Topic: Bob Barr
Un-Crashing the Party - Bob Barr Bob Barr candidacy has sadly turned off some people to the Libertarian Party. Will some very capable Libertarians be written off because of this?by Dan Steward
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
For those of you not already in the know about the National Libertarian Party's presidential choice of who will represent us, the delegates have spoken. A lot of us are deeply unhappy with the choice made in Denver on Memorial Day weekend, self included.
The case can be made that the Libertarian Party's delegates chose very unwisely by electing former Georgia Republican, Bob Barr as our standard bearer. Political expediency most glaringly appears to have taken precedence over the time honored Libertarian tradition of picking the best candidate for the job.
Just what are we, as a party, going to do about it now? Have we lost our way as a political movement and have been compromised by the shifty operatives of the neo-conservative bent, who's seemingly only wish is to dilute the ability of the nation's third largest political party's efforts to bring in the vote for competent freedom loving persons? Quite possibly. Perhaps our way has been lost. The burning question should be then, "How do we get our way back?"
Many have in my opinion, and even more unwisely, chosen to abandon the only political party in America that exists solely dedicated to the advancement of liberty, freedom, and the free market. I suppose that these otherwise well meaning and dedicated folk will still know how to visit their neighborhood polling place in November and pick someone to lead the country.
If those same well meaning people leave the party of principle, then where will they go? The guys with D's or R's in front of their names? Are you kidding me? They're the ones that started this mess. Barr jumped into the race only two weeks before the national convention. A cunning ploy to say the least. Show me your spirit for liberty and tell me how you're going to counter this ploy.
How about the Greens who claim to oppose "centralized government"? Forget it. No amount of preaching and finger waving will convince me that the bacon on my plate is evil. Anyone with functioning brain cells is aware that the Green Party has been long ago compromised by hard-core socialists who delight in advancing this same centralized government they rail against in their platform.
Constitutional Party? They tend to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they want want to advance and have thrown in a few planks of their own lest you think them to be great proclaimers of any type of liberty that even small "l" Libertarians would be comfortable with.
Natural Law Party? That excuse for pushing a goofy kind of meditation that my spell checker can't even correct, still in business? Surely, you must be pulling my leg.
Risking being redundant, the Libertarian Party is still the only game in town. I hope nobody has forgotten the many candidates that our fine party has fielded that are not vying for the presidency. Do you want to tell them that you are sorry that you have taken leave of your principles because of your dislike for a neo-con has displaced your need to elect a freedom loving mayor, state senator, or county auditor?
You leave the party, you leave those fine people hanging. Call it what you like but the results are still the same. Let your conscience wrestle with that notion for a bit and see how you feel afterwards.
History has shown us beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the ballot box is a simply a means for achieving liberty in our time, not an end. Take the party back if you feel that it has been stolen from you. It's your party and you have sacrificed much to help build it. Protest publicly if it's a nice day outside. Set some standards at your local party meetings and meet-ups and make the potential candidates stick to them if they wish to represent you and your beliefs at the polls.
I love liberty. I absolutely adore freedom and I'm not going to let anyone have the satisfaction of diminishing the gains we have struggled for decades to achieve just because of one guy in one election cycle who though it cute to throw a monkey wrench into the works. I refuse to render unto Uncle Sham my only hope of restoring those most precious freedoms stolen from me and my heirs. I'm a busy man but I'm going to keep making time to secure those freedoms.
Libertarians, you guys are stuck with me.
With Liberty,
Dan Steward
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 15 thumbs so far
2008 Dan Steward, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, July 23, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Dan Steward only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dan Steward 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.
Absolutely agree. But I speak this as a NEW Libertarian (the ink is still wet on my membership card), who was brought to the party by Bob Barr, and I will be forever grateful, as I have truly now found a political home. Now if I could just afford that lifetime membership :)
I think that folks would also do well to remember that not only are you voting for a person, you are casting a vote for the party. Gaining Libertarian votes in certain states can help toward party recognition and ballot access in future elections.
I was ok with Barr up until the global warming thing a few days ago, but I was only going to vote for him because I didn't want McKill or Obama, so Barr was the lesser of three evils for me. Still is, I guess.
Bob Barr is the best candidate out there. He joined the Libertarian Party 3 years ago and has seen the light from his days as a Republican. The past is the past. You may not agree with a candidate on 100% of the issues, but who does? Bob Barr is doing the best he can in spreading freedom & liberty, opening up the political system, making it easier for future Libertarian candidates for ballot access . AUGUST 5th please donate, see www.barrbomb.com started by Ron Paul supporters.
>Bob Barr is the best candidate out there. He joined the Libertarian Party 3 years ago and has seen the light from his days as a Republican. The past is the past.
Thank you very much for your kind and insightful reply to my article. I am deeply saddened that both you and I, fellow travellers on similar paths to peace, prosperity, and liberty in our time, would be in opposition to an LP presidential choice , post-convention. Our party is being torn apart and Bob Barr (expected of any LP canididate) is being ignored even more than the media blackout of Ron Paul had done.
Agreed that he is better than what the newsfakers have spewed out at us. He is the best when compared to McCain & Obama. Of course when you compare him with more freedom-minded (and vastly more qualified) Libertarian Candidates the proof simply isn't there that he's the real deal. Call me selfish, Johnathan, yet i really need that proof from him.
I can't assure myself of what I'm doing at the polls is right if I lack such important information in my choice of who I think will rule America in a manner in which my long-held staunch Libertarian values will not be in more than minimal conflict with.
I've been a voter since the early '80's and have never even once had to hold my nose when flicking the chads off my straight ticket libertarian ballot.
He's been retired from congress for 3 years. He's had nothing to vote on in that time that would show us that he cares about liberty that I've seen. If there's some "proof in the pudding" I haven't viewed yet, I will surely look at with an open mind.
Jumping in the race only scant weeks before the LP convention in Denver convinces me of nothing and "I'm sorry I voted to enslave all of you with the Patriot Act. I won't do it to you guys ever again, I promise". Sorry Jonathan, that convinces me even less as his remorse may truly be genuine, but it may also be 100% contrived.
I'll let the past be the past. Bob Barr still owes me one politically, and he might have at least some consideration of my vote...but he has to prove to me that BOTH he was not just a "spoiler" sent to monkey wrench and marginalize the Libertarian Party and that he is very busy righting the wrongs through his current works, that were done us by his votes in congress.
My lack of acceptance of him is based on the simple premise that he will not be able to prove these two conditions to me to my satisfaction.
I didn't say in my article whether I would or would not vote for Barr. I am more concerned about us losing party members and votes for Libertarians in this and future elections.
>You may not agree with a candidate on 100% of the issues, but who does? Bob Barr is doing the best he can in spreading freedom & liberty, opening up the political system, making it easier for future Libertarian candidates for ballot access. started by Ron Paul supporters.
Posted By: Christian Prophet
Date: 2008-07-23 15:51:46
Let's see ... the LP spent 30 - 40 years being 100% pure and attracted how many voters? Most people in politics would take a look at what they are doing and say, "We must be sabotaging ourselves in some way. Let's take a look." But nobody ever said libertarians were smart enough for introspection.
For starters, maybe quit calling Bob Barr "neoconservative," which does not apply and serves no good purpose, and get busy selling libertarianism. Bob's followers will buy your ideas if you are not hell-bent on alienating them.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-07-24 05:11:37
Well, one thing is for sure. We're now going to get to see what happens when you seek to increase party vote totals by selling out principles. This is what the conservative side of the LP has been advocating for years, and they get their chance in spades with the Barr/Root ticket in 2008. Of course, now they've got to deliver the results they've promised all along...a big increase in party vote totals. If that doesn't happen...if Barr/Root doesn't break the 1% barrier and beat what the best of the more principled candidates (including Ron Paul in 1988) did in the past, then the proof will be in the pudding, and the "don't be so pure" argument will have undermined itself with its own results.
I think that the Barr/Root ticket may turn out to have a silver lining, because it will show once and for all that the LP "pragmatists" who have been bleating for years that the LP has to put up only candidates that are more "mainstream" (meaning: conservative) and who don't talk about platform planks like ending the income tax or the war on drugs in order to get more positive attention from the voters will demonstrate this year by their example that their advice was actually worthless. I predict right now that Bob Barr won't come close to Ed Clark's 1980 record of 921,128 votes. In fact, he probably won't even get the 485,798 Harry Browne received in 1996, the 431,750 votes Ron Paul received in 1988, or the 397,265 votes Michael Badnarik received in 2004.
Of course, if he fails as dismally as I suspect he will, it's safe to say that the pragmatists won't admit that they were wrong all along.
I think you mean the time honored LP tradition of being an irrelevant band of whiners. The purpose of a political party is to win elections and affect public policy. The LP doesn’t do that, at least not at the state and national levels. Sure, you have a few dog catchers in office, but who cares? The LP peeked 28 years ago, way back in 1980 when Ed Clark got 900,000 votes. LP presidential candidates have subsequently struggled to get even half that many.
You guys experienced what we in the business world call a hostile takeover. You had a potential valuable organization that was severely underperforming in the market. It was ripe for picking. Welcome to the real world. Get over it.
"You guys experienced what we in the business world call a hostile takeover. You had a potential valuable organization that was severely underperforming in the market. It was ripe for picking. Welcome to the real world. Get over it."
That was a very spot-on analogy...and like all hostile takeovers, the employees and persons responsible for the day-to-day operations are tossed out in the street while the overpaid and overhyped corporate fatcats sail off in their golden parachutes.
I will be voting Libertarian this November, but not for president-this country needs a faux Libertarian like it needs a hole in the head.
Politicians lie to get your vote; that's the real world...and I'm having a very hard time getting over that.
What exactly has been "sold out" with Barr? This is completely lost on me. Is it simply that he is not sufficiently obsessed with drug legalization? I can hardly see a difference with Ron Paul except for taking a little bit of the edge off the rhetoric. Or would you be whining equally about Ron Paul as LP nominee?
If the LP hadn't picked Barr, I would be writing an obituary column here since it would mean they passed by a chance to be relevant just so they could pick some "pure" nutjob fixated on legalizing crack and prostitution, opening the borders and selling the national parks. Get real.
"I will be voting Libertarian this November, but not for president..."
No one cares about your little temper tantrum. Barr will get many times the votes of any other LP presidential candidate, with or without the votes of the loser wing of the LP.
Bob Barr is not the only sign that the Libertarian Party is getting ready for significant statist compromission. In the name of realpolitik of course. Out of the four remaining candidates in Denver, only one supported the traditional Libertarian views. Mike Gravel's platform included taxes to fight global warming! Michael Jingozian endorsed him and got elected vice chair of the party! Wayne Root sees in Ronald Reagan a Libertarian hero and did not strike me a staunch anti-war politician. All that shows that the core of the Libertarian party has moved conservative big time. Fascinating for an ideology that has a lot in common with the Left. Bob Barr has not made one step towards that side of libertarianism. Conservative only! Also, those Libertarians who are comfortable with Bob Barr are very aggressive against the so-called purists. "Good riddance" is heard quite oftten. I have stopped labeling myself libertarian. I would say the party is lost for those who disagree with the current strategies. Lost in the US and in other countries as well because this is the whole Libertarian brand that is being transformed.
Yes Chuck, many of these same people were pissed as hell in 1988 when Ron Paul won the party's nomination over the loser wing's preferred candidate -- Russell Means.
I saw this same attitude with Badnarik in '04. The local LP was too busy fighting each other to provide any type of support to their candidates. The puritans were too busy lableling any and all who supported Michael as a neocon.
It is typical of the armchair generals and internet warriors to castigate others for their own inadequacies. It was not the pragmatists or constitutionalists that caused the perception to be cast upon the LP as the party of 'pot smoking, kiddy porn promoters.' They could not 'restore '04' so now they must resort to another strategy.
The self-righteous piety of those with a proven track-record of failure will never cease.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-07-24 10:47:46
As one who voted for Badnarik in 2004 and who supports Paul in 2008 but cannot in good conscience vote for Barr in 2008, I must disagree with the previous posts. I can't support Barr because he has not come clean on why he supported the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq among other things. Those who think there's no difference between Paul and Barr haven't been paying attention to Barr's track record in Congress. Paul's record in Congress is sterling. I can't say the same for Barr, and we really have no reason to believe that would change if Barr were elected president.
i'm sure that you'd like to help with the conversation and feel that you are doing so...
please feel free to ask yourself if you really are helping matters or just attempting to rub salt in what you (wrongly) perceive to be wounds of libertarians.
We are Libertarians and by default, are made from stronger stuff than you could ever realize. If you believe that Libertarians are "whining" about anything in this thread, you are most sadly mistaken.
I'd like to know how you are able to tell when people are angry. do you feel that you posess some magical power that can traverse through cyberspace itself?
If you do not have such a power then please also feel free to refrain from stating such if you care to keep yourself from looking like you are just trying to pick at everyone that doesn't share your view.
F.Y.I. It is particularly rude to refer to (without any proof whatsoever) any part of the '88 Libertarian delegation as a "loser wing".
I sincerely hope that you are able to find this of help to you in the future when responding to articles.
Posted By: Steve Trinward
Date: 2008-07-24 16:11:24
I'm pretty sure I'll be voting for the BTP ticket for Pres this time; a shame, since I;ve voted LP (actual, "independent" or write-in) every Pres election since the first one I could vote in ... which was 1972.
Barr's nomination was sad, but the sadder part was allowing his clone to be the running-mate. The failure of ANYONE from the "other side of the aisle" (Kubby was the only one who tried) to stop the conservative GOP coup says more than anything else. (Barr was a slam dunk from the first ballot, just as Badnarik was in 2004 as soon as he showed contender-status... the alignments were already in place!)
As for still being a libertarian, sorry, but I can't help it ... regardless of how the LP chooses to commit seppuko (sp?), I will continue to hold liberty above authority as both a moral codeand a practice in my life. So by definition my identity is unaffected here; I just don't spend time trying to get my Obama-backing friends to vote LP this time ... (the good news is, if Barr has ANY effect on the process, McCain is toast! And a one-term Demoncrap would at least be a pleasant change from the alternating dynasties of the last 30 years or so ...
Wow! Where do I Begin? Going back to the article in relation to the Constitutional Party; In the Ron Paul Meet Up Group in my area I hear a lot of support for Constitutional Party candidates which kinds of scares me because of the theocratic bent of that party.
On another subject, I see similarities to the Republicans inclusion of theocrats to increase the party's numbers. What it did was just included Statest Dominionist into their party and weekend the voice of the small government crowd in the Republican Party. So now the Republican party is seen somewhat as a theocratic party. I just do not want the Libertarian Party to leave me behind like the Republican Party left their fiscal conservatives behind.
There is another libertarian party, the Boston Tea Party. Founded in 2006 when the LP eviscerated its own platform, the Boston Tea Party is now the fastest growing libertarian party in America. We have increased our membership by 600% since the first of May and added 10 new state affiliates since the first of June. I gather from what David Nolan wrote on his campaign flyer for the Denver LP convention, seeking a seat on the LNC, that LP membership is down since 2000. By some estimates 35% to 50%.
The Boston Tea Party is running our own candidates for president and vice president. We expect to have Charles Jay on the ballot in several states. Colorado already has him on the ballot, and we expect the same in Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, and several other states. We are also considering an endorsement for a Libertarian Party presidential candidate who is on the ballot in two states where we won't be - George Phillies in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
Our most important work, I believe, is endorsing candidates from other parties who agree with our smaller government platform - smaller gov't at all levels and on all issues. Most of the candidates we have endorsed so far are Libertarian Party candidates. One candidate got a campaign contribution simply for seeking our endorsement.
Obviously, there is nothing wrong with most libertarians. Zogby's poll shows only 43% of libertarians support Barr. A recent poll I saw today says that most libertarian voters plan to vote for Obama, with 38% to vote McCain and only 5% another candidate.
Moreover, there is nothing wrong with the LP state and local organisations and the state and local people in those groups - with very few exceptions. Essentially all of what is wrong with the LP is wrong with the national - its staff, its officers, and some on the LNC. The corruption, the abuse of power, the misuse of party resources - these are the things that drove me out of the party in 1998. Earnest and sincere complaints about the LP's out of control national have been published by Neil Smith's magazine The Libertarian Enterprise, including essays and letters by me.
The Boston Tea Party exists because those libertarian activists in it want to do effective things for liberty without being tainted by the likes of Bob Barr. We have always had better choices. We can always write in "none of the above" if we don't like Barr and if Jay isn't on the ballot in our state. There is no need to compromise with evil.
I'm the transition chair of the Boston Tea Party, and I invite you to join us at www.bostontea.us if you want to be a part of a principled libertarian party.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-07-25 01:22:13
Jim Davidson wrote, "Moreover, there is nothing wrong with the LP state and local organisations and the state and local people in those groups - with very few exceptions. Essentially all of what is wrong with the LP is wrong with the national - its staff, its officers, and some on the LNC."
Well, yes and no. There are very few well run local LP chapters, and maybe one or two good state organizations. Let's face it. LP local and state organization overall has been pretty lame. I hate to say it, but the vast majority of LP members don't really want to work to build local or state parties, and the leaderships don't actually lead in that direction. They all work their 9-5 jobs, then treat local and state meetings and initiatives as something to go to if you've got nothing else going on that day.
Further, there are tremendous levels of misinformation and downright ignorance among the LP (and indeed among all third parties) about what must be done to win local elections. The LP has had many candidates win local elections, but the vast majority of the winners won for seats that were unopposed, like soil and water conservation boards. And those who have actually tried to do something once elected to those boards have found to their chagrin that their own local supporters disappear into the woodwork when actual governing gets done and they need help to fight their major party counterparts on those soil and water boards (or whatever board they've been elected to). Very few LP local candidates have demonstrated any knowledge or understanding about how to win an election or how to behave as a political party when one of your own wins a local office, however small.
I'm certain the same problem will occur within the BTP, unless you place heavy emphasis on reversing that tendency in your role as party chair. Is your party really committed to winning elections, or are you just hoping for a miracle grassroots insurgency to appear out of nowhere like it did for the Ron Paul campaign? If the latter, you've got a long wait ahead of you.
National LP leadership hasn't been corrupt so much as it's been abandoned to the incompetent. That's a symptom of an overall party attitude among the rank-and-file that you don't have to do anything as a member other than pay your annual dues (if you feel like it) and write an occasional letter to the editor. It's a perfect environment for the Peter Principle to rear its ugly head.
Posted By: Arthur Torrey
Date: 2008-07-25 11:14:08
I've been active in the LP for over 20 years. I'm an elected Libertarian, albeit at the bottom of the political food chain. I'm also a Presidential Elector for the LPMA. My first choice of candidates didn't always win the nomination at times, but I've never before had an LP candidate that I totally could not suppport in ANY way.
Barr shows no signs AT PRESENT of being a Libertarian - he doesn't even admit to being one on his own website - thank goodness for small blessings... (even running for non-partisan office, EVERY item I put out had Lady Liberty and the word Libertarian on it...)
I still support our local level Libertarian candidates, and any pro-freedom initiative questions, but I will NOT do anything to support Barr, if possible will protest his presence at any MA or NH events, and have publically stated that in the extremely unlikely event that the LP wins Mass. I will NOT cast my ELECTORAL VOTE for Barr...
I am still paying my minimum dues to LPUS, but don't plan to renew, as I'm not interested in contributing to Sean "Firebug" Haugh's salary (A nickname I gave him after he criminally tried to get us to BURN valid, paid for, nomination papers because he didn't like the petitioner that collected the signatures)
At our next LPMA State Convention, I may attempt to get the LPMA to switch our affiliation from LPUS to some other entity - possibly BTP, I'm not sure yet...
ART
LPMA Presidential Elector - Not voting for Barr
LPMA Operations Facilitator
Elected Libertarian
Speaking for myself
Posted By: Kevin Houston
Date: 2008-07-26 21:06:04
To paraphrase Ron Paul: when the delegates have made a mistake, it is the duty of the members to correct that mistake.
If we support Bob Barr, despite our personal reservations, we will get more of the same in the future. If you think Bob Barr is unpopular with the rank and file, wait until you see how W.A.R. is perceived in 2010.
While Chuck Baldwin may not be the perfect Libertarian Candidate, he doesn't have to be. He's not running in the Libertarian Party. I'll take an honest Constitution Party candidate over a dishonest Libertarian candidate any day of the week.
Honestly, neither Bob Barr nor Chuck Baldwin are going to win. A pragmatic candidate only makes sense if that candidate has a reasonable chance to win. Ron Paul wasn't the most doctrinaire Libertarian candidate either, but had he gotten the Republican nomination, at least he would have had a reasonable chance of winning.
As things stand now, my vote is only useful for sending a message. That message is going to be two-fold:
1) I don't like McCain or Obama. 2) I don't like Bob Barr.
The fact that Bob Barr is light-years ahead of McCain or Obama is immaterial (by that logic, Obama is marginally preferable to McCain. Shall I therefore vote Democrat? Heaven forbid it.) By any objective standard, Chuck Baldwin is a better candidate than Bob Barr. In some states (such as my current home state of SD) the CP is going to be on the ballot, while the LP won't be. Bob Barr may, or may not be, but if so, he will be an independant. A vote for Bob Barr in SD will not help the LP one iota.
All I can say to the delegates at the LP convention is this:
Don't respect us? Don't expect us.
I would have worked tirelessly for Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, or George Phillies. Even Jingozian or Smith (although they both need a lot of polishing) would have been worthwhile candidates and would have commanded my respect, time, and money. But I can not in good conscience support Bob Barr. The echos have barely died out in the convention hall, and already Barr is back-pedaling and watering down the LP message. Already Bob Barr is distorting the Libertarian message.
Bob Barr is certainly getting the media attention, no doubt about that. But is that attention going to help us or hurt us? How many years is it going to take to undo the impression that he is putting into people's minds about the LP?
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.
2008 Dan Steward, all rights reserved.