Bob Barr is right

First let me say that I respect, revere and maybe even love Ron Paul. He has stood for many years as the de facto leader of the freedom movement in this country and his contributions to libertarian thought and his courage in walking the walk as well as talking the talk is an example we can all (including Bob Barr) learn from. I supported his campaign both financially and at the ballot box and was overwhelmed at the response, particularly from young people, to his message. Even this morning I still hoped (dreamed) that today’s press conference would be to announce an Alliance for Freedom that would unite several disparate parties behind a platform that the nation’s voters desperately need to hear and that America desperately needs to enact. I had hoped that Dr. Paul himself might lead that effort and it seemed such a ticket would have a chance to make an unprecedented impact on this election. That, of course, didn’t happen.

Now there appears to be feud (at least over tactics) between the Bob Barr campaign and the Ron Paul people. Barr’s refusal to appear alongside the other candidates today may be a bad move politically but I believe it is the right move ideologically. Libertarians who have accused Barr of being unprincipled and willing to sell out libertarian ideas for political gain should be pleased that he refused to appear on stage for this sort of “group endorsement” put on by the Congressman. Of course, they won’t be. He will be “spit-roasted” for daring to go against Ron Paul. But, no matter how badly the Barr campaign may have botched their handling of today’s events, Bob Barr was right to stand outside this press conference.

Nothing will be gained this November by marginally increasing the vote totals of Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader (or, for that matter Bob Barr) and today’s press conference would seem to suggest otherwise. A truly united front behind one candidate might have done that and I would have supported such an effort, even if it meant holding my nose and voting for a candidate who holds many positions I find politically (and morally) repugnant. But splitting the pro-freedom vote three or four different ways only makes it less likely that the message of freedom will be heard. Nothing was accomplished today and, whether Bob Barr said precisely that or not, he was right to separate himself from this little love-in. Today’s events make it less likely that any one candidate can raise their campaign to a level where the media and McBama can no longer ignore it, a level where it could make a real difference in this election and maybe even (gasp) have a chance to win.

That being said, it would have been much easier for Bob Barr to show up and he probably should have done so, particularly after committing to being there. And it might have simply been personal anger that Ron Paul did not endorse him alone (which, as a life member of the LP, one might imagine that he would do) that kept him away. All in all, I’m disappointed in the way both Paul and Barr have acted today and I’m afraid that these events may have crippled any momentum that Barr might have and may doom the party to (another) dismal showing in this election. Of course, Bob Barr will be blamed for that because he dared defy Ron Paul. I think much of the blame lay elsewhere.

Most truly successful movements have had both a inspirational leader and a practical one. I think of both Christianity and Communism in this way. The life and message of Jesus may have inspired Christianity but it was St. Paul who truly spread the Christian message beyond a small sect of Jews. Marx may have thought the thoughts and written the words that inspired Communism but it was Lenin who put that it into practice. I will not compare Dr. Paul to either Marx or Jesus because either comparison is offensive. Yet, he has truly inspired a small group of Americans to devote their political lives to seeking freedom. What he has not and I think will not be able to do is to spread that message into the broader political community and give it a chance to truly win out. Bob Barr may not be the man to do that but I think he understands that such a broadening of the movement must take place and is at least trying to make that happen. I, for one, will continue to support that effort, whether it succeeds or fails. I urge all libertarians to do the same.

Coalition of the Unwilling?

I have to admit that this Presidential campaign mystifies me. There is definitely something going on this year that is qualitatively different from anything we’ve seen in some time. And I’ll be damned if I can figure out exactly what it is. The public (or at least that part of it that hasn’t tuned out completely) seems to have figured out that there is something very wrong with “business as usual” but doesn’t seem to have a clue what to do about it.

There has always been an “anger” vote in American politics. From the Anti-Masonics to the Free Soilers to the Greenbacks and the Populists. In the 20th Century, the two best examples are probably George Wallace and Ross Perot. Whether it be disenchantment with the elites, the Slave Power, the Bankers and Trusts, the Federal Government or something else, it has focused on ”the other” as the source of whatever ills may befall both the country generally and the voter specifically. It has usually been a rural or at least “non-urban” vote and it is often a “restoration-ist” movement in that it usually sees some elite as having usurped the true meaning of America while seeing itself as the embodiment of the true “patriot” spirit.

These movements have never really succeeded but they have often been given voice at least by candidates of the establishment. The only successful Third Party in American history (The Republicans) succeeded by managing to employ the rhetoric of many of the early 19th century protest parties, while toning down much of the anger. And some of our most politically astute Presidents (Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton) can trace a part of their popularity to managing and manipulating these movements toward their own ends. Ultimately these movements have always “sold out” to a clever establishment character who can sing their hymns, even if they don’t believe a word of their creed.

These movements seem to ebb and flow in patterns. There is the genuine “populist” anger (usually caused by some economic or social upheaval) leading to a movement which cannot be entirely dismissed by the status quo. There is the reaction of the establishment, which must actively court these voters in order to be certain they do not reach a critical mass. This leads to the assimilation of both the message and the voters into one of the established political parties. This is followed by the ultimate betrayal of the movement by the establishment, leading again to disenchantment and the rise of a new movement.

These times are often seized on by more ideological groups, whether they be of the left, right or libertarian persuasion, as signs of a coming upheaval in which their viewpoints will become ascendant within the masses and their dreams of utopia will finally come true. They have pretty much always been wrong. While the specific gripes of the “anger” vote may vary and may often align themselves nicely with the more ideological views of a smaller party, the voters themselves are rarely committed to any particular ideology. That being said, there have been success stories. The Free Soilers largely achieved their primary goals as a result of the Civil War. Many of the Progressive/Socialist goals were achieved during the 20th century, again in part due to War and Depression.

So can the current “anger” vote be channeled in the direction of libertarian goals? I do not see it as explicitly libertarian, even though many elements of it are sympathetic to libertarian positions. It resents the increasing power and scope of the Federal government. It wishes to see American pull out of many of its international commitments and wants to bring home the troops. It sees the tax system as unfair and despises the IRS. It is divided on issues like immigration and the environment and on the free market and free trade and so, frankly, are many libertarians.

Ron Paul seemed to channel a lot of that anger and give voice to a lot of those concerns but turned off many people with his broader, more consistent libertarianism. It does not seem that any of the current crop of Third Party candidates has been able to light a fire with these people. The Greens will always appear to simply be socialists to most Americans, Ralph Nader is a tired old man, a song people have grown tired of hearing, Chuck Baldwin is seen as a bit of a religious nut and Bob Barr has failed to inspire much love or trust among exactly the sort of people he needs to run a strong campaign. I think he is actually doing a good job of building a libertarian party, but not building the Libertarian Party. His nomination is seen by too many Libertarians as being a “hostile takeover” and he has done little to change that perception.

So I am a bit pessimistic today. The title of this article was originally intended to be a “call to arms,” a plea for all those truly opposed to the direction America has been headed under George Bush to join together and unite behind Bob Barr. If we are to have any real effect in this election, we must build such a “coalition of the unwilling,” who are “unwilling” to have any more of Constitutional rights taken, who are “unwilling” to continue our disastrous foreign policy and who are “unwilling” to allow the Federal Government to continue to dominate our lives. But I fear that the the meaning of the phrase has changed somewhat in the writing. I fear that the coalition capable of “stopping the insanity” is simply unwilling to come together. They may flirt with a protest vote or write in Ron Paul but many of them will end up voting for McBama or simply staying home. I hope I am wrong. I fear I am not.

Bob Barr for President

I guess this will count as an official endorsement. That is what is intended to be. I have to say that I’ve been excited about the prospects for the Libertarian Party this year for some time. The support that Ron Paul was (and is) able to galvanize within the liberty movement is one element in that excitement. Another is the fact that neither of the major party candidates (ala Reagan 1980) even pays lip service towards the libertarian movement. Finally, there is no big-name 3rd party candidate out there to draw protest votes. Oh, sure, Ralph Nader is running again as are Chuck Baldwin and Cynthia McKinney and a few random socialists and even the libertarian Boston Tea Party who will actually land on a few state ballots. But there is no John Anderson or Ross Perot out there to become the focus of the national media at the expense of a serious 3rd party movement. So everything is in place for this to be a big year for liberty and the LP. Of course building this party beyond the fringe will require a candidate who can appeal beyond the 400,000 voters who’ve traditionally voted for us. Fortunately, we have that candidate. Whatever his flaws, Bob Barr is the right man for the job ahead and I believe this campaign will be a true breakthrough for our party. I expect (at worst) millions of votes and more media attention (it has already happened) than we’ve ever seen. Those votes will serve as a reminder to the “powers that be” that they’ve finally gone too far and that, if they continue to dismantle the Constitution, there will be hell to pay. And maybe, just maybe, this campaign can be more. The early poll numbers are extremely promising and, if we can build on that success, earn a spot in the debates and raise the kind of money that it will take to compete nationally, we may just give the Demopublicans the scare of their lives.

Bob Barr is right on all the big issues. He wants to cut taxes, cut the size of government, end the American empire and bring our troops home. He wants to end the Federal War on Drugs and repeal the Patriot Act. He believes the the Constitution means something and needs to be obeyed. He may not go as far as some of us would like but he is on the right side of these issues and no one else out there comes close. As libertarians, it is time to join other like-minded Americans and build a coalition that has a real chance to change the direction of this country. That coalition is growing every day and it is time to get excited about it and be a part of it. I, for one, will not sit this election out. The opportunity is too great. The risks of inaction are simply too high.

Therefore, I enthusiastically endorse the candidacy of Bob Barr and Wayne Root for President and Vice President. I urge you to support them in whatever way you can. Please volunteer and donate whatever you can. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Have a great day.

JR

A few more thoughts on a “divided” revolution

I’m surprised anyone actually found my last blog posting and obviously a few of you did including at least one gentleman with a very different point of view. This posting is more observational and less personal and judgemental than the one I wrote the other day. I will say that Steve Kubby is now a personal hero of mine and I’m sorry he is not Bob Barr’s running mate. He is man of great courage and conviction. I guess I should have known that already but I continue to be impressed by this fine gentleman. He truly is a warrior for liberty and I wish him the very best.

The last few days I have seen a great deal of discontent with the results of the convention and, most pointedly, the nomination of Bob Barr. I’m not just talking about the likes of Christine Smith (who I always kind of liked) and her decision to leave the party but about personal friends who feel betrayed by what took place. Many of these people were enthusiastic supporters of the Ron Paul Revolution and clearly do not see Bob Barr as someone who will carry forward his message. I think much of that has to do with how personal the commitment to Ron Paul is and the sense that it is as much the man as the message that is at play. Whatever one’s feelings about Ron Paul’s message, there have been very few criticisms (though some) of his integrity and political courage. One of his greatest assets as a candidate was that he both talked the talk and walked the walk. Even though Bob Barr may agree with 90% of what Ron Paul says, his record is one that makes one shudder. As I mentioned the other day, not only was he wrong but he was wrong on some of the “hot button” issues for most libertarians. If nothing else, we can all usually agree that the drug war is insane, that legislation like the DOMA is the worst sort of meddling by the federal government and that the Patriot Act is a gross violation of everything the Constitution is supposed to represent. And yet Congressman Barr was closely involved in each of these very offensive abuses of government power and that is awfully hard for a lot of people to swallow.

It is certainly a bit odd to listen to Libertarians talking about voting for the “lesser evil” in this campaign and I’ve heard quite a bit of that lately. I suspect many will simply stay home but others may write in Dr. Paul or vote for Chuck Baldwin or even Obama. I have to say that I am very uncomfortable with the Constitution party folks even though I believe some of them are about 90% right on the issues. That said, I can understand the appeal. Part of Paul’s appeal was the anti-establishment tone to much of his message that one might even call populism: Anti-Fed, Anti-UN, Anti-NAFTA, Anti-War. There is a convergence between the left and right on these issues and you can see that in the fact that many of Paul’s supporters also had a soft spot for Dennis Kucinich who shared most of those populist views.

That, to me, is part of the appeal of a renewed Constitutionalism. It has the potential to appeal to a broad coalition of the left, right and center. Our increasingly centralized government leaves little room for dissent and diversity anywhere on the political spectrum. I may disagree with someone on the role of government in general but I may be able to form a coalition with them if we can both agree that, whatever that role, it should be defined at the state and local level and that the federal government should be empowered with only a small set of enumerated powers. In a nation as diverse as ours, the idea that “one size fits all” will only create a more oppressive nation-state and lead to a more and more bitter brand of political discourse.

That being the case, there are still many libertarians who would like to fight it out on national stage with Democrats and Republicans in our “winner-take-all” electoral system. They imagine that one day they can convert a majority of people to their point of view and then we can “impose libertarianism” on the nation as a whole. I have to say that I can’t see that ever coming to pass, at least not in my lifetime. I think many of the apolitical libertarians out there may have a more realistic vision of what it will take to achieve liberty than these well-meaning but misguided folks.

I’ll close for now. More thoughts as they occur to me. Your comments (even negative) are welcome.

Thoughts on the Libertarian Party

Like most people who consider themselves “libertarians,” I have had a love/hate relationship with the Libertarian Party through the years.  Back in the late 70’s, when I first discovered and embraced the philosophy of freedom, there was a much closer identification between the movement and the party than has existed since that time.  It seemed most everyone I came in contact with in my reading not only supported the philosophy of liberty but also the “party of principle.”  Obviously, people like Ayn Rand or Harry Browne were exceptions to the rule and I’m sure there were many others, but many of the people who influenced my early development as a libertarian such as Robert Ringer and Murray Rothbard explicitly endorsed both libertarianism and the LP.  Those times in the late 70’s and early 80’s were a time of great optimism about the party and its growth.  It seemed to be growing exponentially and on the verge of great success.  As corny as they seem today, I always felt tremendous pride when I saw those little 5 minute spots by Ed Clark back in the 1980 Presidential campaign.  I read the latest LP news with great excitement and it was always filled with success stories and hope.

I don’t have to recount everything that has happened in the last 25 odd years to anyone who has been around this movement or to anyone who has studied the history of this movement.  Like many people, I fell away from the party, yoking my political hopes and dreams to the Democrats for many years.  Many others became Republicans or Independents or drifted away from politics altogether.  I convinced myself that at least Democrats were anti-war and weren’t going to violate civil liberties in the same way that Republicans did.  My visceral distaste for the Religious Right alone might have been enough to turn me away from anyone on that side of the aisle but, whatever their faults, I just felt more comfortable with the likes of Gary Hart or Bill Clinton than I did with the likes of the Bush family dynasty.  I guess I was also influenced by my college experience and maybe by something as trivial as the fact that my Sociology prof was far more interesting than my Psych prof.  I kept tabs on the party and always wished them success but I thought I had “grown out” of my Libertarian phase.  I could never quite kick some of the ideas I’d grown up with such as the idea that the draft was slavery and that prohibiting things like drugs and prostitution were both silly and a terrible intrusion into people’s lives.  They were the “wild and crazy” ideas that I continued to espouse even as I tried to justify Government being involved in the economy and in overseas adventures.

At some point and I’m not sure exactly when it happened, I came back.  While I never formally joined the party again, I started voting for it.  I began to believe once again that, whatever the justification, government involvement in our economy was a bad thing.  Maybe it was reading Charles Murray’s book on “What it Means to Be a Libertarian” that did it.  So I voted for Harry Browne and then Michael Badnarik and I voted for Libertarians when I could at the state or local level but I never got involved.  I guess I never really have.  The War on Terror and the war in Iraq probably galvanized my “reconversion” and I don’t think I have looked back since.  I even managed to influence a few of my friends who are now Libertarians themselves.  Still, I never felt that hope and sense of expectation that I did when I was 16.

Ron Paul changed that.  He made it possible to dream again and believe again that there really might be an audience out there for what I believed.  I gave money.  I registered as a Republican so I could vote in my state’s caucus.  I saw thousands (millions?) of people who believed as I did and were willing to put their money and their time where their mouth was.  I don’t think I ever believed he would really win but it was enough to actually believe that he might matter…and I think he has.  I kind of felt he would eventually give up his Republican primary campaign and accept the Libertarian nomination and hopefully bring his supporters along.  That didn’t happen.

As I flash back to 10 years ago or so, I remember the first time I became aware of Bob Barr.  I thought he was the worst sort of human I could imagine.  He seemed terribly priggish and self-righteous and never moreso than during the Clinton impeachment.  I thought (and still do) that the whole impeachment was a political show trial that had very little to do with lying to a grand jury or anything else that justified Presidential removal.  (Granted, there are certainly legitimate reasons to have impeached Bill Clinton but I could say that about every US President of the 20th Century as well as our current fuhrer.)  I remember hearing about his defeat in 2002 and how the Libertarian in the race may have contributed to it and I couldn’t help but smile.

I remember hearing about Barr’s “conversion” to more libertarian views and thinking that that was certainly an odd thing and that maybe this guy wasn’t so bad after all.  Then I heard that he had joined the party and I was intrigued.  Whatever his faults, he had at least been man enough to admit his mistakes and was taking a turn for the better.  Having had my own “season of error,” I guess I was willing to admit that other people might make mistakes and actually stand up and support candidates and ideas that they might later see as anathema.

The next time I thought about Bob Barr was when I saw his speech introducing Ron Paul at CPAC this year.  I was actually impressed.  And, when Dr. Paul decided not to seek the Libertarian party nomination, I started thinking about Bob Barr.  Apparently at least a few other people did the same.  I saw some sort of posting about a Draft Bob Barr movement and, for some reason, I immediately went and signed an online petition.  In those days after it became painfully apparent that Ron Paul wasn’t going to win a primary, let alone the Republican nomination, I guess I was looking for something and someone to latch onto, someone to support for President this year.  I had looked at other candidates but they all pretty much seemed like the same sort of candidates that we’ve nominated for years and that have managed a fabulous total of 300 or 400 thousand votes.  Barr seemed like he might be different.  I started to hope again.

So I decided I was a “Barr guy” even though I still wasn’t really sure I liked him very much.  His errors in Congress were exactly the sort of errors that tend to enrage me more than most.  He still seemed pretty priggish and self-righteous.  At best, he was a “libertarian-in-training” and I was far beyond that.  I had become pretty much an anarchist, a secessionist, a Constitutionalist.  I was willing to support pretty much any movement that threatened the power of the federal government and I guess I still am.  But one of those things that might threaten that government was a Libertarian party that might actually get some votes and maybe scare a few people in power and maybe (at least) stop some of the insanity that most people have come to accept as part of life.  Maybe, just maybe, if Bob Barr manages to get a few million votes, politicians will have to think twice before they decide it’s OK to take away another one of our rights, to invade our privacy, to invade another country, to devalue our currency, to take another step towards the Police State that we have been running headlong into the past few years.

I have to say that today I feel that same sense of love and hate towards the Libertarian party that have characterized my relationship with it through these past 30-odd years.  I watched a good deal of the convention this past weekend on CSPAN and, while I felt some pride watching the debate Saturday night and seeing a fairly impressive group of people seeking the party’s nomination, I felt disgust Sunday night as I saw people I otherwise might genuinely respect and admire behave like spoiled children.  I would imagine that Mary Ruwart and I would probably agree on 90% of the issues that you could imagine.  She seems like a decent and fairly engaging person and a principled libertarian, but she did not behave like a good Libertarian.  Not at least mentioning Bob Barr or giving a lukewarm endorsement was classless.  This party has nominated plenty of Mary Ruwart’s through the years and we managed to achieve nothing more than to be a curiosity.  Maybe it is time to try something else.  It might fail miserably.  Maybe Bob Barr is simply an opportunist and maybe he’ll be a terrible candidate and turn his back on the party.  I don’t know…and neither does anyone else.  But he is worth a shot, a roll of the dice.  Maybe he can bring millions of new people to this movement and maybe we can make a difference and maybe that’s worth a try.  I think it is.  And I think the party should unite behind him and see what happens.  We’ve been disappointed before and maybe we’ll be disappointed again.  If you have a problem with disappointment, maybe this isn’t the movement for you and maybe this isn’t the party for you.