Topic: Bob Barr
Bob Barr: Libertarian's Saul of Tarsus With the nomination of Bob Barr as the Libertarian Presidential candidate, many libertarians found themselves unable to support Mr. Barr. It made me wonder if Saul of Tarsus was met with the same objections.by Paul Conroy
(libertarian)
Thursday, June 26, 2008
With the nomination of Bob Barr as the Libertarian Presidential candidate, many libertarians found themselves unable to support Mr. Barr due to his voting record while a Republican Congressman. In fact, I lost my Vice-Chair because of his nomination. Time and time again, I hear libertarians talk about his non-libertarian Congressional voting record as a reason for not supporting him as the Libertarian Presidential nominee. It made me wonder if Saul of Tarsus was met with the same objections.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Saul of Tarsus, he was a big proponent of early Christian persecution, until his conversion. Most know him as St. Paul. Now before anyone condemns me to hell for blasphemy, I'm not saying that St. Paul and Bob Barr have the same story. In fact if there had been a biblical Nolan Chart, I think Saul of Tarsus, aka St. Paul, would have scored a big 0/0 in the pro-Christian category, unlike Bob Barr who scores a lifetime 68/85, according to the RLC, putting him in the libertarian camp while he was in office.
I don't know many in the Libertarian Party who were born there. Most of us are converts and have a pre-libertarian vote history that isn't exactly exemplary. Even I, a 100/100 Libertarian on the Nolan Chart, supported Ronald Reagan, voted for George H. W. Bush twice, and helped usher in the 1994 Republican Revolution and the Contract with America. I have since repented for "my youthful indiscretions" as Harry Browne might call them.
I have wondered if the Galatians, Corinthians, or Philippians, upon reading one of St. Paul's epistles fully denounced Christianity because St. Paul was a witness at the martyrdom of St. Stephen, burned churches in Jerusalem and imprisoned many Christians before his conversion. Since St. Paul is the second most prolific writer in the New Testament with thirteen letters attributed to him, I would say that he was at least accepted by these Christian communities, if not embraced.
I know, I know, Bob Barr's conversion isn't complete. He still has a way to go with drug re-legalization and doesn't believe in polygamy as a viable relationship alternative, yet even I have disagreements with the Libertarian Party platform, specifically the abortion and immigration issues. What I do look at is his work after his conversion. He has joined the MPP (Marijuana Policy Project), publicly denounced the Defense of Marriage Act (which he sponsored), and the PATRIOT Act (He at least got some sunset provisions in before voting for it), and while he supports a form of consumption tax, he does want to repeal the 16th Amendment.
It is his efforts since his conversion that should be used as a tool to decide whether to support the Libertarian Party and vote for Bob Barr. I for one believe in his conversion and will support his campaign, like I supported Badnarik and Browne before him. I will vote for him this fall. Saul of Tarsus became St. Paul, an important leader in the early Christian community. He converted many Jews and Gentiles to Christianity. I believe Bob Barr can do similar for the cause of Liberty and Libertarianism if given the chance.
Remember, we, as a country, got into this mess through relentless incrementalism, and while Bob Barr may not have a pure enough Libertarian pedigree for the libertarian elite, he is now a Libertarian and is moving in the correct direction; back towards the Constitution and limited government. And to those Libertarian detractors who would throw the baby out with the bathwater: Ye without sin, cast the first stone.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 18 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Paul Conroy only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Paul Conroy 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.
An excellent analogy. Had I thought of it, I'd have written it as a satire: a "true Christian" denouncing the Church and leaving it to pursue "true Christianity" on her own, a la Christine Smith. (I still might steal it 8) But your straight-forward, reasonable presentation will probably be listened to more.
To continue the analogy: St. Paul is widely considered the actual founder of the Church, as the man who opened it up and made it more than a tiny sect of Judaism. Who knows, that may be similar to what the Barr campaign does for the LP as well.
The analogy with St Paul is appropriate only if one like its logical conclusion that bob Barr will be a pillar of the Libertarian movement. The analogy relies only on the fact that both reversed their opinions... that's thin!
The problem with Bob Barr is not really his congressional record. The problem is that his current positions are not consistently Libertarian, and sometimes in significant ways. On every single issue, Bob Barr is stretching libertarianism towards conservatism and statism. Bob Barr is somehwere between Ron Paul and John MCCain. Bob Barr is what a Republican should be. He should have remained inside the Republican Party and join Ron Paul in his fight there. Ironically, the official Libertarian Party candidate is much less Libertarian than some inside the Republican Party. And I am not even talking of vice-presidency... With Bob Barr, the Libertarian party is losing its radicalism and its integrity for.. massive media exposure. I know, I know, the media exposure is not massive.
There is certainly a case to vote Bob Barr in that he is not as bad as the other candidates. But there is no case today that Bob Barr is a mainstream Libertarian. Within the Libertarian political spectrum, he is an extremist on the statist side. Not because of his past, but because of his current opinions and the way he is running his campagin.
I left the Libertarian Party because most of them wanted to force me to be free according to their definition of freedom. Part of freedom is the right to disagree. One Libertarian once told me that I had no choice I HAD to be pro choice. Freedom is complex. Look if you do not like Barr than vote for somebody else but give Barr the freedom to be his own kind of Libertarian. Geez
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-06-29 05:49:50
If Barr has truly converted to libertarian, pro-liberty philosophy, that's obviously a good thing (if you're a libertarian). I have no problem with the idea that people can change. In fact, I'm counting on it to save our society.
However, there is a problem of credibility that you're overlooking. The Republican Party throughout my lifetime has a long, long history of candidates who have "talked the talk" but failed to "walk the walk" once elected. It's part of what they did to get elected in the first place. Ron Paul is a rare exception, but Bob Barr is not.
It's good that Barr publicly apologized for what he did while in Congress. That's a good thing, but it's not convincing enough. In order for me to be convinced (and I'm sure this is true for many other libertarians, both small "l" and capital "L") is that we need to hear the details about his conversion. It's one thing to say, "I've seen the light!" But most of us who converted to libertarian principles at one time or another have a long, detailed story about how that conversion took place. It includes a step-by-step of what happened during that conversion, seminal events that influenced us, personal reflections on what we were thinking before, during, and after, etc. Usually, there are a series of stories that go along with that process. Perhaps Barr has also related such stories, but if he has, I've never heard them.
It's also telling that he appears to be making no effort to reach out to the thousands of members of the LP who were skeptical about his nomination but who did not attend the convention. Instead, he's assuming that they're all behind him and that they will work hard for his candidacy. Essentially, his actions say that they're too small in number to worry about. I think he's undermining and perhaps even abandoning a great chance to build his own equivalent base to the base Ron Paul has....if he is indeed the real deal.
It could be that Barr's conversion is genuine, or it could be that he's simply saying that his conversion is geniune in order to get the LP nomination, so he can be a thorn in the side of Republican leaders who failed to back of his last Congressional campaign, to give him a "last hurrah" before he acknowledges that his political career is over. But if he really believes that he is trying to win the race, that this is really about promoting libertarian ideas and putting a libertarian in the White House, then it makes no sense to ignore the concerns of thousands of LP members who are so suspicious of him and his candidacy, particularly when his track record says that he doesn't "walk the walk" once he's elected.
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.
