Liberty Maven

I turned 18 in 1989. Like many young people I had been taught that the government was there to help people. I called myself a Democrat. I didn’t understand the consequences of big government. I didn’t understand taxes.

It didn’t take long for me to learn these things. The first presidential election I voted in was 1992. I supported Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary. I didn’t like Bill Clinton much, but I disagreed with the Republicans the most. So in the general election I voted for Bill Clinton. Between 1992 and 1996 I read “Atlas Shrugged” By Ayn Rand. It changed me. I already had the foundation of a fiscally conservative, socially liberal world view with my support of Tsongas. After reading Ayn Rand and discovering the Libertarian Party and with it Harry Browne, my conversion was complete.

After voting for Harry Browne in 2000 I became disinterested in politics. I voted for Michael Badnarik in 2004, but I never felt the same kinship with him as I had for Harry Browne. In early 2007 I read that Ron Paul may be running for President. I knew of Ron Paul as the most libertarian Congressman, but I didn’t know the details of his positions at that time. After research it seemed I agreed with him on most things with the exception of immigration and abortion. I decided Ron Paul would get my vote.

Then the movement started and I was swept up in it. Probably the single event that did it for me was watching the video of his speech on the floor of the House about a year ago called, “In the Name of Patriotism (Who are the Patriots?)” [VIDEO]. I got chills listening to it. I was amazed to hear such wonderful rhetoric from a politician. The fact he was saying it on the floor of the House of Representatives filled me with awe at his political bravado.

I was skeptical at his reach with the American public, but he certainly struck a chord and his liberty message spread in spite of limited media attention. If the media treated him as a candidate equal to the others I firmly believe his appeal would have been even wider. Unfortunately, to many Republicans he did reach, he was deemed crazy.

Then I heard that Bob Barr may seek the Libertarian Party’s nomination. I had heard that he joined the Libertarian Party awhile ago and thought it was odd. After all, I knew him because of his neo-conservative roots during the 1994 “Contract With America” that was well intended, but never materialized. I did some research and discovered Barr and Ron Paul were friends, worked on legislation together, and agreed on many of the issues.

One of the many things I’ve learned from Ron Paul is that it is about the message, not the man. Bob Barr frames Ron Paul’s message in a pragmatic way: No “New World Order” rhetoric, No “North American Union” rhetoric, No “Globalist Elite” rhetoric, No “abolish the Federal Reserve now” call. The purist wing of the Ron Paul movement looks at this as a negative. I view it as a positive. Using this rhetoric has the power to immediately turn people away from listening to anything else you are saying. How can you spread a message when your target audience is not listening?

People that have been indoctrinated into the “system” their entire lives aren’t going to wake up one day as if they “swallowed the red pill” and believe these things to be true. For the masses it takes a long period of time to undo the years of media and political programming.

Ron Paul’s strategy in the campaign has been to speak to the young people. They are more likely to become true believers than older people. In general the older generations have more cynicism and are more stubborn in their beliefs. Like it or not, to reach them and the masses it takes an incremental approach.

Ron Paul came along and hit people over the head with his beliefs. Some became believers quickly, others resisted and labeled him an insane extremist. That is the political baggage Ron Paul now carries. He himself is unlikely to ever sway those voters that have pigeon holed him as a kook. They just won’t listen to him anymore. To do so would lend him credibility. They are too stubborn for that. Unfortunately, these people make up the majority of the electorate.

Bob Barr enters the race as a kinder and gentler Ron Paul.

Additionally, the purist Ron Paul faithful also have a candidate to support, if they believe as I do that writing in Ron Paul on the ballot is personally satisfying but does little to help spread his message. Chuck Baldwin is that candidate. Having two candidates certainly splits the votes between the Ron Paul movement. I support Barr because he has more potential than Baldwin to reach those that perceive Ron Paul as too extreme. Barr can bring them gently into the freedom fold.

To me, supporting Baldwin does little to help spread the reach of the liberty message. I will ignore the fact that he is not likely to receive the media attention Barr will. Supporting him is philosophically sound, because Baldwin is a bit more like Ron Paul than Barr. He preaches against the NWO and the North American Union, and abolishing the Fed. All good by Ron Paul standards; however, Baldwin’s reach will be to those Paul supporters that lean more on the radical rather than practical side of the spectrum. I believe his reach is limited to a subset of Ron Paul’s current support base plus Constitution Party loyalists.

Because of this split, Barr’s reach to Ron Paul supporters is also limited. The difference is that Barr’s admittedly “watered” down version of Ron Paul’s message is more appealing to the masses. Therefore, it is up to him to bring in new converts. Once in the fold they can be directed incrementally towards the more radical views of the purist Ron Paul supporter.

The problem for Barr though is that the most radical Ron Paul supporters are the most politically active. It is unlikely we’ll see the million dollar money bombs, big rallies, marches, sign waves, and a blimp for Bob Barr. The rallies, marches, and sign waves Barr can do without, but raising a good amount of money is not optional. I will certainly support Barr with donations. I hope those reading this will as well. His campaign needs it.

In business negotiations it is always good to start with common ground and then explore differences. The political world is no different. Bob Barr can be a bridge for disaffected conservatives towards the Ron Paul enlightenment. I took the incremental path towards liberty via Paul Tsongas, Ayn Rand, Harry Browne, and Ron Paul. Barr is offering libertarian leaning conservatives a starting point down a similar path.

Ron Paul offered everyone the red pill for instantaneous realization. Some took it. Many refused. Bob Barr is now offering a purple slow release pill towards that same enlightenment. I hope many who refused the red will swallow the purple. Only time will tell.