Barr was selected by the Libertarian Party as its nominee for president. Some doubt his conversion from big government Republican to Libetarian. Let's give him a chance. by David K. Williams, Jr.
(libertarian)
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Bob Barr is the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States.
Some members of the party are less than enthusiastic by his nomination.
I am enthusiastic, and I hope to turn some of the unenthusiastic into converts.
Barr himself claims to be a convert.
He converted from a big government Republican to Libertarian.
Most of the unenthusiastic are doubtful about the sincerity of Barr's conversion. I understand that.
That is certainly a legitimate concern. I shared it. But I have chosen to believe in Barr. Perhaps I am naive. Perhaps I have been duped. I don't think so.
I ask the unenthusiastic to believe, too.
The Concerns
Let's address the primary concerns about Barr, and I think that dividing his positions pre-conversion and post-conversion is critical. I took part in a Rocky Mountain News online chat to ask Barr some questions about his prior positions and his current ones. Let us look at his answers:
1. Pre-conversion: Barr supported the Defense of Marriage Act.
Post-conversion: "I believe each state should be free to establish its own definition of marriage, and the DOMA protects the right of each state to do that. I would consider repealing that portion of DOMA that establishes a federal definition of marriage."
2. Pre-conversion: Barr supported the Patriotic Act.
Post-convesion: "My vote in favor of the PATRIOT Act was probably the worst vote I cast in the Congress. Without going into the many reasons I did vote for it, I have spent the last 5 years since leaving Congress, working to undo the damage it has wrought. I believe it should be repealed and would work to that end as President."
3. Pre-conversion: Barr's PAC donated money to Republican candidates even when they had Libertarian opposition. Specifically, his PAC gave money to National LP Chair William Redpath's Republican opponent, Jim Gilmore
Post-conversion: "The PAC contribution to Jim Gilmore predated Bill's entry into the race, and I am giving Bill a contribution for his candidacy today."
I spoke with Redpath, and he confirmed that Barr followed through on his promise, and that the check was bigger than the one Gilmore received. And of course, Barr gave a nomination speech for Redpath's nomination for reelection as national LP chair. If Redpath and Barr are cool on this issue, so am I.
4. Pre-conversion: Barr was a drug warrior.
Post-conversion: "Regarding the drug war, I've been there, done that, and know first-hand our current strategy is not working. Continuing to have the Federal Government run roughshod over the states, even if the citizens of a state decide they wish to legalize medicinal marijuana, for example, is wrong. As President I would completely re-orient federal law enforcement priorities, that currently are skewed far too much against marijuana possession, and would consider all - and I do mean all - options."
Finally,as to some calling Barr a "neo-con,"eitherbefore orafter his nomination, that simply shows a misunderstanding of the word. And if there is any question about Barr's position on the Iraq War, here is his answer from the online chat:
"As President, I would begin immediately to significantly reduce the US economic and military footprint in Iraq. We should not be occupying Iraq or any other nation. So long as American taxpayers are footing the bill for propping up the Iraqi economy, political system, and security apparatus, there's no incentive at all for Iraq to assume responsibility for its own affairs. Similarly, it is not appropriate for the US military to maintain a massive presence in Afghanistan. I would not make a blanket statement that there should be no US troops anywhere in the world, but the stationing of major US forces in countries around the world is not appropriate or necessary."
The Road to Redemption
Like Saul on the road to Damascus, conversions can and do happen. Somewhere along the line, Barr became a believer. Even the unenthusiastic should welcome him, give him a chance, and lets get even more converts into our party.
Don't dwell on his past. Emphasize the present. Emphasize his conversion, not his troubled past. Use his conversion as a tool to get more converts.
Like former gang members that tell teenagers to avoid gangs, Barr can tell of the dangers of his former gang, the Demopublicans. He was there. He was in the gang. Now he has left the gang and seen the error of his ways.
Like fervent anti-smoking zealots that use to smoke three packs a day, Bob Barr used to partake of the poison inherent in the Demopublican Party.
He quit. Now he is in an ideal position to spread the gospel of liberty.
Let us help him.
We have a great opportunity: More press, more voters, more people interested in what the hell the Libertarian Party is. And when they ask what the LP is, we can either tell them how much we hate what Barr did in the past, or we can tell them why he joined us and why they should too.
I think the choice is easy.
David K. Williams, Jr. Originally published on BlueCarp.com
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 24
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of David K. Williams, Jr. only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
David K. Williams, Jr. 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.
Posted By: James Maynard
Date: 2008-05-27 13:04:45
Absolutely. There are few more ardent and persuasive proponents of issues and causes than are the converts. Welcome Barr, welcome Root. Now go get us a few million more converts. 161 days left.
There were several other fine Libertarian candidates who have walked the walk for many years and did not need to apologize for past legislation. What am I missing here? If the Party wanted a true Libertarian to run for office, what was wrong with their other contenders? Even if Barr has 'seen the light,' why not choose someone who always had the light?
Posted By: Gary Triestman
Date: 2008-05-27 15:44:57
In response to Maria Folsom: for a long time we have nominated Libertarians who have walked the walk, only to receive ineffectual campaigning for the office and ineffective dissemination of libertarian ideas. Sometimes it was their fault, sometimes not, but the results were usually the same, virtually no one knew they were even running.
It will be interesting to see the same media blackout imposed upon Bob Barr that they imposed upon Ron Paul. Some apoligists for the media might say that Paul simply wasn't photogenic enough, or user friendly, and since he was the minor running candidate of the GOP that was why he didn't get the same attention as Huckabee or McCain. Now we have a photogenic, forceful, politically and media savvy candidate who is the head of the single party ticket the (L) 's. If MSM treats him the same way as Paul, it will further show the reason to be political content of the messenger, not his relative popularity in the intra-party race.
Also, to the author of this article, please explain to me the following, in re Barr's position on Columbian military support for the eradication of cocaine trafficking in the US:
Those candidates would only spin their wheels, due to their absolute defense of principles, without the willingness to explain them. Exhibit A of course is Mary Ruwart's statement on child prostitution. I actually agree with her on principle, but only because I've spent years trying to find that sort of consistency. To anyone else it is like a hit in the face with a two by four, and only achieves a value in shock-frankly the true goal of a lot of those "true" libertarians out there I suspect. And why I don't claim the title. As the song says "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, You're not going to make it with anyone anyhow"
The reason I participate in politics is because I feel an obligation to try to preserve freedom from the ever-present encroachment of tyranny-not so I can stun people with my brilliance, sell books, or be pointlessly contrarian.
Gary,
I'm not going to defend that article. Not a bit. He's got some 'splaining to do. That being said, Bob Barr seems able to destroy political parties, always a positive-even the LP-he has my support when we go for larger game.
Posted By: David K. Williams, Jr.
Date: 2008-05-27 17:50:36
Maria,
All of your points are well taken. The two most important things that Barr has that none of the other candidates have? Money and organization.
His convention organization was superb and far superior to any other candidate's organization. It was akin to the difference between a Youth League baseball team and the New York Yankees.
Libertarians can use Barr's money and organization to sell the libertarian ideals, whether or not Barr toes the line.
To Gary: I can't defend that article.
If a non-libertarian asked me about it, I would use it as a teaching opportunity. I would explain why it is wrong. I obviously don't need to do that here.
But that is my overall point: Use Barr's media exposure to explain libertarianism, and when Barr is wrong, I'll just say that "he has come a long way, and we hope he can finish the journey."
Posted By: Gary Triestman
Date: 2008-05-27 18:52:58
To Dave & Mike:
Yes, I know the article is indefensible. And yet you still have my simpatico on Barr's nomination. I am waivering in the wind on it, but you all still have it.
It seems that so far, Barr's tact is to promote state rights wherever libertarianism demands a different position than what he has. Although state rights are great, the principle is not one of libertarianism.
I too agree with Ruwart's controversial position, and would demand as a prerequisite that any such person be of cognizant capability. The whole idea of libertarianism is one of choice and voluntariness. If a person is incognizant of a circumstance and the dynamics therein, they cannot make a knowing or voluntary choice in the matter. I do believe the a good subset of "minors" that are presumed to not know what they are doing in an adult sense, actually do by any objective standard, and should be afforded the legal status that reflects it. Of course this very controversial, because one has to be familiar with the precepts and corollaries of libertarianism before being competant to reach this conclusion, or not.
Posted By: michael kelly
Date: 2008-05-29 21:34:08
Where do the Paul supporters go? I made an attempt to work for change within the local Republican Party. It's hopeless-- they are out of ideas, voters, credibility, and principles. The libertarians and Bob Barr look like the best option. People can and do change-- give the guy a break.
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.
