Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Bob Barr Takes on the GOP, Democrats
Bob Barr, former GOP Congressman from Georgia, takes on his former Party and dishes plenty of the same on the Democrats in the video below:
Barr is seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination for President of the United States. I always thought that Barr was an interesting guy during his time in Congress, and it will be interesting to see if he gains the traction needed to upset McCain's apple cart should he receive the LP's nomination. (Currently, Barr is polling between one and eight percent, depending on the state, which isn't too shabby given that he has only been a candidate for a number of weeks.)
Someone in the GOP must be scared of a Barr candidacy, though, as several attack articles like this one from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and this one from National Review Online have suddenly popped up on the eve of the Libertarian Party Convention in Denver this weekend. When was the last time that a LP candidate starting receiving fire before the convention? I can't recall it ever happening, to tell the truth.
I could see me supporting Barr. Despite the erroneous report that I had endorsed Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin, I remain uncommitted. It certainly didn't help Baldwin's chances when I attempted to e-mail the head of the Tennessee Constitution Party to see how they planned to gain ballot access here in the Volunteer State. That e-mail came back with fatal errors at the receiving end. What really gives me pause is that the head of the Tennessee Constitution Party is the wife of Baldwin's running mate, Darrell Castle. That certainly didn't inspire any great confidence in the third largest party in the United States.
Barr doesn't strike me as the traditional Libertarian candidate. He hasn't turned himself blue. He hasn't created a nickname for himself like "Liberty Bell," "Apple Pie," or "Firecracker." Heck, I don't think that he's advocated for legalizing statutory rape or bestiality (although he did apparently lobby for medicinal marijuana a few years back). Could Bob Barr lend some much needed credibility to a party that has been short on such for several years?
Barr is seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination for President of the United States. I always thought that Barr was an interesting guy during his time in Congress, and it will be interesting to see if he gains the traction needed to upset McCain's apple cart should he receive the LP's nomination. (Currently, Barr is polling between one and eight percent, depending on the state, which isn't too shabby given that he has only been a candidate for a number of weeks.)
Someone in the GOP must be scared of a Barr candidacy, though, as several attack articles like this one from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and this one from National Review Online have suddenly popped up on the eve of the Libertarian Party Convention in Denver this weekend. When was the last time that a LP candidate starting receiving fire before the convention? I can't recall it ever happening, to tell the truth.
I could see me supporting Barr. Despite the erroneous report that I had endorsed Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin, I remain uncommitted. It certainly didn't help Baldwin's chances when I attempted to e-mail the head of the Tennessee Constitution Party to see how they planned to gain ballot access here in the Volunteer State. That e-mail came back with fatal errors at the receiving end. What really gives me pause is that the head of the Tennessee Constitution Party is the wife of Baldwin's running mate, Darrell Castle. That certainly didn't inspire any great confidence in the third largest party in the United States.
Barr doesn't strike me as the traditional Libertarian candidate. He hasn't turned himself blue. He hasn't created a nickname for himself like "Liberty Bell," "Apple Pie," or "Firecracker." Heck, I don't think that he's advocated for legalizing statutory rape or bestiality (although he did apparently lobby for medicinal marijuana a few years back). Could Bob Barr lend some much needed credibility to a party that has been short on such for several years?
Labels: 2008 General Election, Libertarianism
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Libertarianism and Conservatism
A.C. has an outstanding post over at Volunteer Voters regarding the differences between libertarians and conservatives that stemmed from libertarian John Stossel's speech last night in Nashville for the conservative Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
(I had very much wanted to attend the event, but a) I live in Knoxville, not Nashville and b) a high-profile Blount County case in which I was heavily involved came to a head yesterday.)
A.C.'s post gets to the heart of the matter - libertarianism and conservatism are certainly different, with both having common enemies (liberalism, communism, socialism, anarchy, etc.). Where A.C. and I differ is whether each "Right" entity could carry the day on its own. Perhaps I am too optimistic - formed by reading too many of Ronald Reagan's writings and my salvation in the Holy Trinity - in believing that conservatism could save America from the bureaucratic nightmares that stifle freedom, innovation, and growth in the rest of the world. I certainly agree with A.C. and Stossel that libertarianism cannot win out on its own.
But that begs the question: does each group have to go it alone?
The answer all boils down to whether conservatism and libertarianism have enough common threads to bind the two to victory. It is my position that they do if each side can make a few concessions in regards to ticking off each other. Conservatives have to realize that the core of libertarianism - freedom from all, especially institutions like government - is not that different from conservative values. The problem with libertarianism from the conservative perspective is that it doesn't know where to draw the line - because there is no line. Libertarianism breaks down in the eyes of conservatives when the question is presented as to who has the greater right, the habitual rapist's right to rape or the victim's right to be free from rape? Conservatives solve this type of problem by instituting values (as seen through legislation or social mores) that maintain social order.
However, the point is that one only runs into these problems with libertarianism when one arrives at the fringes of libertarianism. The core is still solid and attractive to conservatives.
A similar problem lies with conservatism from the eyes of libertarians, and that problem is where the beliefs tend to come from - religion. Libertarianism doesn't find much purpose with religion, as liberty and desire trump restraint and social conscience. The conflict comes with religions that are evangelical (which would be the majority of religions and nearly all cults that sometimes get lumped in with valid religions) and wish to apply their values on society - even at the basic level of "murder is wrong." Thus, libertarians like Neal Boortz constantly pick fights with Christians, as libertarianism feels threatened by any restriction in personal liberty, whether well-intentioned, for the purposes of social order, or not well-intentioned, through the desire for power and world domination.
Therefore, in order for a marriage of libertarianism and conservatism to work, conservatives have to realize that libertarianism works most of the time in the same manner as conservatism, until you arrive at fringe situations through a slippery slope. Libertarianism has to realize (as Stossel does) that it is at this point that libertarianism loses public support and gets marginalized. Thus, it greatly assists the cause of libertarianism to focus on its core and not on the fringe hypothetical situations (decriminalization of behavior, not limited to but including drug use, for example), not only for keeping conservatives as an ally but for public acceptance as a legitimate ideology, away from the "scary margins."
By the same token, conservatives have to tone down the rhetoric that directly insults libertarians. As with the above concession for libertarianism, this should help conservatism with the public, as well. Speaking as a conservative Christian, where conservatism loses ground with the middle of the political perspective is when it tunes up the rhetoric that spawns whispers of a growing movement towards a theocracy. A great deal of the problem here is that the wrong voices are being heard the loudest, and those voices are being labeled by a liberal media as the voices of conservatism. (In much the same manner that we paint liberalism with the faces of their worst elements - Ted Kennedy, Al Sharpton, George Soros - liberals do the same with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who are both good men but sometimes deliver sound bites that are indefensible to nonbelievers and only hurt the cause of conservatism.)
The blueprint for success for conservatives, as with so many other items, has been laid by Ronald Reagan. Go back and watch his speeches during his presidency. Read his writings. The man spoke of God and the Almighty, of divine Providence, regularly. However, no offense was taken as it is when some current politicians speak of faith. Conservatives need to actually learn from Reagan, not just throw out his name every election cycle in the hopes of winning brownie points with the base. (An analogy would be actually receiving an education compared to being granted a diploma. There is a difference, although the two are not mutually exclusive.)
If libertarians can stick to their core, mainstream beliefs while eliminating the fringe that marginalizes their movement, and if conservatives can realize that they need to be more like Reagan and not use their faith in an offensive manner, and if both sides realize that they are stronger together with a greater chance for success than they are apart working individually, then the marriage of conservatism and libertarianism could work.
If that doesn't or can't happen, then libertarianism will maintain its status on the margins of American politics and conservatism will continue to rally against the growing tide of socialism and liberalism in this country.
Unlike some, I don't see certain doom for conservatism if the marriage with libertarianism failed. I still think conservatism can win in the long run because it meshes with what is believed to be the founding values of America - freedom from tyranny, the power to make your own destiny, an economic environment that allows for success, leadership, strength in our people and not in our government, liberty to worship God, a strong work ethic, a bit of arrogance and jingoism, and an innovative spirit that knows no bounds on Earth or beyond.
But again, the question arises - why should conservatism go it alone if it needn't travel that solitary path?
Only time and logistics will tell.
Labels: Conservatism, Libertarianism
