Topic: Election 2008
Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr & Ron Paul Part II A continuation of the Quirk-Jansen conversation on the Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Ron Paul question.by Bradley Jansen
(libertarian)
Saturday, October 11, 2008
My colleague at Third Party Watch Cody Quirk has been debating me on the Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Ron Paul question. I suspect our dialog began when I published my column analyzing Chuck Baldwin's campaign here. He took issue with some facts, I corrected him (I was right), he repeated his misinformed opinion, I corrected him again with the same facts from the original article (hypertexted to their source in the original). Ultimately, he responded with a column of his own which largely consisted of personal attacks on Barr and misrepresentation of Congressman Ron Paul's views (and I suspect a misrepresentation of the views of Chuck Baldwin as well).
So, I wrote a column urging an end to personal attacks, praised Messrs. Baldwin and Barr and Dr. Paul, and took issue with the substance of the issues. I repeat now that the demonization of the two candidates most similar to Dr. Paul harms our movement and that the personal attacks on the candidates and each other do not help either. I summed up my argument which bears repeating, "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."
Quirk quotes from that plea with more (baseless) personal attacks on me and Barr. For all of our sakes, I hope Quirk does not represent the typical Baldwin supporter.
Some substantive questions remain (which will show Quirks personal attacks to be baseless):
His main premise on the immigration question is that everyone who shares his nativist views has a monopoly "Americans concered [sic] about immigration." His misplaced arrogance blinds him to the simple fact is that many people concerned about immigration hold different views. Many Ron Paul supporters consider your solution a variation of socialist central planning.
I substantiated the reasoning behind the opposition to the protectist and isolationist views Quirk expressed with a quotation from Ludwig von Mises' Human Action which explained that the "outgrowth of the various governments' interference with business, of trade and migration barriers and discrimination against foreign labor, foreign products, and foreign capital" is the source of "conflicts which generate war." Dr. Paul, Bob Barr and I all oppose interventionist policies and non-defensive wars.
I asked (and the question stands) where does the constitution grant the president the authority Quirk wants Baldwin to have to micromanage municipal priorities, dictate to states how to license drivers run their state tuition systems, etc? Quirk replied, "Apparently the President has the power to sign congressional legislation dealing with these matters, or working with congress on drafting such legislation." So, "apparently" anything Presidents Clinton or Bush say they can do is inherently constitutional. We hold different views is the nicest way I can put it.
Specifically on the immigration question, Quirk says that "the rules regardling [sic] naturalization is [sic] left to Congress to regulate." I do not question Congress' authority to regulate "naturalization," but that is a very different matter than "immigration." Authority to regulate one does not grant any other authority over the other. They are not the same.
I cited Mises as an immigrant to the US and an inspiration for Dr. Paul to get involved in politics. It was the breakdown of the Bretton Woods System that convinced Dr. Paul to run for Congress in the first place--and he credits his understanding of the world monetary system to having studied Mises. He often speaks fondly of hearing Mises give a lecture when Dr. Paul was still a student and the effect it had on him. Dismissing the importance of Mises (whose picture hangs in Dr. Paul's office), Quirk cites immigrant Ayn Rand and fellow immigrant F. A. Hayek as important to Dr. Paul's philosophical development. Perhaps Quirk does not know that they were immigrants too.
Quirk erroneously claimed that Barr tried to "ban" Wicca from the military. I pointed out that his evidence showed only that Barr tried to end tax-payer subsidies to it which is not at all the same thing. He repeats his canard saying Barr "wanted to literally ban it from the military!" He then cites the same Barr congressional press release laying out Barr's argument (and not saying nice things about Wicca to be sure) only to cut off the taxpayer subsidy. There is no there there to Quirk's argument despite the charges of my "hypocracy."
As I explained removing a tax subsidy is not prohibiting a liberty or right. Ignoring his own evidence to the contrary, Quirk repeats "Better get your hearing checked, because I was talking about Barr wanting to literally ban Wicca from the military. LOL!" No, he wanted to end the taxpayer subsidy which made no mention of "banning" anyone. Mr. Quirk, please read your own evidence and read what it says, not what you want to hear.
At that point he accuses me of taking the Constitution Party platform out of context after I wrote, "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." Exactly how is that taking the CP platform out of context?
Quirk's main charge is that Barr is a "flip-flopper" on issues such as gay marriage. The simple answer is that Barr always believed the issue should be left to the states. For that reason, he authored the Defense of Marriage Act which did that and defined marriage for federal purposes. Barr, Baldwin and Paul all oppose a constitutional amendment and always have. Bothered by the use of DOMA as a club to beat down citizens, Barr now favors repealing at least the federal definition part of it (the rest is now part of our culture in part thanks to Barr's leadership). Quirk claims that Barr is a flip flopper for wanting the states to decide the issue by, of all things, respecting California's decision-making process. Quirk claims that Barr's approach of leaving the issue to the states or private sector was a reflection of his "anti-Libertarian" views. "Apparently" Quirk understands libertarian views as well as he understands the constitution.
I said, "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 [Baldwin, Barr and Paul] have reputations for being principled in Congress." He responded with "Count Barr out then." He ignored the hypertexted source so I'll spell it out here:
In 2002, David Keene of the American Conservative Union defended Barr, saying, "[The] man's ubiquitous. He fights for his beliefs in committee, on the House floor and in the media. [He's] brimming with ideas, unwilling to compromise on matters of principle, and ready to take on all comers in the fight for what [he sees] as right."
That sentiment is shared by the civil libertarians of the Left. "Social issues journalist" Walter Brasch observes: "[Barr] has spoken out against the neo-conservative movement for its super-patriotic suppression of dissent, rising beliefs in a tax-and-spend' bureaucracy, and unqualified support of the PATRIOT Act . . . Bob Barr isn't the ogre portrayed by many liberals and moderates, nor is he the saint that the conservatives believe. He is just a man of principle who believes our Constitution must be protected and defended against all enemies foreign and domestic."
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 24 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.
Posted By: David K. Meller
Date: 2008-10-11 08:42:42
A very well-considered, and indeed overdue article. There are absolutely NO reasons why Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and paleoconservatives not to work together to save our country, and ultimately our civilization. Heaven knows, our opponents, both the neocon right and the establishment Keynesian/Marxist/ egalitarian left aren't going to!
There is no single way that we got into this mess! The war and militarism of the last century, the fetish over paper "money" and central banking, the questionable (wishful) thinking underlying what became the welfare state--everything for everybody, scarcity, ignorance, and risk be damned--along with the ever more widespread notion that people had a "right" to whatever they wanted when they wanted it, and the failure to secure such so-called rights was somehow the fault of a "racist, capitalist, sexist' society and its flawed social and economic institutions.
Supporters of Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Barr , and Dr. Paul, EACH have important, perhaps even indispensible contributions to make in a movement to correct the errors of the past two centuries. There is here, as elsewhere, a "division of labor" to evolve. Let us learn how to agree to disagree while we hit the ground running to prepare ourselves, and our respective organizations, political parties, and educational foundations for victories in the coming years!
I won't rip Barr for his positions before he became a Libertarian, that would be unfair because we give him no opportunity to change. If we want the party to grow, it is only fair to allow people to change.
What I will take issue with is Barr's behavior since getting the nomination and campaigning for president.
He told a global warming audience that it is a problem that must be addressed, but tells Glenn Beck that they are environmental freaks and global warming is a hoax.
He claims to not agree with the PATRIOT Act anymore, but recently praised Bush for keeping us safe since 9/11.
He says he supports drug legalization because it will dry up the drug trade like prohibition's end, but during a Fox News interview he told the commentator that he only supports leaving that to the states. When the host pressed him, telling him he knows state libertarians will support legalization, he waffled around the question. Is he still a drug warrior or not? Depends on who asks him I guess.
So basically, Bob Barr is a prostitute. He will tell any audience what he thinks they want to hear. Can we really know what he truly stands for?
Then there's the Ron Paul press conference. He refuses to appear and then insults Paul. Then he tries to embarass Paul into becoming his VP, a stunt to be sure.
Some accused him of being a neoconservative plant candidate after his press conference. Maybe they were right. With his global warming statement, maybe he's a socialist plant looking to help Obama win.
I know this all sounds silly to some, but with his inability to keep a consistent stance on important principles, we can't be sure who or what he really is. I don't trust him. Let's hope a better candidate comes along for 2012...
It seems a bigger statement woudl be made against the two parties if the Barr supporters would simply join the Constitution Party. Obviosly things would be MUCH better with Baldwin than either of the two major candidates running. The reality is, our vote is more of a statement then a real chance of winning. Lets leave a BIG foot print on this election with all the dissatisied voters casting a ballot for Baldwin. Chuck is closer to winning anyhow. What do you think? Your vote will still say the same thing but it has a better chance of being heard.
Posted By: Andrew Panken
Date: 2008-10-11 13:24:07
I applaud Bradley for another well reasoned piece. Regarding Barr, he can't redo his Congressional votes which may not have followed the libertarian line. The problem is that he and his campaign team have become their own worst enemy. If you examine Baldwin and Barr, they both seem to lack something in the fight against statists, but there just isn't any excuse not to vote for one of them, because this continual quibbling just isn't productive.
Paleoconservatives and Constitutionalists are opponents of liberty as are regular conservatives and socialist. That they hold some libertarian positions does not make them libertarians. To associate the bigots on the Right is major mistake for the libertarians and the fastest way to destroy an credibility. Paul, Baldwin and Barr are all social conservatives with Baldwin being an out and out theocrat and thus a fervent enemy of freedom.
This article misrepresents facts. Barr wanted to ban Wicca from military bases while allowing other religions to meet there. The reality is that our military people live on these bases and Barr's proposal would have banned Wicca on the bases which is where these people lived and worked and where all the other religions were free to meet. To call that just opposing a subsidy is typical of the lies the Barristas have to resort to in order to put lipstick on their own pig.
Posted By: jacob pawelski
Date: 2008-10-12 06:42:56
Closed borders seems to be the only issue I have against Baldwin, but I do not see Barr actually opening them up,if he somehow actually won. On the other hand, Barr voted for the patriot act, and from I hear, still endorses it. He went on National Television, and said he was running his campaign in hope that people would regain their trust in the federal government. Some Libertarian. No wonder so many Libertarians left the party when he became the nominee.
Posted By: Bradley in DC
Date: 2008-10-12 08:03:36
Him,
Barr's proposal would not have "banned" anyone who believes in Wicca from the military according to the source Quirk cited. If you can back up your claim, please do so. My column is accurate: Barr's bill would have limited the use of taxpayer funding to aid Wicca in the military.
Posted By: Bradley in DC
Date: 2008-10-12 08:08:35
Jacob,
The USA PATRIOT Act is a mixed bag: there were a few very needed pro-privacy provisions (requiring FinCEN to establish a highly secure network for the transmission of our personally-identifiable information from banks, etc.) with lots of truly egregious ones.
As one very involved with the anti-terrorism bill debate (including testifying on the proposal to Congress), I have defended Barr's role as the pointman for the privacy/civil liberties community:
Bradley in DC, you stated "there were a few very needed pro-privacy provisions (requiring FinCEN to establish a highly secure network for the transmission of our personally-identifiable information from banks, etc.)"
To use the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network's need to encrypt our unconstitutionally gathered personal information as a reason to support the Patriot Act is very Orwellian. In fact I would argue that the use of the term Pro-Privacy to describe the contents of the Patriot Act is as much an oxymoron as the title of the act itself.
I guess if congress had taken longer to pass the ACT, they would have added other "pro-privacy provisions" such as requiring the feds to close and lock the doors after executing a sneak and peep warrant under section 213?
Posted By: Bradley in DC
Date: 2008-10-12 16:08:40
Former, I never said I supported the act (I didn't) but gave that as one example (there are others) that made the very large bill a mixed bag. You can Google my name and the time/bill: I was very active leading (with a few others) the pro-privacy IDOF coalition at the time. Again, Barr was our man on the inside (in the conference reconciling the House and Senate versions of the bill)--we needed him to vote for it so we'd have someone there.
DustoneGT ...Your post outlined the grocery list of anti-Barr blog talking points almost verbatim, but are you aware that essentially none of that is true? It's only based on fact. You're relying on biased interpretations of events. If you looked closely at those events, with an open mind, you might just see something closer to reality.
Kevin ... No, a vote for Baldwin will say we want to build the Constitution Party. That is not the case. Regardless of Barr's shortcomings a vote for him is ultimately a vote for the future of the Libertarian Party.
Posted By: Bradley in DC
Date: 2008-10-15 20:54:39
Tannim,
The link you cite didn't work for me. I searched their cite and the only Wicca/Barr reference I found is to the same press release: "BARR DEMANDS END TO TAXPAYER-FUNDED WITCHCRAFT ON AMERICAN MILITARY BASES." I have no doubt that many reporters have misrepresented his initiative as an effort to "ban" Wiccans from the military.
Posted By: David K. Meller
Date: 2008-10-18 09:40:35
More quarreling about the limitations of Barr, Baldwin, and Paul! Barr's disagreement with wiccan services in the military tells us nothing about what kind of President he would be. Neither do Baldwin's religious pieties.
The point is that either of them--and their parties--are infintely better than the deeply flawed candidates of the Republicrats! The Republicrats couldn't even govern our country well in normal times. The 9-11 disaster, the war in Iraq, the meltdown of the real estate and securities markets and their scandalous bailouts, the destruction of our civil liberties, the erosion of our national (and State) soverignty and the growth of parasitic and corrupt corporate transnational bureaucracies like NAFTA, the UN, the World Bank and IMF, the WTO, NATO, and the EU were all a long time in coming, and both Obama (and the Democrats) and McCain (and the Republicans, sans Ron Paul) were shamelessly culpable. If we do not find ways of hanging together, to paraphrase Ben Franklin, we shall all surely hang separately.
No, neither of them have a chance of "'winning" in 2008. If you are dissatisfied with Barr, either support Baldwin and his Constitution Party, or join the LP and work for a better Libertarian Party! If you are unhappy with Mr. Baldwin, then work to help the Constitution Party find and cultivate someone better for 2012! If you don't agree with, or are no good at political activism, contribute to educational groups like the Mises Institute (www.mises.org), the Randolph Bourne Foundation and its excellent website www.antiwar.com, Gun Owners of America, Fully Informed Jury Association, the John Birch Society, www.jbs.org), the American Nationalist Union www.anu.org, or International Society for Individual Liberty www.isil.org.
The real work will begin AFTER election day! If we don't do this, nobody else will! It is no doubt fun to stand on the sidelines and pick out inadaqaucies and flaws from people with whom you disagree on trivia, but it gets us nowhere! Liberty, the Constitution,and the free market are far too important for such nonsense.We certainly are not going to impress our fellow Amerians--most of whom are now extremely unhappy with the Demopublicans--to trust us to vote for us and our candidates if we can't work with each other productively and intelligently! Keep focused on the main points and agree to disagree about trivia.
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.
