I gave Bob Barr an honest chance to prove he was worth voting for. I was very disappointed. by Dan Steward
(libertarian)
Monday, August 11, 2008
In an earlier article (Bob Barr, Uncrashing the Party) I wrote that it was important that the Libertarian Party stay together. Abandoning the party was equivalent to throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it meant leaving very capable candidates for office other than US President, lacking in total support by their peers.
Barr drove a wedge deep into the party with his candidacy. He aroused suspicions in many by jumping into the race just weeks before the Libertarian Party Convention in Denver, that elected him. I didn't take a position to vote for or reject Barr, because I wanted to give him a chance. I gave the candidate that chance and now in my opinion, Barr has moved in a direction away, rather than towards convincing me that he is indeed a Libertarian.
It goes without saying that I will still vote for qualified candidates on the LP ticket for other offices, I just can't let political expediency interfere with voting my conscience.
I just can't bring myself to compromise and vote against my very conscience, for any reason ever. I've been voting since 1980 and I've always voted for any LP candidate on the ballot in any election. I still will vote for all the other Libertarians on the ballot, just not for Bob Barr. I refuse to do so in this election and probably never will.
For those who back Barr I have to ask them", What will I compromise on next if I vote against what I believe?" What if the LP picks a semi-famous left leaning candidate in the next presidential election? What incentive will any candidate for any office, then have to even stick to the party platform if they may pick and choose what freedoms they want to defend?
We call ourselves a "Party of Principle" for a very good reason.
I really do believe that Bob Barr's timing was suspicious from the start. He has not convinced me that he truly wants to champion the rights of Americans. I also don't believe that he actually holds these ideas of Liberty as highly as he would have others believe.
There is no evidence to suggest to me that the mistakes he made in Congress are being corrected. He has only offered words in defense of his anti-freedom voting record and I get mere words from nearly all politicians, when it's convincing that's what I need instead. Barr wanted the Patriot Act and hasn't shown me proof that he would reject it with anything other than, of course, more words. He's not as strong on the 2nd Amendment as I would be comfortable with.
The NRA (often compromisers to gun control legislation) likes him, The Gun Owners of America are less confident in him. This tells much by itself about his stand on the amendment that helps us secure all others.
I won't tell others not to vote for him as he still represents himself as the official pick of the party I most closely identify with and forever will. I care to only speak for myself on this matter but seriously worry for the quality and integrity of those people who we will field in 2012 if that same principle I spoke of is lazily set aside in the name of a hope for a favorable vote total that I'm sure we won't get.
It will be due entirely to others also noticing that we've abandoned what made our party better than any of the rest.
With Liberty,
Dan Steward
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 25
thumbs so far
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.
Posted By: David K. Williams, Jr.
Date: 2008-08-10 23:00:07
And what does Barr expect to gain by burning his bridges with the Republicans? He had a future with the Republicans, and he could have actually won an election if he had stayed with them. Not any more. He believes.
Like Saul on the road to Damascus, he has seen the light.
All of these conspiracy theories that he joined the LP to take over are nonsense. Take over what? A party that has never gotten over 1% of the vote in presidential election? What a great plan. Please.
Steward's article reminds me of why the Libertarian Party has managed to "principle" itself into political obscurity for three decades. The LP purists just never get it. Mainstream American voters (though they have libertarian impulses) are not as libertarian as they are. This is true for the DP and RP as well. Most voters are not as "democrat" as died in the wool dems; most voters are not as "republican" as died in the wool reps. But you don't see their voters abandoning candidates that are not perfectly "democrat" or "republican." If the LP is ever going to get out of the cellar, it's going to have to field candidates with wide enough appeal to get elected, most especially at the presidential level. As for Barr, I believe the LP missed a great opportunity here to take the party to a new level of respectability on the national stage.
He refuses to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. He’s in favor of delving this nation deeper into debt in order to bail out Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac investors. He buys into the global warming hysteria, praising Al Gore and saying that the government “has to do something”.Not to mention his running mate is a full-fledged neocon who has called Ron Paul “weak and naïve” on foreign policy, and wrote that McCain/Lieberman 2008 would be a “dream ticket”.There is a difference between demanding purity and not wanting the LP presidential nominee to espouse policies that are antithetical to libertarian ideology. I’m all for an incremental approach; but it doesn’t do us any good if we’re moving in the WRONG direction.
He was waiting to see what Ron Paul was going to do. If Paul came to the convention, he would have won...no question. It was a smart move. I am proud Barr is on our ticket, ,he has seen the light....just took him a while longer. Others (hopefully) will follow.....IE Glenn Beck. He's next.
You have to vote for the guy who best represents your beliefs. Obviously neither Obama or McCain represent my beliefs. Both Bob Barr and that other guy (Chuck?) seem to reasonably represent my views. I could vote for either of them. I don't really understand why the author of this article is against Barr since he didn't give any specifics.
Thanks to all who have posted commentary to my article. I'd like to answer all replies I've received so far in this one comment:
To David K Williams, Jr.
I thought that I made it quite obvious in my story that in my opinion, Barr was sent to "monkeywrench" the party, to dilute it's effectiveness, not to "take it over" as you had mentioned. I don't see where you got that impression.
To Chuck:
Again I feel as though I was very clear in the intent of my story. I don't believe I was "selling out". (Where do you get this?) I won't sell out. Liberty is more important than a candidate that won't get vote totals the party would like to see, precisely because he DOES NOT represent what the LP is about.
As I stated before, he is only offering words and not any actual deeds to prove to us that he is not the same old Bob Barr that voted for the Patriot Act and other draconian legislstion during his tenure in office. Our party lowered it's standards that made us better than the Repugnants and Demagogues. We are paying the price for our lack of vision. There's a lesson to be learned about giving up your principles but I fear that it will still not be learned by enough people even after all the votes are totaled in November.
To Commandroid:
There are many very qualified people out there that also have enough popularity that will do just fine as LP candidates in 2012. The party will need to muster up all it's future resourcefulness and lead them to the convention floor.
Our "obscurity" is in part, because we have compromised our beliefs and people have noticed it, not because we won't do so.
It is interesting that you mention the NRA and GCA to cast doubts on Bob Barr. Of course the NRA likes him. He's on their board and has been for a while. I credit the strong presence of Congressman Bob Barr with the US derailing the UN's initiative on limiting small arms.
As for the GCA, what do you mean they are less sure of him? I doubt the NRA will endorse Barr. Also, go to the GCA site and read the report they have on him, which I find the most favorable of all present candidates listed. Even Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, who is in good graces with the GCA, gets only a mediocre, brief bio.
Ron Paul is out. I am voting for Bob Barr. If you want change, vote Barr. If you want more of the same, stay home, write in someone's name, vote Cuck baldwin, or vote McBama.
Barr is sure not my first choice (Ruward was) but I am going to hold my nose and vote for him in November. With the government getting larger and more intrusive it seems like every day I think we have to take into account that if a 3rd major party doesn't arrive soon then it never will and only the Libertarian Party has a chance at becoming a foil to the Demopublicans. Maybe in 2012 we can elect a true libertarian to be nominated and learn from our mistake in 2008.
David, it is obvious what Barr stands to gain by "burning his bridges with the Republicans", and that is to be rewarded by nullifying the Libertarian Party in this election after it stands to gain so much by a weak Republican candidate and a strong Ron Paul showing. Buchanan is welcomed in Republican circles for his fine work with the Reform Party in 2000.
Unlike a true libertarian, you blame Bob Barr for what the Party did. This wasn't some kind of hostile takeover ... your fellow Libertarians nominated him.
Regarding your "suspicions" of Bob Barr ... what exactly does Barr have to gain from being the nominee for a Party no one has heard of and is grossly misunderstood? The GOP certainly isn't going to welcome him back after this.
I'm not a big fan of Barr either (Ruwart's my sweetheart), but I chose to suppot someone who actually talks and deals with real-world politics rather than debating property rights on Mars. If we're actually going to steer society in a libertarian direction, sometimes the best choice isn't the most libertarian canddiate.
Besides, who else are you going to vote for? I'd rather have someone 70% libertarian, nominated by my fellow libertarians, than a civil liberties deaf "centrist" (McCain), a left wing closet socialist (Obama), a devout socialist (McKinney), or someone whose concept of Liberty is based on doling out as much Liberty as God dictates is OK in the Bible (Baldwin).
I would suggest more answers and analysis in your next column.
The sentiments expressed in this article are a prime example of why the LP has heretofore existed in relative obscurity. Thus far, most voters have been unable to take the LP seriously because too many LP members have insisted on being "purists."
Since the LP's inception, a number of these "purists" (some of whom apparently held at least a modicum of sway in the party) have been stubbornly clinging to certain notions that would be considered "dogs that won't hunt" by most voters. This is very unfortunate, but Bob Barr's nomination is hopefully evidence that the LP is finally beginning to mature and realize that the "purists" within the party are going to have to be marginalized to some degree if the party has any hope of becoming a serious contender.
For the past 30 years I have consistently voted GOP. I have been disgusted with the Democrat Party for decades and would NEVER vote for a Democrat -- EVER. I simply have far too many philosophical differences with the Democrat Party's approach to government. However, over the past few years I have finally become disgusted with the Republicans as well. The national GOP "leadership" has wantonly squandered the legacy left us by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan and recklessly, arrogantly turned their backs on the principles of limited government. While I haven't yet offically changed my party affiliation from GOP to LP, here lately I have begun to seriously consider it. Whether I do or not will largely depend on my assessment of whether or not the LP is serious about becoming a truly viable third party alternative.
I am somewhat socially conservative, but not to a fault (meaning I firmly believe that it is neither appropriate nor desirable to attempt to legislate morality). I am, of course, fiscally conservative. Most importantly of all, though, I am constitutionally conservative (read: "libertarian leaning" or "federalist"). Therein lies the rub for me when it comes to McCain and the reason why I am enthusiastically voting for Bob Barr.
I was NOT a Ron Paul supporter in the GOP primaries and never would have been because I felt that Ron Paul would never be hawkish enough for me, but I can and will support Bob Barr. As a veteran of the U.S. Naval Security Group and a life member of the VFW, I do recognize and understand that there are times when intervention to thwart a foreign threat really is necessary. It should never been done carelessly, of course, but the U.S. can never afford to come off as overly dovish either. I painfully remember what it was like to be a U.S. serviceman overseas during the Carter years. Some fine Americans, brothers in arms, lost their lives -- essentially because Carter was unwilling to recognize when it was time to play hardball and because his "administration" leaked like a sieve. Now THAT is unacceptable.
Barack Obama is absolutely unacceptable for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which are his left-wing elitism and inexperience. John McCain, however, should also be absolute anathema to any self-respecting conservative or "libertarian leaning" voter such as myself. While McCain's transgressions against the principles of limited government are many, the two most egregious in my opinion were the bans on issue ads in McCain-Feingold and the "Gang of 14" conspiracy. Those were "the unkindest cuts of all" and the final straws for me.
John McCain arrogantly shat all over the Constitution with the onerous, odiferous, and blatantly unconstitutional piece of excrement known as the McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan so-called bipartisan campaign finance reform bill. Even if the constitutionality of SOME parts of that bill MIGHT have been debatable, the bans on issue ads were clearly, unquestionably violations of our First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech. Yes, all three branches of our federal government failed us on that one, but McCain led the charge so I hold him primarily responsible for that unforgivable assault on the Bill of Rights.
Then, to add insult to injury, McCain and 13 co-conspirators in the U.S. Senate preserved the use of the filibuster to block a President's judicial nominations (a maneuver unprecedented in the history of the Senate until the Democrats used it against Miguel Estrada). Under the advise and consent role of the Senate when it comes to a President's nominations, the Constitution only requires a simple majority (51 votes) for confirmation. Under Senate rules, it takes a super majority (60 votes) to invoke cloture and end debate, thereby killing a filibuster. Therefore, to use the filibuster against a President's nominations is a cirumvention of the Founders' intent. Prior to McCain's "Gang of 14" fiasco, we had a golden opportunity to put a stop to that practice. McCain and his 13 cohorts ruined that opportunity. Again, unacceptable. Regardless of which party does it, it is just plain WRONG to use the filibuster against a President's nominations. Those nominees at least deserve an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate.
So, for me, Obama and McCain are both equally unacceptable. While I may not be in one hundred percent agreement with ALL of Bob Barr's positions either, I do believe that Barr is FAR preferable to either of the "major party" candidates. I have also concluded that the ONLY way that We The People will EVER have ANY hope of getting any real, meaningful change in Washington, D.C. is to break the back of the two-party system once and for all. It is for these reasons that I am proudly supporting Bob Barr this time around. For the first time in 30 years, I will cast my vote for President and Vice-President in the general election based solely on principle, without any regard for my party affiliation. It is a very liberating feeling, indeed. My hope is that unprecedented numbers of voters will also support the Barr-Root ticket and that there will be at least enough of us to send a clear and unmistakable message to BOTH of the "major parties" that "business as usual" will no longer be tolerated in the future.
Even when I held office in state parties, I realized that the LP is just another vehicle to bring the freedom message to the public. The point of running candiates is to take advantage of the publics attention span, not to rack up numbers or elect people. To the extent that the LP is really a political party at all, it is an IDEOLOGICAL party, unlike the R\'s and D\'s, and we should not confuse our goals with their goal of divding up the spoils of government. Barr\'s attraction was that he would get attention. maybe a record vote total. That tradeoff might have been worth it for a Ron Paul who is already fractionally more of a libertarian than Barr AND with a public following and some media credibility, but Barr is running a Barr campain, not a libertarian campaign. He\'d be a great Republican, but is a poor choice for an ideological party not only for his lack of purity, but for his excruciating record in Congress which he has not adequately repented. Yes, it\'s a sad feeling to abandon a lifetime record of supporting and voting for Libertarians, but if cultural libertarians reward the foolish choices made by this year\'s convention-goers, we will have lost a potentially valuable part of the movement.
Mitch,
Glad you are taking steps toward libertarianism. I saw plenty of Republicans coming to libertarian events, some were put off by the drug issue, the pro-choice and anti-war views of some libertarians, and went away. Others stayed, and among them, some adapted and became libertarians and some, like those who nominated Barr and Root, are trying to turn the LP into a slightly nicer version of the Republican party. Yes, Constitutionalists like Ron Paul are a part of the libertarian spectrum, but liberventionists are not. Until you really understand and embrace the non-aggression principle, you are not really a libertarian. Invading and occupying other countries is contrary to that principle. Hopefully the R party will be shattered after this election, and if folks like you aren't around to rebuild it, it will remain in the hands of the neocons. Leave the LP to the purists and let us build bridges to the left where liberty really needs to be seeded. Barr stinks of right wing, and with his puss on the masthead the Party is blowing a golden opportunity to reach out to voters who are sick of THIS war and ready to learn that ALL war stinks. As a political force the LP is, always will be, and ought to be irrelevant, and some of us like it that way. As one in a phalanx of educational and activist organizations, it can help build a more libertarian culture in which the principles of freedom will be the principles of whatever "politics" continue to exist.
Refusing to vote Bob Barr is one step, leaving or not supporting the LP is the next one. It is clearer by the day that the "dirties" (as opposed to the so-called "purists") are taking over the party slowly but surely. The flow of former-Republican-and still-conservative political immigrants is not going to stop any time soon. It could actually very well get much bigger if the Republican party does not change. The Libertarian Party maybe finally leap out of obscurity but its political agenda will not be libertarian anymore. Libertarian ideas or Libertarian brand-name; which one matters the more?
I'd thank Mr. Hiers for beautifully illustrating the point of this article. The LP once stood for, and should again stand for, libertarianism, not low-tax conservatism. That Hiers, a self-professed conservative, can stand up proudly and proclaim that, in his role as a conservative, he suppports and will vote for our candidate, shows that the candidate is not a libertarian. At it's rock bottom, libertarianism is about not aggressing. Hiers opposed Paul because Paul took a consistent position on this question, opposing murdering foreigners under the title of "war." Yet he believes, quite correctly, that Barr is hawkish enough for him. Who would have thought we'd see the day when hawks would be drawn to the LP?
Yes, running Barr will get the LP noticed more. Running Keyes would have been even better for that. Yes, if he gets 10% or better the LP will "move into prime time." The question remains, though - what party will the libertarians go to at that time?
I am supporting Bob Barr. Barr is getting more coverage for the LP than anyone in my memory. He is getting more coverage for small government than anyone since Ron Paul.
The Gun Owners of America on Bob Barr (sounds like they like him).
Needless to say, Bob Barr's first term was certainly not memorable in the minds of most gun owners. But what happened after that can only be described as remarkable, as over the following years (until his retirement in 2003), Barr voted right on 27 out of 31 votes affecting gun rights.
Not only that, Barr sponsored bills to prevent frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry and spearheaded the fight against a National ID card and the so-called "sneak and peek" provisions in the PATRIOT Act.
In the end, one might conclude that Barr's voting record on firearms issues is not quite 100 percent in line with the Libertarian Party. That is true. But as noted above, his voting record after his first term in Congress improved tremendously (voting right in 27 out of 31 votes) -- a record that is certainly better than 99 percent of most Republicans and Democrats.
When political pundits look back on his congressional career, they don't typically remember the first term, but rather the civil libertarian that emerged during the ensuing years.
Jesse Walker, writing in Reason magazine, says that during his congressional career, "Barr was one of Washington's loudest critics of the federal government's abuses of power, taking the lead in investigating the raid on Waco and in opposing Bill Clinton's efforts to undermine due process in terrorism cases."
Barr himself -- when introducing the staunch pro-gunner, Ron Paul, at the Conservative Political Action Conference this past February -- told the cheering delegates that, "If there was ever, ever any doubt in my mind ... about how to vote on a particular bill, the answer was easy ... you see where Ron Paul stands on an issue, and you know that's the right place to be."
Given the fact that Ron Paul is a strong constitutionalist and a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, that's not a bad endorsement to hear from a presidential hopeful. To be sure, Barr supported Paul's efforts to withdraw the United States from the United Nations while he was still in the Congress. Many gun owners support such a withdrawal due to the strong anti-gun advocacy of the global organization.
I am in pretty much the same boat as MoultrieGAConservative. I have generally been very fiscally conservative, socially moderate (your right to swing your arms ends at my nose), Constitutionally focused. I have only voted for one Democrat for President - Carter (what a mistake) in 36 years of voting. I am also retired Army.
For the last 10 years I have been a literally card-carrying Republican (RNC member). That has come to an end after the last 8 years.
I have had Libertarian friends call me a "closet Libertarian" because my social views do not align well with the normal Republican stand. I have not seriously considered aligning with the Libertarian party in the past, out of concern with the very low probability of seeing a Libertarian elected as President. Now I am fed up with the Republicans since they are essentially the same as the Democrats. Since I cannot in good conscience vote for McCain, and would not vote for anyone with the Socialist-lite position of Obama, I decided to check out Barr.
Now I am surprised with the Libertarian debate I am seeing here. I do think Barr generally has the right positions from what I have read to earn my vote. As far as Iraq goes, I believe it would be foolish to tell the terrorists when we will leave. that just tells them when it is safe to step things up. We may have been wrong to go in in the first place but it makes no sense to just pull out and tell the freedom-focused Iraqis "Hope it all works out okay for you. Bye!"
The only reason you should not vote for Barr is if you have a reasonable doubt that he has not converted to libertarianism.
People keep bringing up his questionable past...what matters is the future.
People have the right to change their mind. Ron Paul converted thousands of people. The Libertarian Party welcomes anyone to their party, even ex neo-cons.
Exactly my point, Edward. I happen to have more than a "reasonable doubt" about Barr converting to libertarianism. He has shown even less so as time goes by, that he is of a libertarian mindset.
His unholy alliance with Al Gore on the environment, tells plenty just by itself.
Barr has come out in "support" of the anthropogenic global warming myth, as has every other mindless candidate and voter. At least he is saying this needs to be addressed by the market rather than big government. And he has admitted that there is still scientific disagreement on the matter, Both McCain and Obama have bought the full line of ManBearPig.
I want to puke when I see Newt Gingrich kissing Nancy Pelosi's butt on the TV commercial on the subject. Right now it is the hot topic that the sheeple are buying. Follow the money. The inventor of the Internet pays himself for his "carbon offsets".
I am still confused by the disaffection from Libertarians concerning Barr.
I responded to your letter about my response to your article. In that response, I said I'd read the other article. I have now read this article, and I have found no information that would make me think you're less bitter. If you live in New Hampshire or Massachusetts you can always vote for George Phillies. If you live in Colorado you can always vote for Charles Jay of the Boston Tea Party or Tom Stevens of the Objectivist Party (who is a very good candidate by the way). The same applies if you live in Florida. But whoever you vote for, you could always stop complaining.
The Libertarian party was established in 1971. Thirty nine years have come and gone with no reputable results on any presidential elections.
How could you go in a wrong direction from there? It looks like it could always improve if you put someone on the ticket who is more moderate. Someone who can atleast inact some of your principles.
I don't think anybody in history has voted for a candidate whom they agree with 100% of the time, why should a libertarian ticket be any different?
Why do the extremists in this party not open their eyes and see there are more moderate views of libertarianism, and why can't this party of "pinciple" respect other libertarian minded voters opinions?
You don't have to be an extremist to want some Libertarian ideals passed into law by a candidate that you may not feel is a purist of the party.
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.
