Bill Weld Apologists Revealed the Ugly Side of the Liberty Movement

By Brett Chandrasekhar

At May during the Libertarian Party’s National Convention, a pudgy white man went up on stage, played music on his phone, and began a stripshow. This was James Weeks, a candidate for chairman of the party. C-SPAN aired this event and multiple publications picked it up, using it to symbolize the LP’s circus-like qualities.

Embarrassing? Yes. But by far the ugliest moment of the convention happened 25 minutes later: when the delegates successfully selected Bill Weld as their VP nominee.

Hardly more than half the delegates — 50.573% to be precise — voted for Weld, making him the victor.

Gary Johnson, before the vote, made an emotional plea to the crowd:

“If it’s not Bill Weld, I don’t think we have the opportunity of being elected President of the United States.”

“At a minimum, I think we’re in the presidential debates. If it’s not Bill Weld, I don’t think that that happens.”

“If it is Bill Weld, there’s a real possibility that we can achieve major party status (sic).”

Now in November: no presidency, no presidential debates, and no 5%.

But like Republicans at a Trump rally, Johnson supporters turned off their independent reasoning skills and let their emotions take control. As another vice presidential candidate put it, they drank the kool-aid. They were mindless drones following every order of their wise and benevolent leader, even when that leader’s judgment was obviously askew.

Along with their failing reasoning capabilities, Johnson supporters had a sudden bout of amnesia regarding the history of the vice presidential candidate they were now voting for.

They forgot that Weld increased environmental regulations as governor.

They forgot that Weld increased gun regulations.

They forgot that Weld used eminent domain.

They forgot that Weld supported the Iraq War.

They forgot that Weld supported the Patriot Act.

They forgot that Weld supported the Obamacare mandate.

They forgot that Weld betrayed the New York LP in 2006.

The last is particularly noteworthy. Alicia Dearn’s emotional plea to Weld not to betray the party (at this year’s national convention) was an almost comical reenactment of what had occurred 10 years earlier.

In 2006, Weld ran for governor of New York. The system in New York allowed a candidate to receive the nomination (not merely endorsement) of multiple parties. Weld planned to run under the banners of both the Republican and the Libertarian Party. Before he was nominated by the LP, he was asked to “stick to this to the end, no matter what threats [he got] from the Republican Party.” A few months later, Weld failed to attain the separate Republican nomination. The GOP, citing the dangers of the Libertarian Party, requested he drop out completely. He complied, reneging on his promise and destroying the New York LP’s opportunity to get ballot access for the next 4 years.

Related: I Voted For Johnson, But Bill Weld Should Be Kicked Out of the LP Forever

With all this in mind, the correct attitude to take toward Weld was one of skepticism (or even outright rejection), not trust.

Yet after his successful nomination in May of this year, Libertarians at every corner chose to apologize for him, to make excuses for him, to interpret his statements in a way no sane person would. What happened to the libertarian who was skeptical of politicians, whether they had an (R) or (D) next to their names? Suddenly, if that politician had an (L), they had the best of intentions. Anything disconcerting they said had to be an obvious misinterpretation of their words.

When someone makes a mistake over and over, it’s time to consider that it might not be a mistake. That might actually reveal their true motives and true thoughts.

When Weld released a statement to the press on October 25, many publications reported he was endorsing Hillary Clinton and dropping out. Untrue, according to his explicit statements, but it was understandable why anyone would think this. Weld had conveniently transitioned from somewhat pessimistic remarks about the Libertarian Party into a tirade about about Donald Trump’s lack of presidential fitness. He then ended with a paragraph sounding creepily similar to how someone would dissuade third party voters from voting their conscience.

Then on November 1, he went on Morning Joe and made his opinion much clearer. In response to a question about who he was voting for, the Libertarian stated:

I’ll vote for my own ticket, but I think the most important thing for the country is Donald Trump not being elected President.

What did Weld mean by this? He was advocating that Americans do anything they could to keep Donald Trump out, even if it meant voting Hillary. The words “but” and “the most important thing” signalled that Weld thought it was “more important” to keep Trump out than to vote Libertarian.

Angered that the Libertarian nominee would do this, I wrote an article criticizing his statement. The feedback to the piece was entirely negative. But it was obvious what Weld had meant. In fact, every average American would have understood him the way I did. The only person who wouldn’t was a Libertarian trying to make excuses for their nominee. Weld’s statement functioned as a dog whistle; they were code words meaning one thing to the general American audience and another to his Libertarian supporters.

Later that same day, the culmination of Weld’s outrageous remarks happened. He went on Rachel Maddow.

Bill Weld, Libertarian V.P. candidate “vouching for” but not quite endorsing Hillary Clinton. https://t.co/TrHdheUHJ4

— Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) November 2, 2016

MADDOW: I can’t imagine that you wouldn’t tell a person in North Carolina or Ohio to vote for Hillary Clinton. If the choice they were making was between giving the Libertarian Party 5 percent or potentially electing Donald Trump. Because you guys don’t have a chance against Donald Trump and she does, and if they vote for you, they would be helping to elect Donald Trump. The Libertarian Party hasn’t treated you great if they’re putting out statements you disagree with over your own name, even now, one week before the election. I can’t imagine that your loyalty to them is stronger than your fear of Trump as a president.

WELD: Well, I’m here vouching for Mrs. Clinton, and I think it’s high time somebody did, and I’m doing it based on my personal experience with her, and I think she deserves to have people vouch for her other than the members of the Democratic National Committee. So I’m here to do that.

Finally, everyone snapped back to reality. The Libertarian Party realized what Weld had done, and realistically, what he had been doing all along.

Well… not everyone.

Hundreds of Libertarians on social media and even some in publications made excuses for him, saying his comments weren’t such a big deal.

They said he wasn’t endorsing Clinton; he was just endorsing her character. That’s what they made of the meticulous and ever deliberate Bill Weld, after being asked who Americans should vote for, promoting Hillary and not saying a word about Gary Johnson.

These folks, without a blanket statement “I endorse Hillary Clinton for President” could not bring themselves to the realization everyone else had.

Like abuse victims, they let their perpetrators gaslight them into thinking the abuse had never occurred.

They were the ugly side of the liberty movement.

Follow Brett Chandrasekhar on Facebook.