Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
At the Barr Thoughts on Barr's run for Master and Commander.by Michael Stahl
(Libertarian)
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Across the web, as far as I can tell, the reception for Bob Barr and his Presidential bid seems rather less than enthusiastic amongst libertarians, to say the least. I understand, and even agree, with much of the reticence. That being said, I hope he gets nominated, and grandly loses with a couple of million votes.
For a couple of months we all had the pleasure of witnessing Bergland's "cat-herding" on a grand scale, and while the feline flock is somewhat reduced, the skill's of the herder can't be underestimated. That being said, Ron Paul is not going to be in any elected office other than his Congressional seat. That's just reality. However, unless the national parties, entities that really should not exist in a free country, recognize that there is a real resonance for many of the principles that Paul advocates rather than a simple cult of personality somehow constructed around a septuagenarian physician, it will all be for nothing.
What does that mean? Well it means that there had better be an electoral showing for people who espouse similar views. Polls are simply not sufficient. At this moment, a unique opportunity exists to reform the old alliance between free market libertarians and the un-Hannitized remnants of old fashioned conservatism. You know, the kind that believes in the economics of Adam Smith rather than Keynes, and the philosophy of Charles Lindberg on foreign policy rather than that of Leon Trotsky. Honestly, Justin Raimondo does a far more eloquent job than I could ever hope to do of pointing out the relation between the blood-fetishism of today's "new" conservatives and the pre-icepick delusions of ol' Trotsky here.
How then does this relate to Mr. Barr? Well, if you think, as I do, that the only real point of the LP is the effort to educate folks on, well, freedom. What is the best way of achieving this? Seems to me that the best way to pull this one off is to focus on those people who at least pay rhetorical tribute to individualism. Those people are the old school conservatives. End of story. They believe in this, these are country people, they don't call nine-eleven, and they don't lock their doors when they are home. That's how you get down in the sticks. Your conclusions are, honestly, likely accurate. Guess what, most of those folks go to Church on Sunday.
That last sentence is usually a problem for libertarians, of the capitalized or lower case version, but frankly, that Bible is reserved for a Sunday late morning arsenal, rather than a week long thump. In other words, just because you live out there does not mean that the Second Coming is imminent, or that all scientists are queer for chimps....honestly, it more likely means that you have a better idea of the market price of Panama redthan do even the higher echelons of the Bloods. The Bible party does not even have enough cellulose to be called a paper tiger, it's ephemeral, and thank's to the overblown, Stalinistic silliness over Obama's preacher, open to a full summer's worth of ridicule. Let us pray. Aaaamen. Perhaps the Religious Right can finally be shown to be the odd aggregate of two dozen pedophiles and their, paying, flock. The Bible says that vengeance is the province of the Lord, something rather difficult to discern from the bellicose ramblings of either Pastor Hagee, or Pat Robertson. A fan of religious sanctimony I'm not.
All of that being said, why deal with a guy like Bob Barr with his less than pure roots? Well to me, the entire point of the Libertarian Party is to educate the citizenry and expand the movement, such as it is. Where, pray tell, is the best place to find people pre-disposed to freedom but in the former happy hunting ground of the GOP, rural Ameerica? Bob Barr is a guy those people can feel alright looking at, and even getting behind...all while a blue star hangs in the window. Subtlety is worthwhile in this case. There is a real chance for Liberty to get a toehold this election cycle, and that chance lies with Bob Barr, hate it or not.
The other thing that I would like to see in my lifetime is the destruction of the self imposed tyranny that is the two-party system in this country. As far as I am concerned, anything that damages any part of either of our ruling houses is a good thing. Bob Barr can put a pull, in the skeet sense, on the republican party, and perhaps expose their hypocrisy, and perhaps send the GOP the way of the Whigs. Once the more corrupt, and weaker, party self-destructs, focus on the party of Marx. Both must go, and both are vulnerable, but the Libertarians might be able to cause real harm to the GOP, and educate a few wayward conservatives along the way, and what's wrong with that?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Michael Stahl only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Michael Stahl 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.
The issue is not Barr's less than libertarian roots. It is his anti-libertarian stands today. If one reaches out by running non-libertarians then why not endorse Obama and really reach out?
And what is the purpose of "reaching out" if to do so you end up endorsing immoral actions and Barr's blantant bigotry.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-05-15 07:45:12
Mike - I know actually very little about Barr, but check out the first link in this article for an alternative view but with some similarities to your thinking http://www.nolanchart.com/article3789.html
I've got to say, I don't see the outright anti-libertarian stands he has today, at least not any more than other candidates(Look at old Wayne Allyn Root's Gun control stance, for instance) He is by no means a radical, but he seems to put forward the ideas of freedom, and individuality at least. A bigot he's not. I don't love the guy, just think that he would be an good educator. He could lose the porn star stache though.
I consider myself anything but a "libertarian" for just this reason, as soon as you do a line forms filled with people telling you that you are not one. Fine, I'm not. I just believe in freedom, and want to hope it can come back here. There is an element among self-styled libertarians that wishes exclusivity-it's their club, and that's it-The he man repulicrat haters club-to steal from 'lil Rascals. Its rather counter-productive.
For what its worth, if I had to pick between McCain or Obama....it would be Obama-on the war issue, and only the war issue.
The mention of Barr's "anti-libertarian" stands and "bigotry" refers to his sponsorship and continued support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which made same-sex marriage a state rather than a federal issue. Similar attacks were of course made on Ron Paul, another DoMA sponsor.
Bob Barr's vote for war in Iraq in 2003 and his continued support for the fair tax bothers me most. Why hasn't he co-sponsored much of Ron Paul's legislation when he was in Congress? As for the so called "Fair Tax," the size of government can be decreased by replacing one tax with another. And I haven't seen much about his understanding of the establishment and threats like the North American Union...etc.
Some other concerns include his vote FOR the PATRIOT ACT, his full support for Federal control of the "war on drugs" and his lack of attention to killing the Federal Reserve and failure to pubically support hard money (Gold and Silver). Has anyone found his position on NAFTA?
Bob Barr was in Congress and apparently had no (or little) undersanding of the Constitution. Now some people learn about the Constituton a bit late. I will admit that I went all the way through law school without any understanding of the Constitution. Still, by the time you get to congress you should kow what you are doing. Especially if Ron Paul is there to help you figure it out!
Here is another Ron Paul candidate to consider as well -- Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party nominee. He was a vocal supporter of Ron Paul and has this to say about his primary focus as president:
"The loss of our sovereignty, the loss of our national independence is the great battle that is waging in America today. We will not be able to fight the other battles that we desire to fight. We're not going to have an opportunity to engage the other issues that confront us is we lose this battle. If we lose our freedom our independence our national sovereignty all the other battles go down the tubes simultaneous. This is the battle right now in which we must fight, we have no choice. It is thrust upon us in the same way that it was thrust upon the founders of this country. In the same way that Patrick Henry got up and said that the soldiers are already on the field of battle we have not choice we must rise to the defense of this battle so too the CP has no choice. We must stand in defense of our national sovereignty our independence and the principles upon which this country was formed or we are lost as a country.
The reason I was willing to stand with Congressman Ron Paul because he among all the other candidates in my view saw the most clearly and the most succinctly this battle. He understood the dangers of the United Nations. He understands the dangers of foreign entanglement, as did George Washington. He understands the dangers of allowing ourselves to succumb to the temptation of becoming and empire or a world regime. We are a constitutional republic. We are not a global empire. Every empire of history fell under the weight of trying to sustain that empire. Our founders understood that. That is why they drafted a Constitution which according to Jefferson was to be used as chains. Chains. Not upon us the people, but upon government to allow us to express the freedom and the liberty that God alone has given to us."
I know about the DoMA freak out, and frankly don't get it-seems to me that unless you are an anarchist of some sort, the more local the conrol the better for personal liberty. It's an inconsistency on the critics part, rather than on Barr's, or mine actually-I'm for anything that reduces the power of the Feds. It cannot be had both ways-centralized power, and personal liberty do not mix, and never have. That same Central Authority that can grant gay Marriage can also make it a capital crime-ask any Iranian homosexual...oh wait there aren't any acording to Mahmoud. I'd also favor allowing States to control drug laws-on the Principle that what Califonia does is none of my damn business-some State would legalize pot, and it would snowball-Federal force, even to secure "freedom" is not the way to go, it only feeds Leviathan.
As far as previous support of onerous laws...well, he has repudiateded those stances, strongly, and this is inportant in getting others to also change their positions.
Good Luck to Chuck Baldwin, and Ralph Nader for that matter, anything to damage the "two" parties.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
