The Libertarian Party is having its moment on National T.V. The debate was informative but disappointing. by rtbohan
(libertarian)
Sunday, May 25, 2008
A major disappointment about the debate for me was that the person I consider the best candidate for the presidential nominee was not included. I have said, and still believe, that Christine Smith, on the basis of her platform and her ability as a speaker and writer would be the best representative of libertarianism and the most effective candidate. I think that her exclusion from the debate was wrong for the same reason that I think the exclusion of Ron Paul from some of the Republican Party debates and the exclusion of Dennis Kucinich from some of the Democratic Party debates was wrong. The reason for the exclusion, as given by C-Span was that the leadership of the Libertarian Party excluded candidates that they felt were not serious candidates for the nomination. It is possible that the reason for this was that C-Span told the party that the network would only devote a certain amount of time to the debate, and it was felt necessary, to allow the "serious" candidates to speak longer, so the party started crossing names off the list. If this is the case, it was a rather serious capitulation on the part of the party, and raises questions about the party leadership's principles. C-Span seemed to say that the party required a cash payment from the candidates to be included in the debate and that was the reason for the limitation. Ms Smith had written earlier about the requirement of delegate tokens as the major requirement, and this may have been the problem.
The "Lucky Seven" chosen tp participate in the debate were former Representative Bob Barr, former Senator Mike Gravel, Professor George R. Phillies, Dr. Mary Ruwart, Michael Jingozian, Steve Kubby.and Wayne Allyn Root.
The first two are the best known because of their service in Congress, but while their name recognition might help the party gain votes in the election, there is still doubt about their libertarianism.
Bob Barr as a congressman was a solid conservative Republican with a few libertarian moments, but libertarian only as many conservatives are, mainly on economic matters. He did not present himself as consistent defender of liberty, as Ron Paul does. At least one of his apparently anti-libertarian moments, voting in favor of the Patriot Ace, has been defended by George Dance in an article on Nolan Chart as a tactical move to get appointment to the conference committee with the House so that he could defend some safeguards written into the senate version of the bill, but not included in the House version. I know enough about the workings of the Congress, and partiularly the workings of the conference committees to believe that this was indeed the case, and to applaud Representative Barr on his action. But this is not the only basis of doubt about Representative Barr's libertarianism while in Congress. The Defense of Marriage Act and the bill outlawing medical use of marijuana in the District of Columbia are not so defensible as his adtions with regard to the the Patriot Act.
Having said that, I will say that Mr. Barr's career since leaving the Congress, both professionally and politically, seem to show that he has now adopted a more libertarian position and done well in promoting it. He has won some major legal victories for liberty and, since joining the Libertarian Party has worked hard for the party and its candidates. To say that he is a Libertarian, however, is not the same as saying that he is suited to be the party's presidential candidate this year.
During the debate Mr. Barr spoke well for libertarian positions, as one might expect a lawyer and a professional politician to do. Making an argument is the stock in trade for both these callings, and Mr. Barr did a good job of selling himself to the audience. But there are problems beyond what he talked about. One is his idea of substituting the "Fair Tax" proposal for the income tax. Aside from the quesion of how "fair" the tax would be, it presumes with Mr. Barr as with Governor Huckabee (who supports the same idea) that government spending and therefore government control of the people would continue at current levels. This is not a basic libertarian concern. Even more troubling is his statement about the Defense of Marriage Act. Late in the debate he said that he did not realize until he had talked recently to groups within the Libertarian Party how much that law hurt some people and that he would do all that he could to get it repealed. This is not very convincing. Certainly at some point in promoting the act he received information about the people he would hurt. It sounds as though the sudden conversion came about because of the harm not making the recantation would do to his chances for the nomination rather than a change of conviction. He also did not say whether he was taking the position that marriage laws are up to the states and the federal government should stay out of it, or that a different law ought to be passed by the federal government reversing the Defense of Marriage Act. The feeling lingers that Mr. Barr in most of his convictions is a conservative rather than a libertarian. That is a valid position to take. But the libertarian party should nominate a libertarian candidate, not a conservative who is a sometime supporter of liberty.
The argument for Mr. Barr's candidacy, in addition to his name recognition, seems to consist of the believe that Ron Paul will support him and a belief that, as a conservative, he will take votes away from John McCain. The former, if true, would give weight to his candidacy among libertarians, but would not be decisive. The latter might be a noble goal, but could be a disaster for the Libertarian Party.
The second candidate who brings wide name recognition to the Libertarian Party is former Senator Mike Gravel. As a Democratic senator from Alaska, Mr. Gravel was a reliable liberal Democratic vote, but he did lead in bringing some victories for liberty, most notably the abolition of the draft. But he is not a libertarian, and he joined the Libertarian Party almost solely to get the nomination for President. If he is not nominated he may seek the nomination of a different political party, or he made decide to run an independent campaign for the presidency. His main concern in the debate, as throughout his campaign for the Democratic nomination was to push for his "Democratic Initiative". This proposal is certainly not libertarian nor is it democratic. It looks like a plan for a one man dictatorship sustained by plebiscite. I don't think Senator Gravel's plan is a good one for the country, and I do not think his nomination would be good for the Libertarian Party.
Dr. Geotge Phillies is a long time Libertarian Party organizer, and has done good work for the party. He thinks of himself as a pure libertarian, or as a left libertarian. His policy concerns are to increase social and personal liberty, but he does not seem much interested in economic liberty. He has tried to keep libertarian conservatives away from the party, on the grounds that a conservative cannot be a Libertarian. If he is nominated, there will probably not be many conservatives voting Libertarian this year.
Dr. Mary Ruwart, as I have said earlier, is one of the two people I thought would be the best candidate of the party. She certainly has a record of working for the party as both an organizer and as a candidate, and has written much on the philosophy of Libertarianism. I thought her performance during the debate was better than other appearances I have seen. She is still not my first choice for the nomination, but I think she would make a good candidate for the party.
Michael Jingozian made a strong presentation during the debate. I found him, like Dr.Ruwart. to be more impressive in his ideas and his presentation than I have before. I still believe that he is less interested in being the Libertarian nominee this year than in being the nominee of a larger party grouping of which the Libertarian Party is but one part four years from now. It seems to be a plan he has given some thought to, and he may be able to bring it off, but I doubt it.
Steve Kubby is famous for his successful fight for the legalization of marijuana in California, and was the Libertarian candidate for Governor in the last election. He has run what seemed to me a rathe lack luster campaign before the convention. In the debate he had some good arguments and scored some points, but I do not think he made much impression on the audience.
Wayne Allyn Root, who was the leading candidate before Bob Barr entered the race, gave his usual articulate performance during the debate and obviously continues to impress the delegates. I think his platform and his background leave a lot to be desired, but he would probably do well as the candidate.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of rtbohan only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
rtbohan 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.
What annoys me is when politicians, writers say "power to the people", but have no idea what they are talking about. Root said it at the debate last night, and I think Obama says it a lot. Mike Gravel is the only one that is talking seriously about giving power to the people. His whole point is that there is no way any Libertarian platform could be accepted in congress, and even if Libertarians came to power they would become just as abusive as Dems and Reps. Why Libertarians dislike Gravel so much I will not know, even when his record is way more libertarian than Barr.
Wow, I must have seen a different debate than you do, or perhaps we just have very different perspectives. :):):)
Here’s my take:
Phillies mentioned at least 3 times that he wanted to imprison people for various reasons. He seems to also hate “conservatives”, but apparently not the left. He’s obviously a very bitter man. Also, his voice is as grating as running your nails over a chalkboard.
Gravel said that people can’t be free if they are uneducated, poor, and don’t have healthcare. This is exactly the argument that the socialists have made for 100 years. Maybe Gravel should move to Europe and run for President of France.
Kubby was surprisingly impressive. He was poised and funny. If the sole goal of the LP was to legalize marijuana, he should be the nominee.
Root sounds like a used car salesman. Where was his checkered jacket?
Barr could have done better, but I do think he helped himself with his answers on the Patriot Act and DOMA.
Ruwart sounded like a mindless ideologue, reciting silly platitudes that she memorized long ago.
Jingozian seemed like a nice man, but he was out of his league.
Good report. You do journeyman work on the Chart, bringing us all sorts of news that otherwise would be missed; sometimes I consider your articles the backbone of the content here.
I'd like to comment / supplement a few of your points.
a) The choice of whom to include in the debate was left to the delegates. Each delegate was issued a token, and a candidate had to accumulate 10% of the tokens to be included. I am surprised that Ms Smith failed to make the cut, too; but I didn't consider Mr. Jingozian to have that much strength.
b) Thanks for the mention of my article on Barr and the Patriot Act. I also give him a pass on DoMA -- it was meant more to prevent a SCOTUS redefinition than to impose one -- but I agree that Barr's Drug Warrior record exists and cannot be defended or explained away. (My only hope is that that gives him some cred with anti-drug groups who otherwise wouldn't listen to a libertarian.)
c) one minor correction to (b): the sunset provisions of the PA made the House version of the Act and not the Senate version.
d) Mr. Kubby's campaign has been terrible, because he is ill with adrenal cancer, which has got worse since he was blocked from access to medical marijuana. I don't think he can run a real campaign, which is why I left him off my list of viable candidates. However, he has a lot of support and may be a kingmaker: There is no way he will vote for Mr. Barr, and his support may well put Ms Ruwart over the top today.
I'm going to the Ontario LP annual picnic today, so I'll miss the vote; but my fingers are still crossed.
Posted By: Kevin Houston
Date: 2008-05-25 07:42:42
One of the trade-offs I considered before joining the Ron Paul r3VOLution, was that I was forfeiting any chance to participate in the LP nominating process. I trust the delegates at convention to come up with the best nominee.
Having said that, I am very disappointed that Gravel was given a presence on the stage over Christine Smith. While he has national name recognition, there is no way that the delegates will nominate him, and the LP leadership should have recognized that fact, and given the space to someone who has been a long-time libertarian, and not a Johnny-come-lately.
I hope that either Christine Smith, or Steve Kubby is nominated. I can easily live with Jingozian (despite poor personal presentation - he just looks depressed), Mary Ruwart (despite those unfortunate quotes which will be mis-quoted by the Ds. and Rs.) or Phillies (despite all the reasons cited by rtbohan, which I agree with.)
While I trust Bob Barr more than Gravel or Root, I still think Bob Barr doesn't quite "get it". Root is pro-war ('nuff said) Gravel is a carpet bagger (let's see how he behaves for the next 2 - 4 years before giving the party over to him.)
Here's hoping the delegates make the best decision.
Posted By: Charles N. Steele
Date: 2008-05-25 08:13:42
To George D. -- do I understand you correctly in your last part of point (b), that the LP ought to be reaching out to anti-drug groups? If so, why not also anti-free-trade groups, anti-gun groups, anti-free-speech groups, socialists of all stripes, etc?
I suppose as a vote-seeking strategy, promising everything to everyone makes sense. It's the Democrat s' & Republicans' is a time-tested formula for electoral success. And it certainly doesn't suffer from the fatal flaw of being "purist."
You obviously know *nothing* about the National Initiative. To say it is undemocratic, or dictatorial, is offensively ignorant and misleading.
The National Initiative gives individual citizens more power over their government, and thus more liberty. If you are afraid of your fellow citizens having liberty, maybe you are in the wrong party...
Mr. Steele: No, anti-drug groups have a vested interest in keeping the WoD going, so there's no point reaching out to them. What I meant was talking about ending the WoD in a way that doesn't push anti-drug individuals' hot button on the subject. Those hot buttons - drugs, kiddy porn, and now, I suppose, terrorism - keep people from listening to our message, and consequently rejecting it without hearing it. I hope that's a bit clearer.
While you are correct that the LNC set the rule as to who gets into the debate, the actual decision as to who meets that criteria is decided by the delegates. In order to get in the debate, one had to obtain nominations from 10% of the delegates registered as of yesterday morning. That number was 57. Smith received 36 nominations and that is why she was excluded. I think this is a fair standard, as if you can't manage to obtain 10% support of the delegates present, you don't stand a chance of getting the nomination.
Please find me a more fair and friendly process in any other party that also effectively weeds out those with too little support, or who are 'fringe' candidates. **I am not implying that Smith is fringe, rather she just lacks support. There are some fringe candidates who did not get nominations, or so few as to not get speaking time at the convention. Smith WILL be speaking to us in just a few minutes, and so she will have an opportunity to make her pitch to us for the nomination.
