Sunday, May 25, 2008

Bob Barr is the Libertarian Party candidate for President

Bob Barr is the Libertarian Party candidate for President.
Bob Barr is the Libertarian Party candidate for President.
Bob Barr is the Libertarian Party candidate for President.
Bob Barr is the Libertarian Party candidate for President.

I think I could type it a dozen more times, and it wouldn't truly sink in.
I feel like one of those Hillary supporters who say they're going to stay home on election day if Obama is nominated.

I can't see Bob Barr as a Libertarian. Bob Barr is not a Libertarian. Or he wasn't when I was keeping up with him. What the heck is going on here?

Radley Balko, of "Reason" magazine, and author of the link above, states that he's "become rather fond of Barr over his 5-year conversion to libertarianism."

And I've became rather fond of Herman Goering over the course of his 5-year training to become a rabbi.

Bob Barr, at least on social issues, was one of the leading anti-libertarian politicians we've known. Maybe he's converted. Maybe he was struck blind for three days on the Damascus Road.

Maybe he's going to start working gun shows, lobbying for marijuana decriminalization, and building floats for gay pride parades. But isn't this rather sudden?

As one Baptist preacher told me when I was doing church music in Mississippi: "Allen, I don't have anything at all against reformed whores. But maybe you should wait a few weeks before you let them lead out the choir."

12 comments:

TomG said...

http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/05/25/beale-olbermann-wiser-countries/

As I just commented in the above site, perhaps if you start to count the # of 'gaffes' and errors he makes over the course of the campaign - it could prove a good metric for indicating the level of his true conversion to the Libertarian Party's professed platform ... just a thought, cheers.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Tom,
Good point.
And I'm not trying to say that every party's top of the ticket candidates should be cradle-roll members of that party (Hillary campaigned for Barry Goldwater....)

But I can't help being skeptical about this guy.
We'll see.

TomG said...

At least theoretically, ought they not to be at least the platform's optimal compromise? About Barry Goldwater though - he really wasn't anything close to the ultra-rightist depiction he's given today, with even Reagan being much further to the ideological right of the spectrum ... though it is a something I'd have fun with if I was running McCain's campaign, when the time is right ;)

The Whited Sepulchre said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TomG said...

hope that wasn't a Freudian slip and that you meant "help low wage people" ;) That WM board membership could be a very fun one indeed - one that McCain would be crazy not to capitalize on, where the liberal media's already paved the way to an easy conclusion of hypocrisy to many diehard Dems if they actually knew that about Hillary. Do you know if Obama's on any deemed oppressive capitalist company boards? Cheers, Tom

TomG said...

just saw you had deleted your last one - you may choose to do likewise with mine if you wish, no problem ... otherwise it'll make no sense to anyone, thanks.

Dr Ralph said...

Herein lies the tragedy of third parties in America: during election season they often find themselves hijacked by someone pushing their own political agenda. At that point they become that most American of institutions: The Sorehead Party.

The Dallas Morning News quotes his campaign manager, Russ Verney, talking about Libertarians. "They want to continue having their debates over esoteric issues," says Verney, "They're for absolutely no taxes, absolutely no government. Bob Barr believes government is too big and wants to lower taxes. But to believe there should be no government is irresponsible."

Bob Barr is not a Libertarian, he's an opportunist.

TomG said...

http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2008/05/unlibertarian-party-and-their-dear.html

Of Barr, just came across this one above that you may find of interest:

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Tom,
The reason I deleted it was because I had typed "HELL low wage people", instead of "help". To whom do poor people owe the biggest debt of gratitude, Neiman-Marcus, or Wal-Mart?

If you look at it globally, Sam Walton probably deserved a posthumous Nobel.

Dr.,
I agree that Barr is an opportunist. But the people who want not tax and no govt., in my mind, are anarchists. Not libertarians. I've started reading a lot of them online. One thing they don't understand: just based on personality, if we ever devolve into anarchy, the anarchists will be the first people propped against a wall and shot.

Dr Ralph said...

To clarify, my post about Russ Verney's remark about Libertarians was more an observation about the cynicism with which he and (presumably) the new candidate view the Libertarian Party than a statement on the LP's philosophy.

Of course, hijacking a political party to serve your own purposes never takes place in either of the two majority parties, does it?

Hmm...

TomG said...

thanks WS, and yes I'd noticed the error - which was why I'd joked about it being Freudian ;)
What you just said is exactly my view too (regardless of whether they're the first to be dealt with). A couple of months ago I spent weeks arguing with a couple of very bright and young self-proclaimed anarchists on the von Mises blogsite - trying to bring their fallacious views of what's possible back to their fundamental assumptions, and thus exposing their inherent contradictions. Alas, to no avail (and when I got to such a simple level of first principles for them to freely respond to, I found it curious that the site's maintenance stepped in to rearrange things so that the postings were rescrambled, then removed, and finally my ID didn't work any more ... hmm, think I got the message? The irony being that they would be the first to profess being against censorship).

TomG said...

a point of clarification, now that I've had some java to help think - I'm not saying they changed their site solely or even mainly because of my postings, of course ... for there are a slew of controversial topics and remarks being made during that same time by others. But it was interesting to 'see' how they work to shut you out of the dialogue process by ignoring you totally, and by not putting in their opinions either (I invited that they please correct me if I had any misteps in either my logic or assumptions about human valuation and the dynamics of market exchange). I know enough about the Austrian school to deeply appreciate its founders - who were not anarchists at all, rather adherents of non-intervention in the market's determination of price and 'revealed preferences'. That's a far cry from these young believers in a stateless society - and I'm not sure why the blog's managers wouldn't want to help educate them away from such absurd extremist views. Cheers, Tom