Topic: Libertarianism
Debating Jim Davidson (I) The national chair of the Boston Tea Party replies to my earlier criticism of his candidate, by criticizing Bob Barr.by George Dance
(libertarian)
Monday, July 21, 2008
Jim Davidson, chairman of the Boston Tea Party, has replied to my last article, "Boston Tea Party Candidate Smears Barr" -- three times in three days, as a matter of fact. Those three letters put me in a trilemma. On the one hand, Mr. Davidson raised so many points that merited a detailed, researched response, that it would take at least a month to do justice to his letters. On the other, ignoring his points for over a month would be more than rude; it would also give the impression that at least some of his charges were unanswerable. On the third hand, I couldn't see any way to reply at all without giving up my column writing for the duration.
After three days wrestling with the problem, I've decided to go with the advice Sam Konkin passed on in his intro to The New Libertarian Manifesto: "Don't get it right, get it written." I'm putting the detailed rebuttals and well-researched articles on hold, in favour of a more bloggy, scattergun "rapid response" style. My focus here is on making and rebutting points rather than supporting and refuting them; all that can be researched and added later, whether the argument continues or not. So let me take that advice, and plunge into the debate.
A good entry point is this first letter, which was sent to the (Richard Viguerie-owned) politics blog Third Party Watch (which had cited and linked to my Nolan Chart article). The first three paragraphs deal with the state of the BTP. My name first surfaces in paragraph four:
I really don't mind what George Dance had to say about Charles Jay. I'm not involved in Mr. Jay's campaign. I do think Mr. Barr has made a lot of LP members feel very uncomfortable....
Previously Davidson had written to me that "It is essential for libertarians to criticise and evaluate all candidates who run for office on any libertarian party's ticket." -- a fine sentiment, if "all" means "all." Yet he brushes off criticism of the candidate at the top of his own party's ticket, with the observation that he's only the party chair, "not involved" in the campaign at all then changes the subject to the one candidate he is actually interested in criticising, of a party of which he is not even a member.
The rest of that paragraph deals with the Jesse Helms incident, which I won't get into here; I don't think that can be covered by a quick and easy reply. So I'll skip to the next paragraph, in which Davidson's critique continues:
Most LP leaders, including essentially all the previous nominees for president, have avoided the colorful history of Bob Barr -- fighting for the drug laws, telling Hannity and Colmes he wouldn't legalise all drugs two weeks before being nominated, telling CNN he thought his defense of marriage act was a good idea the day after being nominated, pursuing a pogrom against Wiccans in the military, attacking and then later working for medical marijuana, calling for a bigger government program to intervene on behalf of financial institutions, including a bail-out for Freddie and Fannie, voting for the Iraq war and the USAPATRIOT act while other Republicans managed to find the information and reasoning to vote against these things. I don't envy LP loyalists for having Bob Barr as their candidate. I suppose you could do worse though John McCain is clearly worse.
I quoted that entire paragraph first, since replying entails chopping it up beyond legibility. Which is what I'll now have to do, taking Davidson's points in order:
Most LP leaders, including essentially all the previous nominees for president, have avoided the colorful history of Bob Barr -- fighting for the drug laws
Yes, Barr was a drug warrior back when he was in Congress that's the one charge against him that is undeniably true. It is also true, though, that he has changed his position on that issue, to one of strict constitutionalism: No role for the national government on drug laws, period.
telling Hannity and Colmes he wouldn't legalise all drugs two weeks before being nominated,
A trick question. Constitutionalism mandates that the federal government make no drug laws of its own. However, it also mandates that the federal government not seek to overturn state laws; Barr's reluctant "no" could have been in response to the latter point. The best answer would have been "At the federal level, yes," followed if possible by an explanation; I expect Barr to have that answer down by the end of the campaign.
telling CNN he thought his defense of marriage act was a good idea the day after being nominated
There are two parts to DoMA, something Barr's critics usually overlook. The one, which Barr defended on CNN, is the provision that states are free to define marriage without federal interference; that's also in accord with strict constitutionalism. The other recognizes the traditional (dictionary) definition for federal purposes (such as passports). Barr has promised to repeal the latter, though he has not said what will take his place; presumably, the feds will recognize a passport applicant's state definition.
pursuing a pogrom against Wiccans in the military
I dealt with that charge in my earlier article, and cited the press release that sparked the original furor. In that release, Barr did not call for a "pogrom" (an organized massacre), or even for the expulsion of Wiccans for the military. What he did call for, as Davidson admits in another letter, was to "eliminate all Wiccans from the military's chaplain corps" a position that he says was based on faulty information, and has publicly repudiated.
attacking and then later working for medical marijuana,
As noted, Barr's past as a drug warrior is indisputable; as is the fact that he's repudiated that position, in favour of one based on strict constitutionalism: no federal government intervention in the area. He has stated, publicly, many times, that the feds cannot be trusted with the power to intervene. Strictly speaking, he hasn't worked (lobbied) "for medical marijuana," but for the constitutional position: to have the federal government barred from interfering with existing state medical marijuana programs.
calling for a bigger government program to intervene on behalf of financial institutions, including a bail-out for Freddie and Fannie
Barr is on record as opposing a bailout. However, he is also on record as stating that he thinks a bailout will happen: and if so, it should be (1) limited, and (2) accompanied by a restructuring plan, to get Freddie and Fannie in shape to be fully privatized. In light of (2), he has also called for stricter oversight by the Federal Reserve (the prospective bailers) over both Fannie and Freddy, and stricter oversight by Congress over Fannie, Freddie, and the Fed (which is what I think Davidson means by "a bigger government program"). That's a reform program, admittedly, but one designed to lead to less federal intervention in the industry, not more.
voting for the Iraq war and the USAPATRIOT act
I've dealt with Barr's vote for the Iraq war and for the PATRIOT Act elsewhere. The first was based on faulty information that Saddam Hussein had WMD which he was making available to terrorists, making him an imminent threat. (I never believed that myself, but if I had, I probably would have supported the war myself. The second was a trade-off: Barr's vote in return for the removal of some of the worst provisions, and addition of a 4-year sunset clause. This should all be common knowledge by this time.
while other Republicans managed to find the information and reasoning to vote against these things.
If Davidson means Ron Paul: well, Paul is a radical -- his focus and his votes are always for the end goal -- while Barr is a reformer -- his focus is on what can be achieved at any time. We know what Barr's vote achieved, which sadly turned out to be little (thanks to a terrible Democratic campaign in 2004; if not for that the PATRIOT Act might already be history). What did Paul's vote against achieve?
Most Congressmen are, similarly, reformers rather than radicals; consequently, their positions will change with new information. Take Walter Jones, who voted for the war and is now one of its strongest critics; or Butch Otter, who voted against the PATRIOT Act but today is one of its strongest supporters. Should Jones and Otter be evaluated: by the positions they held at the time, or the positions they hold today? Then, how should Barr be evaluated?
I don't envy LP loyalists for having Bob Barr as their candidate. I suppose you could do worse though John McCain is clearly worse.
If -- a big if -- McCain were to join the LP, and repudiate most of his past record, then in a few years (if still alive) he'd make an excellent candidate. But that isn't going to happen. A more important question is: is there anyone with a voting record who would make a better candidate? Ron Paul, of course (although he was offered the job and declined); however, I suspect the BTP would be campaigning against Paul no differently from the way they are campaigning against Barr.
The players may change, but the game will assuredly continue.
-
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 33 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.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-07-22 22:11:39
I've seen your arguments about why Bob Barr voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Essentially, you argued that he voted for them because of political necessities involved in opposing them. Personally, I find it absurd to argue that voting for things one opposes and then failing to achieve one's political goals in the process because one actually made bad trades somehow qualifies one to lead the United States.
What was missing at the time and continues to be missing to this day is that Barr never really came out against the Patriot Act as a whole. Nor did he come out completely against the War in Iraq. Further (despite your claims) we know now that Congress did in fact have all the necessary information about the intelligence used to support the Iraq War. Yes, the President's summary of that intelligence was misleading, but a more complete version of that intelligence was made available to Congress. Only a small handful of Congresspersons and Senators actually bothered to take the time to read that intelligence. Bob Barr was not one of that handful. He didn't consider it important enough to read and digest the intelligence for himself and make up his own mind. He simply voted for the war because President Bush said he should.
We need a leader in the White House, not a follower, and we need that leader to be a stalwart defender of liberty. Barr is neither.
That's not 'essentially' my argument at all, especially on the PATRIOT Act vote, but I'd say that it has been, essentially, his own. Rather than argue or fight with Libertarians on these points, much less turn his attention from the front-runners to go after the BTP ankle-biters, Barr has taken a more standard political approach: to appease the former with a "You guys are 100% right, and you opened my eyes" line, and to ignore the latter completely. That's good politics, on the whole, but it's going to turn off some individualists and lose him their votes. I can't defend him from that, and won't even try; since my purpose isn't to defend him, anyway, but to make sure that voters interested in the actual facts have somewhere to go to get them.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-07-23 09:51:51
In case you hadn't noticed, there's widespread dissatisfaction both within the LP and outside the LP among small "L" libertarians alike regarding the Barr candidacy, and that dissatisfaction is precisely about these issues.
So no, this isn't just about "some individualists" who are turned off. This is about a large portion of the LP rank-and-file and a huge portion of the small "L" grassroots being not just turned off but actually (in many cases) driven to abandon the LP and/or avoid the Barr candidacy entirely. Where do think supporters for Davidson's new, fledgling Boston Tea Party primarily came from, anyway: Constitution Party defectors? Davidson wisely points out that his members come from a wide band of society, but the unstated truth is that a huge portion came from the LP, and they came primarily because of the Barr candidacy.
You may not have to defend Barr on these issues, but Barr himself has to if he's going to get the support he needs from the grassroots in order to be able to effectively reach out to Mr. and Mrs. America, who will otherwise know little or nothing about his campaign without that rank-and-file.
Ron Paul has his grassroots in large numbers. Bob Barr's grassroots are noticeably lacking. Can you see why?
It's nonsense to say that Barr hasn't addressed the substantive issues around his Congressional record: he's been quizzed repeatedly about the Iraq war, the PATRIOT Act, DoMA, the War on Drugs, et al, and he's given reasonable, consistent answers. If his position on any of those issues is unclear, that really is not his fault; any obfuscation on any of those point has been coming more from the BTP online campaign against him.
Barr hasn't addressed the BTP's charges that he's a racist, a bigot, and a hard-core statist, nor should he. He has a campaign to run and a message to deliver: his job is to stay focussed on those, not to get sidetracked into debates with the BTP chairman or vice-chairman over whether he's a racist or not. (Yes, both of those gentlemen are now openly using the r-word online.)
Someone does have to talk about the BTP campaign, though, and that is precisely what I have been doing, in these last two articles. The fact, as you point out, that they've had some success exploiting dissatisfaction with Barr to persuade LP members to join their party (either leaving the LP or working within it to sabotage the national ticket; Davidson suggests the first, Jay the second), is precisely what makes them newsworthy. So of course I have written about that, and hope to continue to do so.
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.
