Michael Badnarik by Devin Greaney, freelance writer, July, 2003

Libertarian Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik hopes to end of affirmative action, income tax, gun laws and the welfare for the poor. On the conservative scale, he makes George W. Bush look like the candidate for the Socialist Worker’s Party. But before cheering or jeering him, realize he also wants to legalize drugs, bring US troops home from Iraq, end welfare for the rich and eliminate all laws forbidding sexual acts between consenting adults. You could just hear Democrats talking amongst themselves, “We can’t run him. His radicalism will scare off the voters.”

But he does not belong to the conservative Vs liberal debate that identifies so many politicians and voters. He bases his political views on rights which he says by definition are individual rights, not group rights or community rights. “You can make your own decisions even if they are stupid,” he stated. “Your rights are inherent in you. They are in every cell of your body... the only limit you have on your rights is the equal rights of others,” he said. For example, he said, you have the right to keep and bear fire arms but you don’t have the right to misuse that fire arm. An individual has the right of free speech but not to have someone else pay for his healthcare. “You don’t have the right to your neighbor’s property. That is a non -sequitur,” he said. He added the opposite of rights are privileges which are actions that require permission and can be taken away. Too many people, according to Badnarik, confuse the two and that creates many conflicts in society.

Now as the 2004 elections come closer, he is the Libertarian party’s nominee for President of the United States. But he says he does not want the job, “The campaign occupies literally every moment of my time ... I would rather be sky diving, drinking beer and chasing beautiful women,” he said, but in his words, “I’m trying to rescue the Republic.”

Badnarik says his core beliefs started soon after was born in Hammond, Indiana in 1954. His parents taught him how to “know the difference between right and wrong and knowing someone else’s toys didn’t belong to me,” he said. As he grew older and began to think about politics he began to view the Democrats as “socialists in hiding” and started out voting Republican .“Not because I was happy with them but because it was less an abysmal choice than the Democrats,” he said. He found a political home 1994 when he took what is called “the world’s smallest political quiz,” a ten question profile on individual liberties and economic issues, and scored perfect libertarian. In 1997, he left California primarily because of their strict gun control laws that would have made him a felon and moved to Texas. The second amendment is not negotiable to him and he refuses to get a Texas concealed weapons permit. He said he will never get such a permit because rights do not require permission, comparing it to the government issuing a permit to let citizens attend church.

Badnarik now lives in Austin. In 2000 and 2002 he ran for State Representative in what is currently District 48. He still recalls taking an oath to defend the Constitution when he filled his paperwork to run for office as a “pivotal moment.” “It may not mean much to people in Washington, DC but I paused a moment to contemplate,” he said. A speech to Libertarians in San Antonio a drew standing ovation. Several members suggested he carry the message further. Much further, as in to the White House. (“I thought they were nuts,” he said). He started his campaign Memorial Day weekend 2003 on the steps of the Texas State Capitol. On May 30, 2004 he was nominated by the party to face George W. Bush and John Kerry.

He has worked since 1977 in the computer field, but one of his biggest interests is teaching. He gives a course on the Constitution which is where he says he earns most of his income. All three branches of government and most Americans, in his view, are ignoring the Constitution, something Badnarik finds “unconscionable.”

One threat to the Constitution he identifies is the Patriot Act. Designed to keep the public safe, he sees it as a Faustian deal with tyranny playing the part of the devil. What is the biggest threat from the Patriot Act? “That’s difficult to say because there are so many threats,” he said. In Badnarik’s view it violates the fourth amendment to the Constitution with the “sneak and peak” provisions. Law enforcement can get a warrant to enter property, examine what is there, take what it feels is necessary and not tell the owner for up to ninety days.

Another danger in the act he sees is a violation of the 6th amendment in the use of closed trials. “The excuse is it’s not for you it’s for the terrorists,” he said. Badnarik says since it is up to the government to determine who is a terrorist, this law could start working its way to everyone else in the country, eventually brining the US towards a dictatorship and the point when “it’s time to start to use our second amendment,” he said.

That’s clearly not a line from a political spin consultant. Badnarik knows what he says won’t make everyone happy but “I call a spade a spade. A lot who don’t like my views know where I stand,” he says. An intensity enters his voice when he talks about what he believes needs fixing.

Badnarik wants through his campaign to end the paradigm that has people looking for what a politician can do for their group. During one of his State Representative races, he was invited to speak with other candidates at the Dell Jewish Community Center in Austin, Texas. When a woman setting up the panel asked him what he would do for the Jewish community, he responded “nothing.” Badnarik said the woman was startled, but not insulted. Then he made it clear to her “I will do everything I can to protect her right as an individual,” he said. Badnarik says the only special interest he supports is each citizen. “The special interests manipulate the system into us against them and divide us into factions,” he says.

An example of this, Badnarik says, is the attempt to redress discrimination with government imposed affirmative action. “Either we are all created equal or we are not,” he said. “Everyone has the right to property but not the same amount of property,” he added. He said minorities are unfairly stigmatized by such programs because non minorities assume they succeeded under lower standards. “Affirmative action does almost as much harm as slavery,” Badnarik says.

With the majority of people being a member of some sort of “special interest,” Badnarik may turn off many who like what the government does for them. A farmer loves his federal crop subsidy just as much as an urbanite loves the federal government giving grants for the local transit system. Both tend to vote for candidates who can bring in the money and the projects. But in a Badnarik White House, he intends to stop the dollars coming from Washington. But, he adds, “I am going to stop tormenting them and we’re going to stop taking their tax money.” Once that happens, “The people will become richer than their wildest dreams,” he said, and he believes tax payers are more qualified to decide the best use for their money than the government.

Foreign policy is an area where the US is failing and September 11, 2001 illustrated that fact, he said. “The reason our country was attacked was because we are an empire builder,” he said. He believes in brining all US troops home from other countries where they are stationed. In addition he believes in ending foreign aid, “One year we sell them weapons and then later they have all these high tech weapons to kill us,” he said. He pointed out several million dollars went to Afghanistan in 2001, the same year the US was attacked from terrorists operating within their government. Instead he says getting out of the affairs of other countries and allowing free trade will build those bridges between nations making an aggression against the US counter to another country’s self interest, because no nation would “bite the hand that feeds it,” he said. He also opposes humanitarian aid from the government such as American tax dollars sent to Africa to fight AIDS. He believes the money should be kept in the hands of the taxpayers who can decade themselves what countries, charities and causes are worthy of their contributions.

Many feel powerless in voting booths due to the amount of money spent on elections by special interests. A ninety-year-old woman was so frustrated she walked 3,200 miles to raise awareness of the issue and in support of campaign finance reform laws. Campaign finance reform has been seen as a way to bring the elections back to being more representative of the people and less representative of soft money donors. Despite nearly all campaign donations going to Republicans and Democrats, Badnarik opposes campaign finance reform laws because he says they violate free speech and are a stealthfull way to protect incumbents. Instead of making the elections more of the vox populi, limiting campaign money limits speech from advertising and gives more power to newspapers and television stations “and most of those are owned by Rupert Murdoch,” he said. Besides what he sees as it’s illegality (the US Supreme Court disagreed and said the finance reform laws are Constitutional ) he says it treats the symptom rather than the real condition. “We have given government power over our lives,” he said. As the government has gone beyond its Constitutional bounds, special interests feel they must be part of the electoral process or be hurt by Washington.

Badnarik also opposes the war on drugs, as does nearly every other Libertarian candidate. “The cure is worse than the disease, the war on drugs is unconstitutional,” said Badnarik who says he has never tried marijuana. “Your liberty allows you to make bad decisions,” he said. He says Libertarians want to reduce the amount of drug use, but the way it is being done has led to asset forfeiture, mass incarcerations, government spending and has created a criminal element because the war has made drugs “the only item that has a profit margin higher than theater popcorn,” he said.

The Supreme Court made the right decision in forbidding states from outlawing homosexual acts between consenting adults, Badnarik said. “The federal government has no business telling anyone what they can do in their bedrooms and if someone else does not like it that’s too damn bad,” he said. However the Supreme Court since 1803, has appointed itself the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, a power the founding fathers never intended, he said. One day they may decide to go against the Constitution and begin violating American’s civil rights and justify it by saying they are charged with the interpretation of the Constitution. Hypothetically, Badnarik said, they could demand Americans surrender their fire arms. “If that happens I will give the government my guns - one bullet at a time,” Badnarik said. “I don’t care what nine clowns in bathrobes say.”

History is perhaps the Libertarian candidate’s biggest enemy. The Democrats have been a political force since the days of Martin Van Buren. The Republican party burst on the national scene in 1860, running a tall lawyer from Illinois. Ever since, the Presidential elections have been a Republican Vs Democrat contest. Theodore Roosevelt made the biggest showing of a third party candidate 1912 with 27% of the vote going to the Progressive, AKA, “Bull Moose” party. The Libertarians have run presidential candidates since 1972 and had their biggest draw in 1980 When Ed Clark earned 921,199 votes. In the last election candidate Harry Browne received 0.36% of the popular vote.

With such numbers, Badnarik is familiar with the charge that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. “Not voting your conscience is a wasted vote,” he retorts. “If you are in prison and there is a 50 percent chance you would get lethal injection, 45 percent chance you would get the electric chair and 5 percent chance you could escape, would you vote for lethal injection because that is the one you are most likely to get?” he says. He thinks for those who believe in the Constitution, there is only one political party that is truly interested in maintaining the Constitutional Republic.

On a sunny Sunday afternoon Badnarik taught a three-hour version of his usually eight-hour class on the US Constitution. About 75 men and women from across generations came to hear what Badnarik had to say on his research of the document that provides the backbone of American government. Badnarik sounded more like a professor teaching than a politician campaigning. He says he always keeps the classes and campaign separate.

“I am an iconoclast,” he said. “Which means I attack cherished icons ... most of what you think about the US is wrong,” he added. For example he attacked Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt as “...both dictators and evil. I rail against Roosevelt the most. He did what Hitler did only Hitler said what he was doing ... I can’t talk about Franklin Roosevelt for any length of time without using vulgarity, he said.

Throughout history, only kings owned property. Ever since the American Revolution ended, he told the class, America has been unique in giving individuals the ability to own property and that is more than just real estate. “All rights are based on property. Your right to life is based on the fact you own your own body, “ he said. With rights he says there are responsibilities, which he believes is the reason many do not value liberty. “They (most Americans) do not have the courage to assign responsibilities to themselves,” he said. “How many of you here think a six-year-old has the right to life?” he asked the crowd. All raised their hands. “Okay, how many think a six-year-old has the right to carry a loaded gun on his hip?” he asked. No hands went up. He said this to illustrate the point the fewer the responsibilities, the fewer rights that can be exercised and vice versa.

“I have a phrase I really hate - ‘Constitutional rights.” Badnarik said. He said the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created by the people in order to limit government while he thinks many are under the impression the government created the Constitution to give rights to the people. Another phrase is “community rights.” “Communities don’t have rights. Only individuals in the community have rights .. that idea of community rights is firmly rooted in the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, “ he said.

Badnarik also disputed the notion of the US as being a democracy. He said the US Constitution does give the US a democratic form of government, but in a true democracy the majority can vote to take property away from the minority. He quoted Alexander Tytler, “(democracy) can only exist until the voters discover they can vote money from the public treasure. From that moment the public always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.” He said government was created so as to protect rights by use of force, if necessary. “We give the government privileges and what does that imply? We can take them away,” he said.

Dissecting the Constitution, he went through the three branches of government with equal criticism of each. “We have very many problems but we are still the greatest country in the world,” he said, but added ,“If you expect the government to get better by itself you are probably smoking something not currently legal.”

“We get to Article 1, section 8. It gives a list of what we allow Congress to do and it’s not very long,” he said. He says the Congress was derelict in its duty because everyone of its members takes an oath to defend the Constitution, yet the Patriot Act was passed without any in Congress reading it in its entirety. Badnarik calls this perjury. He said the Presidents, through use of executive orders, have been taking over the roll of the legislative branch by using the orders to make law and the Supreme Court has appointed itself, through its own ruling, the interpreter of the Constitution. “People, please think. Please use your heads Just because it is in print does not make it true,” he said. He likened that Supreme Court ruling 200 years ago to a bogus title for sale to buy the Golden Gate Bridge. “Just because the Supreme Court says so does not make it law. We interpret the Constitution,” he said. He also opposed the Federal Reserve, as a private bank that has taken the legislative branch’s job of coining money. “Most of what our government does is unconstitutional. It’s time we the people did something about it,” he said. The class ended with a standing ovation.

Since 1787, in order to run for President, a person must be at least 35 years old and born in the United States. Currently one also needs to fill out a one page form and another four page form from the Federal Election Commission. Badnarik can attest after that it becomes a bit more complicated.