Topic: Election 2008
Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr & Ron Paul Some claim Baldwin's views are the same as Dr. Paul's and aim to discredit Barr. I take a look at one person's claims.by Bradley Jansen
(libertarian)
Monday, October 6, 2008
Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr & Ron Paul
Cody Quirk on Third Party Watch supports Constitution Party presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin over Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr because of their policy differences. Quirk then repeatedly invokes US Congressman Ron Paul in his defense of his support for Baldwin over Barr on these policy issues. He spells out several issues and explains himself. Here is a look at his arguments.
Baldwin does well in an anti-immigration Numbers USA survey that would put Baldwin's positions opposite Dr. Paul's (whose are the same as Barr's). Interestingly though, Quirk goes on at length making personal attacks on Barr's history--but fails to mention how the group he likes gives Barr an "excellent" rating based on an "Assessment of Past Immigration Actions in Political Office" of "Congressional, Gubernatorial and Mayoral actions" where Baldwin, who has never held public office, gets no rating at all. Experience must not count for anything.
Again according the the Numbers USA survey, Baldwin gets "excellent" ratings for these issues: Reduce legal immigration, Stop future illegal immigration, Mandatory workplace verification, Punish employers who hire illegal aliens, Local Enforcement of federal immigration laws, Implement entry-exit system, End sanctuary cities, Prohibit states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens, and Prohibit in-state tuition to illegal aliens (Barr generally gets a "fair" to "poor" rating on the same questions). I will come back to the question of whether or not these are the "correct" positions that represent Dr. Paul's stated views and philosophy, but first I have to ask--as Dr. Paul is so fond of asking before voting on any legislation--where is the authorization in the constitution for the president to act on these questions? One would think that a presidential candidate of the "Constitution Party" claiming the views of Dr. Paul would understand the limitations on the federal government vis-a-vis the sovereign states.
Quirk claims that Barr tried to "ban" Wicca from the military and therefore that Baldwin has a better record on religious liberty. He cites a group that explains the simple fact that then-Congressman Barr issues a press statement: "BARR DEMANDS END TO TAXPAYER-FUNDED WITCHCRAFT ON AMERICAN MILITARY BASES." Does Quirk equate ending taxpayer funding with taking away our liberties? The implication here is that Quirk has bought into the progressive notion that if the government is not subsidizing a right or liberty then they are prohibiting it--which is, of course, the justification for government funding for the "right to abortion" otherwise poor women might not be able to afford the procedure and "lose their right." Dr. Paul, of course, does not share this interpretation. I am explicitly refraining from an examination of the Constitution Party here; others can look at their platform and candidate and make their own assessment.
Quirk aims to put a wedge between Dr. Paul and Bob Barr on the Defense of Marriage Act. Here again, his argument fails. Dr. Paul has said he would have voted for Barr's measure had he been elected earlier. All three candidates think the issue ought to be left to the states, and all three oppose a Constitutional ban. The positions of the three are basically similar in approach regarding abortion as well, although Quirk stoops to personal attacks of decades-old allegations--Dr. Paul emphatically opposes the use of personal attacks to make policy arguments. Unfortunately, Quirk resorts to personal attacks on Barr when not even trying to make any policy arguments at all.
I will readily concede that working at the Moral Majority is probably a more ethical place than Congress, but I do not see how that makes one better qualified to be president. Even more distressing, having a more colorful past seems to be more of a political benefit than a hindrance. We are talking about the same electorate that chose Bill Clinton for a second term. Quirk seems to place a great deal of personal importance on integrity and principle. That is his right. The truth is that two of the three have reputations for being principled in Congress.
The article then moves to an examination of Barr and Baldwin's positions on free trade: "[Comparing] Bob's position of the Free Market to Chuck's position, I put my trust fully in Chuck. In a era of outsourcing and cheap-labor, Mr. Baldwin will make sure that my job stays where I live, and also that I be guaranteed a job no matter what, period." Wow. First of all, I hope someone else can verify (or more likely refute) that that is a fair characterization of Baldwin's positions. I suppose the simplest way of considering the dirigiste arguments espoused in the link to Baldwin's position would be to quote the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises from his authoritative Human Action which guides Dr. Paul:
It is certainly true that our age is full of conflicts which generate war. However, these conflicts do not spring from the operation of the unhampered market society. It may be permissible to call them economic conflicts because they concern that sphere of human life which is, in common speech, known as the sphere of economic activities. But it is a serious blunder to infer from this appellation that the source of these conflicts are conditions which develop within the frame of a market society. It is not capitalism that produces them, but precisely the anticapitalistic policies designed to check the functioning of capitalism. They are an outgrowth of the various governments' interference with business, of trade and migration barriers and discrimination against foreign labor, foreign products, and foreign capital.
Of course, if Baldwin's anti-immigration policies had been in effect then, they would have kept Mises out of this country. Bear in mind that Mises was an Austrian Jewish intellectual promoting classical liberal ideas who escaped from Nazi Europe. Had their been no Mises in the United States, it is doubtful that Dr. Paul would have entered politics at all. Dr. Paul has consistently cited Mises' teachings for his understanding of the importance of sound money: the breakdown of the Bretton Woods System inspired him to run for Congress.
The bottom line is that Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin all agree more than they disagree. Any of them would be better, on the whole, than the status quo--or either of the two main major party contenders. All three would aim to cut spending drastically, eliminate the Federal Reserve, abolish the income tax, end our interventionist foreign policy and nation-building overseas, etc. There are, to be sure, policy issues that separate Barr and Baldwin...but Baldwin supporters would be well served hiding those differences if they want to claim that Baldwin shares the views of Dr. Paul (and Bob Barr).
Quirk ends with this argument that "Chuck Baldwin is a man that people outside of the constitutionalist mindset can support" and that Baldwin's campaign is just getting started. I will add that Quirk's own arguments and personal opinions show that Baldwin has won the support of at least one person "outside of the constitutionalist mindset."
As far as Barr's campaign being over, his poll support has been climbing slowly but surely over the past few weeks--and isn't October a bit late for Baldwin's campaign to be just getting started?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 29 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Bradley Jansen only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Bradley Jansen 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 point about wicca implies that Barr was correct in that the Government should not be subsidizing a liberty. However, what goes on in the military is the subsidizing of other religious groups liberties. If Barr had issued a press release that had stated "BARR DEMANDS END TO TAXPAYER-FUNDED RELIGION ON AMERICAN MILITARY BASES." Then I would believe that this was fiscal policy issue. Instead it comes accross as an attack on one religious group in prference for others.
Not that I trust Mr Chuck "Law comes from the Bible" Baldwin on the issues of religious and moral tolerence.
The founders well understood the principles of natural law. That law is given persona in Jesus Christ and caried forth to the world by his apostles. In short, we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, amongst them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Of course you are free to trust Mr. Baldwin or not as you see fit, but the underlying principles of his party are irrefutable. The supreme law of our land is based on the teachings of Jesus.
Posted By: Bradley in DC
Date: 2008-10-07 10:29:19
Larry,
The teachings of Jesus were "to give unto Caesar" and not to fall into the Progressive trap of equating legal and illegal with right and wrong. Following that logic, everything the politician enact is morally correct. Certainly you know better than that.
Posted By: Bradley in DC
Date: 2008-10-07 10:44:02
PainfullyAware,
Dr. Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin all want to get rid of the Federal Reserve. Barr says in the current Reason magazine interview asking should we get rid of the Fed, "[That] would be a goal of our administration. I do not believe it is appropriate for unelected, unaccountable individuals--that is the Federal Reserve Board members--to be controlling and attempting to manage our economy."
I spoke at the Mises Institute earlier this year explaining how to transition to sound money:
Founders such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washingtion have left writtings that contradict your claim "That law is given persona in Jesus Christ and caried forth to the world by his apostles".
For example: Thomas Jefferson wrote
Some have made the love of God the foundation of morality. This, too, is but a branch of our moral duties, which are generally divided into duties to God and duties to man. If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such being exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to-wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. have observed, indeed, generally, that while in protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
What Jesus said and did had little if anything to do with natural law. For one example, natural law allows a right of self-defence, while Jesus did not. His moral principle, the Golden Rule, implies the opposite: pacifism, or "turning the other cheek."
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.
