Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Join the Libertarian Christian Institute as each week they explore, debate, and analyze the issues that are directly relevant to the intersection of Christianity and liberty. Always thoughtful, frequently controversial, and never boring (trust us), it is our hope and prayer that The Libertarian Christian Podcast serve as a valuable resource to the Church for years to come.
If you'd like to reach out to us and ask a question or submit some feedback, you can reach us at podcast@libertarianchristians.com, as well as on Facebook, Twitter, and of course, our website, libertarianchristians.com.
Matt Bellis:
[0:03] Welcome to the show that gets Christians thinking about faith and politics. Get ready to challenge the status quo, expand your imagination, and tackle controversy head-on. Let's stand together at the intersection of faith and freedom. It's time for the Libertarian Christian Podcast.
Cody:
[0:22] Greetings, you're listening to the Libertarian Christian Podcast, a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute and a member of the Christians for Liberty Network. The theme of this episode is electoral politics, and we have two separate guests. Our first guest is Mike Termott, who ran for vice president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 2024. However, he's now looking for ways for libertarians to leverage our overlap with the Republican Party to shift that party into to a more libertarian direction. He also has some proposals for making changes there that are interesting. So our second guest, though, still thinks that there's a way forward within the Libertarian Party. His name is James Mills, and he's running for lieutenant governor of my home state of Ohio. James helped to rebuild the party in Ohio after the Mesa split, and so he's definitely got some thoughts on how to make a difference. So two paths for making a dent in the political process, one through the Libertarian Party, and another through the GOP. I hope you'll enjoy it. Mike Tremont, welcome to the Libertarian Christian Podcast.
Mike:
[1:23] Thank you so much. It's really great to be with you, Cody. Good to have seen you recently. Good to be with you. Thanks for having me on today.
Cody:
[1:30] Well, yeah, you're at Freedom Fest, which is where I learned of your new efforts, which we'll discuss soon. Well, some of our listeners may know your name because it was on their presidential voting ballots in 2024. And in the interest of full disclosure, I did vote for you. At that point, you're advocating for working within the Libertarian Party. And so why, I guess we'll start with this. Why were you persuaded that that was the way forward then? And why are you looking more closely at advocating for liberty within the GOP now?
Mike:
[1:57] Sure. I spent something like 14 years in the Libertarian Party. I joined the Libertarian Party around the time I changed my professional career. I had been a professional economist. Around the time I went into the police academy and spent 11 1⁄2 years on the road as a cop.
Mike:
[2:16] Coincides approximately with when I joined the Libertarian Party. I had been a long-term Republican. I worked for the White House in 1991 in the Office of Management and Budget as an economist. I campaigned all of 92 on the staff of the re-election campaign for George Herbert Walker Bush and Dan Quayle and spent a lot of time in, the 90s helping campaigns and working within the Republican Party and found it frustrating, especially as young, fiscally conservative economists, right? It was a frustrating time to be a Republican. You remember that George Herbert Walker Bush was the guy who had said, read my lips, no new taxes, and then subsequently agreed to new taxes, right? So it was a frustrating time. And there were other things going on in American politics. The Defense of Marriage Act, for example, I think some of us found a little weird just as an example. And joined the Libertarian Party, like I say, around 2010 or 2011.
Mike:
[3:28] And worked in the party, ran for Congress, worked real hard for others' campaigns, worked with the Broward County, Florida, Libertarian Party. A lot of fun. And then, yes, campaigned for the nomination and ran on the ticket as the vice presidential nominee. I think for the way I look at this.
Mike:
[3:55] The Libertarian Party does a lot of things that are very important in American politics, right? Obviously, it advocates for libertarianism in a way that would be very difficult for other parties to advocate in the sense that it's fairly clean, right, of any ulterior motives. But having said that, the fact that it is an organization that spends a lot of time thinking about principle rather than how to get people elected is a problem, for a political party. The job of a political party is to get people elected and to differentiate one party from another. You know, the parties try to pursue a certain collection of principles, sometimes not very well, sometimes better than others, and sometimes they go astray. But the big objective for a political party is to participate in the political process and the policymaking process. And that means getting people elected or otherwise appointed to public policy positions and administrative positions.
Mike:
[5:09] And I don't think there's a lot of reason to believe that going forward in the future, the next 50 years for the Libertarian Party are going to be all that different than the past 50 years. And that's not to say that it's been an abject failure. The Libertarian Party has succeeded in a number of ways. But analytically speaking, I don't think that there's a reason to say the party won't continue to go through the same cycles that it has in the past, two or three times, depending on your definition of the cycles. And that means that the party will always face a great deal of infighting. It will continue to attract a lot of people who are not interested in the political process. It'll remain focused on principle, which is terrific, but at the expense or perhaps because of the absence of a robust role.
Mike:
[6:09] In the political process in the United States, which unfortunately is a two-party system. And we can all be upset about that. I think most of us are upset about that, that it's a two-party system. But having said that, it is a two-party system. And I believe that the debate that's going to matter in politics over the next, certainly over the next two years, but probably over the next six years and possibly even over the next 10 years, the debate that's going to matter is going to happen inside the Republican Party. And it brings me no joy to say that the Democratic Party is not yet to the starting line in terms of participating in a robust philosophical debate about policy and politics in this country. But that is how I feel. The Democratic Party has not yet even figured out what it's done wrong the past decade. So the debate that's going to matter is what does the Republican Party want to look like in the wake of the departure of President Trump?
Mike:
[7:12] And that's going to matter a great deal to American politics in general. And I believe it's going to cut along a fairly libertarian line, meaning is the party going to go more in the direct or sustain its direction, with a set of populist objectives, which is to say ad hoc and possibly changing objectives, and a great deal of nationalism or what? Will it go in the direction that I would like to see it go, in the direction I suspect you would like to see it go, which is to say more toward what we used to call the basics, you know, a set of traditional American libertarian with a lowercase l political principles like fiscal conservatism and adherence to the Constitution, support for free markets and protection of our medical freedoms. And I think one of the big things that the Republican Party is going to have to wrestle with and eventually come to terms with is support for, perhaps ironically, a policy that President Trump used to be more known for, which is to say a policy of America first, fewer entanglements, less war, right? That is the direction I think the Republican Party is going to go. I think it has to go that way. And I'd like to help it go that way.
Cody:
[8:37] Well, yeah, I mean, you're definitely right. It's, you know, the future of the Republican Party seems to be kind of up for grabs in a lot of ways. So yeah, that's an interesting thought. Well, you know, speaking of the LP, you know, it certainly can be valuable to be a voice crying out in the wilderness, but it's also, you know, really nice to actually get something done. So, you know, you've been through the process of running for office as a third-party candidate. And what are the challenges that independents and the Libertarian Party face under the current system? And are those challenges so insurmountable that our only recourse is to partner with a political party that at the moment seems to be moving further away from small government and free markets and non-interventionism as principles?
Mike:
[9:17] I think the answer is probably, unfortunately, yes. The only answer is to partner with one of the larger organizations, or I might not use the word partner. Not that that's necessarily wrong. I might say join, work within. Obviously, this is easier for me. I was a Republican for decades, right? So for me, it's a homecoming. I can imagine for folks that haven't been members of one of the two major parties, there might be an adjustment there, right? And in that adjustment, it's real. You know, the idea of going from a party which is, which calls it, the Libertarian Party calls itself a party of principle, which is not a bad thing to be. But working in one of the two major parties, you're trying to get people elected. The tent is necessarily a little bit bigger. You're going to find people that agree with you probably less on an array of issues than people in the Libertarian Party, you know, disagree with each other. I think it's probably less. Now, in the Libertarian Party, we punch each other in the face over less things. There's still just as much face punching in the LP. But if you objectively look at the number of things that we agree on inside the LP, the LP membership is, I don't want to say monolithic, right, but a tighter, smaller tent than one of the two major parties. And that.
Mike:
[10:47] The challenge, of course, for a third party, Libertarian Party being the third party in a two-party system, the challenges include ballot access, obviously, because the two major parties control it. This is not a good thing, by the way. This is not a good thing.
Mike:
[11:07] I know that you you have recently or will soon speak to Lars about his ballot access initiative, which I think is very important. And we need more initiatives like that. But the truth is that the two major parties control ballot access. And so you can see how that's going to go. Right. You know, another guy you want to talk to is Larry Sharp. Right. Who has learned, I don't want to say that he just learned it. I mean, Larry's a smart guy. He's understood this, but talk about learning it the hard way. You know, talk about experiencing it. You know, he's had his challenges in New York State, of course, and the New York Democratic Party in particular has made it very difficult. The Republican Party's not helping him much either. So ballot access is obviously a problem. And it's a downward spiral, self-fulfilling prophecy. It's hard to get media attention. It's hard to get funding. It's hard to get volunteer support. It's hard to get any of the things that you need to get to win an election if people don't believe that you've got a real chance.
Mike:
[12:18] And in the absence of those resources, they become right. You don't have much of a chance. You know, in the LP, we would celebrate, you know, if someone got 30 percent, my goodness, 40 percent. Wow. If someone got 20 or 30 percent in a general election, you would consider that a huge success. And rationally, so I don't mean to suggest that wouldn't be a huge accomplishment. It would be. But inside the Republican Party, if you don't win the general election, that is not considered, you know, much of a success. And the primaries are very competitive. And that's where the Republican Liberty Caucus, for example, that I work with very closely, plays a role because the Republican Liberty Caucus, which, of course, was founded in the early 90s. And the chairpersons of which included Ron Paul back in the day, the RLC is able to play a role in those primaries differentiating among candidates who are more or less liberty-minded, who are more or less libertarian. And primaries are just a thing that, to a significant degree, we didn't have in the Libertarian Party.
Cody:
[13:38] Well, so let's talk a little about the Republican Liberty Caucus. So, you know, what are some ways that you think liberty advocates can leverage the GOP, the relationship with the GOP or their joining, being part of the GOP, to make a difference for freedom? So what are you trying to do, for example, with the Republican Liberty Caucus and delegates empowered?
Mike:
[13:58] The RLC is able to endorse candidates and thereby help raise their profile, in particular in the context of their principles, right? The RLC will endorse someone either at the national level for Congress or for Senate or the state chapters endorse people in local elections or for the statehouse, for example.
Mike:
[14:25] Based on their principles. and say so. And so it's a twofer in the sense that you can help raise the profile of a particular candidate that you think is terrific, but you also get to say why and to point out to people, these are the basic principles that we expect candidates to support, basic libertarian principles. And as you know, it is not every candidate in the Democrat, to be fair, is probably not even every candidate in the Libertarian Party, but certainly not in the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. And so the differentiation really does mean something. And of course, the strength of the two major parties is such that there is a great deal in terms of resources that can be leveraged to actually get people elected to office. And it's not just a matter of, you know, Cody, we spent a lot of energy pointing to people like Thomas Massey and Rand Paul, and correctly so, right? Terrific guys.
Mike:
[15:33] Fairly stalwart libertarians and fairly adherent to the principles that we all believe in. And that's terrific. But there are others as well who, you know, maybe you wouldn't agree with 100% if you were a ruthless scorer of how you felt on every issue.
Mike:
[15:56] But being able to move people along in the right direction and to see those people get elected, it's very rewarding and very important. The other thing is that the RLC spends significant time and energy lobbying, especially at the statehouse level, lobbying our elected representatives and and with some traction, both because the RLC has a little bit of profile, a little bit of influence, a little bit of notoriety, but also because the RLC is looked to for a little bit of expertise at the statehouse level. We've lobbied, for example, just some weeks, a couple of months ago now, was at the Texas State GOP Convention where we were lobbying for support for Defend the Guard. And I would argue that our little team, by little team, I mean a couple of dozen people, were able to move the needle. You know, we did get some support voted for at the convention among the delegates to support much of the language that we wanted.
Mike:
[17:10] That would not happen were it not for the Republican Party and it would not happen were it not for the RLC.
Cody:
[17:18] Well, so what do you think, or I guess, why do you think it'll be easier to change the GOP rather than change electoral politics to be more accessible to third parties? I mean, especially in light of, you know, the dangers of joining the GOP and being ignored like Ron Paul or shut out completely like Thomas Massey. I mean, hasn't the Republican Party demonstrated that it can't be a good faith partner for people who care about liberty?
Mike:
[17:43] I think the lesson of Ron Paul and Thomas Massey is that the GOP works. You would never have heard the name Thomas Massey were it not for the GOP. Think about that. The reason he became a congressman in Kentucky was not the Libertarian Party. It was the Republican Party. Now, obviously, he had his struggles. Once an elected, once a congressman, it was tough paddling up that river. And, you know, the showdown with President Trump was epic and Trump and his allies and an enormous amount of resources were able to, get someone else elected in the primary against Massey. But in fairness to Massey, that's just a weird phenomenon. You know, that didn't really cut along libertarian lines, right? It wasn't because he was a libertarian. And it's because he wasn't a jerk. And, you know, that's why he had to go. So they did have their struggles. But I would not argue. I think it would be difficult to argue that those guys were unsuccessful. Right.
Mike:
[18:59] No, Ron Paul didn't become president of the United States. But if that's your benchmark for success, you might be setting the bar a little high. Right. But was he able to inspire millions, dozens of millions maybe around the United States, to come to libertarianism, or at the very least, to open their eyes and think differently about things. I think we, objectively speaking, even if you're a Democrat, even if you hated Ron Paul, I think, objectively speaking, you'd have to agree that he was successful. Some of that because the Libertarian Party, I want to give its due, but most of it due to the Republican, he was able to leverage those resources, and Massey as well, and a whole bunch of others. I would say the same thing about Rand, Paul.
Mike:
[19:51] If Ron says to Rand growing up, you've got to become a member of the Libertarian Party and stick with it, maybe that's a good thing. Maybe it's a bad thing. I don't know. I'm not suggesting, you know, I know the answers of the cosmos. But he doesn't become Senate, right? He's not chairing a Senate committee grilling Anthony Fauci if he's a member of the Libertarian Party. Just not happening. So, yes, it's hard to move a party as big as the Republican Party. But can you make some difference? Absolutely. Now, as far as the direction of the GOP, it has to come back in our direction. I mean, just basic sociological physics. You know, it's gone so far away that it has nowhere to go but come back. You know, it can't get any worse in terms of fiscal policy in the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. We've spent too much money and now we're facing a financial disaster, a financial collapse of the federal government if we don't do something in the next few years.
Mike:
[21:04] So it has to come back in our direction in that sense. I think the American public is sick of war. I don't think too many people would argue with me about that. I think both parties are going to be coming in a pro-war direction, not just for libertarian reasons, not just based on ethics and not just based on good pro-economic growth, which is what we would like to believe the reasons are, but just politics. Just because people hate it, the parties are going to have to move in our direction. I think the Republican Party has moved a little bit in the right direction on medical freedom and will continue to do so. I think that once we get through this administration, we're going to get back to some free market, free trade basics, less regulation. President Trump has been on board with less regulation. But nonetheless, the administration has shown quite a bit of willingness to intervene in markets, especially investment markets. That's too bad.
Mike:
[22:11] The Republican Party is going to come in our direction. Our job is to help accelerate that. And I don't mean to suggest all that means that the next Republican nominee for president is going to be a libertarian. Again, that might be setting the bar a little bit high. I'd like to see the next vice presidential nominee be a libertarian. I'd like it to be me. But if it's someone else who is a good libertarian, that would be a good thing. That would be a big thing. That would be a big win. At the very least, we should be having that conversation. And to have the conversation at the scale that would really affect the future of American politics, that requires one of the two major parties.
Cody:
[22:59] Well, it is. I mean, you made a good point there about, you know, it being very challenging once someone is a libertarian who's in the Republican Party. But obviously getting in to begin with and start to have those conversations is much easier if you're if you rely yourself with the party. But the other challenge, though, is, you know, there's for every Massey, there's, you know, 10, you know, 10 cruises, people who sort of write in on the on the liberty idea and then don't really do it. So is there a danger that as we hold our nose to collaborate with, you know, authoritarians and, you know, Trump sycophants and that we'll just end up getting used to the stench and compromising on our core values?
Mike:
[23:36] Yes.
Cody:
[23:38] Okay. That's always a danger. Okay. Fair enough.
Mike:
[23:42] Well, I mean, there's a risk to everything, right? Yeah. There is that risk. By the way, the flexibility that in the example you point out, right, with Senator Cruz, the flexibility, the nimbleness of thought, I'm trying to put a positive spin on it, that drives us crazy.
Cody:
[24:02] The moral creativity.
Mike:
[24:03] The moral creativity. That's an excellent phrase. The moral creativity that we see with Senator Cruz can go both ways, I believe. You know, you can cajole, push, lobby, drag, beat politicians into going your direction a little bit too. And once the zeitgeist starts going in the right direction, you might even see Senator Cruz turn back into a liberty-minded senator. No promises there. No promises.
Cody:
[24:39] I have a broad question. And then I also have a more specific question because we had mentioned something that you're doing with the delegates empowered, but we didn't really get into the details there. So I do want, I do want you to have a couple of minutes to explain that. But before we do that, just kind of a general question. Do you think of your efforts as sort of an extension of what we had in the past, the paleo strategy of bringing libertarians and conservatives together, or is it something entirely different? But in any case, what lessons do you think we can learn from the successes and failures of those previous attempts to kind of build a coalition of libertarians and Republicans?
Mike:
[25:12] I think that is an interesting question. No, I don't necessarily view it as an extension of that per se, but I do think that they share a lot of roots philosophically, right? How do I say? They are both in response to the natural tension that you and I have been discussing. You know, we feel a certain way philosophically and we feel a certain way in terms of trying to get a bang for our buck, a bang for our time, a bang for our minute, for our hour. We're trying to get as much done as possible, And that means always, it means working, politics is by nature a business in which you're necessarily working with a whole lot of people with whom you don't see perfectly eye to eye. So there is that natural tension and it leads to both phenomenon.
Mike:
[26:07] One, switching parties once in a while. Two, members of one party working with members of another party. I actually wish that there were more of that, right? And by the way, I wish there were more outreach in both directions. I wish that the GOP would do a better job. Maybe it will in the future. Maybe I could help. But I wish that there were more outreach from the GOP to the LP, right? Now, to be honest, I wasn't a big fan of Trump speaking to the Libertarian Party convention because of certain ways that he handled it. I thought the whole thing could have been handled a little bit better. But I think that if a sitting president, a Republican president, or just prominent Republican candidates, right, would speak with more libertarians in the context of being libertarian, come to the convention, but not so just in a campaign sense, but in a collaborative here's-what-I-think sense. I think it would be better received. In other words, if President Trump, well, let me make up a silly example, which maybe isn't so silly. If President Trump had come to Grand Rapids, I'll bet he would have been, now maybe not this year, we're all mad at him for different reasons.
Cody:
[27:26] Right? To be clear, during the LP convention that was this year.
Mike:
[27:30] Yeah, thank you. Although Grand Rapids is a nice place to visit other times too. You're right, I didn't mean the convention. But my point is that if he or other prominent Republicans would speak to libertarians, outside of the context of, I want your vote, I want to steal your resources, right? I think that they would be very well received, not because everyone sees everything eye to eye, but because it would have a more collaborative feel rather than, I hate your party, I want to crush your party, I think your party sucks, you shouldn't have ballot access, and I'd wish you'd go away, which is how it feels when it's in the context of a competitive campaign. And I would say the same thing about libertarians. I wish that we would do a better job in the libertarian party. I wish that folks would do a better job of reaching out to their local Republicans.
Mike:
[28:33] Some groups do this, some don't. There is a fear that you'll lose your members, right? I don't mean that that's irrational, but sometimes you got to take a little bit of a risk ask and reach out. And one of the things that we did in Broward County, I was real proud of our leadership in Broward County. Once in a while, they would invite the Republican and Democratic candidates for Congress, for example, to come over to the Moose Lodge and talk to us.
Mike:
[29:04] I thought those were excellent meetings. You know, people would share low key, not, you know, give us 15 minutes of speech and then we clap and you leave.
Mike:
[29:13] Tell us what it is that you're actually thinking, why you're running, what is this all about? And then take questions and people give feedback. And I can remember there were moments when there was a little bit of argument, but it wasn't disrespectful. Those kinds of things can be very productive. I would like to see more of that.
Cody:
[29:33] Well, before we wrap up, can you tell us a little bit what you're trying to do specifically with delegates in power? Because it's an interesting idea.
Mike:
[29:40] I appreciate that. I am first the umbrella. I am running a campaign to earn the vice presidential nomination of the Republican Party at the convention in 2028. And there are two big ideas. One idea, we're going to come back to the one that you brought up.
Mike:
[29:59] One idea is we believe that the Republican Party would be better off, indeed, we believe America would be better off, if the GOP national ticket included someone from the liberty movement. Whether it's me or another libertarian, someone from the liberty movement should be included on the GOP ticket. To unify the party and to recognize this is the direction the party is going. It just is. And a lot of the youngsters in the GOP, very conservative, but many are very liberty-minded as well. And the second idea is to empower our national delegates to choose the next vice presidential nominee on their own, in a robust, legitimate democratic process, rather than merely deferring to the presidential nominee. As you know, the way this is typically done, and by typical, I mean uniformly the past century, the way this has been done is the presidential nominee says.
Mike:
[31:04] Maybe a few days before the convention, maybe a day before the convention, maybe weeks before the convention, The presidential nominee says, this is the person I want as a vice presidential nominee. And no matter how stupid an idea they come up with, everyone pretends it's genius, right? Everyone says, oh, my goodness, you're absolutely right. Dan Quayle, great idea. Kamala Harris, oh, my goodness, Kamala Harris. Why didn't we think of Kamala Harris, right? Barack Obama says it's going to be Joe Biden. Oh, Joe Biden, he's genius. You're a genius. This is a great idea. And, you know...
Mike:
[31:41] In a lot of cases, it's just not true, right? And part of the problem is you don't always get the A-team when you just wait for the old man to wake up one Saturday morning and unilaterally announce this without any process, without any public vetting. In some cases, there's a little bit of a process, right? George W. Bush had a committee select, but the chairman of the committee selected himself, so that was a little bit weird. In the case of George Herbert Walker Bush, his dad, There was no process whatsoever. He just says, it's Dan Quayle, and everyone is shocked. By the way, including Senator Quayle himself was shocked. And this is not a good way to do business, not just because you don't always get the A-team, but it's not good for the party, right? It's not good for grassroots. It's not good for fundraising. It's not good for showing some transparency and some inclusivity. It's not good for grassroots. And.
Mike:
[32:42] That would be the case in the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, right? There's just no way to suggest that you're getting any democracy involved, any transparency. And I think especially as youngsters come into the party in the natural course of demography, I think people are increasingly astonished by how dopey the process is. I think that you're going to have to explain to your grandchildren someday.
Mike:
[33:15] People will say, Grandpa, is it true? Grandpa, it can't possibly be true. Is it true that many years ago, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party would choose their vice presidents based on just, the knee-jerk whim of the presidential nominee? And you'll have to say, yeah. And they'll be like, no, nobody, no major political party would be so stupid as to select the vice president of the United States. This is a big deal, right? The nominee with no process whatsoever. It's just, it's insane. It's silly. And we've been doing this. The last time we had a serious vote in a major party, on who it should be was 1956, when the Democratic Party chose Estes Kefauver instead of John Kennedy. Kennedy becomes president four years later. But at the time, they at least had a floor vote. We need at least a floor vote. We need our delegates. The rules don't even need to be changed. The delegates just have to act like adults and say, we would like a vote. And for that vote to include more than one, nominee. The way it works now is it's just a voice vote up or down, right? Everyone in favor of Sarah Palin say aye. Everyone says aye.
Mike:
[34:38] All opposed. Crickets, right? I don't even know what happens if you say no. I think you probably fall through a hole in the floor of the convention center. So it's not a real process, but it can be. The delegates are already legally required to pick a nominee. It's just that the vote is dopey. It's just up or down on one person, whoever the chairman says, based on whatever the presidential nominee says. So that's the basics of the campaign is we're seeking the vice presidential nomination to advance the liberty movement, to advance libertarianism, and the basic principles include, That and the ticket to unify the party and to get rid of this silly idea of having the vice presidential nominee picked by just one guy. It's dumb and outdated and old fashioned.
Cody:
[35:37] Well, Mike, I certainly understand there are libertarians out there who are skeptical of working within the two party system. But I'm thankful for people like yourself, like Thomas Massey, who are trying to make a positive difference within the system as it is. And I wish you every success in that.
Mike:
[35:51] Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that. We have to try, is what I would say. Am I going to guarantee, like Joe Namath did? Kids, look it up. And in 69, you know, across the board success, no such guarantee in life. But you've got to try. And we're already moving the needle. So let's move it some more.
Cody:
[36:14] All right. Mike Tremont, thank you for joining us on the Libertarian Christian Podcast.
Mike:
[36:18] Thank you.
Cody:
[36:19] James, welcome to the Libertarian Christian Podcast. You're running alongside Don Kissick in hopes of taking the governorship and lieutenant, lieutenant governorship for the Libertarian Party of Ohio. And that's a level of public office that, as far as I can tell, no libertarian has ever won unless we count Gary Johnson being governor of New Mexico when he was a Republican. So what do you think your chances are? And what's, you know, some would argue is a fixed race where being, you know, one of the major parties is everything. And if they aren't great, why should Ohioans consider voting for you? There's this kind of idea that, well, you know, the Libertarian Party is not going to win, so I'm not going to vote for it, which is kind of a chicken and egg thing. But why should Ohioans consider voting for you?
James:
[37:02] No, I again, Cody, I appreciate you bringing me on and we just appreciate the additional levels of support. And honestly, the big thing that we're finding in this conversation is people are tired of the options that we're being given here in Ohio right now. And that's honestly one of the reasons why Don and I stepped up to run is because why pick your poison when you can still try to be the antidote? And so in that, I don't necessarily think that it's a crapshoot on if we're going to win, mainly because when you look at the statistics and I've had to pour through the statistics, not only when I was vice chair of the Libertarian Party of Ohio, but also in this campaign.
James:
[37:42] Over 72 percent of Ohioans are politically homeless or vilified as moderates within their own party. And so when you look at that statistic, that's a massive number. Like if you go into the numbers, there's a large number of people who are just not coming out to vote. And that's the base that we're really mobilizing right now with this election is that we're not really targeting Republicans. We're not really targeting Democrats. We're targeting the people who are like, hey, I'm tired of picking the poison. I'm just not going to vote this year. And so we've had a lot of success with that. But even further, one of the most interesting facets that we've been finding is that there's just so many single issues here in Ohio right now that they're just they're so hot of an issue that philosophically, a lot of libertarians are falling on the more popular side anyway. Whereas when you look at the more partisan policies and the other candidates,
James:
[38:40] They're not even talking about some of this stuff. So when you look at it, the first being data centers, right? We were the first to come out and really say, hey, we're against data centers for the use of eminent domain and the NDAs that are being signed from it and the surveillance capacity and all of that stuff.
James:
[38:57] And that's a large portion of Ohioans who are kind of in agreement on some type of moratorium on new construction. And we were talking about that since day one. But then the secondary point to that too is abolishing property taxes. Another large conversation here in Ohio that, you know, nobody was really talking about. We were the first ones to sign the actual petition itself. And we've been campaigning hard on that. And there's some conversational points on how to make that last and be effective. But again, we monopolized, so to speak, that conversation early on. And then the third two is the flat camera conversations, right? Because that's a conversation that, again, near and dear to the libertarian heart, we're seeing our civil liberties being eroded by these fly cameras. And so we've been very ardent about our and outspoken regarding that situation in general. And then the last and final thing, and this is a little bit more recent, is issue three with the ID check. Right the fact of the matter is that we are already doing photo IDs for voting and in our and we are really the only one who is saying no this even Amy Acton has came out and said hey she's in support of issue three and in our opinion and this is what we've out came out and actually said
James:
[40:20] It's the fact that, number one, we already have those in place, but two, it's kind of the government going out and seeking a problem to try to push some kind of solution. And so in that situation, when you look at those four things, and there's a variety of other topics that are very libertarian leaning right now that
James:
[40:38] Are on everyone's minds that we've been very outspoken on as well, such as corruption and the first energy scandal and, you know, the Epstein conversation and everything like that, that we are right here in the midst having all of these conversations, whereas most other politicians are avoiding it. And so I say that I think the fact that we are more genuine, the fact that we're coming out and we're actually planting our feet in the sand regarding something. We had a reporter, Jeremy Pelsner, who the what he wrote a couple of months ago was Aaron Burr versus Alexander Hamilton. And it was funny because we got a lot of coverage from it. And he said that Amy Acton and Vivek were like Aaron Burr in the fact that you don't know what they stand. So what are they going to fall for? Versus he said the libertarian candidate, Don, who answered all of these questions that the other candidates were avoiding, answered everything. And so at least now you know where this candidate stands. And so there's a lot of power in, number one, standing on principle and standing on what you believe in. But two, again, the fact that the majority of these issues that are coming up naturally aligned with the libertarian movement is something that
James:
[41:57] I'd expect to see more of that 72% politically homeless come out to vote this election cycle.
Cody:
[42:04] Well, just a real quick legal thing. He said something about thanks for the support. LCI is a 501c3, so we aren't technically supporting anyone, but we are happy to have you on to give your thoughts. That being said, the Republican candidate for governor in Ohio is fairly high profile, Vivek Ramaswamy. He's a bit of a technocrat. He kisses Trump's butt way too much, but he also has some libertarian leanings. You mentioned data centers and flot cams. He's a little more positive on data centers as a technocrat, but he's been a little more critical of flot cams, Although we'll kind of see what, you know, I guess if he were, if he's to win, we'll see how he approaches that in practice. But in any case, some of my, you know, sort of conservatarian friends are saying, well, you know, Dubek is good enough. You know, he's kind of libertarian. Why is the why is the LP trying to upset the apple cart and win this thing for the Democrat? And so what would you say to that?
James:
[42:56] No, it's a great question. And there's really two answers to it. The first being, I'll give Vivek complete credit on he does have some rhetoric that is libertarian meaning, especially when you look at the dissolving some of the bureaucracy in the administration that's been costly to Ohioans. But the flip side is, is I wouldn't necessarily characterize him as libertarian, more as a, and you put it perfectly, the technocrat aspect. Because in my opinion, I wrote a note down on this in particular.
James:
[43:26] Philosophically, I feel like he's asking the question of, hey, the government's doing bad things, so how can I make it do good things? Whereas the more libertarian mindset is, is why does the government need to be involved in the first place? And so I say that one of the biggest conversational points, kind of going back to your point, is the data center and the flock, but the biggest conversational point is the corporate incentives. When you look at what his rhetoric has been and even just in practice with how he's operated his own businesses, right, the large scale corporate incentives through subsidies, tax abatements and just overall tax incentives has been a lever that he's ardently came out and said he'd be in support of. In our opinion, as someone who runs a small business and who lives in that small business ecosystem, I go to Chimbers of Commerce and small business incubators regularly, and I have that conversation of like, hey, what can we do better? And I'm a part of this group called Right to Start with my business, which is for the small business owner. And I say all this, the biggest issue we run across is when the government can pick winners and losers based on the creating these corporate incentives, these large tax abatements and the subsidies. When you look at those conversations, that's what creates state mandated monopolies like a Duke Energy or like an AT&T or like a Nationwide.
James:
[44:52] And when you look at those conversations, that's what creates state mandated monopolies like a Duke Energy or like an AT&T or like a Nationwide. That's not libertarian. And that's something that we come out and we're like, hey, we're against corporate incentives for these large scale enterprises because, and this is one of my favorite, it's something that happened in our backyard. Number one, you could talk to the Beaver Mini Mart in Beaver Creek, Ohio, that we just went to last week. That's, you know, having a lot of conversations with Buc-ee's because of that. But the flip side, too, is we went out to Athens County a couple months ago to do a town hall event. And there was a Republican County Commissioner candidate who had to close her doors because she owned a diner and she had to close her doors because some kind of Applebee's or some kind of franchise chain. Came in with the blessing of the county commissioners currently and ran her out of business. And so you look at that and that's the exact kind of articulation I would make on how the VEC's been articulating what he would do for corporate incentives and to bring jobs into Ohio. And that's just, you alleviate more poverty and underemployment by building a better small business ecosystem than you would to bring in some large scale corporation. And so that's, that's kind of my articulation and to that second point is is when you look at the conversation in general of
James:
[46:15] Stealing votes which is often what we hear about every vote's earned and so I want to make that clear number one every vote it's not necessarily hey I'm taking votes from Republicans it's no they just wouldn't have voted for Buzek anyway right you have to earn that vote but number two Again, that goes to that conversation of why pick good enough,
Mike:
[46:38] Right?
James:
[46:38] If I'm trying to pick my poison, well, it's still poison, right? You can stand on your principle and vote for who you think is actually the better candidate. And that's what drives success. And the more people who do that, the more that light shines to others and more candles that we can light from that conversation. And that's really what we're trying to do is we're trying to create that call for a movement where we're tired of picking poison. We want to be that antidote and we want others to see that they can be the antidote too.
Cody:
[47:06] Well, I mean, you know, yeah, and I think this is especially true on a federal level, but I think it's also true on the state level. You know, at a certain point, you know, as we look at, you know, debt and inflation and kind of where our future for our kids and our grandkids is going, you know, it's kind of, it's insane to me to think that there are people who are sort of saying, let's do that but maybe a little bit slower yeah but Well, so I want to talk a little about the challenges that libertarians are going to face in any election. I mean, obviously, there's the kind of the inertia of voters, which we've talked about. Then there's this kind of media problem where they tend to only take Democrats and Republicans seriously. What are some ways in which the two-party system itself, this kind of what they call the uniparty, works together to create roadblocks for non-duopoly candidates? What kind of challenges are you having to overcome as far as that's concerned?
James:
[47:58] Honestly, that's a great question because we've had to jump through so, so, so many hurdles. The first, I would argue, is how many signatures we had to collect, number one, to get on the ballot, and the fact that 99% of them were thrown out. And so when you look at that, you're like, well, we collected, I think we needed, I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head, But
Cody:
[48:21] We were out
James:
[48:22] Every single weekend collecting signatures, and we had an app to verify, and this is one of the stipulations on collecting that signature, they couldn't have voted in another candidate's or party's primary prior. And so when you look at that, if you would have voted in a Republican primary or this person would have voted in a Democratic primary, we wouldn't have been allowed to collect that signature or it would have not counted. And so that was a huge deterrent because we would pull up that app and we'd be like, Well, we appreciate your support. Unfortunately, you're a registered Democrat from the last election cycle. We can't actually use your signature. And so now you had to overcome that obstacle just to even get on the ballot, let alone the signature requirement. But then you have the conversation of impeding regulation with like...
Cody:
[49:12] Just to kind of be clear on that, the way that that sort of ends up working is if you're someone who's now saying, I'm kind of done with this, I'm considering voting libertarian, you've had to have already voted libertarian. So it makes it really difficult to change your mind or consider another option. You have to sort of already be, have made that commitment.
James:
[49:29] Either a libertarian or you didn't vote in the last primary. And so, yeah, in both of those conversations, you're like, cool, okay, well, you were a Republican. You can't sign this and you can't really change your mind until the primary. Right. So it was something that, you know, you would talk to 10 people who might be interested in signing your petition just because you're standing out at a library. And maybe only two would actually be able to sign for you. And then when you would actually go in and turn in those signatures, the hardest part of that conversation is that they could still throw that out because there might be an address that's wrong or the signature might look off. And the general rule of thumb is you collect three times the amount of signatures that's required. And so, because you would anticipate over 66% of them to be thrown out anyway. And so, that's one of the biggest issues I think we ran across early in the campaign that, again, we wouldn't have had to face otherwise. But then you see other type of stuff as well with SB 395 as an example where they're talking about eliminating, making it into a more like two-party system.
James:
[50:41] Ranked choice system, which theoretically sounds great. But when you look at it, it's going to prioritize people who already have the money and already have the momentum. And so when you look at that, that would disqualify us in the future, more than likely from even having ballot access. And so that was something that was instituted as soon as we started getting, or something that was introduced into the house, to the state house, as soon as we started gaining some momentum. And that's not even talking about some of the conversational points on
James:
[51:14] The media or the fundraising aspect or just running such a grassroots campaign, which is something that we're constantly facing right now is that and actually Jeremy Pelsner and the media, which one thing we've had a lot of success right now and getting op eds and editorials and interviews with a lot of these media because we're just persistent. We're scrappy. And so we've gotten a lot of media coverage for a libertarian candidate, which has been amazing. And they've included us in every single issue that they want to cover. And so now we're getting more coverage, which is amazing. But that took a lot of work. And again, that didn't start until June, even though I was sending press releases and emails and calling these reporters since December when we first announced that we were running. But the second point is, is they came out with a news article not too long ago, kind of tongue in cheek saying what we're up against, because almost by design, we're running a very, a really...
James:
[52:19] We're running a campaign where we're not really prioritizing fundraising. And the knowledge behind that is, is because we're in an affordability crisis and it seems almost disingenuous and disrespectful to say, hey, I need you to donate millions of dollars or thousands of dollars to my campaign. And we're very picky on like who we're taking money from anyway. It's not that we're not getting phone calls from some of these PACs and stuff who are like, hey, we'd love to funnel money just to, you know, step on the other candidate. And we're like, no, no, we're good. We're good. Even though we would benefit our campaign, we're good. And so Jeremy Pelsner wrote that article and he's like, when you look at the other two candidates, there's a hundred million, there's hundreds of millions of dollars in the gap of fundraising in comparison to what we're doing versus what they're doing. And that's just become more trashy.
Cody:
[53:15] Well, yeah, and the money issue, I mean, I've talked to a number of people who have been sort of connected with the Republican Party in Ohio, who've sort of said, you know, that the party's support for Vivek, in particular, is largely because of the access to money that he has, right? And so we've kind of created this system where candidates that aren't necessarily well-liked are going to, you know, be picked because they think they can go the distance when it comes to money because it's become such a money game. And, you know, there's lots of reasons why maybe Vivek is less popular and some of them are legitimate and some of them are illegitimate. I also know that, you know, race and religion are a big factor there and I think that's pretty stupid. Well, I do want to talk a little bit about strategy, though. So it seems to me, and maybe you agree with me, that most Americans are kind of libertarians by default. But then there are some areas where either fear takes over or they just kind of go along with the status quo, you know, who's going to build the roads kind of stuff. And so how can we get our neighbors to recognize their libertarian core and get them to apply that thinking more consistently to other areas of life?
James:
[54:20] Really I think the the biggest part of the conversation is having the conversation and I think that's the biggest thing is is there's this misnomer of what libertarianism is oftentimes oftentimes and I'm sure you've ran across this is is that we are deemed as non-compassionate that we lack compassion in conversations that we're very stoic that you know we're very hey I'm only focusing on the economy and that's something that is just wrong in the sense that we as libertarians, and I know you just based on some of our conversations as well, we as libertarians are compassionate. We just don't think that government is the most effective way to show and facilitate that compassion, right? And so having a conversation with our neighbor and just, the first step in loving my neighbor is walking out to meet them, right? And so when you look at that conversation, if I step out and just have a conversation of What's the big issues that are impacting you today, Mr. and Mrs. Neighbor? Nine times out of 10, they're going to say something that we already have an answer for that we're like, hey, okay,
James:
[55:32] A very divisive conversation is regarding the poor and the marginalized and the immigrant population, right? Like, if you go to a more liberal person, they might say, well, you guys are terrible on those. And in reality, when you look at a libertarian, we're like, no, we actually talk a lot about open borders. And if anything, we also talk quite a bit regarding, you know, us donate. I know a lot of libertarians who donate their time and their money towards foreign marginalized communities, right? And so that's something like I run a food truck and I run a non-profit based with that food truck where we collect coats on our food truck during the winter and we go and distribute that out to the the homeless and again we're not the only libertarians that I know who are doing that and so again compassion is there it's just a matter of what's the best way to facilitate that and again I think
James:
[56:32] The first step in doing that is to reduce the conversation instead of having it where you need to be a libertarian or I'm going to push you towards this. It's asking more questions, right? It's having enough curiosity to say, okay, well, why are you believing what you believe? Because at the core of it, the more you ask why, the more libertarian they're going to seem. They're going to be like, oh, I didn't need the government to facilitate this compassion. You're right. Hey, welcome to the Libertarian Party,
Mike:
[57:05] Right?
Cody:
[57:07] Well, yes. Okay, so now once those people are welcome, though, what they're going to find is that there's a lot of Libertarian infighting. And so, you know, some of us are purists. Others are more pragmatic. You know, unfortunately, in an election, you're voting for a package in one person, right? So not everything in that package is necessarily something you love. You're going to look at somebody maybe like Gary Johnson, who ran for president in the past, and say, well, he's not really a strict Libertarian, is he? And so, you know, in one sense, that imperfection of democracy is actually what drives us to become libertarians. You sort of go, well, I don't want to vote for a package that I like. And so, you know, we don't want to compromise on this right to live our own lives, right? And, you know, democracy, I think as Milton Friedman says, it's not like the market where, you know, you say I want a blue tie and you want a red tie and you go buy a blue one and I buy a red one. Democracy is like I'm going to buy the blue tie and everybody has to have the blue tie now.
Cody:
[57:57] And so, you know, we don't want to compromise on that. And so, but voting is this thing where I think you kind of have to on some level, but it can also be a calculation to make the world a better place if we actually let people who won't bankrupt our children's future and might actually be able to shrink the state. And so it becomes kind of like that sort of Lysander Spoonerian kind of gamble of kind of, you know, using your vote defensively, right? And so, you know, even if we didn't win in this election, we could maybe build momentum that could lead libertarians to winning future elections. There is that strategy involved if we can build on it. And so, you know, which is why I think when people say that they're going to support the best duopoly status they can until they think a libertarian can really win, I always sort of ask, well, if not now, when? And if we don't do whatever we can to actually stop this crazy train going off the fiscal cliff, instead of just, you know, voting for the guy who might get us there a little more slowly, how are we going to excuse that when the American dream is over for our children? And so I guess my, it was kind of ranty, wasn't it? I guess my question to you is, what do you say to libertarians who abstain from voting or supporting libertarian candidates because they aren't perfect or their chances of winning right now seem slim until, of course, the momentum can be built where they can win?
James:
[59:15] Well, honestly, there's kind of three points that I would want to make on top of that. So the first point being, when you look at the conversation of, the purest aspect, right? And to your point also on, it's the erosion slowly that makes the coastline disappear. And I think that's the most important facet is that as we continue to just pick the poison and as we continue actually as, and one of the favorite things that I've been having conversations on is everyone is striving to be the loudest in the room, not the most heard, right and so as you continue to only prioritize those most loud the the wisdom and the intelligence and and the ability to be heard is going to be drowned out by all that noise and so i i say that that's exactly what you're talking about of like hey if i'm just going to vote because i think he's 99 versus the 100 again you're just following that that noise you're eroding your coastline But the second
James:
[1:00:21] Point I would want to make also is, is that philosophically, and this is true, not even just as libertarians, but philosophically, most of the time, people are going to agree on 90%. And it's whether or not that 10% is worth having a conversation over. Right. And so that's the key is, is can we have that conversation of what that other 10% looks like?
James:
[1:00:43] On the third point is, is I would also argue that, hey, don't vote just because someone's libertarian. Don't vote if someone's just Republican or Democrat. Vote based on the fact that you think they are the most qualified and the best candidate for what your views and opinions are. And I say that kind of shooting myself in the foot because philosophically, again, the reason I'm a libertarian is because I think we are the strongest when you look at individual liberty and the means and ways that we can affect change. Because again, I believe personally that the government is not going to be an effective way to facilitate my compassion or facilitate any of these types of programs. And really the, and so again, vote for the best person, don't vote based on party. But then the last conversation point, and I think this is really the sticking point, especially for the purest libertarian, as we were building the Libertarian Party of Ohio. It was me and Michael Sweeney, who's still the chair. And we kind of inherited this party after the Mises, the transfer and leadership for Mises.
Cody:
[1:01:52] Which caused a big split.
James:
[1:01:53] Which caused a big split. So you would have, we were talking about Warren County, not too hungry, but me and you. And we went from having like 15 members to like me and one other person. And then now we're starting to see growth again. And the way that we did this was not to necessarily go towards the purest libertarian and say, hey, we need you to agree on every single thing. We can have that disagreement. In general, and this is the type of articulation we were making to grow the party again, is that we lean typically as libertarians, more socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but united under liberty. And I say that if you disagree on those first two points, the socially liberal, fiscally conservative, that last point is the most sticky and that's the one that we all need to agree on as libertarians is that we are united under the premise of liberty and so saying that That's why I think, one, vote for the libertarian candidate, because if you want someone who's against the government overreach that we've constantly been seeing and against the statist institute, and that's prioritizing Epstein-type folks, vote for us, because I think that's going to be the most mobile.
Cody:
[1:03:07] Well, James, I know you have a hard stop. Is it possible I could ask you one more question? I think it's kind of important.
James:
[1:03:11] Yeah.
Cody:
[1:03:12] So, you know, does what happened to Thomas Massey, there's probably a lot of people listening here thinking, okay, that sounds great, James, but I still think voting Republican is going to be the best way forward. But does what happened to Thomas Massey prove that there's no future for Libertarians in the Republican Party?
James:
[1:03:28] Honestly i think that's a really great question i hold on to hope for everything but the hard part is is that i think when you look at given the theme of the libertarian christian podcast this would be a time where jesus would want to flip tables is probably the best way to put it and we could talk about that from a the church institutions and all that too but you could also talk about that on the political side where it's like, well, right now there are institutions within politics for the Republican and the Democratic parties where it's like, how corrupt and how deep does the rot actually go? And so
James:
[1:04:13] Personally, if I were trying to affect change by, I had a thought early on in my political career on should I try to go down the Republican route and try to affect change by, if you look at the Odyssey, right? It's the Trojan horse because Odyssey is, of course, in movies. So it's the Trojan horse analogy of like, okay, I could go in and be this Trojan horse and try to affect change from the Republican side while pushing more libertarian ideologies. And there's probably some merit to that. Look at how well Thomas Massey has been doing. But the flip side is, is that it will put a target on your back in a way that They'll shut you down pretty quickly, whereas even if a libertarian's not getting elected,
James:
[1:05:00] Which again, the outlook is that libertarians are going to make a massive shift as we continue to hold true to our values. And the more we light, it's the same analogy that I kind of mentioned to you before, where when you go to church on Christmas Eve and you're singing Silent Night, you take your candle and you light someone else's candle, right? And then that person lights another candle. And that just continues on and will force where once you light all the candles, the one candle can be blown out, but many can withstand the wind. And that's the type of movement that you're able to create by being kind of on the outskirts of the system. And so I think that's one of the biggest reasons why I'm not running as a Republican is the fact that, again, I can create and affect more change by creating a more cultural dynamic of conversation around our topics by being an outsider in this election.
Mike:
[1:05:56] Thank you.
Cody:
[1:05:56] James Mills, he's running for lieutenant governor of Ohio. Where can people find out more about your campaign, James?
James:
[1:06:01] Yeah, you can look us up on Facebook, on TikTok. It's Kissick Mills for Ohio on TikTok. James Mills for Lieutenant Governor on Facebook. You could also go to donkissick.com and I'd be remiss to say, hey, please donate. We need as much money as we can get. But again, we just appreciate all the support from your listeners. If they support us, I again recognize that you guys are a 501c3.
Mike:
[1:06:27] All right.
Cody:
[1:06:28] Thank you, James.
James:
[1:06:29] Thank you. I appreciate you.
Norman Horn:
[1:06:32] Thank you for listening to another episode of the Libertarian Christian Podcast. If you liked today's episode, we encourage you to rate us on Apple Podcasts to help expand our audience. If you want to reach out to us, email us at podcast@libertarianchristians.com. You can also reach us @Lciofficial on Twitter. And of course we are on Facebook and have an active group you are welcome to join. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you next time.
Katherine Williams:
[1:06:57] The Libertarian Christian Podcast is a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute, a registered 501(c)3 non-profit. If you'd like to find out more about LCI, visit us on the web, at LibertarianChristians.com. The voiceovers are by Matt Bellis and Katherine Williams. As of Episode 115, our audio production is provided by Podsworth Media. Check them out at Podsworth.com.