadly weapons.
*Wants to return to the gold standard for currency.
*Wants to eliminate public education as an option. Says he would turn all schools into businesses.
*Is anti-abortion, though he tries to punt by claiming that the topic is somehow 'states rights.'
Bhw, about the only thing a reasonable person could agree with Michael Badnarik about is that the invasion of Iraq should not have occurred. Though, actually, he is evasive about that. Says he would have waited for Congressional approval, but not that he would not have allowed the invasion if he were president. The guy is a reminder that so-called libertarians are often to the Right of conservatives.
In summary, Badnarik is the sort of person who would appeal to a lightweight who can blather on and on about him and not even state his position on any issues.
As someone who sometimes teaches Con Law, I shudder at the thought of what a person with no legal training and little common sense, such as Badnarik, is passing off as the law.
12 - bhw
Al, thank you for the info. MD, thank you for the link.
I've just started to poke around on his site. I was happy to see, Al, that your candidate agrees with me and other liberals about the Patriot Act, drug laws, and gay marriage!
But that's about as far as it goes.
His pet issue: gun control laws. It looks like the only section under "The Issues" that is written in the first person. Unfortunately, he gets all fired up and, ironically, starts dreaming up presidential powers that don't exist:
If the American people decide that I am the person they want in the White House, there are dozens of laws that I will declare unconstitutional, however my FIRST official act will be to eliminate the gun laws to restore every American's right to protect their lives and property.
Since when does the president get to declare laws constitutional [I mean, s/he can say whatever s/he wants, but there can be no real power behind those words]? And since when can the president eliminate existing laws?
Also, some of his ideas about prisons are a tad wacky:
Given the opportunity, Michael would like to change one aspect of prison life to increase the safety of the people guarding them [the prisoners]. Instead of allowing them [the prisoners] to lift weights and exercise several hours per day (making them violent AND powerful), Michael would require them to remain in bed all day for the first month, and twelve hours per day after that. This lack of activity would allow their muscles to atrophy, making them helpless couch potatoes incapable of inflicting very much violence on each other, the guards, or unsuspecting citizens should they manage to escape.
Where does he get the idea that this will work? Not very sound reasoning there. Nor here:
The day I enter the Oval Office, I will give notice to the United Nations. Member nations would have one week to evacuate their offices in the UN building in New York. They would have seven days to box up their computers, their paper work, and family photos. At noon on the eighth day, after ensuring that the building was empty, I would personally detonate the explosive charges that would reduce the building to rubble. The same type of rubble we had to clean up after September 11th. [emphasis mine] I want to send a message around the world that United States foreign policy had changed dramatically, and unmistakably.
Oh, great. Another guy who likes to show off his power by blowing stuff up. Aren't you a bit worried about a candidate who wants to blow up a building in NY to show the world what he thinks of the UN? He doesn't seem to understand that the NEW YORKERS, you know, those millions of Americans living on the island, don't want to be reminded of the rubble of 9/11.
Terrorism much?
13 - Mac Diva
I think Badnarik might have come from the anti-tax movement. However, his rancor toward tax and gun laws is almost equal. It will be interesting when his tax records are examined as part of his candidancy. Has he been paying them?
I'm also curious why the Texas bar is allowing him to practice law without a license. (Teaching usually requires a law degree.)
14 - Mac Diva
Oh, Gawd! It appears he is involved with the militia movement. Will do more reading before saying more. Hope it isn't as bad as the first impression.
15 - Al Barger
BHW- re: "Since when does the president get to declare laws constitutional?" ("?" added)
Since the time that he has taken the oath of office. There's nothing in the constitution that gives this power to the court system specifically. They say that they cannot enforce a law that contradicts the constitution, because it trumps. Fair enough.
But the same thing applies to congressmen and the president. If a president comes in, and there's a law requiring, say, the confiscation of all handguns it would be the president's clear minimal duty under his oath to defend the constitution to not enforce that contradictory law- same as the courts. Send the word down through the Justice Department.
That's not the same thing as repealing the law, and it might sit there until a new president comes in who will interpret things differently- as might the next Supreme Court.
16 - Shark
Big Al explains: "In practice, this would mean that we'd like to cut out most of what the government does."
(~Shark picturing Al driving to work on his privately owned interstate highway~)
17 - JR
If Badnarik gets into office and refuses to enforce the laws Congress passes, they'll just impeach him. End of story.
And personally blowing up the U.N. building is just childish. Can this guy possibly be any more dismissive of opposing opinions? That kind of uncomprimising attitude isn't going to get him very far in politics, nor should it.
18 - Shark
"...blowing up the U.N. building is just childish..."
I agree!
I suggest we turn the UN building into a replacement for a torn-down Abu Ghraib.
Throw the entire Bush administration in there, hire some female cracker hayseeds, hand out some dog collars and digital cameras, and sit back and enjoy.
BTW: I'll be announcing my candidacy on Friday.
19 - Mac Diva
Exactly, JR. The Conservotarians try to make themselves out as an alternative to the conservatives. But, when you examine their actual positions they just seem more wacko than their mainstream counterparts.
Badnarik is like an overage adolescent, the kind who can never get a date, with delusions of grandeur. (Hmmn. I could say something about RJ Elliott, Al Barger and Marty 'Ain't Nuthin' Wrong With Being a 'Scientific' Racist' Dodge' in that respect. But, being a very nice girl, I won't.) Much of what Badnarik thinks is cutting edge deep thought was John Birch Society boilerplate half a century ago. Why do so few of these people have any sense of even relatively recent history?
On closer examination, I learned Badnarik is chummy with the militia crowd (he eggs them on to break gun laws), but cannot determine if he is a member. If he has ever had anything to do with the Republic of Texas militia (whose leader hailed from Ohio, if I remember correctly) that in itself should make him the laughingstock of everyone who hears his name.
I invite y'all to look at the link in my comment above and read some other of the Badnarik material. As you can tell from bhw's quotes, some of it is unintentionally funny. If I had time I would write a satire of the world of President Badnarik. (Avert!) Women with huge broods driving down their private highways, dressed in full body armor, armed to the teeth and towing a Uhaul filled with the only currency allowed -- gold -- behind them to the closest McPrivate School. Someone should go for it.
20 - Bob A. Booey
BHW: Good job parsing the platform. I thought of doing something similar myself, but I didn't have the time or energy to lend the Libertarian Party such dignity.
Like I said, former speech club/band geek impotent nerds who still read Mad magazine and come up with "policy papers" in their mom's basement during a heated game of D & D.
"Delusions of grandeur" is my pet phrase, sweetie. I'm the amateur psycho-analyst here. Ever heard of the anxiety of influence? Your closing vignette there wasn't funny. Stick to what works in your writing.
That is all.
21 - Shark
MD: "...Women with huge broods driving down their private highways..."
Booey, protect me! She's tryin' to steal my shtick! *She's doin' ME -- BADLY!!
* special thanks to Lenny Bruce
22 - RJ Elliott
The Libertarian Party will never win high elective office as long as it remains dogmatic.
However, libertarian principles can certainly achieve tacticval victories within the two-party duopoly, especially through such measures as ballot initiatives.
23 - Tom Swift
You people did not educate yourselves on the Libertarian party.
Badnarik is correct on gun laws. Over the last 100 years, the world governments have killed 170 million of their own people, meaning you're more likely to be killed by your own government then by a private citizen. All dictators used "gun registration" to "keep weapons out of the wrong hands" but once they had the list they took all the guns away. Gun Registation was Hitler's idea. If we destroy the gun registration lists and allow "assault weapons" government could never take away our rights.
The UN thing was a joke (I think (or hope?))
Also, Badnarik is correct on inflation. Government intentionally inflates the money supply since it's $7 TRILLION in debt. Who cares about the citizen who has his life destroyed by inflating his savings?
24 - JR
If we destroy the gun registration lists and allow "assault weapons" government could never take away our rights.
I think the "guns prevent dictatorship" argument has been pretty thoroughly discredited by Saddam Hussein.
25 - Jeff
Hi-
Here's a link to Liberty magazine's coverage of the LP convention. It appears that Badnarik has not paid income taxes in several years, refuses to get a drivers license (but drives anyway) and refuses to use zip codes. When will the LP ever learn? Who declared this guy a "constitutional schol" anyway?
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_08/bradford-dark_horse.html