Topic: Bob Barr
The Conservative Takeover of the Libertarian Party
The recent selection of Bob Barr as the presidential nominee by the Libertarian Party (LP) at it’s convention in Denver has caused much controversy. Most moderates are happy, most radicals are upset, some to the point of leaving the party. Before addressing the future of the LP let’s take a look at some of the troubling aspects of Mr. Barr’s conservatism.
by Darren Wolfe
(libertarian)
Saturday, September 27, 2008

The recent selection of Bob Barr as the presidential nominee by the Libertarian Party (LP) at it's convention in Denver has caused much controversy. Most moderates are happy, most radicals are upset, some to the point of leaving the party. Before addressing the future of the LP let's take a look at some of the troubling aspects of Mr. Barr's conservatism.

One of the best gauges of his thinking is to be found at his sidekick, Richard Viguerie's, website ConservativeHQ.com. The first thing one notices is that the website isn't titled LibertarianHQ.com as would befit a website of those seeking to lead the LP. Delving a little deeper one finds this page explaining their view of conservatism. While they make many good points they seem to take a very liberal vs. conservative or Republican vs. Democrat point of view. One gets the sense that they define conservative as anti-liberal. Libertarians don't see themselves as standing with conservatives against liberals.

This page then goes on to define different kinds of conservatives. Libertarians are included with this short description:

Libertarian conservatives seek to reduce the size, cost, and intrusiveness of government. They say to bureaucrats and politicians:
"Leave us alone!" and "Mind your own business!" Libertarians proudly refuse to recognize political reality. But, within the ranks of conservatives, libertarianism serves a necessary and critical function: it is the brake in the train of conservatism. By libertarian conservative standards, every proposal must be measured as to whether it will ultimately strengthen or weaken Big Government. Ronald Reagan referred to libertarianism as "the heart of conservatism."
 
Somehow this libertarian doesn't see libertarianism as part of the conservative movement, but a movement of its own. Conservatives embrace government to one degree or another while libertarians reject government to varying degrees. This is a crucial difference.

The most disturbing part of Viguerie's website is the inclusion of neoconservatives in their coalition:

Neoconservatives are often former liberals and democratic socialists who have acknowledged the failure of liberalism and socialism to solve society's problems, in the sense of the old saying, "A neoconservative is a liberal who's been mugged." Most older neoconservatives are former members of the branch of liberalism and democratic socialism associated with New York intellectuals; they rebelled against policies that condoned or promoted Communism.
Neoconservatives tend to emphasize scientific analysis of the success or failure of government programs – for example, by statistical studies of whether "welfare," "affirmative action" discrimination, broad restrictions on gun ownership, and other policies actually improve the lives of the people they are supposed to help. They believe the U.S. should play a leading role in world affairs, especially in defense of beleaguered democracies such as Israel. They favor strong action to promote the spread of democracy in the world, noting that constitutional democracies rarely – or, by some measures, never – fight wars against each other. (In recent years, many critics of the Bush Administration have used the term "neoconservative" to refer to anyone who supported the Iraq War and related endeavors.)
 
If anything, this long description understates the neoconservative infatuation with big government and empire. As Irving Krystal wrote in "The Neoconservative Persuasion", "Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable." This is just socialism under another name. The mere fact that they consider neocons to be conservatives and worthy of being associated with shows that they don't get it. How anyone thinks libertarians are supposed to live in the same big tent with neocons is incomprehensible, there is absolutely no place in the LP for them. Recovering neocons are welcome in the party to learn about our philosophy, but not to lead it.

That said, the LP should welcome libertarian leaning conservatives. They should be the minority though. It should be the conservatives holding their noses about libertarian positions they don't like when supporting our candidates. That the situation is now reversed and libertarians have to hold their noses about many of Mr. Barr's positions is unacceptable.

These major policy positions I refer to are:

First, Mr. Barr's support for a national sales tax. While his call for the end of the income tax and the repeal of the 16th Amendment are great, his call for a replacement tax makes this a big shell game. If Mr. Barr is truly an advocate of less government why does he think the revenue lost by ending the income tax needs to be replaced?

Second, the war on drugs. Putting aside Mr. Barr's past transgressions, and they are many, he has only called for a partial end to this, namely legalizing marijuana.

This leads to the 3rd area of disagreement, his call for stepped up interdiction of drugs in South America. (On May, 28, 2008 the article "No Way To Treat a Friend" was removed from the BobBarr08 website, it can still be found here.) Mr. Barr may call for a non interventionist foreign policy on his website, but that is contradicted by the above.

What's a libertarian to do? Some, such as Christine Smith, have chosen to leave the LP. With all due respect I must disagree with her point of view and hope that she reconsiders. Now is not the time to abandon the battle. Now is the time for radical libertarians to stay with or return to the LP.

The conservatives worked long and hard to get where they are now in the party. We must do the same to win it back. That's the only way the LP will ever be libertarian again.

©2008 Darren Wolfe, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Saturday, September 27, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, September 27, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Darren Wolfe only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Darren Wolfe 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 Darren Wolfe of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.

More Articles By Darren Wolfe

Reader Comments:

Posted By: Master C
Date: 2008-09-27 17:43:55

If you are the same Darren who commented on my article about cell phones, I provided an answer for you after your remark on the page of my article.  However, if not, I wanted to add a couple of points to your article about conservatives taking over the Libertarian party.

1) A political party, no matter what it is, is not going to be homogeneous.  There must be room allowed for differences of opinion.  Just because you are more rigorous in your opposition to government than Mr. Barr's side of the party doesn't make your views anymore true or real than his.  In fact, if you think your views are superior to Mr. Barr's, why don't you run against him?

2) Why should we believe that your assessment of Mr. Barr's views are not compromises of his own views?  To bring a coalition together, people have to make occasional compromises.  That was GW Bush's fatal flaw ~ obstinance.

3) To base Mr. Barr's positions on those of his "sidekick" is about as fair as basing your opinions about things on your wife's or best friend's remarks about you.  It isn't fair to hold Mr. Barr accountable for things that he hasn't specifically endorsed.

4) The Republicans and Democrats have conservative sides of their parties as well.  Do you think they have a lot of splinter malcontents running around, pouting about how they didn't get their way about some issue or another?

The art of compromise is the art of coalition building. 

Master C.

Report violation

Posted By: Darren
Date: 2008-09-27 18:21:43

Master C,

Comments interspersed.

1) A political party, no matter what it is, is not going to be homogeneous.  There must be room allowed for differences of opinion.  Just because you are more rigorous in your opposition to government than Mr. Barr's side of the party doesn't make your views anymore true or real than his. 

It does make my views more libertarian, which is as it should be in the Libertarian Party.

In fact, if you think your views are superior to Mr. Barr's, why don't you run against him?

Run for president? I work for a living. I don't have the high profile  in the LP to win the nomination.  What you propose is beyond most people, it's a pretty strange thing to post.

2) Why should we believe that your assessment of Mr. Barr's views are not compromises of his own views?  To bring a coalition together, people have to make occasional compromises.  That was GW Bush's fatal flaw ~ obstinance.

That's a good point, he may be less libertarian than he appears.

W is obstinate in catering to the special interests behind him, not in any way sticking to principles (if he has any).

3) To base Mr. Barr's positions on those of his "sidekick" is about as fair as basing your opinions about things on your wife's or best friend's remarks about you.  It isn't fair to hold Mr. Barr accountable for things that he hasn't specifically endorsed.

If he doesn't agree with his sidekick why is he the sidekick? Viguerie continues to speak for Barr's campaign. It was Barr that insisted that he deliver the keynote speech at the LP convention.

4) The Republicans and Democrats have conservative sides of their parties as well.  Do you think they have a lot of splinter malcontents running around, pouting about how they didn't get their way about some issue or another?

The Rs & Ds are about money & power, not principle. & yes they do pout when things go wrong.

Report violation

Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-09-28 07:45:07

'If he doesn't agree with his sidekick why is he the sidekick?'

He's not the 'sidekick.' Viguerie has never campaigned with Barr (or without him for that matter). He hasn't even endorsed the campaign.

'Viguerie continues to speak for Barr's campaign.'

When has Viguerie ever spoken for Barr's campaign?

'It was Barr that insisted that he deliver the keynote speech at the LP convention.'

Barr was the scheduled keynote speaker; he had to cancel when he declared his candidacy for the nomination, so he found a replacement. That's all.

 

Report violation

Posted By: Darren
Date: 2008-09-28 08:09:09

Is Richard Viguerie Trying to Buy the Libertarian Party?

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/eg/nolan-vig.html

Report violation

Posted By: Master C
Date: 2008-09-28 08:39:03

Dear Darren,

I appreciate the references you passed to me regarding my article about how "Tax Cuts are Shameful", however I would like to point out to you how OLD and ANTIQUATED those views are.  Most of these were before television and radio, let alone McDonald's, airplanes and the internet.

The world has changed so much that most of these people you've quoted would be dumbfounded by the things that are provided by society nowdays.  Running water, bridges, highways, prisons, courts, police and fire services.  I made quite a nice list of the things that government provides in my article.  Back in THEIR day, government didn't provide those things.  They had government officials and the military, that was about it. 

The thing you love to TAKE FOR GRANTED, or to IGNORE, is how MUCH you get for your tax dollars.  Even more aggregioiusly, many of things were provided BEFORE you even started paying taxes!  When you were born into the world there were already hospitals and sewer systems and government inspected foods.  You just prefer to IGNORE all the essential services that government provides and think you are AN ISLAND of your own.  As Milton said: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND.

Your protestations are as naive and simpleminded as the rants of a teenager who thinks they know it all.  They live in mom and dad's nice warm house, have food served regularly on the table, take showers and sleep in a nice warm bed ~ and still say they want to be INDEPENDENT!  Ha!  Ha!  Well, most of us grow out of that obscure thinking as we hit our twenties.  At least, my kids have. 

Maybe you should actually LOOK AROUND a little to see what things protect your home and lifestyle (police/fire/emergency services), and what things keep criminals locked away (courts/jails/prisons), who keeps foreign countries from threatening us (Army/Navy/Marines), who brings water and sewage to your home (city services), libraries, museums, airports, on and on and on. 

You only think you're an ISLAND.  You're really just an ungrateful citizen!

Master C

 

Report violation

Posted By: Master C
Date: 2008-09-28 08:56:39

Dear Darren,

I followed the links you provided for me to your articles, and I must say that the people who responded to you certainly got the better of the argument. 

You didn't address the issue that Mr Krall raised AT ALL.  You provided some of those OLD FASHIONED references again ~ "Give me Liberty or give me death" blah, blah, blah ~ and fail to see the real issue at all.

I used to use that same old rant that you do, except in a slightly different context.  "I didn't ask to be brought into this world" so I don't owe the world anything!  Ha!  Ha!  Well, I grew out of my childishness and realized that it was a PRIVILEGE and an HONOR to be raised in a country as great as the United States.  But, the thing that makes us so much greater than all the other countries of the world is our GOVERNMENT.

We SHARE in this country.  We are not ISLANDS.  We create a civilization that SHARES not one that HOARDS and REFUSES to participate.  For those who don't ~ and they are many ~ we TAKE things from them to make them pay their SHARE of things.  Corporations, rich individuals, and the brooding LIBERTARIANS who think they owe NOTHING for what they use everyday.

Don't drive on the roads if you don't want to pay for them.  Don't call the police if you don't want them to protect your property.  I may be the first one over to your house with my gang of guys to take everything you have if you feel safe without them!  Don't drink the running water.  You probably don't shower very often anyway, so you may not have to cut back that much in that area.  And, you certainly don't use the library or the school system.  Otherwise you might see how ANTIQUATED your views are.

You can go back to the STONE AGE when men were men and each man was an ISLAND.  But don't do it while using all the services that GOVERNMENT provides for you.

You're just ungrateful for what you have. 

Master C

 

Report violation

Posted By: Darren
Date: 2008-09-28 09:10:55

Just saying old & antiquated isn't a rebuttal. Human nature doesn't change, that's what it's all about. Unfortunately, the left just doesn't get it. So what do they do? Mockery, ad hominems & evasions. You've got those down pat. I'm reminded of Von Mises words:

"Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person. Few have been able to withstand such tactics. Few indeed have been courageous enough to oppose Socialism with that remorseless criticism which it is the duty of the scientific thinker to apply to every subject of inquiry."

So let's look at what you actually claim:

 The thing you love to TAKE FOR GRANTED, or to IGNORE, is how MUCH you get for your tax dollars.  Even more aggregioiusly, many of things were provided BEFORE you even started paying taxes!  When you were born into the world there were already hospitals and sewer systems and government inspected foods.  You just prefer to IGNORE all the essential services that government provides and think you are AN ISLAND of your own.  As Milton said: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND.

Complete non sequitor, I advocate the private provision of these things privately paid for. How you see this as my being an island is beyond me. I'm talking about voluntary interaction & cooperation. 

I think the answer to this puzzle is that for some reason the left can't see private action. They think that if the government isn't doing something then nothing is being done. Go figure.

Maybe you should actually LOOK AROUND a little to see what things protect your home and lifestyle (police/fire/emergency services), and what things keep criminals locked away (courts/jails/prisons), who keeps foreign countries from threatening us (Army/Navy/Marines), who brings water and sewage to your home (city services), libraries, museums, airports, on and on and on. 

The police & courts protect me? They (& I take a broad view here of police power) indirectly point a gun at me & say give us your money, they call it taxes & traffic offenses. How is anyone starting a relationship like that protecting anyone? When I'm driving I feel threatened by the cops, not protected by them.

Those who live alternative lifestyles are routinely harrassed by police.

I'll bet the journalists & activists, like Amy Goodman, arrested at the Republican convention are greatful for the "protection". 

The courts & police that lock up non violent drug users aren't protecting anyone. They're violating their rights. Not to mantion that by making the war on drugs possible the government's police are causing crime. None of the above evils would be possible with private security.

So you think the military protects us? It's pretty clear that 9/11 & the other Al Qaeda attacks happened because of our imperial presence overseas. It's the fact that we have this large military deployed overseas that we're being attacked.

Lastly, as to airports, sewers, etc, the answer is as I said privatize them. There's no need for the government to be involved in these things. Matter of fact, their involvement in running the roads is costing us 40,000 lives every year. That's a terrible record.

Report violation

Posted By: Darren
Date: 2008-09-28 09:22:05

In case anyone's wondering, when Master C wrote,"I followed the links you provided for me to your articles, and I must say that the people who responded to you certainly got the better of the argument. ", he's referring to this:

Parasites: Real and Imagined

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7256

& 

 Bad Logic and Reasoning About Taxes

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7275

Judge for yourselves who won the debates.

I just have to comment on this, "...the thing that makes us so much greater than all the other countries of the world is our GOVERNMENT." You mean the government that steals our money, protects special interests, tortures, & goes around the world fighting imperial wars? You consider that greatness? The government is exactly what's wrong with the USA.

Report violation

Posted By: yonnie
Date: 2008-09-28 10:16:13

Politics may be about compromise, but compromising the the Libertarian Party Platform is a different definition of  the term 'compromise'.  Master C...you can't be more wrong!

 To usurp the platform where the Libertarian Platform has always been a stalwart against coercion  in any form with Bob Barr's views is wrong.  With Barr as the chosen leader the LP does not have a platform of core values anymore that are in-sync with the original platform.  We no longer stand for Liberty.  In this case definition compromise means broken!  The LP platform core-values have been compromised!  (broken)

 To compromise a bill in congress is a different definition.  One party makes changes to a bill to get the other party to accept or agree.

Report violation

Posted By: George Dance
Date: 2008-09-28 15:58:31

Is Richard Viguerie trying to buy the Libertarian Party?

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/eg/nolan-vig.html

Hmmm ... the article was deleted just hours after you posted the link. But I got to read it.

I'm sorry, but an uncited claim that Viguerie is a "finance operative" for the Barr campaign doesn't do it. Neither does the fact that Viguerie bought a blog.

I'll note as well that this story predates Barr's nomination, and therefore his campaign as LP leader. Do you have any evidence that Viguerie played any role in that?

Report violation

Posted By: Jim Davidson
Date: 2008-09-29 13:57:05

Leave or stay in the LP as you please.  Y'all are welcome in the Boston Tea Party, too.  We keep growing.

Report violation

Posted By: Rocketman
Date: 2008-09-29 22:43:54

When Barr first won the nomination from Dr. Ruwart I was willing to give him a fair chance assuming that he had truly come over to the Libertarian way of thinking.  The more that he started talking about his beliefs later on, the more I got the impression that his views in favor of liberty were at best "tepid".  The final straw was when Congressman Paul and his Campaign for Liberty was insulted by Barr who wouldn't even show up for the televised event.  I no longer even think that Barr's intentions are honorable if misguided.  He appears to me at least of being a deep cover plant for either the Republican Party or the CIA to misdirect or discredit the LP at a time when tens of thousands of individuals would otherwise join.  I'll be voting for Jay of the Boston Tea Party.

Report violation

Posted By: daddysteve
Date: 2008-09-30 15:03:16

Thumbs up Darren. It's not easy fighting off those who were raised on the titty of the nanny state but you hold up well. Keep up the intellectual struggle.

Report violation

Posted By: Bill Hartwell
Date: 2008-09-30 16:26:00

I agree with everything you had to say except one: The Libertarian Party is broken. As it is now, it cannot be fixed, except by being torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. Without core principles, the LP is nothing more than a smaller version of the Republican Party - and the party operatives that have been running the party since at least the mid 1990s have made sure the LP has no core principles. The gutting of the Platform in 2006 was merely the placing the lid on the coffin, and the choice of Bob Barr as its 2008 candidate was nailing the lid down. There is no living LP for libertarians to stay with - it is, effectively, a zombie copy of its former self. The only truly libertarian party in existence now is the Boston Tea Party.

Report violation

Posted By: Chris Baker
Date: 2008-11-05 06:10:48

Congratulations, Bob Barr. You managed to beat Badnarik's vote totals in 2004.

 

Report violation

Posted By: Darren
Date: 2008-11-05 10:22:11

Chris,

You're right but he didn't surpass Michael's vote total by much at all. Harry Browne, Ron Paul, & Ed Clark all beat Barr's totals  (in terms of percentages of the vote). His numbers are no big deal & definitely not worth selling out our principles for.

Report violation