Topic: Libertarianism
rEVOLution or Reaction? Much more hangs on the outcome of the Libertarian Party presidential nominating race than a simple choice of nominee.by George Dance
(libertarian)
Friday, May 23, 2008
The U.S. Libertarian Party's 2008 Presidential Nominating Convention opened yesterday in Denver. As I write, that party's presidential race is still a cliff-hanger. The decision is momentous; by their choice of nominee, the delegates will decide not only the future of their party but, quite possibly, the election and with it America's future.
Ron Paul's campaign for the presidency this year has made libertarian ideas relevant as never before. Ignored in the media, Paul has broken through on the internet. His fervent army of supporters - the Ron Paul rEVOLution - has gained him over $30 million and more than 1 million votes so far. In the past month, he has he has begun getting double digits in primaries: 16% in Pennsylvania, 13% in Nebraska, and 15% in Oregon. .
Some rEVOLutionaries still hope that Paul will switch parties and run for the Libertarians. A great idea, but it won't happen. Paul is committed to staying in the Republican party, to rebuild after its expected meltdown in September. His mission: to reshape that party in the manner of Barry Goldwater 40 years ago.
Yet plenty of Libertarians still hope to harness the power of the rEVOLution. Among them is National committeeman Bob Barr, who urged Paul to run for the Libertarians back in January. In May, Barr entered the race himself.
A 4-term Republican congressman (1995-2002), Barr was described at the time as "one of the best friends libertarians have in Congress, a man second only to Ron Paul". He was instrumental in building the left-right coalition that defended civil liberties after 9/11. In 2007, he co-founded the American Freedom Agenda. He became a life member of the LP in 2006.
If Paul says the word (which he may after the Republican convention), much of the rEVOLution will come to Bob Barr and the Libertarians. As well, Barr -- whom Reason magazine once called "the most conservative member of Congress" -- will attract many conservative Republicans repelled by the idea of voting for McCain/Feingold or McCain/Kennedy. One recent poll gave Barr 6% of the vote in a four-man race.
Barr could be this year's spoiler, costing John McCain the election. That prospect is already giving him the mass media attention Paul never received. Even Newt Gingrich has had to denounce Barr recently.
However, Gingrich is not alone. Many Libertarians -- whom I'd call radicals or purists, but prefer to call themselves "true libertarians" -- are appalled by the idea of a Barr candidacy. Among them is the sizeable gay caucus, which calls him a "bigot" for his 1996 authorship of the Defence of Marriage Act; and the "alternate religion" bloc, which remembers his 1998 press release denouncing the practice of Wicca in the U.S. Army.
The purist cause has been championed by candidate George Phillies. Phillies is a long-time party workhorse, who ran Michael Badnarik's 2004 campaign. He is also if anything even more dull and dreary, even more of a disaster as a candidate, than Badnarik.
Phillies has run a nasty, negative campaign, first against Paul - whom he labelled an "anti-libertarian" at one point - and now against Barr. If Barr wins the nomination, says Phillies, the radicals will walk. To which I would reply: if Phillies wins, the rest of the party should walk.
Recently, though, a better purist candidate has entered the race: Mary Ruwart, best-selling author, long-time LP volunteer, noted columnist and speaker for the Advocates for Self-Government. Ruwart would be an excellent choice, in a normal year. (In 2000, she would have been ideal.)
Ruwart's boosters claim that she is the logical heir to the Ron Paul rEVOLution. Which is nonsense. Ruwart is an anarcho-capitalist, whose version of liberty has little to do with Paul's constitutionalism. If Paul were seeking the nomination, she would be criticizing him as strongly as she has been criticizing Bob Barr. Nominating Ruwart would squander this year's opportunity.
Three others have a chance to win. First, Mike Gravel, former Senator and anti-war Democrat, who joined the Libertarians in March. As Barr's running mate, he could do much to build the needed left-right coalition. Alas, it appears that Gravel is doing an Alan Keyes, using our party to promote his candidacy only. If he loses, I suspect that he'll be off to the Greens next.
The two others are Wayne Allyn Root and Christine Smith. Both have also billed their candidacies as continuations of the rEVOLution. Both are charismatic, articulate, passionate communicators. Either one would make an excellent running mate, if they chose.
Six viable candidates, but only two sides of the crucial issue. Which side will prevail: Barr and the rEVOLution, or the purist reaction? My fear is that there will be a purist-inspired gang-up on Barr (as there was in 2004 on Aaron Russo), and Ruwart will take the prize. Ruwart will then run a first-class campaign, but the party will go nowhere.
My hope is that either Root or Smith will see the opportunity Barr's candidacy offers to jump-start the party and put it in the rEVOLution's vanguard and the opportunity that would give either one, as the vice-presidential nominee, for a presidential run in 2012.
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.
Good analysis. I, too, am a fan of Mary Ruwart. I wonder, though - what do you make of her answer about child pornography? Here it is:
Children forced to participate in sexual acts have the same rights and recourse as a rape victim. We can and should prosecute their oppressors.
Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make for choice is just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess; this is part of life.
What we outlaw child pornography, if the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.
Posted By: Charles N. Steele
Date: 2008-05-23 17:30:43
We already have a conservative candidate in John McCain. And we have rational, reasonable leftist in Barack Obama. Those bases are already covered, so Barr and Gravel are superfluous. There's no candidate currently who stands for individual liberty, and if the LP denigrates libertarians who do as "purists" and picks a states rights(sic) conservative like Barr or a left-liberal like Gravel, there'll be no reason at all for the LP to exist, at least not at the national level.
And for the first time since I was first old enough to vote, there'll be no presidential candidate worth voting for.
There is a reasonable socialist in Obama, and a reasonable, grouchy, fascist in John McCain, and an aspiring assassin running.....If you can't see the opportunity open here to really reduce the size of government, then I wonder why you bother voting at all. In fact, if you are such a purist,you should not be voting at all anyway, since it imposes force on other people through legislation.
I, by the way, have never had a candidate worth voting for, and don't expect to start now-perfection is impossible.
I see only one real reason why the "purist" faction will not succeed- and that is, purists or hardcore libertarians first need a philosophical revolution in their favor before people will be willing to listen to them.
Obviously, in a perfectly rational society, an anarcho-capitalist society would be our preferred utopia, but we are far from it, and so while I don't think they should simplify the platform or stances so much, it does need to be rewritten, and the LP needs to take a long, hard look at itself and where it really wants to go.
For example- does it just want to be a club? Or does it want to actually start impacting policies directly instead of acting superior to everyone else and above the fray?
That looks like the answer many self-described "purists" have. It's really too bad, too.
Having said that, Charles is right. We need a candidate that is uniquely libertarian and can genuinely steal votes from BOTH candidates so as to set a precedent. A Ruwart-Barr ticket might do that. But if all we want to do is make a dent, which won't necessarily work, then Barr-Root-Gravel is the way to go...
Ruwart would NOT be criticizing Ron Paul if he were in the race:
(1) She donated the legal maximum to his presidential campaign last year.
(2) She only entered the LP race after the March announcement that most people took as a suspension of his campaign, and he made clear he wouldn't accept the LP nomination (which he would have had if he'd wanted it).
(3) In Paul's 1988 nomination battle against Russell Means for the LP nomination, Ruwart voted for Paul.
(4) Paul knows her and likes her: personally lobbying to get her the post of FDA Commissioner in 2002 and giving a rave review of her libertarian primer that is on the back cover of her book.
(5) She is an anarcho-capitalist, but is campaigning only on those issues in the LP platform, because she respects the coalition. She has stated point blank that she would obey the entire Constitution if elected.
(6) If Paul is willing to endorse Barr, he is willing to endorse Ruwart. Unlike Barr (who was on the wrong side of the Patriot Act and the Iraq War and even now supports intervention in Latin America and a continuation of the drug war, albeit at the state level), Ruwart has been on the same side as Paul on all the major issues that have come up since 9/11.
They know and respect each other. She is the natural continuator of the RPR, especially with the young r3VOLutionaries, who aren't afraid of radicals, but loathe political compromisers and flip-floppers.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-05-24 05:44:03
While I agree that George Phillies is an uninteresting candidate (as well as an LP traitor for his heinous treatment of past Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne), I must disagree with your assertion that Michael Badnarik was uninteresting. I followed Badnarik around with my camcorder in 2004 when he came to North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. I published some of that video in two video essays on my libertariantv.com website. In one particularly memorable and well-informed rant, he absolutely ripped the Federal Gov't apart for its interventions in Health Care, particularly the FDA. In another, which you can view here, he rips to shreds the Patriot Act for its unconstitutionality. Saying that he wasn't interesting is another way of saying that you never really heard him in person. Neither did most of the country, because he received even less press attention than Ron Paul did, but just because people never heard him doesn't mean he was uninteresting. To the contrary, he held the interest of his audiences quite well.
I won't vote for McCain in November, and if Dr. Paul doesn't run, I will be voting for a third party for the first, but likely not the last, time. Amazing how you can't unlearn something you've learned.
Ruwart appeals to me as a purist, but that kiddy porn statement is awfully easy to latch onto. I'd rather a purist than someone who is politics as usual, though. I'm pretty much fed up with that. Smith seems good so far. Root might be ok.... Bob Barr's votes for the war and Patriot Act raise the hairs on the back of my neck. I'd vote for him over McCain, but I'd look into Chuck Baldwin, first. (May, anyhow.)
Clearly, I'm not a member of the Libertarian party, I'm a RonPaulican. However, I will likely be voting either Libertarian or Constitutional party this year, so I am interested.
Being in denial, I wonder if Smith would take the nomination, and if we were able to persuade RP to run, run as his running mate this time, in return for support next time? Just a dream, maybe, but I do like it. (I don't think Root or Barr would, and while I admire some of Gravel's positions, I think he and Nader would be a better fit than with the Libertarian Party.)
My main goal? I want 'none of the above' to win the election this year. What pisses me off above all is MSM complacency in pretending to give 'coverage' when all they are doing is advertising repeatedly that someone is 'fringe' or 'cannot win' despite their accomplishments.
Posted By: Charles N. Steele
Date: 2008-05-24 15:37:22
The "purist" epithet really makes no sense. I'm simply a libertarian, someone who holds individual liberty as the fundamental political value. I understand that libertarians can reasonably differ on matters such as the ideal limits to government activity, or the best stragtegies for increasing liberty.
But some things -- e.g. closing borders, opposing free trade, arresting and deporting people for the "crime" of working w/o a government permit, legislating discrimination against gays, pursuing the "war on drugs," etc. -- simply are not libertarian.
Spence is exactly correct that before we see major changes occur in our political system, we'll need to have an intellectual revolution. Currently we simultaneously see i) growing public disgust with government, and ii) both major parties increasingly abandoning any support for individual liberty. This means the time is ripe for the LP to push a consistent message of libertarianism; it will not be able to do so if it abandons libertarianism for some sort of constitutionalist populism.
As for the LP's objectives, the LP is *not* going to win any presidential elections in the foreseeable future, no matter what it does -- the Democrats and Republicans have sufficient control over the electoral system to ensure this. They have much less ability, though, to block messages. The way for the LP to wield influence at the national level is by articulating a clear libertarian message.
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.
