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
Barrwatch: Season of the Witch
I've never seen Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr nailed down on his late-1990s crusade against Wicca on military bases. Not until blogger Ed Brayton found Barr at Netroots Nation and asked him. The answer's of a piece with Barr's other answers on his congressional mis-steps.
He's repudiated and apologized for many of his previous positions and I asked him if he would repudiate his absurd anti-Wiccan crusade of 1999, when he wanted all Wiccans banned from the military. He said yes, with a bit of hemming and hawing.
He said that he had reports from several military leaders that Wiccans doing rituals on military bases were causing problems and that's why he did what he did, but that since that time it's become clear that there are no problems with allowing Wiccans to serve and to practice their religion on military bases like any other religion.
I'll be interviewing Barr today for a long reason feature. If there's anything you haven't heard him asked before, and you want to know it, put it in the comments. (I'm going to stay away from horse race and "spoiler" stuff.)
Nigel Watt|7.31.08 @ 10:58AM|#
I'd like to hear from him on monetary policy. That was a big attractor to Ron Paul, and Barr's been pretty mum about it.
thoreau|7.31.08 @ 11:00AM|#
Given how many stances Barr has had to repudiate, it seems like
there are a few possibilities with this guy:
1) He never really believed any of that stuff, and just did it to
play to the base. OTOH, while lots of Republicans clearly do need
to play that game (and yes, Democrats, have to play a game of
pandering to their own base as well), he sure went pretty zealous
on it. That suggests he either really did believe it or else he was
a sufficiently low character that he didn't mind turning it up to
11 (as opposed to just paying some lip service).
2) He's as opportunistic now as he was then.
(Options 1 and 2 are compatible, although 2 seems a bit less likely
because there's far less to be gained now, so why be an
opportunist?)
3) Once he got away from the machine and the power and all that he
looked around and was like "What the hell was I doing? Damn, that
shit messes you up!"
|7.31.08 @ 11:03AM|#
At least a politician was interested in my all my chickens have double yolks and the cow's milk has gone sour. You won't be laughing at his anti-witch stance when your twins are born with a caul.
robc|7.31.08 @ 11:03AM|#
thoreau,
I think a bit of #1 and #3. He knew he trading off some to "play
the game" but probably didnt realize how much until after he left.
And how little he got in return for doing it.
And the Wicca thing sounds like a little bit of
4) Listened to "experts" with an agenda.
|7.31.08 @ 11:08AM|#
If there's anything you haven't heard him asked before, and
you want to know it, put it in the comments.
"So, Bob- why would any reasonable person believe anything other
than that you are a despicable, lying, scumbag who will say
anything to anyone if you believe it will advance your personal
thirst for power over other people?"
Something along those lines would be nice.
|7.31.08 @ 11:08AM|#
I would just like to hear what caused his change of heart. When and why did he realize that he spent most of his time in power doing things that he shouldn't have been doing?
|7.31.08 @ 11:14AM|#
[obligatory]
92 days 'til Halloween, Halloween
92 days 'til Halloween, Silver Shamrock
[/obligatory]
(Unless, of course, you were going for a Donovan
ref...)
Warty|7.31.08 @ 11:15AM|#
LD - I read some interview where he said it was a House Republicans meeting before the 1998 election, where Newt asked the members in danger of losing the election for a list of pork that they needed to get re-elected. Not that that accounts for any of bad stuff he did after 1998, but apparently it made him start to think that he shouldn't be on Team R any more.
Fluffy|7.31.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Some of the other Barr items - the drug war stuff, and the gay
marriage stuff - are much more clear-cut in terms of their
contradiction to libertarian principles than this is.
As was noted in a couple of other "religious freedom" threads we've
had lately, the Armed Forces are a special case because you're
talking about the practice of religion on or using US government
facilities.
A lot of people claimed Ron Paul was not a "real libertarian"
because he favored legislation affirming the right of citizens to
engage in religious expression while in public schools. But now
people are claiming that Bob Barr is not a "real libertarian"
because he opposed the right of US service members to engage in
Wiccan religious expression while on US armed forces bases.
So which is it? Should "real libertarians" favor the right of all
citizens to engage in whatever religious speech they want while on
public property, or shouldn't they? Help me out here.
Mojotron|7.31.08 @ 11:17AM|#
I would just like to hear what caused his change of heart.
When and why did he realize that he spent most of his time in power
doing things that he shouldn't have been doing?
seconding this. I don't mean it as an attack on him, I'm genuinely
curious as to what prompted his change(s) and what's to keep him
from "backsliding" if elected.
|7.31.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Regarding his support for the Patriot Act:
"In public appearances you have indicated that the main reason you
supported PATRIOT was due to assurances by the Administration that
they would not misuse it and only go after terrorists with this new
power. What made you think it was proper to just take this or any
administration's word on how they wont misuse enormous amounts of
power they ask for? Is the only reason you now oppose PATRIOT due
to your being lied to by the Executive Branch, or have you had a
fundamental shift in ideology/beliefs that would lead you to
believe that regardless of any assurances or good intentions, no
government should have that kind of unchecked power over their
citizens?"
Or something to that effect.
Mojotron|7.31.08 @ 11:18AM|#
who cares what a "real libertarian" would think? Discuss the idea on its own merits and stop worrying if it's libertarian/punk/indie enough.
robc|7.31.08 @ 11:21AM|#
Mojotron's post isnt libertarian/punk/indie enough, I suggest it be deleted.
Untermensch|7.31.08 @ 11:23AM|#
My question for him would be the following:
If elected, how do you intend to reduce the scope of government
given that (a) you will come from a party with no congressional
allies, (b) the Republican will assume no matter what that you
stole votes that were rightfully theirs, and (c) congress is
hell-bent on spending money it doesn't have and tries to deep six
anyone (like Tom Coburn) who occasionally says no. While the veto
pen has some power, you won't be able to draw on party leadership
to try to reign in anyone determined to override a veto.
Maybe all this has been asked, but I've not seen it.
Jerry|7.31.08 @ 11:25AM|#
Ask him a techie question, somewhat along the line if he sees any usefulness in the current patent system for example.
`|7.31.08 @ 11:29AM|#
I'm going to stay away from horse race and "spoiler"
stuff.
Asking him what he thought of the new Batman movie would be
somewhat illuminating.
svf|7.31.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Given the prohibitive and unrealistic criteria for third party inclusion in the presidential debates (polling at 10-15% or more in multiple national polls), do you have any other contingency plans? Lawsuits? Civil Disobedience? Hosting your own debate?
Jack|7.31.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Be Radley for a second and press him on no knocks/local police militarizing via the feds. Actually, I'd like to hear his ideas about criminal justice reform. Would he support the measure Obama passed in Illinois requiring interrogations be recorded? Frame it as a theory question if you can, because he's just going to punt with federalism
Christopher Monnier|7.31.08 @ 11:34AM|#
What's Barr's stance on climate change?
1.) Does he acknowledge that climate change is caused at least
in-part by humans?
2.) Does he think that something should be done to reduce [the
increase of] the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
3.) If something should be done, does he prefer a carbon tax or a
cap-and-trade system?
If he dodges the question or says that he doesn't think climate
change is real, I would like to see him confronted with Ron
Bailey's position that 'yes it's real, and if we do something it
should be a carbon tax.'
|7.31.08 @ 11:36AM|#
David, please ask the following:
How can you reconcile your (newly adopted) federalist approach to
to gay marriage with the equal protection clause of the fourteenth
amendment?
Justin|7.31.08 @ 11:36AM|#
1. What would his first year in office look like priority-wise,
given the powers of the presidency?
(i.e. whose neck get's the blade first?)
2. Would he work to massively reduce the power the executive branch
has accrued in the past 100 years, or seek to exercise it more
judiciously?
3. Where the hell is Wayne Allen Root?
Episiarch|7.31.08 @ 11:37AM|#
Hmm, I have no questions for Barr that haven't already been
discussed, though I do favor drug war/police militarization
questions.
But I have a question for Dave: was the title a Romero
reference?
brandon|7.31.08 @ 11:44AM|#
I can relate to his conversion. I'm significantly younger, so I
guess that makes it more typical, but in college I was a
conservative Republican. Got involved in the CR's, even drove to
Ohio to volunteer for Bush in 04, under the spell of the "lesser of
two evils." Only in the past two or three years have I outgrown
such stupidly naive beliefs.
Ask him his thoughts on electoral reform. The way we conduct
elections in this country insulates the statists from serious
electoral challenge. As an LP candidate I imagine he has gained
first-hand experience.
|7.31.08 @ 11:49AM|#
I was going to mention the controversy of Goths in the Military, then it dawned on me that military training is indistiguishable from cosplay.
jtuf|7.31.08 @ 11:50AM|#
Ask Barr if he would sign HR5842 and HR5843 so that states could set their own marijuana policies.
|7.31.08 @ 11:55AM|#
svf | July 31, 2008, 11:37am | #
Why don't you have any statement about the War On Drugs on your
website?
Ditto.
DO NOT ask about Root. That name should never even be mentioned
again.
|7.31.08 @ 11:56AM|#
How about ask him why he didn't tell the Army to figure out it's own problems with the handful of Wiccan's in the Military and worry about something worth his time and paycheck.
Joey|7.31.08 @ 11:59AM|#
I would ask Bob if he has considered making an appeal to the
public (including people who aren't going to vote for him) to say
they are supporting him in telephone polls just as a way to crack
into the debates.
On a related note, he has railed against the debate format and the
arbitrary 15% polling requirement. Should there be a minimum bar
that you have to pass in order to share the stage?
--Joey
jtuf|7.31.08 @ 12:01PM|#
Warren,
I still think gay marriage is a 1st ammendment question under the
peaceful assembly clause. This is much better than saying "my genes
made me do it".
|7.31.08 @ 12:04PM|#
Epi:
David could have been making a Donovan reference. The song came
first.
Kevin
|7.31.08 @ 12:08PM|#
3) Once he got away from the machine and the power and all
that he looked around and was like "What the hell was I doing?
Damn, that shit messes you up!"
Republicaine's a hell of a drug.
I'm currently reading a book titled "With God on Our Side," about
the evangelical takeover of the Air Force Academy and the imposed
culture of Christianity. I wonder if that has anything to do with
those "military leaders" deciding that Wiccan rituals were causing
so many problems.
|7.31.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Ask him to read Gene Healy's "The Cult of the Presidency" and have him do a book report on it.
|7.31.08 @ 12:15PM|#
And Demopium's not?
This is a thread about Bob Barr, who was a Republican. What does
the Democratic Party have to do with anythinig?
Do you think it would be possible for you to avoid turning maybe
one thread today into your standard yammering about
partisanship?
|7.31.08 @ 12:16PM|#
I have it on good authority that Bob Barr eats entire heads of iceberg lettuce like giant apples, without dressing of any kind.
|7.31.08 @ 12:19PM|#
My last memory of Barr in congress was him threatening to cut
off federal funding for the DC metro because they were in no hurry
to change the name of the "National Airport" station to "Ronald
Reagan National Airport."
What motivated him to make such a big deal about that?
Episiarch|7.31.08 @ 12:22PM|#
Do you think it would be possible for you to avoid turning
maybe one thread today into your standard yammering about
partisanship?
Nope. I'm not the one who implied that love of power was partisan
by naming the "drug" after one party.
Do you think it would be possible for you to avoid turning maybe
one thread today into your standard yammering about my yammering
about partisanship?
Colin|7.31.08 @ 12:24PM|#
Please, Dave, ask him if he really believes Kazakhs eat cheese made from breast milk.
Colin|7.31.08 @ 12:30PM|#
Barr was once a Democrat, too -- so the "Demopium" crack was as
fair as your stupid partisan crack.
You give hypocrites a bad name.
Orange Line Special|7.31.08 @ 12:32PM|#
I have a strange feeling that Weigel's employers don't want him
to press Barr on things like this. And,
even if Weigel derailed from the Orange Line and pressed Barr on
that, he wouldn't be able to tell all the ways that Barr was lying
to him.
So, Weigel shouldn't bother asking that, wait until I get a chance
to do it on video destined for Youtube.
Episiarch|7.31.08 @ 12:36PM|#
LoneWacko, if the Illuminati control everything, who controls them? Something to think about, isn't it?
|7.31.08 @ 12:39PM|#
if the Illuminati control everything, who controls
them?
Lizards.
Reptilian overlords from another planet.
Don't you know anything?
|7.31.08 @ 12:41PM|#
And speaking of our reptilian overlords- be sure to wear your "sunglasses" when you interview Barr, Dave.
Episiarch|7.31.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Reptilian overlords from another planet.
But who controls them, smart guy?
Josh|7.31.08 @ 12:58PM|#
Ask him about the accusations Hustler magazine made that he forced his wife to have an abortion.
marley|7.31.08 @ 1:04PM|#
aks him how he is going to get into the debates as that is the
only chance of putting a libertarian message in front of a wider
audience (however flawed Barr is personally).
Things will not change over nite. Ron Paul did a good job of
getting attention and interest. Its up to Barr (on the national
level) to keep this going and make people understand the shit that
the two other choices are.
jimmy|7.31.08 @ 1:12PM|#
"So, Bob- why would any reasonable person believe anything other
than that you are a despicable, lying, scumbag who will say
anything to anyone if you believe it will advance your personal
thirst for power over other people?"
i love it. whatever one might think of barr, how does fooling
people into giving him the LP nomination help him get "power over
other people?" what could his motivation possibly be to lie about
being libertarian? someone who was a well-known member of congress
for years suddenly switches to an insignifncant minor party...to
get more power??? going from the US congress to a third-rate
debating society of wackos is a step up???
"heh heh heh...i can't wait to receive that 0.5% of the vote this
november, THEN i'll be powerful enough to unleash my sinister
plans!"
thoreau|7.31.08 @ 1:13PM|#
I have a hunch that Lonewackolinks are really just RickRolls. But I'm not about to FindOut.
|7.31.08 @ 1:25PM|#
Mr Barr,
Given your crappy track record of being a huge drug warrior, fan of
big government republicanism and CIA operative....how do we know
that your miraculous intellectual conversion at the age of 55(?)
isn't really just a repeat of the old CIA trick of trying to gain
control of a opposition group so that you/the CIA/ the
establishment can then proceed either water it down or make it look
outright ridiculous by associating it with some repulsive
group.
When do you think the CIA and guys like Ollie North gave up the
drug smuggling business for good?
Do you think the fact that the CIA depended on drug smuggling for
funding some of it's illegal projects and thus depended on
artificially high drug prices ever helped drive the pro-drug war
movement of Bush 1, Bush 2 and Bob Barr?
Can you see how libertarians in their 20's and 30's who have read
all the libertarian arguments against the drug war for the last
15-20 years might not understand how a 50-60 year old could be so
plain dumb to honestly believe prohibition was a good idea? and
that when someone who in fact was that dumb suddenly changes their
mind it makes us feel pretty wary of actually voting for such a
idiot even if he claims he has NOW seen the light? people like us
are saying boy I understood how black markets are created at the
age of 16 why would I vote for someone soo much dumber than myself?
or so much more dishonest?
svf|7.31.08 @ 1:32PM|#
how a 50-60 year old could be so plain dumb to honestly
believe prohibition was a good idea?
well, most 50-60 year olds in America believe (drug) prohibition
was and still is a good idea, actually.
|7.31.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Mr Barr,
What is the MOST corrupt thing you ever saw a active republican do
during your time in Congress? what was the most corrupt thing you
ever saw a active democrat do during your time in congress?
give us something good and name names.
|7.31.08 @ 1:37PM|#
svf | July 31, 2008, 1:32pm | #
well, most 50-60 year olds in America believe (drug) prohibition
was and still is a good idea, actually.
...I'm gonna go out on a limb and say most of us would not vote for
most 50-60 year olds in America for POTUS. Arguing that you are as
smart as the average american is not a good argument to convince me
to vote for you.
svf|7.31.08 @ 1:37PM|#
give us something good and name names.
... and while you're at it, name the GOP congressmen and/or
senators that have asked you not to run as a libertarian...
svf|7.31.08 @ 1:42PM|#
...I'm gonna go out on a limb and say most of us would not
vote for most 50-60 year olds in America for POTUS.
No, but I'm saying we shouldn't be surprised if politicians support
drug prohibition since that's the position the 50-60 year old
people most likely to vote for them share.
The more 50-60-70+ year old current and/or former congressmen with
the balls to come out and say "The Drug War Has Failed" the better.
Why this is somehow a suspicious and nefarious-seeming thing to
some people I don't understand...
|7.31.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Mr Barr,
Whose views on foreign polciy would you allign with more...Zbig or
Kissinger?
What do you think is the best way to counter the heglian dialectic
strategy? the false left right paradigm?
svf|7.31.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Bob,
How excited are you exactly that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are
starring in that new Atlas Shrugged movie?
|7.31.08 @ 1:48PM|#
We know the War on Terror is used to create such fear that republicans will happily give up liberties/taxes and soldiers lives to the state...we know that the frenzied climate change hysteria is used too convince secular liberals to sacrifice their standard of living and the future of their children to the state....we know that the drug war was succesfully used to destroy many civil liberties of the individual....How do you think we can get normally nice and peaceful democrats and republicans to see the way they are being manipulated? can you point out some of the common interest/groups who push all these anti-individual movements?
Johnny Nowhere|7.31.08 @ 1:54PM|#
Bob,
what is your most significant accomplishment as a legislator?
if elected, what will you do to advance the cause of the
mustachioed?
|7.31.08 @ 2:03PM|#
I am quite happy to see old people convert, Bob Barr included.
It is still a little hard to understand switch so completely on
such a big issue at such a old age. Maybe I will understand better
when I switch my belief system at the age of 65 and become a big
advocate of the draft. until then it is difficult...I know I am not
a big demographic and he doesn't care much about my vote, but
Reason skews younger than 45 and most readers have probably been
anti-drug war for a long time so it might be a common credibility
problem for the Reason demographic...I'd have been happy in 1950 if
Hitler's ghost came back and said he actually realized jews could
be great people...that doesn't mean I vote for hitler's ghost for
president.
The godwin's law nazis(and yes that is what they have become)may
not like the comparison, but jailing marijuana users to be assraped
is evil...bob barr is guilty of being a accomplice in ass rape... I
thank him and forgive him due to his appologies, but it is still
hard to be a big advocate for a reformed ass rape accomplice.
|7.31.08 @ 2:09PM|#
Mr Barr,
What would you have done if you had been president instead of Jimmy
Carter and Kissinger and David Rockefeller came and requested that
you let the Shah and a few of his best secret police come hang out
in America for a while?
Orange Line Special|7.31.08 @ 2:19PM|#
Here, let me help Weigel out:
"Do you support a) MassDeportations, b) reducing the numbers of
IllegalAliens over time ThroughAttrition, c) some
FormOfLegalization for current IllegalAliens, or d) something
else?"
If c), how do you intend to push through your
FBBFBPTHNCOEH after having given those groups that currently
OpposeEnforcement - including the far-left, racial power groups,
BusinessGroups, and the MexicanGovernment - even more power than
they already have? Any FormOfLegalization - no matter what you call
it - would give even more power to those groups that currently
OpposeEnforcement, and they'd use the new power you'd give them to
even more strongly OpposeEnforcement. Are you sure you've thought
this through?
T|7.31.08 @ 2:32PM|#
whatever one might think of barr, how does fooling people
into giving him the LP nomination help him get "power over other
people?" what could his motivation possibly be to lie about being
libertarian? someone who was a well-known member of congress for
years suddenly switches to an insignifncant minor party...to get
more power??? going from the US congress to a third-rate debating
society of wackos is a step up???
Yeah, that's how I've always looked at it. His conversion has to be
sincere on some level because it makes no sense otherwise. Barring,
of course, the paranoid conspiracy theories. Because having a
reasonably sane-appearing guy running for the LP is going to make
them look bad. And honestly, if Barr goes nowhere, the radical
faction of the LP will crush any hope at reform next go-round.
|7.31.08 @ 2:34PM|#
There are many reasons why Barr cannot win this election, but I think the number two reason is the huge faction within his own party who are actively working to prevent it.
|7.31.08 @ 2:34PM|#
What role should the government play in regulating sports? Should the govern punish athletes for using legal or controlled performance-enhancement drugs? Should combat sports like boxing and mixed martial arts require heavier regulation than team sports like hockey and American football?
brandon|7.31.08 @ 3:03PM|#
He won't win, so from my perspective it doesn't really matter if he's sincerely converted to the libertarian line on every single issue. What matters is that he effectively communicates and sells the libertarian point of view generally (much less government, much more liberty), and that the major parties are both for too much government and too little liberty. I've seen him speak a number of times, and he does this well. Probably better than any of the LP's purer candidates could.
|7.31.08 @ 3:21PM|#
1) Monetary policy and the ending age of dollar hegemony.
2) Top three beaurocracies to cut.
3) Freddie/Fannie proposed bailout - and more generally, the role
of the Federal Reserve (and whether there is one).
4) Views on globalization and how American can retain a
competitative advantage. Should we suck it up and say manufacturing
jobs are gone, or try and retain/attract more?
5) A definition of 'patriotism.'
6) Favorite founding father and why.
7) What role does a president's faith play while in office?
8) What philosophical and economic grounding does the War on Drugs
have and should it be stopped?
9) How can we reestablish ourselves as educating our kids
satisfactorily on the world stage?
|7.31.08 @ 3:45PM|#
I feel sorry for people who don't get the Rick James/Dave Chappelle sketch joke.
blimeytakkun|7.31.08 @ 5:39PM|#
"Why don't you have any statement about the War On Drugs on your
website?"
YES!!! Ask this! And aso try to get some insight on what he
specifically would do in the direction of pot decrim.
Andy|7.31.08 @ 6:53PM|#
I assume it's too late, but I would be interested to know what
his campaign plans to do to capture some of the excitement that was
generated around the Ron Paul campaign. Barr's not going to win,
but he can spread ideas of liberty using the same grassroots
approach the Paul campaign had.
Honestly, I just want to see some of these young Obama supporters
embarrassed by their lack of knowledge about anything.
|7.31.08 @ 7:18PM|#
1) More detail on how he became libertarian. I think I've heard
him say, "and then I realized *this* and..." -- but I'm curious as
to what event caused him to have that realization.
2) Young Democrat in college -- what was that all about? (I think
this could be an advantage for him, but he never seems to bring it
up.)
3) The celebration of the good works of Jesse Helms, you didn't
know that would piss libt's off, or you didn't care?
4) In the rare event that he isn't elected in 2008, what's the way
forward for the LP, and what will Bob Barr be doing to advance the
LP and the wider libertarian movement.
5) In "The Meaning of 'Is'", he mentions having coffee with two
shots of espresso. At the time of the convention, I believe you
[Weigel] described him drinking coffee with five shots, but only
once a day. The NY Times articles mentions him having five shots in
a drink, which he only does a few times a day.
Ask if his changed view on the Drug War is in part empathy for
addicts.
Go Dave!
|7.31.08 @ 9:45PM|#
Barr takes the difficult social issues, those that would offend
conservatives, and says that they should be state matters. That
sounds like evasion to me. I want to know what he thinks the states
ought to do about the war on drugs, gay marriage, abortion,
etc.
Any conservative can use their federalism as a mask to cover their
social positions and avoid answering questions as to where they
really stand. No one has nailed him on those issues and asked
precisely what the states ought to do about this issues. Previous
attempts to do so have either resulted in him repeating his same
position without answering it or him complaining about hypothetical
questions and refusing to answer.
|7.31.08 @ 10:17PM|#
the libertarian party completely lost me as a member the day
they stamped his card. he is a piss-ignorant georgia peckerwood
racist who cannot even control his own handgun.
/guy
Bill Woolsey|8.1.08 @ 9:46AM|#
Bob Barr has explained many times what caused him to become a
Libertarian.
It was the Cheny-Woo theory of presidential royalism in response to
9-11.
He says that this over-reaching caused him to reassess what he
thought the federal government should do. He claims that since the
American people were pretty much free, having the federal
government do this or that wasn't such a problem. But, after 911,
and the great restrictions on freedom imposed by the Bush
Administration, a new assessment of what the Federal govenment
should do was necessary. (This was certainly not my
experience.)
My interpretation is that the Bush administration's willingness to
shred the Constitution in the name of the war on terror led Barr to
commit to a more narrow reading of Constitutional powers than
before.
Imagine that you are arguing against some unconstitutional
usurpation of power, and the absurd response you receive is... very
similar to arguments you made in the past. Further, if the
Constitution is going to restrict government at all, you have to
take it seriously. If something you strongly oppose something that
you think is unconstitutional, a more general appreciation of the
Constitution is natural. We need to follow the Constitution--no
exceptions. If you don't like it, amend it.
It is normal. Many, and maybe most, Libertarians were conservative
Republicans who felt betrayed by one big government policy by a
Republican administration. Usually, it is a tax hike or some gun
control regulation. Suddenly, the scales fall away from their eyes,
and they are no longer defending what they had thought was the
small-government, individual liberty, "team's" psoitions on various
issues. They are now on the Libertarian team.
What is unusual about Barr is that it was 4th amendment rights that
caused the change. I believe that with him there is a bit of
penance for voting for the Patriot Act. A feeling of personal
betrayal regarding oral guarantees from the administration that the
Patriot act would be used narrowly. Deep disappointment that the
"sunset" provisions in the bill for which he traded his vote did
little good. That is, even after a few years, his old "team" had
next to no interest in revisiting those provisions--you know, it is
just a piece of paper, Bob.
Finally, when someone switches teams, and is now working with
others opposed to the Cheney-Woo approach, there comes a new
exposure to, and willingness to take seriously, the many
utilitarian arguments against big goverment.
Like many libertarian economists, the reason I favor libertarian
policies is because they have good consequences. I certainly hope
that someone willing to look at our arguments and evidence with an
even slightly open mind will support those policies as well.
Conversion? It is what I expect, because libertarian arguments are
correct.
Bill Woolsey|8.1.08 @ 10:38AM|#
During the early sixties, there was a division in the
conservative movement between "traditionalists" and "libertarians."
The traditionalists believed that promoting traditional moral
values is an appropriate role for government. This could include
many things, including a complete prohibition of various vices. The
libertarians believed that this is not a proper role for
government.
I think that most "traditionalist" conservatives believed that
these traditional values were right. And considered their own
deviations to be sins--personal failings. The "libertarians"
included many who shared a personal commitment to traditional
values, but opposed government involvement, along with those who
found nothing wrong with various "deviations," including sometimes,
their own.
The rise of the "Christian Right," including first the moral
majority and then, the Christian coalition, involved a mass
movement of "conservatives" who were especially worried about moral
corruption in society. From their perspective, reversing this
decline wasn't just a legitimate role for government, it was the
key role of government. While it is only explicit at the extreme,
there is a view that government is morally obligated to suppress
vice. Failure to do so can result in Divine retribution against the
entire nation! (insert appropriate quotes from Falwell, Robertson,
and even Chuck Baldwin.)
From the point of view of the "traditionalist" conservative, there
is nothing wrong with pandering to the policy views of the
Religious Right. Promoting (and enforcing) traditional moral values
is a legitmate function of government. But there may be other
considertations. And certainly, other priorities.
I believe that Barr was a "traditionalist" conservative. I believe
that other priorities (opposing the Cheny-Woo theory of
presidential royalism and, perhaps, looming financial disaster,)
created some new considerations. He is now on the libertarian
side.
svf|8.1.08 @ 1:55PM|#
too late now but I hope you asked him if he would pardon all non-violent drug offenders on his first day in office (as Harry Browne and several other LP presidential candidates have promised to do...)
|8.4.08 @ 12:05AM|#
I would like to know what he thinks of the law effectively outlawing Americans from betting in online poker. What, if any, changes would he support regarding this law?
|8.4.08 @ 12:00PM|#
His reply on the wicca-in-the-military thing was very specific.
At the time, he made many broad statements basically calling wicca
and related religious beliefs nonsense; such as "The fact of the
matter is--and witches won't like this--our country was founded on
a basic belief in God."
You might want to ask him if he still harbors his bigoted positions
on wicca and pagan religion in general, regardless of his official
stance on wiccan practices on military bases. Of course, you might
want to phrase it a bit less confrontationally...
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