Topic: Political Parties
Boston Tea Party nominee smears Barr Charles Jay accuses the Libertarian Party candidate of racism and more, and suggests sabotage of the LP's ballot access campaign.by George Dance
(libertarian)
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Charles Jay, presidential candidate of the Boston Tea Party (BTP), posted an interesting essay, "Declaring Your 'Independence,'" on his candidate's page on July 5. In it, Jay gave a first glimpse of what looks to be the fringe party's election strategy this year: Smear Libertarian Party (LP) candidate Bob Barr.
I use the word "smear" advisedly, since Jay's approach is thoroughly dishonest. Not that he states any falsehoods (well, no more than one): rather, he relies on implication and insinuation to communicate them. The facts and quotes he presents are mainly old news, some of which I've written on previously. What is dishonest is to imply that they are facts and quotes having anything to do with Barr's campaign as the Libertarian candidate, an implication that Jay makes throughout. As in his first two examples:
In the history of the LP, has there EVER been a party leader (and let's operate on the principle that a presidential candidate is a party leader) who has led a moral crusade as something fundamental to the advancement of his career; in fact, as something that was essential to his very existence as a "public servant"?
In the party's 37-year history, has any Libertarian candidate for national office ever said this?: "America has lost its moral way. I support legislation to allow states and local governments to allow prayer and displays of the Ten Commandments in public places, without violating federal law or the Constitution. I believe this would lead us one step closer to renewing America's moral foundation." (1)
Barr has admittedly said and done those things -- as a Republican Congressman a decade or so ago. Jay has to be aware of the dates. As the Libertarian candidate, and in his years as a LP member, Barr has said and done nothing of the kind; Jay has to know that as well. One has to conclude that Jay is deliberately misrepresenting.
Marijuana misrepresentation
Misrepresentation is compounded in Jay's next example:
Is it not antithetical to ANY interpretation of libertarian principles to not only crusade against freedom of choice for a group like medical marijuana patients, but to publicly denounce medical marijuana as "bogus witchcraft" while vigorously campaigning to prevent the votes from being counted in a referendum that would let the public's voice be heard on this issue? Has any leading figure in the Libertarian Party EVER pro-actively tried to override the democratic process in such an odious manner?
Not only has Barr done no such thing as a "leading figure in the Libertarian Party;" during his time in the LP, he has done the exact opposite. As Wikipedia tells it: "in March 2007, Barr reversed his stance on medical marijuana and began lobbying on behalf of MPP.[Marijuana Policy Project]. Incredibly, this new partnership saw Barr working to repeal his very own "Barr Amendment" -- the amendment that overturned a voter-approved medical marijuana initiative in Washington, D.C. and prohibits consideration of similar initatives." (2)
Rob Kampia of the MPP (who seconded Barr's LP nomination) has stated that "Bob Barr has done more to roll back the federal war on drugs than almost anyone I know in the country." (3)
Not to be nasty, but what is Jay's record on the drug war? What, if anything, has he ever done for "medical marijuana patients?"
To be fair, Jay may not have been aware of Barr's record over the past two years. But he certainly should have been, before pontificating on the subject.
Playing the Racist Card
For those still unconvinced, Jay next insinuates that Barr is a racist. That puts this next example into a class by itself, as it takes the war of words up a notch.
Has any national leader in the libertarian movement ever embraced a group like the Council of Conservative Citizens, which state, as part of its "Principles": ...
Jay then gives considerable space to quoting several odious examples of that group's "Principles." What he does not give are any facts about where, or when, as a "national leader in the libertarian movement" or at any other time, Barr ever "embraced" any of them or not.
Let us examine the facts that Jay is not giving.
During the Clinton impeachment, Barr (who was one of its House managers) spoke to groups around the country about the impeachment process -- including a June 2, 1998 talk before the Council of Concerned Citizens (CCC), an incident he mentions in his book, The Meaning of Is:
I had been invited by the top Republican official in South Carolina to speak on impeachment to a particular group, so we made the reasonable assumption based on his recommendation that the group was legitimate. Needless to say, that was one meeting I left as quickly as possible. (4)
Soon after, Barr and two other prominent Republicans became embroiled in controversy for speaking to the CCC, a group identified by both the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith (ADL) as a white-supremacist, "neoconfederate" organization.
The ADL conducted a thorough investigation of the incidents, and reported on its Militia Watchdog website in February 1999:
Of the three major politicians implicated in the scandal, Bob Barr is probably the one who deserves the least criticism. His connection appears to have been limited to one event, and it is true, as he has said, that some of the literature he was given (you can see one example for yourself) is not overt about racism. Moreover, and to his credit, he has strongly denounced the Council multiple times and been quick to do so. (5)
So: Jay insinuates that Barr (as a "national libertarian leader," no less) "embraced" a group that in fact he has strongly denounced, not once but repeatedly, for roughly a decade. Not exactly a lie, but nothing at all like the truth, either.
The Strategy
But enough of all that. At some point one has to take Ayn Rand's advice: to stop examining the folly, and look instead at what it's meant to accomplish.
Part of Jay's goal is of course obvious; he wants Libertarians who backed Barr's main rivals for the LP nomination (Ruwart, Kubby, Phillies, or Gravel) to join the BTP, and to work, donate and vote for his own campaign:
And if the national party has left YOU, you might consider leaving IT, at least as it concerns this election cycle and the top of the party's ticket.... we have a genuine alternative - a REAL libertarian alternative - right here at the Boston Tea Party.
However, Jay adds a new twist. He does not ask Ruwart, etc. supporters to leave the LP. Rather, his suggestion is that they become more active within it, at the state level, working to keep the Barr/Root ticket off the presidential ballot:
I wonder if it wouldn't be a pretty potent way of sending a message of dissatisfaction for a state chapter of the LP to say to itself, "Hey guys, instead of putting your anti-libertarian candidate on the ballot, we are going to do something that may seem foreign to you - we're going to put a REAL libertarian on the ballot instead."
That has already happened in two states, though the BTP had nothing to do with either. In New Hampshire, where Barr is currently polling in double digits, the state has refused to let his name be substituted on the ballot; placeholder candidate George Phillies is listed instead. The same in Massachusetts, although that state's LP (including Mr. Phillies, the state Chair) and the American Civil Liberties Union are suing to have Barr's name substituted.
If the BTP can add a few more states to that list, that could seriously spoil the LP's chances in this election. If they can convince even one state LP to nominate Jay (who otherwise will not appear in all but five or so states) instead, so much the better for them.
----------
Sources
(1) All quotations in italics are from: Charles Jay, "Declaring your ‘Independence,’" Charles Jay ‘08, July 5, 2008. http://www.cj08.com/ [emphases added]
(2) "Bob Barr," Wikipedia (accessed July 13, 2008). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr
(4) Casey Bowman, "Comment" on "Novak and Carney: ‘McCain’s Libertarian problem’," Independent Political Report, June 20, 2008. http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/06/novak-and-carney-mccains-libertarian-problem/
(5) Mark Pitcavadge, "The Council of Concerned Citizens in the News: A Chronology of Events: Introduction," The Militia Watchdog, ADL, Feb. 4, 1999. http://www.adl.org/MWD/ccc.asp
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 39 thumbs so far
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.
The Medicinal Marijuana Initiative remark was out of line, but Barr has not clearly stated he opposes the War On Drugs, and has in fact has intimated that he still is a rabid drug warrior, with his head in the ground. He has recently even proposed continued imperialism in Latin America, predicated on the Drug War.
Barr's spoken support for DOMA being a States' Right is pure dixiecrat crap:
"Well, I wouldn’t be too hard, too fast to talk about the defense of Marriage Act flying the face off anybody’s platform. It simply stands for the proposition that each state is free to make up its own decision, its people are able to decide for themselves what their definition of marriage to be and no one state should force another state to adopt its definition. A very, very sound individualistic and state’s rights policy."
Bob Barr made this laughable assertion, which DOES INDEED fly in the face of the present LP Platform, after it had been enacted:
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
So Barr is not a racist, because he attended a CofCC meeting, he is instead an imbecile? Very amusing excuse... Now about his effusive praise for Jessie Helms...
George, do not worry too much, the BTP (and there is now an Objectivist Party also) is a pure internet party and will be on the ballot in 10 or 11 states. Their appeal would be mostly to anarchists only. Thomas Knapp started with the party - as a blog - a few years ago. Think of it, how much money can they really raise and how well known are they? Jay's bashing of Barr is really hypocritical, to say the least. But do not worry, the LP always had the perception of being an anarchist party (see Jesse Ventura's statement on Al Jazeera TV), not a limited govt. party and having a party on its "left", would only enhance the perception that Barr's LP is a mainstream party.
I read from the infamous Eric that with a signature canvassing in a state, he found the LP members very divided over Barr, about 50-50% while all the Ron Paul supporters were 100% for Barr, so the friendliest and so helpful.
Ignoring certain voting record of Barr, these LP radical anarchists would have the same objection against Paul if he were to be the LP nominee, than now with Barr. I am sure Barr and Paul has spoken a lot of about this. In 1987 when paul was selected LP nominee for 1988, he was openly booed, over his pro-life and social conservative background. Barr is "too conservative" to them just as Paul is "too conservative" to them.
I do not think Dr. Phillies would join BTP in any way, but BTP may endorse him for MA and NH, where he would probably get the "wiccan/pagan" minority and "outright libertarian" vote" only. The local Ron Paul meetup group in NH could arrange for ballot access and Russ Verney is from NH and was a candidate there for the Democratic Party years ago, so he should also have contacts and appeal.
Paul has the same "states rights" policy, as had also Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and also Thomas Jefferson. There are Libertarians who have joined Paul, also as they did not agree with everything of the LP platform.
With regard to the remark about the current LP platform, that "Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships"
Barr is most probably thinking about federal government power vs. state government. It is the factical situation that states have rights, also with regard to the homosexual issue. Now of course some radicals would argue that the state govt. is also a govt. and therefore also has no say. In California the issue of civil unions were accepted and the recent CA Supreme Court decision, it was decided gay/lesbian couples can also legally marry. This decision was welcomed by the Ourtight Libertarians and Dr. George Phillies and others, and accepted by Barr as an issue of federalism. Now note that this decision still means the state government has the authority to define, license and restrict the personal relationship of homosexual couples. So if these anarchist LP's would be consequent in their argumentation, they would have to reject the court ruling, as it affirms the state govt. authority to define and license the marriage.
Personally I do feel that the state govt. should have the authority to decide over a local definition of marriage, e.g. as between a man and a woman and can then allow for a civil union with full financial benefits for homosexual couples. This would ensure that both the "holiness" of marriage as institution in history as between a man and woman solely be affirmed, while there would be no "discrimination' against homosexuals either. You cannot only give churches and religious institutions the right to license marriage, as what do you do with atheists, also a normal heterosexual couple that want to marry. In passport and ID documents the marriage of a couple is also important. IMHO, the LP need to address this issue in its platform. If not, it would be best to leave the LP for the anarchsits and Barr and the CP and others form a new party on basically Ron Paul's platform. Are you aware of the "Jefferson Republican" party? This is basically a party where Paul and Barr would feel perfectly comfortable with. And I am sure most of Barr's voters would join him.
How the equivocators of libertarianism love to bandy about the derogation of "anarchist". As if anarchism is inherently un-American; as if Henry David Thoreau should just be forgotten:
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.
Henry David Thoreau, "Resistance to Civil Government", 1849
Paul has the same "states rights" policy, as had also Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and also Thomas Jefferson. There are Libertarians who have joined Paul, also as they did not agree with everything of the LP platform.
Please do not defame Senator Barry Morris Goldwater with your uninformed musings.
"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay," Goldwater asserts. "You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."
Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian. He is a Republican Congressman with libertarian leanings. There is a chasm of difference between the two. A significant difference is his willingness to dishonestly portray Senator Goldwater's political views in a manner that leads his "sheeple" to wrong conclusions.
The Libertarian Party wants us to believe that the whole political life of Bob Barr is irrelevant and should not be used against him. Except, of course, when it gives credibility to their candidate as a name of national recognition, or something. This is ridiculous. Charles Jay is absolutely right in his political assessments. Thank you for posting his ideas. Hopefully that will keep more libertarians away from Bob Barr. Bob Barr wrote a few days ago: "Washington politicians are creating a culture of fiscal irresponsibility that threatens to drown the American people." (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/press-releases/54/no-more-taxpayer-bail-outs-says-bob-barr/). That's not Libertarian talking! (1) US governments have already drown the American people and (2) the problem is not fiscal irresponsibility but government itself, be it supra-national, federal, state, local... A fiscally responsible government would be not better. Of course a conservative believes in the idea of reasonable government and is always reluctant to state that government has completely failed. Bob Barr and his friends are watering down libertarianism to the point it becomes conservatism under a new name. Statist ideas branded under a libertarian banner remain statist ideas. Bob Barr is a conservative who embraced libertarianism as a cheap way to get on the ballot in many states and become again a player on the conservative political landscape. McCain is his opportunity and the Libertarian Party his carpet. Better to stay below 1% than to be a conservative pawn. Don't support Bob the Spoiler. Don't vote!
"That government is best which governs least": that is libertarianism indeed. Anarchists wants NO government, e.g. the individual should govern absolutely over his/her life, there should be no laws, laws are restrictions on freedom, one can do whatever you want...
"Please do not defame Senator Barry Morris Goldwater with your uninformed musings".
Well, if so, then his own son, Barry M. Goldwater Jr., who served as congressman with Paul and endorsed Ron paul for president must also be misinformed about the positions of his own father! Please, do not make yourself ridiculous.
Why don't you have a look at Goldwater Sr. 1964 campaignabout states rights?
Frankly, I fail to see how states rights infringe in any way in the constitutional right of an individual to be gay or lesbian (you only mention gay, not lesbian....perhaps you are discriminating against women?). The individual states are also subject to the constitution.
One can see your critique of Barr - as I suspected - extends to Paul as well. This is called a bigotry position towards Paul, who has received substantial support from gays/lesbians as well.
What about states having their own definitions of marriage and accept civil unions as well. In Western Europe, only two countries accept gay/lesbian marriage: Belgium and Spain. Others like Germany and France accept civil unions. Tell me, are you going to accuse Germany of "dixiecrap"? By the way, Germany has a very decentralized system, where the different states have a lot of autonomy. It works much better for them than a centralized France.
On the Nolanchart, Paul is very much a libertarian according to his consistent voting record:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm (Nolanchart is below)
So STOP with your nonsense that Paul is "Not a libertarian" already.
Why not analyse past the 1st sentence of Thoreau's, "Resistance to Civil Government"?
Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.
Now explain to me again about the differences between libertarianism and Henry David Thoreau, ok?
I am well aware that a son of Barry Goldwater's endorsed Ron Paul. Now explain what that has to do with Senatro Barry Morris Goldwater's assertion that gay rights were Constitutionally protected, and how you could possibly claim given this; that Ron Paul's farcical States' Rights dixiecratism has anything whatsoever to do with libertarianism, The LP platform, or Senator Barry Morris Goldwater.
I know it's tough, but remaining resolute in the face of an adverse storm consisting of irrefutable facts is not a sign of mental clarity. Ron Paul IS NOT a libertarian.
I am an old SOB. I was in Arizonam and met Senator Goldwater the day after the '64 Presidential election. I am well aware of his States' Rights position, but doubt very much that you are:
On Shannon Faulkner, the young woman who recently won a court decision to enter the corps of cadets at the previously all-male Citadel military academy: "It's a state-financed and state-run institute, and there's no way you can say no to women. Now, if it were privately run with private money, they could tell women to go to hell." --http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater072894.htm
Note te date; a full 30 years after his Presidential run. Care to extend this thought over to FHA loans? How about a private country club which receives government subsidies in the form of the irrigation water? Give me a break, and research a little better, ok?
Charles Jay's point is that no previous Libertarian Party candidate for president, and no previous LP national leader has a past so shrouded in conservative, anti-liberty behavior. But, I will point out a few things that Barr has done as a Libertarian Party national committee member, and as the LP's candidate for president.
1. Two weeks before the Denver LP convention, Barr was on Fox News telling Hannity and Colmes that he, Barr, as president, would not legalise all drugs. Clearly, Barr is publicly against the LP's longstanding position on this issue.
2. The day after being chosen as the presidential nominee, Barr was on CNN telling that audience that he thinks "states rights" and Barr's defense of marriage act are the libertarian approach to marriage for gay and lesbian couples.
To date, as the LP's candidate for pres, Barr has never repudiated his plan to eliminate all Wiccans from the military's chaplain corps. He has never repudiated his anti-gun-rights views in favor of the Lautenberg amendment.
As the LP candidate for president, Barr has been unnecessarily effusive about the policies of Jesse Helms, demanding that everyone thank God for everything Helms had ever done - including the work Helms did for segregation, against civil rights, against voting rights, against women's rights, for special preferences for agricultural interests in Helms's state, etc., etc.
It is simply tedious for libertarians to pretend that Bob Barr is a libertarian. It is essential for libertarians to criticise and evaluate all candidates who run for office on any libertarian party's ticket.
And it is utter nonsense to suppose that Charles Jay hopes to win the presidency by saying bad things about Bob Barr. Neither Barr nor Jay is going to be the president of these united States, and everyone knows it.
Honesty, integrity, and decency demand that non-libertarians be exposed for the policies they advocate. Charles Jay has performed a public service by outing Barr.
Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.
Now explain to me again about the differences between libertarianism and Henry David Thoreau, ok?
Well, here's my own view, from a decade ago. I can't see any differences in the first paragraph. Perhaps there's one in the second, but I can't say that for sure. I'll let you decide:
None of which ensures that anarchy will never happen - just that it will happen when, and only when, the citizens want it to happen. A proper government will depend on the voluntary support of its consumers. Either it learns efficiency and accountability (two things it surely lacks now!) from this market discipline, or its consumers will desert it for private police and private arbitrators; and it will have no right to use force to stop them. In which case, the state will wither away (and Karl Marx will have been right about something.)
But that withering will occur by the spontaneous action of the marketplace, not through political action. Tryng to abolish government politically, by violent revolution or peaceful legal euthanasia, would mean doing away with the personal security that the rule of law provides at one stroke, with no guarantees of when, or even if, a new rule of law will emerge. The best that political action can be expected to achieve is one under which anarchy may emerge by market action -- in short (see above), a proper government.
Jim Davidson (are you James Dale Davidson, by any way?): That was a thoughtful, detailed post. I could argue with some of your takes on the incidents, but I think that would drag us down to minor quibbling; so let's cut to the chase:
" It is simply tedious for libertarians to pretend that Bob Barr is a libertarian."
That depends on one's criteria. Nolan Chart uses one set of criteria, the same one as the Advocates for Self-Government and the Republican Liberty Caucus, which is: Of 10 key issues, if a person is libertarian on 8, and statist on 2, he's a libertarian. The radical view, OTOH, would be: he's no libertarian, as having statist views on any of those issues would disqualify him.
The "purist" view (which I think is your view) has been the one adopted by the LP, which is one reason why the party has not grown in 37 years, which is one reason why it has achieved next to nothing in the last 37 years. The achievement has been fricking negative! I'd say that has to change, and with it the "purist" view of a libertarian.
You'd say keep people like that out of the party, and even treat them as enemies. I'd say, bring them in and work on their inconsistencies inside. No, not make them a candidate right away; but Barr hasn't done that: he's spent 2 years inside listening and learning.
Yes, parts of his record are bad; but at the same time he was (as Liberty magazine called him at the time), the second most libertarian Congressman after Ron Paul. If we'd been real lucky and got Paul instead, you guys would have the same problems with him. (I know that, because I was around in 88 when Paul got the nomination, and it was the same then. Hell, even I had the same problems with his candidacy at the time.
But, hey, I'm 20 years older, and wanting to see some progress in the direction of liberty before I kick off. And as much as I'm attracted to it philosophically, I don't see a view that implies we have screen new members out, and we can't run anyone who has previously served in government, as productive to that end. I'm happy there's a Boston Tea Party: let the "purists" go there and let the LP do what it needs to do in order to accomplish something.
"It is essential for libertarians to criticise and evaluate all candidates who run for office on any libertarian party's ticket."
Then I'd urge you to take Jon Stewart's advice to David Frum, and look at your own guy. Because it looks to me like you have someone who is willing to lie, cheat, and commit fraud to achieve his own end (which, here, does seem to be no more than scoring some quick and cheap publicity) at the top of your ticket.
Barry Hess - Goldwater's speechwriter, and Ernest Hancock very much consider Paul as a libertarian.
Now frankly, I am aware of the difference between Goldwater and Paul on the pro-life/pro-choice issue, and on foreign policy, Goldwater was perhaps more of an interventionist, but then again one cannot compare the struggle against communism with the current "extremist Islamic terrorists".
Now frankly, I cannot see the difference on the quote you mention between Goldwater and Paul. I know some of Goldwater's grandchildren are homosexual. Paul is also not for discrimination against homosexuals, not from the military also.
"States rights" does not define the totality of both Goldwater's and Paul's positions. For instance, Paul does never say he is against the Patriot Act or FISA etc. by the federal government, but leave it up to the states to decide whether they want to implement it or not. He is against these Act, period, whether from the federal or state government, as it is against individual rights.
Did Henry David Thoreau talk about the federal or state government? The state government is also not the aplha and omega and certainly they can also pass laws that could be resisted and protested against. Everybody has an "anarchist" streak at times. This does however not mean that all las as such should be rejected. The whole idea about federalism is to bring government closer tot he people, e.g. the local state is much more aware of local issues than the federal government. Goldwater and Paul's disdain with DC is well known. With federal government, you can get more freedom for the individual than with federal centralised government. There is not absolute individual rights, e.g. one person's actions can influence that of the other and one needs laws to regulate these rights.
Do not play semantic games. Government is government, and tyranny is tyranny. It does not matter whether it originates at the state or the federal level.
Quit equivocating for States' Rights. There is nothing but tincture of Dixiecrats in your shading of the truth.
You'll find me in wikipedia as James Eric Davidson. There are about 400 people named "Jim Davidson" in Inverness Scotland's phone book, where we come from. My lot got cleared off in the Highlands Clearances around 1746 and transported to North America. James Dale Davidson's lot got transported to Botany Bay, he told me, years ago at a dinner in Aspen. He's a very nice guy, and I admire his work as leader of the National Taxpayer's Union. I've also read many of his books and find them excellent.
The world's smallest political quiz is brief indeed. I prefer Bryan Caplan's Libertarian Purity Test which has many more questions. I rate 160 out of 160 on Caplan's test. With as few as 16 points, Caplan suggests one is at least soft-core (or Nerf) libertarian.
But, where are the points for Bob Barr? You seem to suggest that Barr is libertarian on at least 8 questions. Which ones? I'd be interested to learn more.
My problem is not that Barr takes the statist position on one or two issues - some of my best friends have blind spots and are narrow minded in some particular. I can be very forgiving. My concern is that Barr is a statist on most issues where his positions can be examined in any depth. I think he's an authoritarian who does not merely want some role for government, but a major role for government. How else can you explain his enthusiasm for expanding the authority of the Federal Reserve? His Lautenberg enthusiasm? His opposition to gay marriage, or any marriage not licensed and restricted by government? His enthusiasm for Jesse Helms? His opposition to Wiccan chaplains in the military? His enthusiasm for the drug war being fought at the state level? His refusal to call for legalising all drugs?
Barr's votes for the Iraq war and the USAPATRIOT act fit right into his overall pattern of authoritarianism. His claim that he was misled does not wash - Ron Paul was misled, too, but managed to avoid these errors.
You say that purism is bad for the LP. That's fine. Then you ought to be excited that the purists are leaving in droves for the Boston Tea Party, right? Or is it, as with many party loyalists, that you don't want the purists to leave, but you won't let them have their way, either?
The interesting point is that David Nolan, the co-founder of the LP, and the author of the Nolan Chart, has made some of the same complaints that I have made against the national LP. He has pointed out that bias was shown by national LP officers, staff, and national committee members in favor of one of the candidates long before the nominating convention. L. Neil Smith raised this concern in the 1996 race and was told to shut up by party loyalists. I left the party in 1998 and have not renewed my national dues since because of that kind of corruption.
The other interesting thing David Nolan wrote on his flyer that was circulated in Denver, seeking a position for David on the national committee, was about membership. Membership in the LP is down since 2000. Yet, the principles were all compromised in 2006 with the Portland platform. A controversial candidate of whom many purists are doubtful is now the nominee. Why, then, is membership down? Perhaps it is because LP members generally want as much freedom as possible, and don't care for equivocation.
I have looked closely at what Charles Jay wrote, and I don't agree with your assessment. In fact, I would like you to substantiate your claims of "lie, cheat, and commit fraud." I don't believe you've proven anything of the sort. All you've shown is that you are willing to make excuses for Barr.
I do think Bob Barr is a racist. He has the courtesy to be ashamed of it, and to hide his racism behind a formal position paper that says racism is wrong. But, his enthusiasm for Jesse Helms is very hard to explain away in any close examination of the Helms career, as Charles pointed out.
One of my friends, Chris Bennett, is a black LP activist from Illinois. He feels betrayed by Bob Barr. He is convinced that Barr is a bigot. Chris has some commitments with the LP that he is fulfilling, but he's not going to continue after they are completed. Instead, he's joined the national committee of the Boston Tea Party.
We're not all purists, as Eric Sundwall has been at some pains to point out in a recent editorial. Many BTP members are only for smaller government, and not for no-government. Michelle Luetge, our national party secretary, identifies herself as a minarchist.
But we're for a smaller government on all issues. Bob Barr is not. He's for a bigger government on many issues. I find his positions very troubling.
It occurs to me to mention that over at Last Free Voice, Barr's official campaign issues paper was posted. A Barr apologist found him 70% okay which suggests 7 questions out of 10, not 8. Wouldn't that make him a conservative, or possibly a centrist?
For my own part, I went through the same list and came up with 30% acceptable answers, even where I felt Barr's official position was disingenuous. In my earnest opinion, Barr is a statist on the Nolan Chart.
Ron Paul IS a Libertarian....knight is an anarchist, probably on the payroll of Faux News as an agitator. If you do not believe that there are paid provocateur working to discredit the LP you would be naive.
I do not consider Thoreau to be a libertarian. Bastiat for sure....Thoreau not at all.
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.
