Why I'm Voting for Bob Barr

There is no good reason to vote for Obama or McCain.

And not voting at all will tell "Them" you're happy with whatever happens, even if your intention is to send a message telling Them you don't recognize the legitimacy of the elections at all. It's not fair, but that's the way it is. I choose to do what I think is the most constructive thing with my vote.

Although Nader, Barr, Baldwin, and McKinney seem to be in agreement about the Four Points and the Big Bailout, each candidate represents a different "message" being sent to the Democrats or Republicans.

For instance, a vote for the Green Party's McKinney isn't telling the Republicans to repent over the Patriot Act, it is rather a message to Democrats to shape-up on corporate America and the environment. Nobody will say that McKinney "cost McCain the election," only that she drew votes away from Obama. And if Obama wins, which he probably will, those votes will be meaningless.

Whereas, the media will at least be aware that Bob Barr defected from the Republican to the Libertarian Party on the issue of civil liberties. They will also interpret a vote for Barr as a vote taken away from McCain.

A vote for Nader will be interpreted as a vote stolen from Obama, primarily because of the Bailout and civil liberties.

A vote for Chuck Baldwin will be interpreted as a vote stolen from McCain, primarily because of immigration and abortion.

Any other candidate on the ballot, or any write-in candidate, will be considered even more fringe and will not be mentioned at all.

For me, Nader is tempting, for reasons Justin Raimondo outlined. My state, like Raimondo's, seems strongly Democrat this year. A vote for Nader would be a protest vote against Obama especially on these issues of war, civil liberties, and the Bailout. Then again, it may, like McKinney, be viewed as sending a message to Obama from the "far left" to over-regulate and over-tax the economy. That's not a message I want to send.

Likewise, Baldwin is tempting. He's good on war, the Federal Reserve, and several other things. At the same time, it seems he goes overboard on immigration. I believe that labor-for-wages, and all other economic exchanges, should be unregulated and employers should not be forced to serve as tax agents or immigration officers. If immigration is a problem, it should be addressed at our boarders, coasts, and airports, and employers shouldn't be blamed for failures of the federal government. Also, while I disagree with Roe v. Wade and believe it served more to enhance the power of the federal government rather than individual liberty, I still believe abortion to be a matter between the mother, the abortionist, their respective consciences, and God rather than a matter of police investigation and criminal prosecution.

A lot of people have piled on the Bob Barr campaign and Bob Barr the person. But I will vote for him:

• I look at Barr's issues and, although some things could be elaborated on more fully, unlike the other campaigns I find nothing disagreeable.
• I endorsed Barr from the beginning, and even if the campaign so far hasn't lived up to hopes, this still seems to be the best tactical and principled use of my vote.
  
• A vote for Barr would contribute to McCain's landslide defeat without voting for Obama, bringing on the reformation or demise of the Republican Party. We should maximize non-Obama, anti-McCain vote totals from the "right" to force Washington to pay attention to issues of concern to the small-government movement.
  
• A vote for Barr would help increase the possibility that no President is elected with a minority of the popular vote. Better the President starts off in a weakened position; it's good for liberty.
  
• If by some miracle Barr was actually elected, he would actually have the experience and network infrastructure to actually form an Administration, something I wouldn't expect from other third-party nominees.
  
• He's way, way better than Obama or McCain.
• Although not voting may be an option, it still seems weird and hypocritical for one to write so much on the elections and not spend any time actually voting.
  

A New Undecided

Last February, I was among the earliest to publicly call for Bob Barr to run for President as a Libertarian. And I quickly put up an image link to his campaign. My reasoning was:

1. Ron Paul was not seeking a third-party or independent bid.
2. Bob Barr is experienced and relatively well-known, and therefore more likely to get lots of votes.
3. McCain must not be elected under any circumstances, and I didn't want the story of the election to be that Clinton or Obama won, but that anti-war, pro-civil liberties libertarians and conservatives 'defected" from the Republican Party to Barr and cost McCain the election. For me, this election is a "Hitler" moment, which is not to say that McCain is as bad as Hitler, but that McCain is a dangerous madmen who seems hell-bent on more unnecessary wars. I don't want future generations to look back at us and say, "How did he get elected? Why didn't you stop him?"

That said, I also was aware that Barr's nomination may be bad for the Libertarian Party long-term. But I was assured that Barr had come around and was as libertarian as Ron Paul, Aaron Russo, and Michael Badnarik. In any case, making sure McCain didn't win was, and is, my top priority. I know there would be lots of conservatives and free-market types who would never vote for the Democrat, and I thought if he played his cards right Barr could win their votes and become the heir apparent to Paul's movement.

It would be risky, but I thought Barr could be the one who could cost McCain the election and either provoke a small-government resurgence in the Republican Party or a stronger small-government third-party movement.

It hasn't worked out that way. Barr snubbed an event hosted by Paul to support third parties, and shortly after that I removed the image link to his campaign from my sidebar. And now Paul announced he is supporting Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin. Is the upcoming movie How to Lose Friends and Alientate People a bio-pic about Barr?

I still may vote for Barr. What I would like to see is a debate between him and Baldwin, so I can figure out who I really agree with more on what I believe are the most important issues.

I believe if all nation-states in the world were abolished, we'd be a lot better off. But that's kind of saying that if I could fly like Superman, I'd be a lot better off. How is either statement relevant to the real world? Unless the spiritual nature of mankind is transformed, we will have States, and in this world I'd like the laws within my own country to be as libertarian as possible, even if that means being over-zealous in protecting that country from swarms of economic refugees or from imported, shoddy products made by slave labor. Even if that means recognizing that completely free movement across borders and free trade will not mean greater liberty, but rather an oppressive North American Union bureaucracy.

And even if it means taking the Tenth Amendment seriously, and interpreting the Constitution based on what it says, not on what we want it to mean.

I may disagree with Baldwin on several issues, but am willing to compromise on trade and immigration, and take a federalist approach on morals laws, which, as I understand, is generally the Constitution Party's approach. And he seems to be good on war and foreign policy, great on the Federal Reserve, spending cuts, and tax cuts, and great on self-defense and the separation of school and state, great in opposing the federal police state , and not bad, compared to most politicians, on Internet regulation and the War on Drugs.

And all this makes me wonder again if, in the Internet Age, the time for a "Libertarian Party" has passed.

A "party of principle" would have defended Michael Vick, as did Ilana Mercer and I. Where was the press release? A "party of principle" would have come out against censorship of child pornography, as did Sean Gabb of Britain's (non-partisan) Libertarian Alliance. Instead, it tried to throw one of its Presidential candidates under the bus for holding the libertarian position on the issue.

The problem is, a political party needs to explain how it will govern; in its pure form the Libertarian Party explains how it won't govern. And then it wonders why it doesn't win very many votes!

There are other means - blogs, think tanks, activist organizations - to persuade the public about the benefits of small government or no government. But with the Libertarian Party, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. A candidate who's "too pure" won't win votes; a candidate like Barr who compromises on the message to win votes will, for that reason, be a poor spokesperson for libertarian values - and alienate the already-small libertarian "base" in the process.

It's no wonder that Paul's campaign, whose message was based more on the Constitution rather than libertarian philosophy, was more effective than any Libertarian Presidential candidacy has been. More people can at least relate to the Constitution: it's a national symbol. The libertarian philosophy, on the other hand, is a philosophy, and most people aren't all that philosophical. The reason I supported Paul is that I was in fundamental agreement; if we just followed the Constitution, we'd have more libertarian policies on the essential national issues, without having to get sidetracked by issues like animal cruelty or sex.

Libertarian education and persuasion is essential, including advocating the unpopular position. But that is the very reason why it should be divorced from partisan political activism. It should inspire activism, but shouldn't be associated with it. Instead, it should inspire libertarians to build coalitions with others on an issue-by-issue basis. Let's say you believe income taxes should be eliminated because they're "bad for the economy" and I want them eliminated as a matter of moral principle. Let's also say that you believe Michael Vick should be in prison, and I believe he should be set free. Fine. Let's work together on eliminating income taxes. Because I know that if I run for office on a platform of eliminating income taxes AND pardoning Michael Vick, you'll never vote for me.

All that said, I don't regret my initial support for Barr. The problem is that it was based on hopes, not facts. I still want McCain to lose on account of antiwar libertarians and the antiwar, pro-civil liberties Right. But at this point neither Barr nor Baldwin (or anyone else, for that matter), has my vote; they will have to persuade me, to earn it.

Corsi Should Have Gone After McCain

Jerome Corsi says he endorses Chuck Baldwin for President. He has a funny way of expressing it.

By writing the #1 bestseller"Obama Nation," designed to tell us how horrible Barack Obama really is, Corsi is more likely to scare disenchanted conservatives who dislike McCain and may have voted for a third-party candidate like Baldwin, to vote for McCain anyway.

Corsi himself doesn't seem to be terribly credible, and this book is apparently a clumsy hatchet job. But if he's going to play this game, he should do a similar book on McCain. There is plenty of material to work with.

Further Thoughts on "Divided They Fail"

Suppose you see yourself as a hard-core libertarian. Who would you rather win an election: a pro-gay marriage candidate who wants to nuke Iran and invade the Sudan, or an anti-gay marriage candidate who wants to end undeclared wars and bring the troops home? To me, the answer is clear: I want peace, liberty, and legal equality, but peace must come first.

Likewise, I want to get rid of the national oppressor before the local oppressor, because the national oppressor oppresses more people. In elections, would prefer Libertarian Party candidates first, Constitution Party candidates second, and nobody else third, because of this.

What sparked my piece "Divided They Fail" was the fact that Libertarian Party members were embarrassed and angry that Mary Ruwart, seeking the Party's nomination for President, takes the libertarian position on child sex and child pornography.

It's as if Ruwart was disqualified as a spokesperson for libertarian principles - which is essentially what an LP Presidential candidate is supposed to be - because she held to libertarian principles even in a particularly tough and controversial case. It made me, like this commenter G.E. at Third Party Watch, think that I'd rather vote for the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin and know I'm getting a "consistent Constitutionalist" than support an LP candidate who somehow draws the best line between aiming to be principled and aiming to please.

The LP's problem is that it tries to do two things. First, it tries to be ideological, and recruit individuals willing to "certify in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals." Second, it tries be a political party dedicated to shrinking the size of government - the federal government first and foremost. It can do both, but it can't succeed at both.

• If the LP is to be radical and hard-core, its leader should be a consistent libertarian. Of course, this won't win many votes or lead to long-term growth, which makes one wonder if the Libertarian Party as an outreach tool was a good idea whose time has passed in the Internet Age.

• If the LP's purpose is to win elections and take power on a small-government platform, well of course Ruwart's position on child porn won't help. But if there are differences of opinion on this issue, then there will definitely be differences on major issues as well. Libertarians will differ on specific solutions and the next steps to take. One says sales taxes are worse than income taxes, another says the opposite. Person A says get rid of the welfare state first and then immigration laws, Person B says says the order of what gets repealed first doesn't matter. The one will accuse the other of "betraying" libertarianism.

I respect LP members who want to remain hard-core. It just seems to me that those who would agree with the hard-core position the most will take it to the logical conclusion of not voting and not participating in party politics at all. It is very conceivable that a person could move from frustrated Republican or frustrated Democrat, to being drawn to the Libertarian Party message, to getting deeper and deeper into the libertarian philosophy, to becoming a non-voting anarchist - all within a two-year election cycle. Guess what - the Libertarian Party would have done its job! All too well, in fact - it never does get this person's vote. I respect the hard-core line, but I would suggest building agorist activist organizations and educational institutions would be a better use of their time than campaigning in elections. If nothing else, ballot access laws make their efforts inefficient at best. The sheer irony of a "libertarian" party trying to win power is another drawback. But if that's how some hard-core libertarians want to spend their time and money, I respect that.

I have a bigger problem respecting LP members who a) condemn Mary Ruwart, and/or b) supported Ron Paul, but would never consider an alliance with Constitution Party members. (For the record: I'm not a current LP member, I agree with Ruwart, and I supported Ron Paul.) They won't forgive Ruwart for her consistency, they will forgive Ron Paul for his deviations, but they'll write off the CP as theocrats - even though their differences with libertarianism are in many of the the same areas Ron Paul deviates from it.

I'm not sure what the problem is. The CP opposes abortion because, supposedly, they're religious nutjobs, whereas Ron Paul and pro-life libertarians have a different but principled view of when human rights begin. The CP doesn't believe the First Amendment applies to the states because, supposedly, they're theocrats, whereas Ron Paul - who has sponsored legislation expressing this view - just has an unorthodox but logical interpretation of the Constitution. (For the record, I agree with Paul's view: if the First Amendment was meant to apply to the states, either it or the Fourteenth Amendment would have said so explicitly.)

I think the objections are special pleading. I think libertarians resent the paleoconservative's finger-wagging condescension toward libertarianism, and I think paleoconservatives resent the libertarian's stridency and abstractions. Both sides (except the most hard-core of each) give Ron Paul a pass, and are willing to disagree with him on a few points and still love him, but they won't support anyone else who could bridge this divide.

I'm not asking members of either party to set aside their principles. I'm asking them instead to come together and form a party based on their many points of agreement.

I'm calling for a national party focused strictly on the national issue of the size, scope, and powers of the federal government. Statewide and locally, there may be LP candidates who want legal casinos in the state and strip clubs in the county, and CP candidate who want both banned. Fine - but they can all sign on to a national agenda of downsizing the size, scope, and power of the federal government:

• bring the troops home; no entangling alliances; only Congressionally-declared wars from now on;
• no ceding of legislative, executive, or judicial authority to international organizations;
  
• repeal post-9/11 curbs on civil liberties; restore crime control as a state function; defend the Second Amendment;
  
• cut spending across the board; abolish unconstitutional departments and programs such as the Department of Education;
• deregulate and desubsidize the energy industry;
• work toward a free market in health care;
• simplify the tax code and cut taxes;
• restore a Constitutional money system.
  

Allow differences on these issues:

• the specifics of tax reform;
  
• immigration restrictions;
• tariffs and trade;
• the role of Congress and the federal judiciary on First and Fourteenth Amendment issues pertaining to state and local laws;
• state and local controversies.
  

The goal of downsizing the federal government are the same in both the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. There, and only there, can they and should they work together. Perhaps a national platform could be a new "contract with America" based on points of agreement that could be signed by all party candidates. They can run against each other in primaries emphasizing issues where the platform allows for differences. But if and when elected, they will support the contract they had singed onto.

So everyone gets to keep their principles and ideology, while they support a national party that is dedicated to a smaller federal government but doesn't advance a particular ideology. Say what you will about Republicans and Democrats, but they swallow both their principles and their pride to vote for candidates who differ with them on major issues. Indeed, they do this all the time. Why can't advocates of small government do the same, especially if their differences are minor or technical?

Maybe for the same reason we never succeed: most of us who want small government are driven by principle, not power - and although we are all principled, we continually disagree on which principles. So even when we're in agreement 80% of the time, we go nowhere because those who should be our strongest allies are instead our bitterest enemies.

Perhaps non-voting anarchists and spiritual gurus were right all along: we will never achieve freedom through politics.

Keyes Loses Yet Again

I can't believe it was only eight years ago that I voted for Alan Keyes in the Illinois Republican Presidential Primary. Not that I regret it; he was clearly smarter and less war-mongering than McCain and more explicitly for smaller government than George W. Bush. But I didn't know just how pathetic his act would become. After the Illinois GOP dumped its Senatorial nominee for Senate in 2004 over a personal non-scandal, they chose Keyes, of all people, to move in from out-of-state and get obliterated by Barack Obama.

Not getting the hint that his message was relevant in 1996-2000 but no longer, Keyes entered the GOP race in 2007, only to find out that Ron Paul already had part of his message (the good parts) and Huckabee the rest (the stupid, bad parts). Now, this pro-war neo-conservative tried to get the nomination of the Constitution Party - which has always been anti-war and isolationist. Fortunately, the CP has backed away from Keyes, who probably has yet to figure out that name recognition doesn't serve you if you are a laughingstock.

The CP nominated its 2004 VP nominee, Chuck Baldwin, instead. I have read several of Baldwin's columns and agree with a lot of them. And he has been a Ron Paul supporter. I hope all conservatives, and especially, Ron Paul supporters, unwilling to vote Libertarian will vote for Baldwin. Matthew Roberts writes, "as Chilton Williamson Jr. argues in his recent article “Time for a Multi-Party System,” there could be long-term gains (such as a “multiplicity of parties, representing a multiplicity of interests") in abandoning the two major parties, which have become a “broad and contradictory coalition of factions.” (Better said than done, but a sizeable defection is a start.)"