Bob Barr Nominated At LP Convention

So Bob Barr got the LP's nomination at their most recent convention. There is a lot of dirt on this man from a libertarian perspective, ranging from his past support for the drug war and actually being the author of the defense of marriage act. Like all political oppurtunists, he has claimed to have changed his position since then in order to appease the demands of his consistuency. Like all political oppurtunists, this does not mean that he is sincere or that he does not still hold to those positions or would not support them pragmatically.

In the two-party system, politicians usually move (I.E. flip-flop or oppurtunistically change their position) towards "the center" in order to get more support. In the libertarian party, politicians usually move to a more radical position (rhetorically, that is) in order to shy away from their blatantly unlibertarian or even anti-libertarian past. In the case of "Big L" libertarians, this is usually in the conservative direction (their past, that is).

To me, this just proves what I've been trying to tell libertarians for a long time: that the movement is being infiltrated by conservatives and that the party is a waste of time that becomes less principled each year. The libertarian party has become little more than a mini-GOP that some old disguntled conservatives have flocked to out of disillusionment with the Republicans and neoconservatives.

On the other hand, with people like Mary Ruwart aside, the closest thing to a libertarian "left" within the party now is Mike Gravel, who isn't even a libertarian at all in the philosophical sense. Not only is the LP being infiltrated by conservatives, but the "left-wing" of the libertarian party is essentially non-existant. Since I'm a "left-libertarian", this makes me dislike the party even more. 

While I'm not in favor of the party or political strategies at all, putting myself in a cost-benefit analysis mindset for a moment, Mary Ruwart was probably the best option presented (even though she's been chided by the conservative elements of the movement for her position on/against the age of consent, which really should not be controversial at least within libertarian circles). She did get close at first but Barr moved past her by the end of the convention.

If the moral of the story hasn't been made clear to libertarians by now, I don't know what else will get through to them. Clearly the LP and electoral politics in general has not been, is not and never will be a meaningful strategy for liberty. It is has proved to be counterproductive time and time again. Each year, the Libertarian Party waters itself down more and more. Political libertarianism is a cosmic joke.

Published Mon, May 26 2008 9:06 AM by Brainpolice
Filed under: , , , ,

Comments

# Brad Spangler said on 26 May, 2008 11:02 AM

Another way of looking at the age of consent issue is to note that as a political libertarian, Ruwart was essentially crippling her own ability to respond. Because political agendas necessarily focus on what the course of state policy suypposedly ought to be, anarcho-reformists have difficulty pointing to potential private law mechanisms addressing such concerns as child abuse or animal cruelty.

Although it may not be what they intend, the incrementalist is commonly regarded by the public (to the extent they are noticed at all) as endorsing wholly and only the specific change(s) they are explicitly advocating. The true anarchist only need defend anarchy. The partyarch has a plethora of incremental stages of purportedly progressively reduced statism to defend. As statism is incoherent, so to is the reformer of statism.

# Brainpolice said on 26 May, 2008 11:34 AM

I'm a bit dissapointed with Roderick Long's position on this, since he has been essentially endorsing Ruwart. I just don't understand why he's surprised at the way that this has turned out. He says that he's generally in favor of counter-economic or social means over the political process but he still holds on to a tiny bit of faith in politics.

# Cork said on 26 May, 2008 02:23 PM

"I'm a bit dissapointed with Roderick Long's position on this, since he has been essentially endorsing Ruwart. I just don't understand why he's surprised at the way that this has turned out. He says that he's generally in favor of counter-economic or social means over the political process but he still holds on to a tiny bit of faith in politics."

I can't speak for Long, but I like following the LP just for the hell of it.  I think it is (or was) a great educational vehicle.  I know you and Brad will disagree, but if it wasn't for the LP, I sure as hell would have never heard of libertarianism.  

It was through the LP that I found Harry Browne, then Rockwell, then Rothbard, and so on.  I would still be a conservative (not the "Jerry Falwell" kind, but the "South Park" kind) if no Libertarian Party existed.  I simply would have never known that any such philosophy even existed.  

I do agree with your post, though.  The nomination of a right-wing maniac like Barr is sickening.  His campaign slogan should be "Barr 2008: Picking up Where Hitler Left Off."

# Nitroadict said on 26 May, 2008 04:17 PM

If the LP changed their name to "The New Conservatives Party", I would have hardly any qualms about them, as they wouldn't be bastardizing libertarianism any longer.  

Then you wonder what the fuss is whenever someone brings up "hijacking" "conservatives" in the same sentence with some libertarians & an-caps, concerning the libertarian party.  

If the object was to divide libertarians, it sure as hell looks like it was successful; you've got mis-guided fools running around defending the corporations because it's a result of the "free market", as long as government can't coerce it'll be fine, etc. etc.

I'm sure the conservatives are sitting back in their chairs, sipping their brandy, saying "The circle is now complete".

I'm very glad I was able to see the iceberg before hopping onto the LP Titanic.

# Brad Spangler said on 26 May, 2008 09:07 PM

@Cork

re: "if it wasn't for the LP, I sure as hell would have never heard of libertarianism"

Bullshit.

You need to apply the lessons contained in Bastiat's "What is seen and what is not seen" to the particular case of the libertarian movement.

www.econlib.org/.../basEss1.html

# Cork said on 26 May, 2008 10:20 PM

Whatever.  I'm just giving my own experience.  The LP, despite the terrible direction it has taken in the last few years, was my "gateway" to finding everything else.  Most people could give a rat's ass about reading 19th century essays by a guy named "Molinari" to find out what he's all about (even if they somehow came across them).  That's why even a small media campaign can have educational/recruiting value.

# Brainpolice said on 27 May, 2008 06:52 AM

I think the problem, cork, is that as an "educational vehicle" the LP simply introduces people more to the WORD libertarianism than the quality ideas. Sure, as they explore more they may stumble onto more quality ideas, but as I see it the LP spreads a very dilluted messages that doesn't sound that different from the GOP's platform. "Limited government", "less taxes", "personal responsibility" and so on. It may recruit more people into the libertarian movement, but often at the expense of sound libertarian ideas.

# Brainpolice said on 27 May, 2008 06:54 AM

Brad: Funny, I made a youtube video a while back making a "what is seen and not seen" analogy with respect to political libertarianism.

www.youtube.com/watch

# Brad Spangler said on 27 May, 2008 01:04 PM

Great video. I was just making the more general point that even if someone's introduction to libertarianism was by other libertarians working through the libertarian party, all that shows is what we already know -- that many libertarians have worked through the LP as the vehicle they have chosen for their activism.

Pointing out that the LP is the choice many have made does nothing to refute the contention that other potential avenues for libertarian activism -- the path not previously taken -- could have been more effective if they had been chosen.

I believe this parallels what Bastiat was talking about in terms of economics -- the effects of government spending are readily able to be pointed to, but what people might have otherwise done with their own money can not be shown. It can only be deduced, and even that only approximately.

When someone says "if not for the LP, I would have never heard of libertarianism", it's as similarly fallacious as saying "If not for food stamps, we would have starved".

# Cork said on 27 May, 2008 09:02 PM

"When someone says "if not for the LP, I would have never heard of libertarianism", it's as similarly fallacious as saying "If not for food stamps, we would have starved"."

Well, I was never very politically motivated.  Many people aren't.  People don't just sit down at the computer and go "yessirree, I'm going to sit here all day and read up on on every political theory out there, on the off chance I'll find something good."

Most people don't give a *** about Bastiat or any of these other old dead thinkers.  They don't care about obscure pamphlets sitting around the internet.  They're more likely to learn about something if it reaches *them,* through the media.

# Nitroadict said on 28 May, 2008 02:43 AM

"People don't just sit down at the computer and go "yessirree, I'm going to sit here all day and read up on on every political theory out there, on the off chance I'll find something good."

Most people don't give a *** about Bastiat or any of these other old dead thinkers.  They don't care about obscure pamphlets sitting around the internet.  They're more likely to learn about something if it reaches *them,* through the media."

This is grossly generalized & doesn't account for variables: how long do certain individuals use computers, for what purposes, are they open-minded to alternative apolitical & political thought, etc. etc. etc.

Is this not part of the educational campaign required for the ideas to flourish; the idea of others discussing with others, instead of simply referring them to texts by "old dead thinkers", and saying "Good day then" ?

The excuse that most people "don't give a ***" about Bastiat is hardly a good enough reason to let these supposedly unreachable apathetic individuals to  continue playing political checkers with the Statists while being robbed blind & taken advantage of in the process.  

It takes more than just text to communicate ideas, it takes debate, discourse, effort & time.  

If you can't boil down something Bastiat might have said into something easier for a "Joe Six Pack" to understand in a given situation where education is possible on the part of that person, continually trying never hurts, methinks.

# Junker said on 30 May, 2008 11:01 AM

Gang warfare colors all human existence.

NATO v Warsaw Pact.

Demos v Repubs.

Hatfields v McCoys.

The LP is an already formed gang, and thus it has all the trappings of a gang-form: meetings, news, contributions, media-space, big names, etc. Success brings new gang members. Even mediocre success.

Libertarian or individualists don't gang well. They need to learn. Both standard grouping-- clubs and such-- and non-standard networking.

> It takes more than just text to communicate ideas, it takes debate, discourse, effort & time.  

It takes f2f as well. Not for explanation, but for social reinforcement-- the smiles, the at-a-boys, etc. And that is key to group building whether meeting groups or ideology groups.

See behaviorism for clues. Forget their "no free will" shtick. It's in their methodology just as "free will" is in Aust Econ's. It doesn't mean their results are invalid, but rather just bounded in certain ways.

And note that "ideology groups" are part of the idea war, the home ground of blogsters.

# Rich Paul said on 05 September, 2008 03:01 PM

I am saddened that there are so many who are willing to cease working in any meaningful way for freedom because the LP nominee does not want to go as far as they do.

It rather reminds me of the Life of Brian:  "We're the Judean People's Front!  The only people we hate more than the Romans the the People's Front of Judea!".

Does Barr want the US Government to be as small as I want the US Government to be?  No.  He could reach his destination, and I'd still want to keep going.

The questions to ask yourself are these:

Q) Does Bob Barr want to significantly shrink government?

A) Yes.

Q) Is there any area in which Bob Barr is arguing for MORE government.

A) No.  Possibly debatable wrt immigration, but I'm more concerned about having more legislation than enforcement of existing legislation.  An unenforced law is like a trap:  you can't see it until you annoy the wrong cop.

Q) Does Bob Barr get the message out that the Libertarian Party exists, that it wants to shrink Government, that it is anti-war, that it is pro-privacy, that it is anti-police-state, and that it is anti-Socialist?

A) Yes.

Q) Is Bob Barr the best and most electable candidate who does not argue for GROWING government in any direction?

A) Yes.

Some may challenge my assertion that electoral politics are the only kind that matter.  How can I say that?

Very simple.  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and Mao was right when he said "Political power flows from the barrel of a gun".  If we are ever to have a chance to effect change, we must get at least some representation in the system controls the military.  Otherwise, civil disobediance will be met with mass imprisonment and/or slaughter.

Bob Barr will bring many people into the Libertarian movement who may not have come.  Some of them may continue to think conservatively, and leave the party when we nominate our next candidate.  Some of them will not.  The question is, are the principaled, consistent Libertarians going to be out there meeting them and arguing for their ideas, or will they be hiding in basements, preaching to the choir, and looking forwards to more decades of failure to come.