Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Bob Barr's Competition
While Chuck Baldwin issues his appeals to the right wing of the Ron Paul movement, another presidential candidate is pitching himself to the Ron Paul left. On Friday, Ralph Nader released a response to Paul's withdrawal from the presidential race. Here's an excerpt:
Now that Dr. Paul has formally withdrawn his candidacy for the G.O.P. nomination and is no longer seeking the Presidency, there is a clear choice for those who want to support a candidate who will stand up against the war and stand up for personal liberties and privacy that have been trampled by the notorious, misnamed, PATRIOT Act.
Bonus link: Way back in 1962, Nader wrote an article for the libertarian magazine The Freeman. It was reprinted in reason about a decade later, making Nader -- now that Paul is out -- the one reason contributor in the running. Make of that what you will.
Update: Whoops! I forgot about Barr's contribution to our pages. Scroll down to see it.
Pablo Escobar|6.15.08 @ 12:08AM|#
Chuck and Bob just don't get it. In their blatant attempt to
lure Ron Paul supporters, they forget what attracts people to Ron
in the first place.
It's the fact that he doesn't say one thing and do another (i.e.
his voting record). It's the fact that he practices what he
preaches (e.g. refusing a Congressional pension, returning money to
the Treasury). I don't know much about Chuck, but unfortunately for
Bob, pretending you suddenly love the Constitution and are opposed
to the PATRIOT Act despite voting for it, means nothing to Paul
supporters looking for an honest, consistent leader. It's the trust
factor, more than the issues.
|6.15.08 @ 12:28AM|#
If contributing to Reason is being used to solicit votes, I'll vote for the first candidate who says, if elected, he'll appoint Radley Balko as Attorney General.
|6.15.08 @ 1:00AM|#
Mister DNA | June 15, 2008, 12:28am | #
If contributing to Reason is being used to solicit votes, I'll vote for the first candidate who says, if elected, he'll appoint Radley Balko as Attorney General.
I second that!
Jesse Walker|6.15.08 @ 1:54AM|#
He contributed an article to this symposium.
He also contributed to a forum on the drug war in the late '80s,
but that one isn't online.
There may have been other pieces as well, but those are the two
that come to mind.
Matt Moore|6.15.08 @ 2:39AM|#
I love Balko as much as the next guy, but can we get some love for Ron Bailey as head of the EPA?
Apaulogist|6.15.08 @ 3:15AM|#
Nader wants to use the government as a weapon against the
corporations. He doesn't hate state power- he just thinks it's in
the wrong hands.
I really am not a Tolkien fan, but we need to take the fucking ring
and throw it into Mount Doom or something. Nader won't do that.
Franklin Harris|6.15.08 @ 3:31AM|#
Having contributed to both Reason and The Freeman, I hereby announce my candidacy for president of the United States. I will appoint Ron Bailey as head of the EPA, Radley Balko as attorney general, Ron Paul as treasury secretary (because that will be too much fun to pass up), and Tyler Cowen as head of either the NEA or NPR. Please submit resumes for other positions.
Trevor|6.15.08 @ 6:01AM|#
Ron Paul supporters are tired and broke. We need at least 4 years to recover.
Wilkes&Freedom|6.15.08 @ 6:52AM|#
Radley for Att Gen. Wow! that is a rad idea. But sadly in a perfect world.
Wilkes&Freedom|6.15.08 @ 7:37AM|#
Nader, Baldwin, Nader, Baldwin, Nader, Baldwin, oh yeah
Barr.
doesn't matter: it's the anti-vote. Better than not voting at all.
Better to show up somewhere on the radar so the pundits can talk
about how you screwed everything up.
Certainly better than casting for Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama.
Nice passive citation to Reason's Mr. Welch on the MSM piece on
McCain and his 'War College' paper. Interesting take on the head of
a possible future head.
|6.15.08 @ 7:51AM|#
I was attracted by Ron Paul because he advocates a rapid
withdrawal from Iraq, doesn't favor higher taxes and more
government spending, and holds a plausible public office for
seeking the Presidency. The fact that he seemed like a genuinely
nice guy in our two brief meetings was just icing. His long record
of consistent support for his peculiar version of libertarianism
was not a major concern of mine. His campaign certainly beat my
expectations.
I now support Bob Barr. While is is only a former Congressman, he
meets the key criterion. He advocates a rapid withdrawl from Iraq
and does not advocate increases in taxes and government spending.
His record as a mainstream conservative Congressman (5 years ago,)
doesn't concern me much. But then, as a member of a minority
political perspective, I am always looking for people to come to
their senses, and see the light.
Oddly enough, Barr was always relatively good on civil liberties
issues and this, including the Patriot Act, was the wedge that
moved him from mainstream conservative Republican ex-Congressman to
moderate Libertarian.
He voted for the Patriot Act after demanding and receiving
concessions in the bill, as well as oral guarantees from the
leaders of what was, his team, about the uses of the act. Such
compromises and trust of mainstream conservative Republican leaders
(like Cheney and Bush,) is not the libertarian way. As Ron Paul
did, you criticize and vote No.
As Barr explains, the sunset provisions did little good. Even after
the heat of the moment, Congress was willing to sacrifice the Bill
of Rights. And the oral guarantees meant nothing.
In 2006, Barr debated an official of the Reagain administration
before an audience of conservative activists. In the eyes of these
conservative activists, Barr's support of traditional Consitutional
principles was nothing more than coddling the terrorists.
That year, 2006, Barr became a member of the LP, began serving as
the Southeast regional representative on the Libertarian National
Committee, and continued with heated denunciations of the
Cheney/Woo theory of Presidential royalism.
I don't believe that Barr's view of civil liberties changed that
much. What happened is that he realized that what had been, "his
team," was not concerned about something that was important to
him.
Many, and maybe most, libertarians are introduced by some wedge
issue. A common path is for someone to consider themselves a
conservative Republican. Then, they are betrayed. For many, it was
some kind of Republican compromise on gun rights. For others, it is
a tax hike. Soon, they are libertarians, and all of the
big-government
conservative ideas that somehow seemed reasonable are now seen to
be inconsistent with what they had aways understood to be their
core, small-government, view of what it means to be a conservative
Republican.
Barr is only unusual in that it was civil liberties, what is
generally considered a left-liberal issue, that was the
wedge.
Anyway, Barr's message is great. His bad votes are more than five
years ago at this point. He is the best person to carry forward Ron
Paul's message in November.
Nader, the big-government advocate, is a nonstarter. (Yes, he has
decades of _consistent_ opposition to the free market. Great..that
is supposed to be a good thing?) And Baldwin, former leader of the
Florida moral majority, is running as the candidate of a theocratic
party on a program of extreme trade protection, a national ban on
abortion, and more than a little conspiracy mongering.
Anyone who wants to show support for the core Paul message of
withdrawal from Iraq, no war with Iran, smaller government, and
defence of civil liberties should be voting for Bob Barr.
Bob Barr 2008
Wilkes&Freedom|6.15.08 @ 7:53AM|#
Nader, the libertarian. Libertarian? Goddam what an
opportunist!
He likely midwifed Bush 2004. Is that what one would want on
his/her resume? Why does he persist?
To me the only thing he has ever successfully midwifed is the
parody laugh at that scene from 'Top Secret' where the
unsafe-at-any-speed erupts in flame at the mere kiss of a
fender-bender. But the Oscar goes to Abrams/Zucker on that.
Wilkes&Freedom|6.15.08 @ 8:03AM|#
Reason never sucks because it allows free and unfettered comment from the peanut gallery. I think that's the reason Reason-haters reason that it's OK to post here. Sounds reasonable to me.
|6.15.08 @ 8:40AM|#
Its about high time he withdrew. I was wondering if it would
ever happen.
JT
http://www.ULtimate-Anonymity.com
|6.15.08 @ 9:15AM|#
i really want to psych myself out to vote for barr but i'm having extreme reservations. 3rd party candidates are supposed to be available so you DON'T have to comprimise your principles. i could make myself ignore the patriot act vote (somewhat) and the impeaching clinton for a bj thing but the fact that he AUTHORED the defense of marriage act bugs me more then anything. a bad vote is a bad vote and can be ignored or not but the reality that he authored that crap makes it really hard for me to vote for the guy. if i vote for him it'll just be for the party, i guess. there's no way i'm voting for obama or mccain, i'm not voting for nader and this baldwin guy doesn't sound too appealing the more i hear about him. i voted for ron paul in the virginia primary and i'd love to vote for him again but i wanna vote for someone still running and people don't really count write ins so that dashes that. oh well...
|6.15.08 @ 9:20AM|#
Nader running to Paul's left? What a joke. I guess he is, but so is Obama, and McCain for that matter. Whatever. I think Barr is the clear choice for Ron Paul people who actually care about issues. If it was just a personality thing where you liked to hear Paul say outrageous things to shake things up, and absolutely refuse to participate in the system, then maybe you're out of luck. For me, it's the issues. Check out www.barrbomb.com.
|6.15.08 @ 10:00AM|#
I wouldn't vote for Nader if even the Holy Father instructed me
to vote for him. And thats a lot to say coming from me.
I will end up voting for Bob Barr. And have no issue with that what
so ever.
It's not just the war folks. It's the whole package that attracted
so many to Dr. Paul. Now granted a lot of hippies, 9/11 whack-jobs
and such jumped on board with him. But for the most part, he was a
Old Right Conservative. Sen. Robert Taft, Goldwater, and thoughts
great men, who shaped the old Republican party. That was my reason
for supporting him atleast.
|6.15.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Is it a god thing that suddenly all of these people are
pandering to the libertarian-leaning voters of this country? Sure,
right now it's only second- and third-rate candidates. But maybe
someday someone from Coke or Pepsi might want to throw us a
bone.
But who will be Court Jester?
Gillespie
Wilkes&Freedom|6.15.08 @ 11:33AM|#
A 3rd party vote is a vote against the mainstream. It is meaningful and meaningless at the same time. Take your pick or vote 3rd party on that as well.
|6.15.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Nader's about as libertarian as Mike Gravel was.
Still, maybe it says something good that so many people from both
the left and right feel the need to call themselves "libertarian"
and appeal to that type of people, even if they're not actually
libertarian.
Barr is far from perfect, but he's the best we had and I think he's
sincere. He can be the first step to pulling the LP out that .4%
gutter by making clear that it's not just a political church for
dogmatic anarchists. A political party is supposed to be a
coalition, and there's no reason a credible LP couldn't pull in
that 10-25% libertarian-leaning vote in a few election cycles and
become what it had the potential to be before the purge of '83
(which admittedly had plenty of blame to go around).
I'll vote for Barr.
|6.15.08 @ 11:53AM|#
Oh, and one more thing. The "Constitution Party" is the most misnamed political party since the old Federalists claimed the "Whig" title. "Theocracy Party" is more like it- they just happen to also have a hard-on for Federalism and anti-war isolationism (real, close the borders and don't trade with foreigners isolationism, not just libertarian non-interventionism).
|6.15.08 @ 12:20PM|#
Short version- Rothbard-types kicked out of the LP the Milton Friedman/CATO/reason types after Ed Clark (who had his flaws) had topped 1% of the vote in 1980 with a moderate left-libertarian message that pissed off all the hardcore anarcho-capitalists.
|6.15.08 @ 12:26PM|#
And I say that as some one who, ideologically, is halfway an anarcho-capitalist myself. But I think it's absurd to expect to get anything done without a broader libertarian coalition.
|6.15.08 @ 1:22PM|#
i really want to psych myself out to vote for barr but i'm
having extreme reservations. 3rd party candidates are supposed to
be available so you DON'T have to comprimise your
principles.
Third party candidates are there in case the major party candidates
suck so much that you'd throw up a little in your mouth voting for
either. No candidate is gonna be perfect, unless you personally run
for that office, and even then it's dicey.
Bob Barr is the best available alternative, and WAY better than
Obama or McCain. But, if you want to cast a protest vote for
another third party candidate since "none of the above" isn't on
the ballot -- well, good on ya, mate.
Jesse Walker|6.15.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Short version- Rothbard-types kicked out of the LP the
Milton Friedman/CATO/reason types after Ed Clark (who had his
flaws) had topped 1% of the vote in 1980 with a moderate
left-libertarian message that pissed off all the hardcore
anarcho-capitalists.
It was a walkout, not a purge. And it wasn't directly related to
the Clark campaign, though Clark was a precursor. The Cato crowd
(*) left the party after it chose to nominate David Bergland
instead of Earl Ravenal for the 1984 race.
(* Not Milton Friedman, who was a registered Republican, and not
the Reasoners, who in those days stood in their own portion of the
libertarian spectrum.)
|6.15.08 @ 1:28PM|#
Ah, ok. I was hazy on some of the details. But I know it's in general the split between the radical LP and the moderate libertarians who have largely had nothing to do with the LP since.
|6.15.08 @ 3:51PM|#
Jesse,
I read that as "Milton Friedman/Cato/Reason _types_.
So, that wouldn't be "Milton Friedman" himself, but rather
libertarians whose views come closer to those of Milton Friedman
than those of Murray Rothbard or Ayn Rand.
Similarly, I read "Reason-types" to be something akin to most of
today's writers in
Reason, or perhaps, the basic thrust of the
institution, not the people involved in Reason
in 1983.
And, of course, it really was people who were and remain close to
Cato who left the LP at the time. Still, there are many other
"Cato-
types," among libertarians.
The term "purge" is thrown around much too loosely. What really
happened is that it became clear that the LP would present a
radical message. Many of those who were more moderate, or else,
thought that the LP should present a more moderate image, gave up
on the LP.
|6.15.08 @ 3:56PM|#
Bill, you got the idea right, but I wasn't being too picky with
my wording.
And I agree "purge" is somewhat misleading. And to the radicals'
credit, most of them haven't taken their ball and gone home now
that the shoe's on the other foot. Though it's my understanding
they're also in a stronger position to continue to influence the
party than the moderates were in 1983.
Roger Maltz|6.15.08 @ 4:24PM|#
I wish I could support Baldwin with a similar enthusiasm that I
had hoped for Dr. Paul before the newsletter scandal. I love his
stances on the IRS, the Fed, and 2nd amendment, which make him more
or less on par with Barr, but I cannot get past his association
with Jerry Falwell. I am also wary of Chuck's position, or silence
on, drug prohibitions.
I believe that Chuck would probably be more aggressive than Barr on
issues that I care about most (IRS, Fed, Economy, Guns) and more
aggressive things on issues that I care much less about (abortion,
secure borders), Barr clearly has broader popular appeal.
This is a good year for 3rd parties though, because as the Obama
kool-aid wears off with time he's going to eat it hard, and McCain
is a beaten old man that makes moderate to hardcore conservatives
cringe and far less interested in the GOP ticket this year. It may
be possible that people will end up, once again, too freaked out to
"let" the Democrat win this year and will hold their noses at the
ballot box.
|6.15.08 @ 5:26PM|#
One of Baldwin's campaign positions on the economy is on
international trade. His position is extreme protectionism.
Ron Paul also ran on international trade, taking the controversial
position (among libertarians) against all free trade agreements,
like Nafta.
But Paul proposed replacing such agreements with unilateral free
trade. (A position generally supported by libertarian
economists.
The controversy is about whether the various trade agreements
actually negotiated are, on the whole, improvements relative to the
status quo.)
Baldwin also takes a position against free trade agreements, but
his proposed replacement is almost the exact opposite of
Paul's.
Baldwin is proposing to raise tariffs on imported goods based upon
the difference between the cost of production in the U.S. and the
place of origin. In other word, his policy is to prevent there from
being any cost advantage to imports. He describes this as "fair
trade," and advocates it as a way to protect American jobs.
By prohibiting the American people from from benefiting from
international comparative advantage, the result would be lower
incomes for the American people. It would "protect" (and create)
some jobs. But it would destroy other jobs.
So far, Barr is not making international trade into a campaign
issue. Before he received the LP nomination, Griswald posted a
criticism of Barr's record in Congress on the Cato blog.
No Name Guy|6.15.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Is there any country that has adopted unilateral free trade as policy?
Nobody for President|6.15.08 @ 5:43PM|#
Nobody for President beats all!
http://www.nobodyforpresident.org/
Signed,
Thane Eichenauer in a clown outfit
Jesse Walker|6.15.08 @ 6:38PM|#
Though it's my understanding they're also in a stronger
position to continue to influence the party than the moderates were
in 1983.
How much did the radicals influence the party after '84? From then
til now, the only LP presidential nominee who was arguably a
radical libertarian was Harry Browne.
|6.15.08 @ 7:44PM|#
Third party candidates are there in case the major party
candidates suck so much that you'd throw up a little in your mouth
voting for either. No candidate is gonna be perfect, unless you
personally run for that office, and even then it's dicey.
Bob Barr is the best available alternative, and WAY better than
Obama or McCain. But, if you want to cast a protest vote for
another third party candidate since "none of the above" isn't on
the ballot -- well, good on ya, mate.
i guess you're right. i've pretty much decided i'm voting for barr
recently but when i think about the things i don't like about him
it makes me wanna vomit.
Mad Max|6.15.08 @ 10:09PM|#
"the fact that [Barr] AUTHORED the defense of marriage act bugs
me more then anything."
So it seems that Barr is wedded [sorry] to the binary, man/woman
definition of marriage. In this respect he certainly has a lot of
company. I'm not just talking about the usual suspects, like the
Catholic Church and American evangelicals. This binary definition
was not only supported, but taken as a given, by quite a variety of
people, including the swishiest members of the aristocracy in pagan
Athens, the temple prostitutes of Phrygia, Tom Paine, Robert
Ingersoll and similar secularists, polygamists, and basically
everyone on the planet in all eras of history up until the past few
decades, in which support for this definition declined to only
about 95% of the human race.
If Bob Barr happens to agree with the *universal* belief of the
human race before, say, 1970, and the belief of 95% of the human
race since that date, then that is hardly a reason to oppose
Barr.
|6.15.08 @ 10:42PM|#
I hesitate to vote for Barr mainly because at about his last term in office he opposed allowing a Wiccan religious symbol on the gravestone of a soldier who was of said religion. I don't know what his views are on this issue now. What I do know is that if he hasn't changed his view on this simple civil-liberty, I will not vote for him even though I'm not Wiccan. I am pagan however.
|6.15.08 @ 11:31PM|#
I hesitate to vote for Barr mainly because at about his last
term in office he opposed allowing a Wiccan religious symbol on the
gravestone of a soldier who was of said religion. I don't
know what his views are on this issue now.
Perhaps before pontificating on the subject, some research would be
in order.
And I have to take issue with your idea that putting anything you
want on your headstone is some kind of fundamental "civil-liberty".
It's distasteful to deny Soldiers that final bit of reverence, but
it's not a civil liberty issue.
Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Citeau|6.15.08 @ 11:49PM|#
even though I'm not Wiccan. I am pagan however.
Kill 'em all, the Great Mother Godess will recognize her own.
Pablo Escobar|6.16.08 @ 8:17AM|#
Is there any country that has adopted unilateral free trade
as policy?
Yes, Australia. Australia unilaterally lowered tariffs three times
- 1973, 1988 and 1991.
Unilateral free trade is the quickest and most effective way of
achieving free trade. It totally negates the influence of big
corporations and big government because they aren't involved in
writing up trade agreements that favour their vested interests.
Naturally, this is precisely why politicians don't like Ron Paul's
idea of unilateral free trade and vote for fake free-trade
agreements like NAFTA.
What a shame some of the Cato Institute people actually think Dr
Paul is a protectionist because of his votes against corporate
trade agreements. But then again, it's always been known that Cato
scholars are somewhat 'mentally challenged' compared to the
Austrian economics crowd.
gasp|6.16.08 @ 8:20AM|#
"mentally challenged' compared to the Austrian economics
crowd"
*falls out of chair, giggling*
(clearly a commenter who's into talking points of one "school" and
at 79 level of the discipline)
Nigel Watt|6.16.08 @ 9:15AM|#
"mentally challenged' compared to the Austrian economics crowd"
Aside from that part, though, Pablo's pretty much correct.
|6.16.08 @ 11:53AM|#
The burning question, of course, is will Nader support new investigation of 9/11 Truth? Baldwin has said he would, Barr clearly would not, and a lot of the most visible Paul supporters are supporting Baldwin because of that issue.
true_believer|6.16.08 @ 2:56PM|#
>> Now that Dr. Paul has formally withdrawn his candidacy
for the G.O.P. nomination
>> and is no longer seeking the Presidency
This is false. Dr. Paul has not withdrawn his candidacy, he has
merely suspended his campaign, his legal vehicle for managing
campaign funds. He is still just as eligible for the GOP nomination
as Romney is.
Conrad|6.16.08 @ 7:59PM|#
Its a question of pressure, of course, Nader will support a new investigation of 9 / 11 Truth; Baldwin said it is clear that the continent is not, and many of its most prominent supporters of Paul Baldwin contends that, because this problem.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245