Rufus Craig has been a Libertarian for more than four decades, and after watching Republicans spend much of that time promising smaller government while presiding over rising federal debt, the Baton Rouge attorney has reached a fairly straightforward conclusion: Republicans aren’t particularly good at being conservatives.
“Libertarians aren’t lying when we say it,” Craig told The Bayou Progressive when asked what distinguishes his party’s commitment to limited government from the Republican version. “If Republicans weren’t liars, I might be a Republican.”
Craig, one of 10 candidates seeking Louisiana’s newly redrawn 6th Congressional District seat, doesn’t expect to win. He says so himself. But the longtime political activist believes the campaign still offers something worthwhile: an opportunity to challenge the assumptions underlying American conservatism and push the candidates who actually stand a chance of winning toward policies he considers more consistent with individual liberty, fiscal responsibility and constitutional government.
His critique is hardly confined to Republicans. Craig has plenty to say about Democrats, too. But he reserves some of his sharpest criticism for a Republican Party he believes has traded its professed principles for political expediency, particularly under President Donald Trump, whose MAGA movement Craig says has effectively destroyed the party he once recognized.
“The modern Republican Party is gone. It’s over. The MAGA movement has destroyed it,” Craig said. “The MAGA movement is built on grievance.”
Asked whether he sees any compatibility between MAGA politics and libertarian principles, Craig didn’t hesitate.
“There is no agreement,” he said. “Mr. Trump is just a walking contradiction. The only way you can describe his policy is what’s in it for him.”
It’s the sort of blunt assessment that distinguishes Craig from the more carefully calibrated candidates who typically dominate congressional races. And during an hourlong conversation with The Bayou Progressive, the longtime attorney made clear that his political philosophy isn’t simply a collection of positions borrowed from Republicans and Democrats. It’s a fundamentally different understanding of what government should be allowed to do, whom it should serve and how much power it should possess.
A Libertarian by experience
For Craig, libertarianism isn’t merely an intellectual exercise. His political convictions grew out of a personal encounter with the criminal justice system that changed the direction of his life.
As a young man, Craig was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and sentenced to three and a half years in prison. He says he served approximately six months before his release, eventually receiving a pardon from then-Gov. Edwin Edwards that helped make it possible for him to pursue a legal career.
“When I got my franchise back after being a convicted felon, the first thing I did was register to vote,” Craig recalled.
He registered as a Libertarian in 1981, drawn in large part by the party’s longstanding opposition to marijuana prohibition. He has since spent more than four decades practicing law, representing clients in criminal defense, family law and other matters, while making repeated runs for public office.
Those experiences have informed one of his most enduring political causes: ending the war on drugs.
“If the metric for success for the war on drugs is how many young Black men we can put in prison and disenfranchise, it’s been a bang-up success,” Craig said. “Other than that, drugs are still winning.”
Craig argues that criminalizing drugs has done little to eliminate demand while creating lucrative illegal markets and imposing enormous costs on communities, particularly Black communities that have experienced disproportionate enforcement.
He is careful to distinguish legalization from endorsement. He doesn’t encourage drug use and readily acknowledges its dangers. But he believes treating addiction primarily as a criminal matter has made recovery more difficult by forcing people into secrecy, shame and underground markets where drug purity and safety are uncertain.
His preferred approach emphasizes treatment, education and personal responsibility rather than incarceration.
And while his views on marijuana have become considerably less unusual since he first joined the Libertarian Party, Craig sees that shift as evidence that political change can begin with ideas once dismissed as fringe.
Republicans, spending and the meaning of conservatism
Craig’s criticism of Republican fiscal policy is rooted in a simple observation: regardless of which party controls Washington, the federal government continues to spend more money than it collects.
“The difference between Republicans and Democrats is they both tax, they both spend,” Craig said. “The only difference is who pays the taxes and what do they spend it on.”
He is particularly dismissive of Republican claims that tax cuts necessarily amount to smaller government, arguing that reducing revenue without corresponding reductions in spending simply shifts the financial burden elsewhere.
“If you cut taxes and run a deficit, you’re not cutting taxes, you’re deferring taxes to somebody downstream,” he said.
Craig illustrated the distinction with a hypothetical farmer seeking financial assistance. A Democratic lawmaker might pursue a direct government grant, while a Republican might secure a tax credit of equivalent value. The political language would be different, but the public would still be subsidizing the same activity.
It’s an argument that goes directly to the tension between conservative political branding and the actual mechanics of governing.
Craig believes Republicans have become particularly skilled at disguising government intervention through the tax code, allowing politicians to claim opposition to public spending while delivering financial benefits through deductions, credits and other tax preferences.
He traces much of his political activism to frustration with federal borrowing during the George W. Bush administration. Today, with the national debt exceeding $40 trillion, that frustration has only intensified.
But Craig also recognizes the political difficulty of following through on the spending cuts that conservative candidates frequently promise. Voters may support fiscal restraint in principle while opposing reductions to specific programs, services or benefits they personally value.
His assessment of how politicians navigate that contradiction is characteristically unsentimental.
“Politics is the art of pandering,” he said. “It’s telling people what they want to hear to get what you want from them, which is their vote.”
Craig argues that the resulting system rewards politicians who prioritize reelection over their stated principles, leaving little room for lawmakers willing to break with their own parties.
That criticism extends to the enormous sums spent on congressional campaigns and the influence of wealthy donors and outside political organizations. Craig pointed to the fundraising competition in the 6th District as an illustration of what he considers a political system increasingly dominated by money.
For someone seeking a job that pays $174,000 annually, he suggested, the millions raised and spent in pursuit of a congressional seat ought to raise questions about whose interests ultimately receive attention.
A fiscal conservative with an unusual tax proposal
For all his criticism of taxation and government spending, Craig’s own proposal for addressing the national debt is considerably more unconventional than voters might expect from a Libertarian.
He supports amending the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget, with an exception for formally declared wars. Such a requirement would prevent Congress from routinely financing government operations through deficit spending.
But Craig also recognizes that balancing future budgets would not eliminate the enormous debt already accumulated.
His proposed solution includes a dedicated annual wealth tax of approximately 1%, with exemptions for certain housing and retirement assets designed to protect people with more modest wealth.
Under the framework he described, individuals with approximately $1 million or less in qualifying assets generally would not be subject to the new levy. Revenue would be dedicated specifically to reducing the national debt rather than financing additional government programs.
“I hate taxes,” Craig acknowledged. But he argues the country’s borrowing has reached a point where fiscal responsibility requires more than simply promising to spend less.
The proposal comes with another unusual feature. Craig would allow qualifying taxpayers to avoid the wealth tax by instead investing an equivalent amount in small businesses that need startup capital.
In his telling, the arrangement could simultaneously address two problems: the federal debt and the difficulty entrepreneurs face obtaining financing.
The details would require substantial legislative development, and Craig did not provide an independent revenue estimate demonstrating how quickly the proposal could reduce the debt. His suggested investment alternative would also raise practical questions about oversight, valuation and how the government would account for forgone tax revenue.
Nevertheless, the proposal illustrates something distinctive about Craig’s political outlook. Although he opposes excessive government intervention, his commitment to reducing the debt leads him to support a tax on accumulated wealth that many Republicans and Libertarians alike would reject.
He sees the issue not simply as a disagreement about tax rates, but as a question of whether today’s political leaders are willing to impose any meaningful discipline on themselves.
Freedom, even when it’s uncomfortable
Craig’s understanding of individual liberty is considerably more permissive than the social conservatism that dominates much of Louisiana Republican politics.
The fundamental premise, he explained, is that individuals should be free to control their own lives and property provided their actions do not harm others.
“You can do whatever you wish with your person and your property,” Craig said, with one essential limitation: “You can’t harm other people and their property through your conduct.”
That principle informs his opposition to drug prohibition, his expansive interpretation of gun rights and his general resistance to government interference in private relationships and personal behavior.
“My Republican friends seem to spend a lot of time thinking about sex,” Craig observed. “I would submit that a person’s sexuality and what they do sexually is irrelevant except for one set of circumstances, and that is if you intend to have sex with them.”
His remarks on transgender participation in sports, however, revealed a less straightforward application of that philosophy. While supporting people’s freedom to transition, Craig suggested separate athletic leagues for transgender competitors, using a derogatory term in the process.
The exchange underscored that Craig’s broad commitment to personal liberty does not necessarily place him in agreement with progressives on every question involving equality or individual rights.
Nor does he believe that personal responsibility eliminates any obligation to others.
Craig argued that even in a society organized around individual self-reliance, people retain a moral duty to care for those who cannot care for themselves, including children, older adults and people facing serious illness or disability.
“Do we have any kind of duty to care for the old, the infirm, the young?” Craig asked. “And I would submit, absolutely.”
He also acknowledges a legitimate role for government in protecting people against fraud, coercion and other conduct that violates their rights.
In that sense, Craig’s libertarianism is neither a demand for the total elimination of government nor a simple defense of laissez-faire economics. It is an effort to draw a distinction between government protecting individual freedoms and government dictating how individuals must live.
A different vision of American power
That skepticism of government authority extends well beyond domestic policy.
Craig believes the United States has become far too willing to use military force abroad, maintaining an expansive international military presence while repeatedly involving itself in conflicts that do little to improve Americans’ security.
He questioned whether the United States should continue acting as the world’s policeman decades after the geopolitical circumstances that produced its post-World War II military posture.
His criticism is especially pointed when discussing American efforts to reshape foreign governments through military intervention.
“You don’t install Jeffersonian democracy at the barrel of a gun,” Craig said.
He pointed to Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of interventions whose enormous costs, both human and financial, failed to produce the stable political outcomes their supporters envisioned.
Craig’s preference is for a substantially more restrained foreign policy, with a smaller overseas military footprint and greater emphasis on peaceful engagement.
The position distinguishes his candidacy from the more interventionist traditions of Republican foreign policy, although skepticism of foreign entanglements has also found adherents across different factions of both major parties.
For Craig, it ultimately returns to the same philosophical question that informs his domestic agenda: when does the exercise of government power become more destructive than the problem it is supposed to solve?
Three problems, and a political system resistant to fixing them
Despite his wide-ranging criticism of modern politics, Craig believes three problems stand above the rest: the national debt, undisclosed political spending and partisan gerrymandering.
He is particularly critical of the role of dark money in elections, arguing that voters deserve to know who finances the political messages intended to influence them.
Even hypothetically accepting the premise underlying the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that political spending receives First Amendment protection, Craig believes transparency should be nonnegotiable.
“Fine. We as voters should have an absolute right to know who’s speaking,” he said.
He questioned the influence of donors whose identities can be obscured through certain political organizations and argued that candidates should be accountable for the interests financing their campaigns.
“If you’re taking donations from somebody, the voters have an absolute right to know who’s who you’re speaking for.”
He was similarly critical of partisan gerrymandering and the ways politicians from both major parties manipulate electoral boundaries to protect their own political interests.
Together, those concerns paint a picture of a candidate deeply dissatisfied with the institutions of American politics, even as he continues participating in them.
Craig has been running for office since 2004, pursuing congressional, state legislative and local offices. In his 2022 congressional campaign against Republican incumbent Garret Graves, he received 30,709 votes, approximately 13% of the total.
But he has few illusions about his chances in the current contest.
“I’m not delusional. I know I’m not going to go to Congress,” Craig said.
For him, however, winning an election is not the only way to influence what happens in Washington.
“I run to put to say what I think needs to be said,” he explained. “If somebody steals my ideas, hallelujah.”
Craig believes one of the candidates sharing the debate stage with him will eventually represent the 6th District in Congress. In many ways, he says, those candidates are the audience he most wants to reach.
“I know that one of the people standing on the stage with me is going to be the next congressman, and that’s who I’m talking to.”
His own opposition to Trump is sufficiently strong that he ended the interview explicitly urging Democrats to turn out in large numbers, expressing concern that Republican candidates could challenge election outcomes unfavorable to their party.
“Donald Trump is the worst president the United States has ever had,” Craig said, before arguing that Democrats need overwhelming victories to withstand potential election challenges.
“The Democrats have to win. They need to win overwhelmingly.”
It’s an extraordinary closing argument from a candidate who is himself competing against Democrats as well as Republicans, but perhaps not a surprising one from a man whose political career has been defined more by his willingness to challenge the major parties than by any expectation of joining their ranks.
Craig may not expect to be Louisiana’s next congressman, but after more than four decades as a Libertarian, he remains convinced that the principles he has championed deserve a greater role in American politics.
And in a political environment where Republicans continue to campaign as the party of limited government while defending an increasingly expansive exercise of federal authority, Craig believes his party has something important to contribute to the conversation.
Even if the candidates who eventually adopt those ideas never call themselves Libertarians.
