Mitch Goodrich: 'Liberty has always had enemies'

Mitch Goodrich: Christian school teacher, competitive marksman, soldier who recently returned from active duty in Afghanistan, martial artist ... and Libertarian Party member.

As attempts to stereotype Libertarians have proven, generalizations are futile. It's no more reasonable to say members of the Libertarian Party are politically far right than it is to say they're far left -- although party members are frequently hit with both labels. And you can't safely say Libertarians are anti-military -- assuming the military is being used properly for national defense.

In fact, there are hundreds of military personnel in the party's membership -- many of whom were recently asked to consider telling their stories for LP News, the monthly Libertarian Party newspaper.

One of the first to respond was Maj. Mitch Goodrich of the Vermont Army National Guard, who served on active duty in the Air Force for eight years, attaining the rank of captain before he left the military for a brief period.

"I have never noticed a conflict between my libertarianism and my uniformed service," Goodrich said. "In fact, I feel they are closely linked.

"The military is a large, impersonal machine by necessity, but the preservation of liberty requires it. Living in liberty is great, but somebody has to defend it, too. Political parties can't do that. Only soldiers, temporarily laying aside their prerogatives, can preserve it. But it is liberty that makes those sacrifices worthwhile. Surely the same libertarian philosophy that demands personal freedom equally embraces personal responsibility."

"Like a lot of military officers, I come from a conservative, red-state household," he said. "My family was staunchly Republican, and I was a political conservative almost by default. The first vote I ever cast was for Ronald Reagan in 1980. I was drawn to military service because I believe in Liberty with a capital "L", and, to be honest, because I was a young man and fighter jets are cool.

"When I was a 2nd Lieutenant in flight school in 1985, one of my fellow officers introduced me to libertarian philosophy. As I read up on it, I realized it matched my personal views more closely than the Republican brand of conservatism."

The next presidential candidate he voted for was Libertarian candidate Ron Paul (now a Republican U.S. Senator from Texas) in 1988, Goodrich said. And he remained a philosophical libertarian throughout the rest of his active-duty military career, but did not join the party.

"After the Cold War ended the military began nearly a decade of downsizing," he said. "I took a job as a private school teacher starting in 1992. During the next few years I became a dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party, and eventually served as LP caucus chair in Norwich, Vt., in the 2000 election cycle."

Like several other military personnel asked to tell the stories of their involvement in the Libertarian Party, Goodrich expressed some concern that his comments might be misconstrued as official military or Libertarian Party policy.

"I want to stress that I'm not a spokesman for anyone but myself," he said, in true Libertarian fashion. "What I [say] is strictly my opinion and I do not intend to imply that it is official Army policy."

The national Libertarian Party officially opposes the war in Iraq and other international intervention, based on the rationale that Saddam Hussein's regime posed no direct threat to the United States -- but many Libertarians believe the Iraq war was justified. In any case, the party does not call for eliminating the military, nor does it discriminate against military personnel.

Rather, the Libertarian Party calls for a military that serves a single function, as described in the party platform: "Any U.S. military policy should have the objective of providing security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in the U.S. against the risk of attack by a foreign power."

The platform also states, regarding foreign intervention, "The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them."

In civilian life Goodrich teaches a disparate mix of classes -- including English, geography, algebra and military history -- at a Christian school in Vermont, and that's what he was doing when the terrorists struck on Sept. 11, 2001.

He was called back into active duty, and "subsequently, I found myself on a plane to Afghanistan in early 2003," he said. "My particular specialty is as a Command and Control specialist. Our overall job was to train the Afghan military.

"As most people know by now, Afghanistan is made up of rival tribes with little central government control. If Afghanistan is to be a nation that respects the rights of its citizens and refrains from exporting terror, it must have a force capable of keeping a lid on things while the country takes steps toward the rule of law.

"Although it has far to go by U.S. standards, the people there are far better off, both materially and politically, now that the Taliban is reduced to hiding in caves in Tora Bora. American soldiers did that, and I'm not ashamed to say I was part of it."

Goodrich returned stateside in January, 2004, and soon will be returning to active duty in Vermont as an instructor for Army Information Operations.

"When we fight is up to the American people, [whose will is] expressed through our elected leaders," Goodrich said. "Were mistakes made? Of course: it was undertaken by humans. Was war the best course of action? I'm content to do my duty and let history decide."

His willingness to "do his duty and let history decide" does not make him "an automaton," Goodrich said.

"As an officer with 14 years of service I have the right to resign my commission, and there are conceivably circumstances under which I would do just that," he explained. "But a soldier can respect the rights and humanity of civilians and even the enemy, or he can descend into brutality. I'm happy to say that U.S. military law requires the former. As an officer, I make it clear that I expect no less."

Goodrich said his beliefs are usually met with acceptance among his military colleagues, who "generally support the ideals of libertarianism, although they tend to think I'm a bit radical and that I am 'wasting my vote.'"

Besides his military service and his school-teaching experience, Goodrich is active in his church and is a competitive rifle and pistol shooter. He was getting ready to test for his karate black belt in Shorin-Ryu when he was sent to Afghanistan, and hopes soon to become active in martial arts again.

He been married for 17 years and claims he has "75 kids, but I send them home to their parents at 3:10 every day. I have none of my own."

Is it possible to sum up the experience of being a Libertarian in the military in 20 words or less?

"The military is a very un-libertarian institution," Goodrich said. "However, liberty has always had enemies, and liberty undefended becomes liberty lost."

"Rather, the Libertarian Party calls for a military that serves a single function, as described in the party platform: "Any U.S. military policy should have the objective of providing security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in the U.S. against the risk of attack by a foreign power."

The platform also states, regarding foreign intervention, "The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them."

I would take an exception to this position, because it doesn't provide for the protection of the property rights of Americans abroad.

Remember Iran, circa 1951 when they decided to illegally appropriate the property of American oil companies.
The USA failed to protect the rights of Americans, and look where we are now.

"Remember Iran, circa 1951 when they decided to illegally appropriate the property of American oil companies.
The USA failed to protect the rights of Americans, and look where we are now."

That was a bit before this FReeper's time, can you elaborate and post a good link or five?

hmm I geuss I could do a 60 40 split wiht you :-) The only reason I put that up there is that everytime anyone posts a libertarain article here there is about half a dozen people that jump on the thread and say oh they are just doing that so they can smoke dope and visit brothels legally.It doesnt matter what the story is about it could be "libertarian saves 6 year old girl from drowning" and there will be post after post of oh you know the real reason he did that is so he can smoke dope and visit prostitutes leaglly lol it gets kinda ridiculous at times. btw thank you for your service to the country and to the party :-)

Right you are. I don't have much of that directed at me personally, but it certainly is the prevailing stereotype. The way I see it, if I want government to stay out of my church and gun cabinet, I can't insist they regulate what's going on in someone else's bedroom or medicine cabinet.
It makes me crazy when even "conservatives" snipe at us by dismissing our philosophy and accusing us of just wanting to smoke dope and visit hookers. But then again, I'm preaching to the choir. Have a great day. - mitchg

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.