Some Ron Paul Supporters See No Liberty In Bob Barr. Why Are They Wrong?

June 23rd, 2008 8:21 am | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Activism, BJ Lawson, Bob Barr, Civil Liberties, Drugs, Election, Foreign Policy, History, Libertarianism, Liberty, Maven Commentary, Politics, Ron Paul, War, campaign for liberty | 1193Comments2008-06-23+12%3A21%3A10Marc+Gallagher

Ever since Bob Barr became the Libertarian Presidential nominee he has been met with venomous criticism from those that can’t let bygones be bygones. There is no such thing as “forgiveness” apparently. Their distrust of Barr blinds and binds them. They are not just letting a golden opportunity for liberty pass them by, but are openly recruiting others to the anti-Barr cause. I feel sorry for their children should they ever make a mistake, own up to the mistake, and denounce it. For as long as they live they will be punished for that mistake no matter what measures they attempt to make up for that mistake.

I support Bob Barr because I believe in human liberty. It seems to me that if one truly believes in liberty then they should also believe in personal redemption. How can one believe in individual liberty but not accept Bob Barr’s own denouncement of his anti-liberty votes? Many of the Ron Paul faithful complained at the seemingly conspiratorial media attacks against Paul during his campaign. Now some of those very same Ron Paul supporters are attacking Barr in a similar fashion. The attacks on Bob Barr have now reached the trite stage. So trite, in fact, that they can be made into a list. Below is the countdown with the lowdown.

7. Bob Barr can’t be trusted because he’s not been a Libertarian long enough.

Barr joined the Libertarian Party in 2006. He has held libertarian beliefs prior to joining the party. In 2004, two years prior to joining the Libertarian Party he publicly and officially endorsed Libertarian Candidate Michael Badnarik for President. He was called a “libertarian” due to his criticisms of George W. Bush’s Iraq war policies and violations of civil liberties beginning in 2003. It seems that Ron Paul and Bob Barr crossed paths in the night. Paul went back to the Republican Party after his brief stint as the Libertarian Presidential nominee in 1988 (although he remains a party member). Bob Barr left the Republican Party because it left him.

6. Bob Barr is a Neocon.

Maybe in the mid-nineties this was marginally true. Today he is everything a neo-conservative is not. Would a neo-conservative advocate bringing our troops home from Iraq as quickly and safely as possible? Would a neo-conservative advocate bringing our troops home that are currently stationed in South Korea, Europe, and Japan? Would a neo-conservative be calling for switching to a non-interventionist foreign policy? Neocon Schmeocon. If Bob Barr is a neocon then Ron Paul is a neocon.

5. Bob Barr is Ex CIA.

No one has been able to convince me that this is a bad thing. The argument that just because Barr worked for the CIA makes him untrustworthy is nothing more than conspiratorial horse hockey. You can say you don’t trust him because he voted for some bad laws in his past, but trying to argue that he’s untrustworthy because he used to work for the CIA only strengthens your opponent’s argument. In doing this you are generalizing to the highest degree. You are thinking of people in groups rather than individuals. Looking beyond this “groupthink” one should realize that being a former CIA employee is a great thing to have on the resume when running for office. At least when viewed by the average voter.

4. Bob Barr voted for the Iraq War Authorization.

I challenge you to think back at how you felt in the days and months following the September 11th attacks. If you were in Congress and were presented with reasonable and logical evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was intent on using them against the United States how would you have voted? Unless you are a Ron Paul I suspect you would have gone along with the majority who voted for it. Now that we have the benefit of hindsight rather than the patriotic tunnel vision we had during that time it is easy to be against the war. If you were against it back then you were a true iconoclast. At least Bob Barr has publicly denounced his vote and owned up to the mistake rather than obfuscate with political rhetoric. Who better to spread the liberty message than someone who echoed the voice of the majority of Americans at that time, but then formed a new opinion as the Iraq war moved forward year after year? The general public has taken this same journey towards liberty along with Bob Barr.

3. Bob Barr Is/Was A Drug Warrior.

Many Barr critics don’t seem to understand the difference between ‘was’ and ‘is’. Yes, Barr was a major leader supporting the war on drugs in the 90’s. I wore day glow green, yellow, and orange shirts in the 90’s. I realized the error of my ways and modified my wardrobe, eventually. Why is it so unacceptable to some that Bob Barr has realized the error of his drug warrior past? He openly and passionately campaigns for the decriminalization of marijuana. He is active with the Marijuana Policy Project and is endorsed by its founder Rob Kampia. If Bob Barr’s drug war transformation is sincere enough for an activist working every day to minimize the impact of cannabis why is it not good enough for some?

2. Bob Barr is no Ron Paul.

No one is Ron Paul except Ron Paul. No politician has the unblemished 30+ year record fighting for liberty like him. It is unfair and unwise to measure every candidate with the Ron Paul yard stick. There is a plus side to Bob Barr not being another Ron Paul. Bob Barr is trusted by conservatives who would never have considered voting for Ron Paul. Bob Barr gives these voters an open window to climb through into the liberty house. For example, radio and TV host Glenn Beck never once said he would consider voting for Ron Paul even though he calls himself a libertarian on some issues. Beck has said more than once that he is considering voting for Barr. He even suggests Barr as a viable option to his guests when the election topic comes up. What baffles me is that Barr has the same foreign policy positions as Ron Paul yet the reason Beck claims he could never vote for Paul is due to foreign policy. Logical or not, Bob Barr could potentially bring in more conservative votes than even Ron Paul himself.

1. Bob Barr voted for the Patriot Act.

This is by far the most common criticism of Bob Barr, yet it is thrown around as a black vs. white criticism when the truth lies in the details. Bob Barr voted for the Patriot Act so he could put a sunset clause in it to force it to expire every 5 years. This clause requires that the Act pass a legislative vote to continue. If Barr did not vote for the Patriot Act his sunset clause would likely not exist. It would be permanent. It was going to pass with or without Barr’s vote so Barr’s strategic decision was to vote for it so he could shape it by adding the sunset provision. This is Bob Barr jumping on the grenade to save liberty. He testified against the Patriot Act in 2005 when it came up for renewal. He has spoken out against it in just about every interview since its passage. Yes, Barr voted for the Patriot Act, but there is more to the story than just the vote.

Bob Barr is not the evil-doer some make him out to be. He’s a human being who made some mistakes and is trying to reconcile them. As a liberty loving American I think he deserves a chance.

Public Service Announcement: Take a moment and donate/pledge some money in the name of liberty to one of the following projects: Bob Barr Money Bomb, Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty, and Ron Paul Republican B.J. Lawson’s Money Bomb on June 29th.

Comments Feed Trackback Address

Hollering For Liberty » Blog Archive » In Defense of Bob Barr says:

June 23rd, 2008 at 11:25 am (#)

[...] Maven is featuring an article begging for the support of libertarians for the Barr campaign. They pose some pretty good [...]

stebro says:

June 23rd, 2008 at 11:39 am (#)

That Libertarians might not be attracted to Bob Barr is understandable. We have learned that politicians lie constantly. Ron Paul had the unblemished track record to prove he votes the way he talks … always has. It makes it easier to trust him.

I hope Bob Barr is what he says he is. But his voting record does not match his current story. He has an explanation for why he voted for the Patriot act which might be true, but he did not stand up and denounce it for what it is so how can we know?

Most of us knew the Patriot act was wrong instantly. I knew from the beginning that the drug war was a stalking horse for the onward march of statism. I spoke publicly against the war(s) since their inception. And, Bob Barr has just seen the light? What’s changed?

The writer’s assumption that in the emotionalism of the 9/11 attacks we all thought of immediate vengeance. Not all of us did. So for us, the question is – is Bob Barr sincere and can we trust him, or, is he just another lying politician giving us the story of the day in order to hook into the money bombs that has Washington green with envy.

1440 minutes says:

June 23rd, 2008 at 12:09 pm (#)

This article misses the point by a mile. When evaluating a recent convert with a decidedly anti-libertarian record, it is important to determine whether this person would compromise libertarian values in order to gain or maintain power. In Bob Barr’s case, he already has compromised libertarian values. In order to ensure victory against Mary Ruwart, Bob Barr hand-picked a neocon VP.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021315.html

Without Wayne Root’s support, Bob Barr might have lost the Libertarian Party’s nomination to Mary Ruwart.

After pointing out Bob Barr’s deal with the devil, I still would *consider* voting for Bob Barr if he could muster enough support to hurt the neocons in the Republican Party.

hardymacia says:

June 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm (#)

Excellent article.

The only thing I’d add is that Ron Paul’s record isn’t unblemished from a libertarian point of view, but it is excellent.

I stopped donating to Paul in the late 90s over an blemish, but fully supported his campaign for president because he was bringing the libertarian message to masses.

Bob Barr continuing to carry the torch of liberty to the masses.

If any libertarian revolution supporter of Paul has followed Barr’s since he left office and started his metamorphosis to present they, they should be fully supporting Barr with time, money, diggs, posts, and votes.

carolm62 says:

June 23rd, 2008 at 12:29 pm (#)

It is an enigma to me how some Ron Paul supporters can claim to be supporting his Campaign for Liberty — yet are working virulently AGAINST one of the Liberty candidates the the Campaign for Liberty is all about.

When going back through some of the blogs, it appears to me that many of them think that Bob Barr is running AGAINST Ron Paul — and that Ron Paul has not actually ended his campaign. Some seem to think that the Campaign for Liberty is an independent run. It’s pretty belwildering.

I really lament that so many Ron Paul supporters totally bought into the cult of personality and don’t hope to influence the direction of this country in any real way. I am sad to see that they fail to realize that for liberty to be achieved, people out there are going to have to change their minds. It appears that some don’t want others to change their minds, preferring to remain a smug and self-righteous fringe.

I am glad to see Bob Barr change his mind on matters of importance and work hard to see these changes realized. I would love to see Obama change his mind. I would love for all of congress to change their minds.

1440 minutes says:

June 23rd, 2008 at 1:12 pm (#)

Barr supporters are presumptuous to accuse Ron Paul supporters of being caught up in cults of personality because they hesitate to support Barr. Barr already has compromised libertarian values by choosing neocon Wayne Root as VP in order to win the LP nomination. See my post above. What other compromises would Barr make, if elected?

The LP does not have a monopoly on freedom candidates. In the area of foreign policy, Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle are far more libertarian than neocon Wayne Root is. If Barr has the polling numbers to hurt McBama Demopublicans, then I will *consider* voting for Barr. If not, then I will vote for Chuck Baldwin.

Emily says:

June 23rd, 2008 at 1:15 pm (#)

To me, there’s only one measure of how sincere a “conversion” is: What does the person DO? Not what does he SAY, but what does he DO to show that he means it.

I’ve been watching Bob Barr’s career closely since 1996, when he cast a “yes” vote for the precursor to Real ID. He prattled indignantly, even then, about the need to preserve our privacy; but every time he had a chance to vote, he voted for Big Brother.

His whole career has been like that: Say one thing, do another. The simple fact is that the man has a long, long history of deception.

So now he claims to have changed his mind — about the drug war, the war in Iraq, etc.

Fine. But where’s the proof? Where’s even a shred of evidence that it’s anything other than empty rhetoric to gull the LP into giving him another shot at politics?

Chuck says:

June 23rd, 2008 at 2:12 pm (#)

I totally agree. While I can maybe understand being skeptical of Barr, not supporting him is beyond me. His positions are nearly identical to Paul’s, and he’s orders of magnitude better than any of the remaining alternatives. You have to be pretty paranoid and cynical to think that if elected Barr would not do his best to make things better from a liberty perspective. Maybe he wouldn’t do everything perfectly from some peoples’ perspective, but he would be the best thing we’ve had in generations.

The cult of personality observation has merit too. Myself, I agreed with Paul on almost everything policy wise, but his delivery and charisma left something to be desired. I fear that some people really liked the rough-around-the-edges delivery more than the message. Honestly, hearing Barr talk to the media is music to my ears without the cringe moments I had with Paul.

blakmira says:

June 23rd, 2008 at 3:13 pm (#)

It’s not the forgiveness we lack when it comes to Barr. It’s distrust based on REALITY.

Talk? Positions? Rhetoric? Meaningless. What about some actual PROOF or one single vote Barr has cast backing up what he “says” he believes in?

Some of us weren’t born yesterday, so take your arguments somewhere else — maybe over to the Obama side, where they seem to love empty rhetoric with an appalling record that contradicts everything that comes of their mouth.

Marc Gallagher says:

June 23rd, 2008 at 3:30 pm (#)

blakmira this Bob Barr information is for you:

* “Barr is a co-sponsor of H. Res. 197, ‘Stop U.N. Gun Ban.’”

* “Barr supports H.R. 2615 ‘Stop National Medical ID and the Patient Privacy Protection Act.’”

* “Barr is a leading defender of civil liberties. He introduced legislation that forces the National Security Agency’s Project ECHELON to provide a full accounting to the Congress of their covert monitoring of millions of phone calls, faxes, and emails.”

* “He led the fight against National ID Card proposals and introduced legislation in 1998 to check the federal government’s abuse of wire-tapping laws — including the use of roving wiretaps — and also opposed governmental interception of cellular phone calls.”

* “He introduced legislation to mandate that the federal government issue ‘Privacy Impact Statements’ every time it issues a new rule or regulation.”

* “He was a chief sponsor of a law to limit abuses of the civil asset forfeiture statutes.”

* “He fought against OSHA regulations and to limit small business vulnerability to frivolous labor litigation.”

* “He is a board member of the National Rifle Association, and a staunch defender of the right of Americans to own and use firearms. He has introduced and sponsored legislation to block litigation against gun manufacturers for the acts of their customers and to limit any background checks and mandate they be conducted ‘instantly.’”

* “Barr has succinctly advocated the principle that while criminals must be punished to the full extent of the law, their civil liberties must be protected with even more vigor.”

* “He is a staunch defender of American sovereignty and opposes the executive branch’s overzealous use of our military abroad he even filed suit against President Clinton’s war in Kosovo without congressional approval.”

* “He is a fierce critic of the United Nations — and to a lesser degree NATO — and has consistently supported efforts to withdraw U.S. membership from the United Nations.”

* “He co-sponsored a committee amendment to withdraw the U.S. from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.”

* “Since his first day in Congress back in 1995, Barr has tirelessly fought to eliminate the Internal Revenue Code, supported the “flat tax” proposal, and consistently supported passage of a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds supermajority of Congress to raise taxes.”

* “He was an early supporter of lowering the capital gains tax and recently he introduced legislation to provide tax credits for educators: public, private, and home school.”

* “More than any other member of the Georgia delegation, Congressman Barr has parted with the Republican majority to vote against bloated “pork barrel” spending.”

* “He has continually fought the unconstitutional [McCain/Feingold] ‘campaign finance reforms.’ Defending our fundamental rights, he has filed a lawsuit to prevent implementation of the recently passed legislation.”

hardymacia says:

June 23rd, 2008 at 4:59 pm (#)

1440, you are spouting BS…

I just read the full post from Root’s site the Rockwell partially copied. Root is very harsh on the Islamic extremists, and wants a strong anti-terrorist program for the US, but that in no way makes him a neo-con.

If wanting a strong anti-terrorist program makes you a neo-con then many libertarians and most of the country are neo-cons.

“It’s tough for me to find an issue where Ron Paul and I disagree. We’re both fiscal conservatives. We’re both for limited constitutional government. We both would cut the size and scope of the federal government. We both support States’ Rights and would solve most issues on the state and local level.

We’re both for dramatically reducing the tax burden on Americans. We both would dramatically cut government spending, even eliminating entire federal departments!

We would do these things, even if it meant voting NO to every single spending increase, tax increase or program not authorized by the Constitution. We both want to cut bureaucracy, mainly by reducing the number of federal employees and the size of future federal pensions. We both stand strongly against government-controlled universal healthcare as a looming economic disaster for America.

We want to end the Nanny State and overturn blatant violations of our civil liberties. We are against most warrantless wiretaps and most of The Patriot Act. We both distrust and dislike the United Nations. We both want to drastically cut foreign aid and corporate welfare. We both strongly support the second amendment. We both want the federal government out of education – where they have failed miserably. We both support more parental freedom, more school choice, and want to encourage more education competition…

We both support a secure border as the first solution to immigration reform. We both support the property rights of the individual. We both support a more tolerant stance on social issues such as gay rights and medical marijuana. We both support Internet freedom. When in doubt we side with the American people over the government- just as our Founding Fathers did…

It is not our duty to nation build.
It is not our duty to install democracy around the world.
It is not our duty to risk our troops’ lives and waste billions of taxpayer dollars to prop up foreign governments.
”

Akston says:

June 23rd, 2008 at 5:26 pm (#)

For me, it comes down to a pragmatic choice:
Which available candidate is mostly likely to pursue policies I’ll support?

Congressman Paul was closest, but is no longer available.

Senator Obama is a great speaker but seems to think the government is the answer to all domestic economic concerns, whether authorized by the Constitution or not, whether that transfer of wealth would speed the country to ruin or not.

Senator McCain represents a party which is likely to provide opposition towards a probable Democrat-controlled congress, but seems to think the American military is the answer to all international concerns, whether authorized by the Constitution or not, whether that transfer of wealth from Americans to foreign interests would speed the country to ruin or not.

Mr. Barr espouses mostly libertarian principles, but is mostly unproven in his change of heart.

I don’t yet know enough about Mr. Baldwin, but an initial read of the issues section of his website may put him in the lead for me.

At this moment, the two candidates who come closest to supporting my interests in liberty, limited government, and responsible monetary policy are Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. Senators Obama and McCain simply do not come close (especially with regard to monetary policy). I won’t abstain from voting for president, so for me, it’ll be either Barr or Baldwin.

If another reader finds Barr unacceptable, I can understand that position, but would ask who he supports as an alternative.

1440 minutes says:

June 23rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm (#)

Hardymacia,

Just as Lew Rockwell briefly summarized the first part of Wayne Root’s article, you briefly summarized Wayne Root’s neocon rant.

Wayne Root is clueless about what motivates terrorism. In the 1980s, Ayatollah Khomeni tried to foment attacks against America using the exact arguments that Wayne Root summarized in his article. He failed; the Muslim world could have cared less. It took Osama bin Laden to whip Muslim fascists into a frenzy. Bin Laden’s anger about America’s foreign interventions worked like a charm; everybody and their brother wanted to be suicide bombers.

Yes, we must be strong against terrorism. Twice since 9/11, Ron Paul has proposed legislation involving Letters of Marque to hire what amounts to corporate bounty hunters in order to hunt down, capture, and kill terrorist leaders such as Osama bin Laden. The cost of doing this would be a tiny fraction of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, Ron Paul wants to bring home troops from around the world to defend our own borders rather than inciting anti-Americanism around the world. The former head of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit has clearly indicated that Ron Paul’s plan is the only one that has any chance of stopping thugs like Osama bin Laden.

Wayne Root is delusional if he thanks that the USA can have its cake and eat it too. Endless preemptive war is 100% incompatible with freedom. As Harry Browne and other eminent libertarians have demonstrated, the state *always* clamps down on freedom during times of war. That is why free republics avoid war unless they are attacked by other nations. And when we go to war, Congress must declare war and go all out to win it. We have not done that since World War II.

infinityBBC says:

June 24th, 2008 at 12:24 am (#)

i submit that the most important thing we rEVOLutionists can ask ourselves at any given point is, “what is the best thing i can do right now for liberty?”

for the short term Election ‘08 vote, i remain convinced the best thing we can do for liberty with our vote is to support Bob Barr.

Barr is the loudest pro-LIBERTY vote message to the Federal & State governments, including the major parties, thus also serving to help the Republican Liberty Caucus and Democratic Freedom Caucus reform efforts.

Barr will be on the ballot in most states. Chuck Baldwin will be a write-in, and therefore will receive a fraction of the pro-LIBERTY vote.

Barr’s polling potential could possibly launch him into the Presidential debates, which would surely shake up the status quo Socialist/Fascist authoritarians far more than did Perot.

as similar in other states, if either Bob Barr or Mike Munger (for NC governor) takes at least 2%, the Libertarian Party will remain on the NC ballot for next election without needing a burdensome petition drive — that, in and of itself, is another victory for liberty.

regardless of concerns over his libertarian conversion, how could voting for anyone other than Bob Barr send a stronger pro-LIBERTY message in Election ‘08?

remember, the objective here is not to win an election, but to send the loudest pro-LIBERTY message to DC we can to get those anti-Constitutional bureaucrats nervous!

this is a MAJOR window of opportunity for the greater liberty movement — i pray my fellow pro-LIBERTY rEVOLutionists will not blow it!

bernard baruch carman

blakmira says:

June 24th, 2008 at 1:52 am (#)

There’s quite a large section of neo-Libertarians that are anti-Ron Paul. Bob Barr is head of the neo-Libertarians. His hand-picked VP Root is a flat-out war-supporting neocon.

It’s just disgraceful the way Barr is trying to ride the coat tails of the Ron Paul Revolution as if he deserves anywhere near the same respect and trust. His shilling trolls are relentless and disrespectful towards Ron Paul and his supporters on all the forums. No thanks.

Chuck Baldwin doesn’t leave a bad taste in my mouth like former CIA member Barr and his neo-Libertarian party, so I’ll be choosing him since Ron Paul will not be an option.

Third Party Watch » Blog Archive » In defense of Bob Barr says:

June 24th, 2008 at 9:22 am (#)

[...] Maven takes on the seven most common complaints by some libertarians about Bob Barr—you know, he voted for the Patriot Act, etc. As for the [...]