Topic: Bob Barr
Not Libertarian or Not Libertarian Enough Is Bob Barr not Libertarian or not Libertarian enough? What is a Mainstream Libertarian? Does Barr fit the bill?by Paul Conroy
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
I recently wrote an article called Bob Barr: Libertarian Saul of Tarsus. It was an attempt to try to understand why certain libertarians look to his record before his conversion as condemnation of his post-conversion campaign. Basically I wondered if Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) was greeted the same way by the early Christians.
One of the comments I received mentioned that "On every single issue, Bob Barr is stretching libertarianism towards conservatism and statism.", "With Bob Barr, the Libertarian party is losing its radicalism.." and "..there is no case today that Bob Barr is a mainstream Libertarian.". Now, this isn't the first time since Bob Barr's nomination that I've heard these comment or comments similar in nature. Do these people feel that Bob Barr isn't a Libertarian or isn't Libertarian enough. Who is defining what is a Libertarian. If I am to use the comments above, a "mainstream Libertarian" is apparently a radical. I do not believe this to be true. My 100/100 on the Nolan Chart does not make me a radical, but I also would not call myself "mainstream". The term mainstream is usually synonymous with "middle-of-the-road", or average, not on either extreme. On the Nolan Chart an average of 80 would be dead center, which would make between 70 and 90 apparently mainstream. By the calculation of the RLC, Bob Barr's life time average on the Nolan Chart is 76, that is pretty close to the center of the "mainstream". I think I just made a case for Bob Barr being a mainstream Libertarian.
As for the Libertarian Party losing it's radicalism, maybe it isn't the Party losing its radicalism but the radicals losing control the Party. I, for one, think it's a good thing. One of the reasons I joined the LP was because it seems so all inclusive. Maybe it was just Harry Browne's calm demeanor that made it feel that way. It appears to me that the radicals in the LP are just as closed and narrow-minded as the Republicans and the Democrats. You're either 100% pure Libertarian or your a Statist! The LP radicals love to throw that word around, like the Democrats use "racist" and the Republicans use "liberals". Again, I would never consider Bob Barr to be a radical Libertarian, but his congressional record and his current stance on issues puts him in the Libertarian camp and in the mainstream of Libertarianism.
The two arguments against Bob Barr is either his congressional record, which I have pointed out, was overall libertarian, or his current positions, which are even more libertarian. Returning to a sensible national defense policy, reducing the size and scope of government, repealing the 16th amendment, maximizing individual liberty and restoring the Constitution all seem to be very mainstream Libertarian positions. It just leads me to believe that the radicals just don't think he's libertarian enough for their "pure blood". I think that rather than Barr stretching libertarianism towards conservatism, he is stretching conservatism towards libertarianism and bringing more people under the Libertarian umbrella.
As for Bob Barr needing to give a long detailed interview in which he goes over all aspects of his conversion to his "skeptics" (read: Elitist, Purists, Radicals) is unnecessary. In fact the use of "conversion" (which I am also to blame for using) may be a misnomer. Conversion usually means change from one thing to another. If Bob Barr's congressional record was libertarian, and he has since become more libertarian, it would be more of an evolution than a conversion. I think when looking at his past in that light, his explanations of his transgressions and the current work he is doing is a sufficient explanation.
I think the radicals have run the Party long enough. We are on the five yard line with 95 yards to go, we can't just keep throwing the ball to the end zone. Sure it's our ultimate goal, but when you're backed up this far, you need to give yourself some breathing room before you start airing it out. Run the ball. Give the ball to someone who can get you a first down. Then some short drop passes, move the ball down field. Build the momentum. We might not get the touchdown on this possession, but a field goal would be nice right now. Hell, I'll settle for that initial first down. I think Bob Barr can do that. I think he can get us that first down and more. In a recent Zogby poll he is at 6% nationwide. The troubling statistic in that poll was that only 43% of libertarians support Bob Barr. I wish the other 57% can see the logic in supporting an evolving libertarian who has put together successful federal campaigns and has the media contacts to get the LP back into the game. I'm tired of our Party being referred to as "Loosertarians". You can keep your small "l" principles and still support the Libertarian Party. I do. As I have said before, it is relentless incrementalism that got us here and we need a more pragmatic game plan. Throwing "Hail Mary" passes for four downs might give us hope, but it is highly unlikely to achieve our goal. I urge all liberty-minded people to vote for Bob Barr. He may not be Libertarian enough for some people, but he is a Libertarian and he is helping our cause in the the correct direction; towards limited government and maximum individual liberty.
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.
Are these the same libertarian "radicals" and "purists" who think Obama is a viable option?
Honestly, the scariest part of the Denver Convention was listening to Mary Ruwart speak about universal healthcare in glowing terms. So many "purists" rallied to her, but it begs the question: What is pure about libertarianism if it embraces socialism?
There's room in this tent for all of us and then some, but socialism cannot be embraced by a true libertarian any more than can church-ocracy or fascism.
Kubby was the only truly "pure" alternative, despite Phillies' and Ruwart's claims, and he threw his support to Barr. End of story. If he can live with Barr, I can support Barr.
Paul: I enjoyed your football analogy. It made the point about LP strategy in a vivid, clear way.
Josh: Ruwart praised national health insurance? I read something about that in one of your earlier articles, but thought you were referring to Gravel. Do you know of anything online that I could read about that?
Yes! You read well: more bureaucracy to limit government! The Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties is such a Libertarian insitution. Wonderful! So Libertarian 2008. In the end, Libertarianism is best defined by its candidates. A bit by definition, mainstream liberterianism is now Bob the Spoiler's version of libertarianism. As for the so-called "radicals", they are hearing you well and won't disturb you much in the future I guess. My advice on Bob Barr: "Don't vote!".
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.
