Liberty MavenRon Paul Libertarian Purist Hypocrisy On Bob Barr
September 16th, 2008 2:24 am | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Activism, Bob Barr, Election, Libertarianism, Liberty, Maven Commentary, Politics, Ron Paul | 11 Responses
Ever since Bob Barr won the Libertarian Party nomination for President the purist Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters have been crying foul. They called Barr an opportunist. They called him a “neocon”. They accused him of trying to hijack the party. They blamed him for having worked for the CIA. Most of all they blamed him for his anti-libertarian voting record while in Congress. Barr’s refusal to appear at Ron Paul’s press conference where he urged people to vote for anyone but McBama was the icing on the cake.
The Barr critics claimed it was proof of their previous accusations. The reality is the only thing the purist libertarian Barr critics have proven is that they themselves are hypocritical. Either that, or their criticism of Barr is clouded by what they think of his personality rather than the positions he takes on the issues.
I don’t find Barr particularly likable myself, but I do find myself in agreement with him on about 85% of the issues. That is about 60% more than I can say about the other candidates in the race except for Chuck Baldwin. I have other reasons for not supporting Baldwin.
The same people who claimed that Barr was not Libertarian enough are now condemning him for actually taking a stand for the Libertarian Party. His decision (or more accurately his campaign manager’s decision) to not appear along side Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Chuck Baldwin was a poor one. However his stated reasoning for doing so was based on principle. I suppose the reason wasn’t good enough for the purists who didn’t trust him from the beginning. It was almost as if they were licking their chops waiting for a reason to condemn Barr, but what did Barr actually do?
He ignored the political fallout and stood alone in an attempt to show that the Libertarian Party’s nominee was not willing to compromise on principle. Isn’t that what the purists wanted from him to begin with? Instead they focus on the politics of the matter or the supposed “embarrassment” it caused. Isn’t this at least slightly hypocritical?
These are the same principled libertarian purists who have stood up and argued for the very same ideas Bob Barr is spreading in his campaign. Instead of focusing on the message they focus on their dislike of the man.
My favorite line from Barr in a recent interview is: “The Libertarian Party is not a debating society, it is a legitimate political party”. Well, with the reaction of the purists to the snub of Ron Paul and their continued baseless accusations I’m afraid Barr’s claim is just wishful thinking at this point.
Loading ...
September 16th, 2008 at 5:31 am (#)
.his stated reasoning for doing so was based on principle.
principle?
Here are few examples of the LP’s standard bearer’s principles:
Barr is the founder and principle of “Liberty Strategies” a lobbying firm whose capabilities statement reads as any other big government lobbying firm claiming contacts on both sides of the aisle in the US and foreign countries as well, including military. (I assume all these people are non-statist libertarians who do not believe in governmental force?) http://www.libertystrategies.org/default.asp?pt=doc&doc=capab&np=0
“As president I will ensure that federal law enforcement agencies set a good example for the rest of the country,”
“in the short run” we should provide “tax incentives” for oil companies to explore.
Barr goes to court to demand entry into Saddleback Church
“The Bush administration deserves credit for having done much to disable al Qaeda as an effective terrorist organization.”
“Global warming is a myth.”
Bob Barr praised Al Gore on Thursday for his commitment to addressing climate change and said he has met with the former vice president several times to discuss possible solutions. “There obviously is a role for government,” (he also said that there was roles for “private industry”, “nonprofits “ and “the American people, individually and collectively.”
“The entire South American continent has long chafed under the benign neglect of one U.S. administration after another.”
“While Washington’s current national security worldview remains focused like a laser beam on Iraq and Afghanistan, fires smolder and burn elsewhere. Shifting at least a portion of that concern and those resources to South America, and especially to the Andean region that currently is near the boiling point, is critical to our security. ”
“Recognizing Colombia’s essential role in our country’s campaign against illicit trafficking in cocaine, the Bush administration and prior Congresses have responded to Mr. Uribe’s efforts by funding “Plan Colombia” to the tune over its seven-year lifespan of more than $5.0 billion. While critics interpret the fact that Colombian-processed cocaine stills arrives in our country as evidence Plan Colombia should be defunded or dramatically reduced, in reality this support for Colombia’s efforts will continue as an essential component of our anti-drug program. If Congress truly wants the plan work better, the solution would be not to dry up funding but to provide more flexibility for its implementation.”
“To the west, Ecuador’s leaders, too, are taking steps against U.S. interests, such as declaring that the agreement allowing American anti-drug and intelligence-gathering planes to operate out of the airbase at Manta will not be renewed when it expires in 2009. Colombia’s southwestern neighbor — Peru — also is watching closely how well President Uribe fares in convincing the Congress to provide meaningful economic and military assistance at this juncture.”
“A Uribe administration strengthened by renewed American anti-drug assistance and a Free Trade Agreement — the other key component of U.S.-Colombian shared interests sought by Mr. Uribe — will not likely result in a complete turnaround of regional anti-American actions and sentiment. But it definitely would stanch the bleeding. These days that would constitute a major victory.”
“Positive steps could include strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran.”
“Should Washington simply sit back and leave Iran alone — free to support terrorist groups and regimes in other countries, including Iraq, and to develop a nuclear capability? Of course not. Even considering that our lengthy and continuing occupation of Iraq has greatly strengthened Ahmadinejad, the United States has a clear and legitimate stake in what happens in Iran and with regard to matters in which that regime is involved elsewhere.”
And since you mention Ron Paul, why don’t compare the libertarian positions in both Dr. Paul’s and Bob Barr’s voting Records?
Robert Laurence ‘Bob’ Barr Jr.
Representative Ronald Ernest ‘Ron’ Paul (TX)
September 16th, 2008 at 5:49 am (#)
People can tell when someone is lying to them. Can’t you tell the difference between a used car dealer and a friend? I can. Bob Barr is a used car salesman and nothing will change that. We don’t believe him because he is not believable. He hedges on answers, he avoids the tough questions, he tries to make every statist happy with his responses. Oh yes I am a libertarian, but I am willing to work with all statists because it is foolish to take too hard a stance. You do have to get things done after all. It is important to play politics.
Well, Ron Paul supporters don’t think so. We have a man with a 20+ year voting record. He has been right about everything (see the upcoming crash of the American financial markets) and Barr thinks he can just sneak in and be better than Paul?
Who the hell does Barr think he is? His arrogance is laughable and it is sad how poorly he is representing the libertarian party. I half expect him to say that slavery should come back. I think he would if he thought it would get him votes.
Barr is not spreading any real message. It is hard to explain, but in every comment the underlying tone is that the government should fix it. Fill in the blank for the word it. That is not libertarian. That is a pure statist. One who believes the state should take all of your money, give you some back and run your life. Listen for it. It is there, underlying all of his words. You may not hear it if you are not trained to recognize it. It takes a while. But once you have taken the blinders off, it is impossible to miss.
Being a libertarian means thinking outside the box. It means taking all you learned in school and throwing it out the window. Then re-learning and doing lots of studying. Once you are out from under the hypnotic spell, you begin to see the truth. You understand why markets fail, why Socialism cannot work, why programs designed to help the poor actually hurt them. You also recognize a snake trying to pretend to be a libertarian.
Bob Barr hasn’t learned enough libertarian principles to fool us. Oh, he has some rhetoric down, but he doesn’t understand why he is supposed to say those words. So, he relies on his statist teachings as the basis for his new found morals. It is like watching a tiger try to tell you he is a vegetarian.
I hope that helps explain why he is failing so badly. He is smarmy and we feel it. He tells you what you want to hear and we feel the insincerity. He knows nothing about libertarian principles and that comes through loud and clear.
I would have liked to like him. I was a libertarian long before I was a Ron Paul supporter. I have voted libertarian for decades. I will not vote for Barr. I would rather have Bush. The devil you know beats the devil you don’t. With Bush I know he will stab me in the back, with Barr, I wouldn’t necessarily see it coming. Worse, he is making people think that HE is a libertarian. No one could hurt the party more.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:19 am (#)
I said nothing against him and actually planned to vote for him (even though I thought he was far too evasive in his answers on interventionist foreign policy, and could vote Obama and get someone who speaks, but doesn’t vote against the Patriot Act). Until the press conference, where he didn’t ‘decide to go’ but confirmed he would go, got into all press releases of the event, then elected to generate more press for himself by not showing up when his name was on the announcements, and having notice of his immediately following separate press conference handed out to attendees of Ron Paul’s.
Note I don’t use his name, and hereafter, on the internet, I won’t.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:13 am (#)
I agree with your sentiment, but I disagree with is your statement that “His decision (or more accurately his campaign manager’s decision) to not appear along side Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Chuck Baldwin was a poor one.”
I think was a great decision. Ron Paul, God bless him, is the one that made the poor decision to help socialist candidates get votes. I would expect a candidate who stands up for liberty to not want to take in part that attrocity.
I’m curious why you say you don’t find Bob Barr likeable. Or are you just trying to be apologetic for defending Barr?
September 16th, 2008 at 10:56 am (#)
Paige,
I think it was a poor political decision. He agreed to attend and then chose not to show up once it was clear what Ron Paul’s intentions were with the press conference. I think he should have appeared and then immediately distanced himself from the others, especially the socialists.
I don’t find Barr likable. He comes off to me as a true politician, a bit slimy. That is a large reason I think people are railing against him. They try to justify it by pointing to his voting record. They ignore the fact that he has denounced his voting record. They also try to paint him as some neocon… which is completely ridiculous if you look at the issues page on his website.
The bottom line is they don’t “trust” him. That is a valid argument, but they rarely use it. Instead they use a campaign decision to not appear with socialists as the impetus to try to get him removed as the nominee? To me it just seems “personal” instead of pragmatic.
If you remove Bob Barr’s name from his issues page and replace it with “Candidate A” I’m betting close to 100% of the purist faithful would be supporting him.
-Marc
September 16th, 2008 at 1:05 pm (#)
Hi, Marc!
I have expressed my opinion before on Barr’s decision not to join Ron Paul and the other third party candidates in proclaiming jointly their support for the four point platform. I haven’t changed my opinion.
But when you write of “libertarian purists”, I don’t see why you associate them with Ron Paul, other than that they would like to associate themselves with him. I have met and talked with such purists as Mary Ruwart and George Phillies, and I find them less likeable and less like Ron Paul than I do Bob Barr, whom I met and talked with on the same occasion. Barr believes in the federal principle of the Constitution, which is far better than the libertarian purists, and it is the federalist principle, together with the noninterventionist principle, that can allow the Libertarian Party to expand beyond its pure libertarian roots. But Ron Paul is also a states rights constitutionalist, putting him far closer to Barr than these purists. And I’ve never read of Ron Paul criticizing Bob Barr, at least publicly, in the way of the Libertarians who resent the loss of control of their party.
I wish that Bob Barr were more strongly committed to the non-interventionist principle, as is Ron Paul, because I think that is the issue that will so set him apart from the Democrats and Republicans to make him a magnet to the greatest number of dissident voters. But I am glad he can make common cause with “socialists” and others who have different agendas on those occasions when they support certain things we both want. This is what made Bob Barr a good congressman, and, unlike most third party candidates, commends him as a candidate for President seriously to be considered by the general voter.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:19 pm (#)
wrdalton, “what made Bob Barr a good congressman”
This is good? Robert Laurence ‘Bob’ Barr Jr.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:39 pm (#)
This is a list of a lot of votes cast by Congressman Barr, FLPM, and they aren’t summarized, except by the ranking given him by a variety of PAC’s. In general, Bob Barr voted against Federal spending and Federal regulation, which is consonant with both libertarian and states’ rights principles. Since he left Congress, Barr have moved leftwards on such issues as war and drug control, which has made him even more of a libertarian and brought him more in league with those who favor the Constitution’s reservation of most powers of government in the states. (Neo-confederates and other paleocons are notorious for being opposed to the war in Iraq and other Middle East military commitments.) Bob Barr not only represents the best and strongest parts of both the libertarian and paleocon positions, but he has a record of leadership in Congress – the confidence reposed in him by fellow party members in Congress – to make him a credible candidate for President. The mainstream can dismiss Ron Paul as a kook who always stood alone in most of his Congressional battles. Not so with Bob Barr, who not only led the impeachment of Bill Clinton for his abuses of the powers of the Presidency, but has not been shy to say that George W. Bush is even more deserving of the same treatment.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:43 am (#)
I’m very tired of all the anti-Barr nonsense myself. I’m even more tired of all the super-acerbic self-righteous judgmentalism from libertarians who seem to work tirelessly to defeat any liberty candidate that runs.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:31 pm (#)
Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN, he is not a member of a third party. The fact that Dr. Paul is pushing votes for a socialist and someone like Nader is crazy. Its great that those two candidates agree with Dr. Paul on some basic issues, but to tell people to vote for them is defeating the cause. Except for Barr, those other candidates were pandering for Ron Paul votes, end of story. If Ron Paul didn’t get all the online money and votes those other candidates would not waste their time.
I do NOT think Barr should have showed up in retrospect.
The press conference meant and did absolutely nothing, and the proof is in the pudding. Everyones supporters went their own way, the movement was diffused and we are where we started pre-Ron Paul 2007.
I have to ask, do you really think that if Barr showed up to Ron Paul’s non-endorsement press conference it would have helped the cause? I don’t think so, it would have been the same old diffused ending.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:43 pm (#)
“He ignored the political fallout and stood alone in an attempt to show that the Libertarian Party’s nominee was not willing to compromise on principle.” I’m just curious as to where this principle was when he initially agreed to take part. He knew the other candidates would be there. Far as I can tell he initially agreed in the hope that he could get Ron Paul to run as his Vice President, ignoring his “principles” if he got what he wanted. When Ron refused to run with him, his “principles” kicked in and he changed his mind. Barr’s principles aren’t consistent.