An Interview With Alexander Snitker

I recently had the opportunity to interview Alexander Snitker, the Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate in Florida.  My editor, who had heard Snitker speak at a campaign stop, gave me the assignment to interview him. “I want you to really work him over. Hit him hard on the issues,” he told me in stereotypical editor fashion. So I dutifully set out to do just that.

I had heard the name, but I knew almost nothing about him.  After doing a bit of homework on Snitker, I wasn't quite sure what to expect.   Some of his positions seemed like they were straight from conservative talk radio airwaves, while others sounded like chatter on the liberal blogs.   I started out with a couple of softballs before trying to poke some holes in his positions.

AMB: First I want to thank you for agreeing to this interview and taking the time from your busy schedule to speak with me.

SNITKER: You're quite welcome. It's my pleasure.

AMB: I know that many of my readers will be unfamiliar with you. Can you give us a brief background on yourself?

SNITKER: Well, I'm basically a regular guy. I grew up in Pasco Country. I joined the Marine Corps after high school and served for eight years. I married my high school sweetheart, started a family and got a job selling office equipment, which I still do today.

AMB: What made you decide to get into politics?

SNITKER: I never had any political ambition, but I always followed the news and government very closely. I've always tried to educate myself on the issues.

AMB: But why now? What specifically made you decide to run for the U.S. Senate?

SNITKER: It started with the Fair Tax. I started researching the Fair Tax, which is a plan to eliminate taxation based on income, and replace it with a tax on consumption at the retail level. I started calling my representative and senators to talk to them about it, but I hit a brick wall. At one point I talked to a staffer in Senator Martinez' office who thought the Fair Tax was a great idea, but said the Senator would never go for it. I realized at that point that the career politicians would never enact any law that caused them to lose power, and I realized that it would take ordinary citizens in office to achieve this. It was like a light bulb went off in my head, and I thought, “if that's what it is going to take, that's what I'm going to do.”

AMB: No Libertarian candidate has ever won a U.S. Senate seat. What makes you think that you have a chance?

SNITKER: I think the mood of the American people has changed, mostly because the two major political parties keep breaking promises. Fiscal conservatives are outraged that under eight years of a Republican administration, and part of that time with a GOP-led Congress, the federal government doubled spending. Also, you've got Democrats who are now watching the current administration and congress getting bogged down in wars that they promised to end, plus infringing on civil liberties by expanding the Patriot Act, and now you've got the FCC wanting to regulate the Internet – even after losing that battle in court. The time is right for citizen-legislators outside of the two parties who will protect Americans' individual liberties and reduce the size and power of the federal government.

AMB: You're in the middle of one of the most closely watched races in the country.  How can you compete given the vast resources of the Republican and Democrat, and even the independent in this race?

SNITKER: Oh, we're fighting an uphill battle, there's no doubt about that. But like I said, I think that Americans are sick and tired of the two-party ruling class in this country. Both major parties have proven over and over that they are not interested in representing the people. They just want to retain power at all costs. My message of tearing down the political class really resonates with people. Will our campaign ever have the same kind of money the Democrats and Republicans do? No. But the Internet has changed the game. We are using the Internet and social media to get our message out. And it working. Our website is getting as much traffic as the other three candidates. I really think that the time is right for a grass-roots campaign to capture the real American spirit, more like what the Founders intended.

AMB: There are rumors out there on the blogs that you are a left-wing decoy who is trying to hurt Marco Rubio's campaign. Some are even speculating that you're being funded by George Soros.

SNITKER: [Laughter] Yeah, I saw that too. Let me set the record straight. We have not received one dime from George Soros. From what I know of the man, he'd never support a Libertarian candidate who is trying to shrink government and increase individual liberty. The largest contribution we've received from any individual is $500. Look, I've signed the Tenth Amendment pledge, I've signed the 9-12 pledge, and everything I've said or written is consistent with states' rights, individual liberties and shrinking the size of the federal government.

AMB: But do you think you'll take votes from Rubio, effectively splitting the vote?

SNITKER: I get that question a lot. I have no interest in what our campaign does to Rubio, Crist or Meek. We're in this to win. That's our only objective. As far as I'm concerned, if I don't win, it really doesn't matter who does. All of them will continue to grow government and infringe on our rights. The choice is between three career politicians and me – a regular guy who just wants to uphold the Constitution. In a four-way race, 26% can win it. And, with my message, I think that we'll be pulling from the left, right and center.

AMB: Your bio says that you support term limits for Congress. Do you really think that you can get that passed if elected?

SNITKER: I don't know, but I'm going to fight hard for it. The majority of Americans want term limits. There's absolutely no reason that a politician should spend 30 or 40 years in Congress. It's an invitation for corruption. We need citizens who will run, get elected, serve, then go home and live by the laws they made. I'll also work to eliminate Congressional perks and pensions. There's absolutely no excuse for Congress passing a law – like healthcare, for example – and then exempting themselves from it. That's wrong in my opinion.

AMB: A few of your supporters believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. Are you a “Truther?”

SNITKER: No. Absolutely not. I do not believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. If I believed that our government was that evil, I wouldn't be running for office, I'd be running for the hills.

AMB: What do you see as your first priority if elected?

SNITKER: My first priority -- and Rep. Ron Paul and others have already made a lot of progress in both houses of Congress on this -- would be to audit the Federal Reserve. If the Fed and Treasury Department keep mismanaging our monetary policy, the dollar will eventually collapse. That would be catastrophic to the U.S. economy, and the world economy too. We have to get back to honest money, and we have to do it right now before it's too late. In addition to that, we need to enact the Fair Tax as soon as possible to get the economy moving again. Fiddling with the tax code and a percentage point here and there is not going to get the job done.

AMB: What is your position on the Arizona immigration law?

SNITKER: Well, it's obvious that the federal government has failed to protect the border. Both Republicans and Democrats are to blame here. Because of that failure, Arizona was forced to act to protect the citizens of that state. What we need to do as a country is, one, close the border. This is a national security issue, and we need to close the border now. Two, enact the Fair Tax so that everyone in this country, legally or illegally, is paying taxes. Three, enforce the existing laws and punish companies that hire illegal workers. Four, just like prohibition in the 20's and 30's, we have to understand that most of the violence on the border starts with the war on drugs. We need to get the federal government out of this, and let the states handle drug laws themselves. That's the Constitutional solution to the problem.   You have to understand that this country was built on immigration, and we need legal immigration to keep this country strong. I want a secure border, but we need to streamline the process for allowing immigrants to come to this country legally, either as temporary workers, or to achieve the American dream of a better life for themselves and their families.

AMB: It sounds like you are in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Is that correct?

SNITKER: No. It didn't work when the Republicans did it in the 1980's. Illegal immigration increased after that, because it just gave people additional incentive to break the law.

ABM: So what do you propose to do with the estimated 30 million illegal immigrants in the country now?

SNITKER: Well first of all, my plan will eliminate a lot of the incentives to enter the U.S. illegally. If illegal immigrants find that there are no jobs for them, because employers are following the law, and they find they have to pay taxes, much of the incentive to come here illegally is gone. Also, when we streamline the process for legal immigration, we make it easier for people who just want a better life to follow the law. But, just like in Arizona, we need to enforce existing immigration laws.

ABM: Your opponent, Marco Rubio, recently said of Times Square bomb suspect Faisal Shahzad, “If this individual has information that could help us prevent future attacks and loss of life, nothing should stand in the way of that, including Miranda." Do you agree?

SNITKER: No. First, you have to draw a distinction between a U.S. citizen and a non-citizen. The suspect in this case is a U.S. citizen, and is entitled to the protection of the Bill of Rights. He must be Mirandized at the time of his arrest. If we are going to take that right away from a suspect in certain cases, where will it end?  With the recent demonization of the tea party members, setting this kind of precedent against American citizens could be very dangerous.

ABM: Libertarians are generally identified as wanting to legalize drugs. Where do you stand on the issue?

SNITKER: First off, I think that the federal government should end the war on drugs. It's not enumerated in the Constitution, so it's up to each state to write and enforce their own laws regarding drug use.

ABM: So you would be in favor of legalizing heroin, for example?

SNITKER: Remember, I'm running for United States Senate. In that regard, I'm just pointing out that the federal government has no business – and no authority – to make or enforce laws regarding what people put into their bodies. I just want to give that authority to the individual states, where it belongs.

ABM: But wouldn't it be dangerous to society if states made drugs readily available to people?

SNITKER: No. I believe that it would actually make for a safer society. Think about it this way. Right now, these drugs are cooked up in South American huts or in the kitchens of crack houses. The risk of accidental overdose from inconsistent potency or death from lethal chemicals added to the drugs would be gone. And prohibition never works. It just creates black markets and organized crime. It's been proven throughout history. The quickest way to create an underground, violent society is to ban something that people want to do or use. The 18th Amendment proved that point perfectly. That being said, I'm in favor of an incremental, responsible approach to legalization.

ABM: You've stated that you have a “non-interventionist” foreign policy. How would you apply that to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

SNITKER: We need to get back to the Founding Fathers' intent of trade with all nations, and entangling alliances with none. We can first bring the troops home from all non-combat international bases, like Germany and Japan. In Iraq, we finish up and come home without leaving any bases behind. In Afghanistan, we still have to find bin Laden and bring him to justice. Once that's done, we come home. That being said, I would never support an overseas conflict without a declaration of war from Congress. Also, I'm a very strong proponent of maintaining the best equipped and best trained military in the world to protect America's shores and borders from foreign aggression. Constant conflict overseas has eroded our capability to defend ourselves at home.  

ABM:  Gay marriage is a hot button issue around the country today.  Do you believe that marriage should be defined as between between a man and a woman?  

SNITKER:  The federal government has no business getting involved in marriage in any way.  Personally, I believe that people are free to determine for themselves what kind of relationship they will have with other people.  If there is any government involvement in marriage, it should be done on a state or local level, not by the federal government.

ABM: Mr. Snitker, thank you very much for providing such candid answers to my questions today.  

SNITKER: You're very welcome Anne, I enjoyed it.

Going into the interview, I thought that I might be dealing with a fringe candidate with delusions of grandeur. Over the years, I've seen my share of tin-foil hat candidates that either shrink at a tough question, or rant for hours on some obscure tangent.

But Snitker surprised me on several levels. He was well versed on the issues, and didn't shy away from the tough questions. He spoke like a man who has the confidence of his convictions. If he gets a chance to go head-to-head with the big three candidates in this race, it could make for a very interesting election season in Florida.

Comments about this article? Write to: BuckingTheSystem@TampaBayStart.com. Please indicate whether we may publish your comments.