New at Reason

February 14, 2007

In his column from our March issue, Dave Weigel looks at Bob Barr's transformation to a "Big-L" Libertarian.

Comments

|2.14.07 @ 3:51PM|#

"It's an unusual juxtaposition," says Ethan Nadelmann, the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Here's someone who seems to hold deep libertarian principles, but he has a blind spot a mile wide on the drug war."

It's not completely clear how big the blind spot is these days. In a late December interview with the Phoenix-based radio host Charles Goyette, Barr said he was "very supportive of the concept of legitimate testing for the use of medical marijuana" and "disappointed that the government has stood in the way of that"; he also indicated that states should be allowed to determine their own policies regarding the medical use of cannabis.

So, am I to assume that nobody from Reason attended the Debate between Nadelmann and Barr on January 18 in DC? Did this debate even occur? Neither Barr nor the DPA have released a PR statement about it.

Warren|2.14.07 @ 4:02PM|#

Sweeeeeet mystery of life, at last I've found you!

mw|2.14.07 @ 4:04PM|#

At least Barr is one more adult among the cap-"L"'s.

Not enough, but perhaps a step in the right direction.

I still hold that the path to libertarians actually affecting policy is to first establish some sort of documented political coordination/organization/self-awareness around the "libertarian swing vote" discussed at Cato. Quoting myself:

"Whatever the percentage of the electorate that libertarians represent, whether it is 9% or 20%, if they vote as a block ... they immediately become the brokers of an evenly split partisan electorate. They arguably become the single most most potent voting block in the country, specifically because they are willing to vote either Democratic or Republican as a block. Specifically because they are not fused to one party or the other."

link

|2.14.07 @ 4:13PM|#

"Don't let the door hit you [on the way out]," wrote David Hogberg at the website of The American Spectator, a conservative magazine where Barr is a contributing editor.

A link would be nice.

|2.14.07 @ 4:23PM|#

A link would be nice.

Ask and ye shall receive. December 18, near the bottom of the page.

Larry A|2.14.07 @ 9:09PM|#

"People are free to do what they want to do," Bartlett wrote in his syndicated column, "and if they want to join the Libertarians, that's their business. But if their goal is to actually change policy in a libertarian direction, then they are making a big mistake."

Wow. Irony alert. "People are free to do what they want to do," is the Libertarian policy Bartlett doesn't want us to go toward.

|2.15.07 @ 10:16AM|#

He was a big "L" loser before he transformed into a big L Libertarian. Remind me again why we the party would want him now? I see it as another politician pretty much washed up and out making his way back via another groups ideas. Why would anyone want to send Barr up as the Rep is beyond me. Yeah lets give him another chance to lead since his ideas were so great before. Now he has seen the light of his mistakes and wishes to make good now right?

Nothing will change until all the professional politicians are sent home. After a certain amount of time you have to look at them as the true problem and lacking any real solutions.

Yippee, yippee he says what you want to hear now all praise Barr. I can see the campaign ads now, Vote for the new 3rd choice formerly known as one of the only two choices.

|2.18.07 @ 7:53PM|#

The point is well taken that the real shooting war in Iraq (and the attendant War on Terror) provides the primary impetus for restricting our liberties these days -- far eclipsing the War on Drugs -- and many people rightly see that as the truth. So, why shouldn't we link arms with them for now, whether or not they agree with our opposition to the Drug War? The same rhetorical tools we use to impeach the Middle Eastern war will work to impeach the Drug War, once the way is clear for that issue to return to its former position as "Enemy of Liberty #1." For now, let's all link together to stop this war and make similar wars impossible in the near future. In the meantime, take notes about the process used to dissolve the administration's arguments in support of the war, and use that process as a template to dissove support for the Drug War, which itself is built on lies and squanders lives and resources with nothing good to show for it.

If we can win the fight against the War on Iraq/Terror, we'll be the "Good Guys," holding positions of power and influence that will make it all the easier to press and win the case on the Drug War.

What we must guard against is the repudiation of our opposition to the Drug War while we are investing so much time and energy in ending the "real" war. We want to be able to segue smoothly and quickly into ending the Drug War as soon as the "real" war is over, and before the news cycles become dominated by some other crisis de jour.