Topic: Bob Barr
At last it can be said: Bob Barr for President.
With only 10 days left before his party's nominating convention, the Barr campaign express is finally leaving the station -- and I'm on Barrd.
by George Dance
(libertarian)
Tuesday, May 13, 2008


On May 12, just ten days before the start of the Libertarian Party Presidential Convention in Denver, former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr held a press conference to announce that he was in the race. Barr had previously announced an exploratory committee last month.

I wrote about Bob Barr at that time, and found much that interested me in the idea of his candidacy. Yesterday I found one more reason for interest: what I can only call the Barr Buzz.

What's the "Barr Buzz"? Here's how David Wiegel of Reason magazine described it yesterday:
The smallish room Bob Barr booked for his presidential announcement was overflowing with journalists. I've seen every Ron Paul 2008 event held at the venue, and they never drew this sort of interest: There were, I think, four working reporters at the press conference announcing the haul from the first moneybomb. But Barr's announcement drew live reporters from the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post (even if it was the famously snarky "Sketch" author Dana Milbank). Barr foreign policy pal Doug Bandow stood by him at the podium, and foreign policy maven Jim Bovard sat in the audience.
Further evidence for the Buzz: the more than 1,000 mentions of Barr's candidacy on Google News today, from Reuters to AP, the NY Times to the LA Times, CBS to ABC to Fox, the Washington Post to Canada's National Post, Iran's Press-TV to China's Xinhua, Rush Limbaugh to the Village Voice.

(As I write, my daughter interrupts to tell me about a Bob Barr joke in Jay Leno's monologue. As she retells it: Bob Barr entered the presidential race today as a Libertarian. To which George Bush commented: "So what? I don't care if he doesn't eat meat.")

Why the Buzz? I think the media can smell the same story I can. Bob Barr's campaign has the potential to make the Libertarian Party a significant player in U.S. federal politics, pushing that party well beyond the million-vote ceiling it has never been able to crack, and possibly even changing the November election and with it America's future.

Not easy tasks, of course. To achieve all that Barr's campaign will have to assemble a new coalition, of three groups that, while they have many interests in common, spend a disproportionate aount of time sniping at and quarreling with each other: Ron Paul rEVOLutionaries, conservative Republicans, and Libertarians.

Like many Canadians, I follow U.S. politics as intently as our own; the impact on our country is if anything greater from the former. I strongly feel that a Barr candidacy has enormous potential for good. However, as a Canadian, I cannot vote for Barr, or even send him money. All I can do is write.

Accordingly, let me write to each of those groups in turn:

1) Ron Paul supporters

Ron Paul is still in the race, and I do not expect any of his supporters (myself included) to give up on his campaign now. But I do expect all but the truest believers to realize a possibility that Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination. Those who can accept that, as a possibility, should be now considering a Plan B.

The preferred Plan B -- a Ron Paul third-party or independent run -- is out. First, for tactical reasons: Paul will not be able to run third party; he will stay in the Republican race until the end, by which time all viable third parties will have chosen a nominee. Nor can he easily get ballot access as an independent; even if the rEVOLution could get him on the ballot nationwide, that would leave little time for any actual campaigning. Second, for a strategic reason: Paul has consciously chosen to try to reclaim the Republican Party, and his running against that party in November would lose all that he and his supporters have accomplished toward that end so far (even his seat in Congress).

A plausible candidate for Plan B is Chuck Baldwin, running for the Constitution Party (and coincidentally another last-minute candidate). However, I find Baldwin's (and the entire CP's) mixing of constitutionalism with fundamentalist Christianity unappealing, and expect that reaction to be common. I wish Baldwin luck, and hope (sorry, I don't pray) that his campaign breaks through to the evangelical community; but I do not expect his campaign to have much appeal beyond that base.

In Congress, Barr and Paul often voted together, and co-sponsored legislation such as the Defense of Marriage Act. Brad Jansen, then 1st vice-chair of the DCLP, and now campaign manager for Ron Paul Republican Vern McKinley, at the time described Barr as "one of the best friends libertarians have in Congress, a man second only to Rep. Ron Paul". Paul and Barr disagreed on two of the U.S. government's myriad Wars the one in Iraq, and the one on drugs. However, Barr has changed his mind, for good reasons, and now like Paul opposes them both.

Barr has been willing to stand up for Paul when few would . For instance, he used his pull within the American Conservative Union to get Paul a speaking slot at its February conference, and even gave Paul's introduction. I would encourage all rEVOLutionaries to watch this video.

My recommendation to Ron Paul supporters: Work your butts off for Dr. Paul through the GOP convention. Then, if McCain is nominated instead, go to Plan B for Barr.

2) Anti-McCain Conservatives

There are a lot of conservatives in the Republican Party who cannot swallow the idea of voting for John McCain. Charlotte Iserbyt sums up many of their concerns here.

Barr, on the other hand, is a paradigm. "During his tenure, Barr was regarded as one of the most conservative members of Congress," says Wikipedia (citing Reason). Those who do not remember, are invited to watch the same video. There is no doubt as to Barr's conservative cred.

But what about Barr's opposition to the Iraq War? Won't that be the dealbreaker for conservatives, as it has been for them withPaul? No: Because conservatives will not be voting for Barr as commander-in-chief. They will be voting Libertarian to punish their party from straying so far, under George W. Bush, from true conservatism and for offering more of the same with John McCain. (Hey, that's a catchy slogan.) They will be voting to tell their party to stop taking them for granted. They will have finally understood that, only by being willing to cost their party the White House for 4 years, will they get that party to start listening to them.

An important subgroup here is libertarian Republicans. These people should already be using the LP as their Plan B, to punish Republican incumbents who act in an antilibertarian manner. George W. Bush's record, and the promise of "More of the Same with John McCain," should be their motive as well.

3) Libertarians

Ironically, this group may be the hardest sell of all. While I expect Barr to be nominated, I fear that some 'radical' or 'purist' libertarians will have trouble with that. Some of the purist candidates in the LP presidential race seemingly do.

Frankly,, I have little patience left for libertarian purists. As I see it, they won control of the U.S. Libertarian Party in 1984. Since then, LP presidential efforts have been mainly campaigns for the converted -- and we have all seen the dismal results.

If the Libertarian Party is to grow, it has to attract new members and new voters, very few of which will be consistent libertarians. Insofar as that poses a problem, it is one best solved by internal education; not by slamming the door. Education is one of the party's missions: Who better to educate than new members, donors, and voters? Who else will even listen?

For the Libertarian Party to become a political success, it needs to reach out to voters in all parts of and even beyond the libertarian quadrant of the Chart. Bob Barr is in an ideal position to do just that with conservatives, who are uniquely ready to listen this election.

If some Libertarians have worries about reaching out to Republicans only, they can balance the ticket by choosing Mike Gravel for Barr's running mate and reaching out to Democrats as well. (Gravel denies any interest in running for VP, but then he is still in the race for President. I hope he reconsiders after the vote.)

If Ron Paul's rEVOLutionaries, true American conservatives, and libertarians (with perhaps some progressives via Gravel) can come together, for this election, they could radically change U.S. federal politics for decades. It is a unique opportunity for all involved; one hopes they will make the most of it.

-

©2008 George Dance, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Last modified: Sunday, June 8, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of George Dance only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. George Dance is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by George Dance of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.

More Articles By George Dance

Reader Comments:

Posted By: Kurtis Bottke
Date: 2008-05-13 07:27:13

I agree with George about most of what he said. I fall into the Libertarian group. As a Libertarian all my adult life (35 years) I've seen all the LP campaigns fizzle. Maybe Barr can boost the LP into the national spotlight and change the national discourse. I'm on the fence here. It wouldn't be without cost to the LP. There are many principles of the LP that I'm not sure if Barr shares. Such as withdrawing troops from their bases around the world and dramaticaly cutting the defense budget. Does he truly support legalizing ALL drugs? Would he only support a war for two reasons. One if we were directly attacked or two if war was declared by Congress? I would like to get him on the record supporting these principles before I could back him enthusiastically. Once principles are lost it can take a generation or more to get them back. Look how watered down the Republican Party has become and the struggle to reclaim it.

Report violation

Posted By: Dale J from Texas
Date: 2008-05-13 11:02:21

Frankly, I have little patience for Libertarian non-purists.  If it takes compromising Libertarian principles to "get someone elected" why bother?  If you want a Republican president and a Democrat vice-president, vote status quo. 

 The main banner on the LP website is Libertarian Party "The Party of Principle".  Why does the LP take rejects from other parties or anyone who wants to just latch on to some name brand party?  --Can't get on the GOP or Democraic ticket?  Go to the LP. --

I have visited each of the listed LP presidential candidates websites (and watched the recent LP debate) and you have choices between moderates and socialists discussing the best way to collect taxes.  I have seen 2 candidates that actually stand for true Libertarian positions.  Christine Smith and Mary Ruwart.  I personally support Christine Smith.

Sorry to test your patience Mr. Dance, but I won't apologize for wanting a true libertarian for a Libertarian presidential candidate.  If you want some mish-mash combination of political ideals why not start a party called the "All-Inclusive Party".   

 

Report violation

Posted By: Spence
Date: 2008-05-14 01:33:58

"Frankly, I have little patience for Libertarian non-purists.  If it takes compromising Libertarian principles to "get someone elected" why bother?  If you want a Republican president and a Democrat vice-president, vote status quo. "

 

This benefits the LP in no way whatsoever. Libertarianism is not any one set of principles per se. So in a way, that slogan is false. If every libertarian's principles were the same, wouldn't it be safe to assume they would be LP members?

 

And while deep down I believe Gravel and Barr little more than opportunists from the opposite sides of the spectrum, it is their right to run on what they believe are their principles of liberty.

 

For years now, the Libertarian Party really seems to have ignored the history of third parties, thinking its adherence to principle will suit themselves just fine and win them the White House at the end of the day. So how's this worked out thus far?

 

I don't see why you guys even bother concentrating so much on the presidency. I get that it's an important message, but the real power that needs to be secured is in Congress. That is the most effective change you could enact. Restore the powers of the legislative branch. Think about it. The changes that you would want executed by a libertarian prez would probably be illegally done anyway, in order to secure its passage. Wouldn't this contradict being elected on principle?

 

The answer to the question whether we should compromise is obviously yes, but this does not mean reducing principle. In fact, two of the strongest things  we can probably do is restore the '04 platform and choose a mixed ticket of someone like Ruwart and Barr.  The unnecessary abridging the platform was neither a principled move nor an actual compromise.  

 

 

 

Report violation

Posted By: The Laws of Nature-AND-The Laws of Nature\'s God
Date: 2008-05-14 10:55:08

"Libertarianism is not any one set of principles per se. So in a way, that slogan is false."

Wow!  Is that true?  Is this a make your own rules party?  If there is no solid foundation in principles, how can liberty survive?  What is liberty based on?

Report violation

Posted By: The Laws of Nature-AND-The Laws of Nature\'s God
Date: 2008-05-14 10:56:56

"Libertarianism is not any one set of principles per se. So in a way, that slogan is false."

Wow!  Is that true?  Is this a make your own rules party?  If there is no solid foundation in principles, how can liberty survive?  What is liberty based on?

Report violation

Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-05-14 15:01:53

"Is this a make your own rules party?" If there is no solid foundation in principles, how can liberty survive?

Yes; libertarianism is make your own rules. You can believe, and do, whatever the hell you want. There's only one condition; you cannot believe that it's right to use force on other people. But that's not a rule: it does not tell you what to believe or how to act. Those are up to you.

Just as it's possible to do any of a million things and at the same time not be using force on anyone, it's possible to believe any of a million things and at the same time not believe in using force on anyone.

 

 

Report violation

Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-05-14 15:09:48

Sorry, I forgot to exempt self-defense and retaliation. If someone else uses force on you first, then he believes that it's rnot wrong to use that amount of force on you; and in that case it's quite all right for you to believe it's not wrong to use the same amount of force on him.

 

Report violation

Posted By: The Laws of Nature-AND-The Laws of Nature\\\'s God
Date: 2008-05-14 17:40:04

"There's only one condition; you cannot believe that it's right to use force on other people."

How has a pre-born child used force on its mother such that it is justified to use force against him/her?

That's one I have never understood.  Life and Liberty are not secure for the preborn (or for anyone else) in a make your own rules society. 

If you are not standing on principles, then as is typical with party politics, any commitment to liberty will give way to pragmatism and personality.

Report violation

Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-05-14 17:57:01

It's a question of fact, not principle: At what point do a sperm and egg turn into a person -- Conception, birth, or somewhere in between? That's the issue at stake.

Some try to dodge the question by saying that even if a fetus is a person, it has no positive rights - no right to have the mother forced to provide it with shelter and nourishment -- but I find that a bad argument, as the same argument could be made respecting born children.

 

Report violation

Posted By: The Laws of Nature-AND-The Laws of Natures God
Date: 2008-05-14 18:13:38

"It's a question of fact, not principle: At what point do a sperm and egg turn into a person -- Conception, birth, or somewhere in between? That's the issue at stake."

"Facts" are not up for interpretation.  Sperm and egg don't at some point "turn into" a person.  Their unity "creates" a person who doesn't stop growing until death.

"...no right to have the mother forced to provide it with shelter and nourishment"

No one, least of all a fetus, FORCES the mother to provide it with shelter and nourishment.  Her decision to create the child comes with a responsibility and a duty.  Isn't it Libertarian principle that the exercise of every right imposes an appropriate level of responsibility upon that person?

Report violation

Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-05-14 22:26:58

"Facts" are not up for interpretation. Sperm and egg don't at some point "turn into" a person. Their unity "creates" a person who doesn't stop growing until death."

So, in your opinion, every woman who has a miscarriage is guilty of manslaughter?

"Isn't it Libertarian principle that the exercise of every right imposes an appropriate level of responsibility upon that person?"

Not a general responsibility -- I don't have to take care of you or your children or vice versa. Libertarians do believe that some people have specific responsibilities toward some people -- such as parents toward their children and, for pro-life libertarians, toward their embryoes and foetuses equally.

 

 

Report violation

Posted By: Spence
Date: 2008-05-15 03:58:44

"Wow!  Is that true?  Is this a make your own rules party?  If there is no solid foundation in principles, how can liberty survive?  What is liberty based on?"

 

Liberty is not a complex principle. You can do whatever you want with it as long as you don't violate others. Yes, I would be what you consider an anarchist in a perfect world. But this is not a perfect world, so I settle for minarchism. 

 

 Libertarianism by itself -classical liberalism- essentially, has a great deal of disdain for positive rights. There is only one rule: do not infringe upon the will of others.

 

That is common law right there.

 

And the principle of minarchism is a consensual agreement of the power to enforce justice upon those who violate common law.

 

That is what the Libertarian Party stands for. If you need liberty spelled out, every right enumerated for you, you end up in more quagmires than you would naturally. That is what the 9th and 10th amendments to our Constitution guarantee. If you want to define liberty in that complexity, you run the risk yourself of turning to pragmatic and partisan leaders. 


The truth is: the more complex you make something, the less people understand. The less people understand, the less power they have.

 

We have come to adopt a mixed system of common and civil law in this country, where the language of legalese grows at an ever-accelerating rate and woe is you should you fail to learn the meanings of all these hidden contracts and regulations. 

 

Since you seem to be up in arms with this whole abortion issue, perhaps you would care to do some research on in loco parentis. It is this concept that has basically screwed the rights of parents everywhere in America. You don't actually get to decide the abortion issue, the government does.  It is the government's will that you are allowed to have a child in the first place, and if they grow concerned that you rae indoctrinating them with "the wrong stuff" they will take your children away from you and throw you in some secret jail.

 

 Truth is, we don't know when actual conscience life begins, and once you let the state define that, you start those complexities up again. I personally am pro-life, but that does not mean I feel we should ban abortions. Taking such a stance would only endanger more people and commit more people to welfare.

 

 

Report violation