Libertarians Storming the GOP Gates
Today, suddenly, the traditional media is beginning to be all a-flutter about Bob Barr announcing his run for the Libertarian Party nomination and barely concealing their anticipation over Ron Paul supporters monkey-wrenching the Republican Convention.
Why a-flutter? Well, here’s Newt:
“Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told The Times today that ‘Bob Barr will make it marginally easier for Barack Obama to become president. That outcome threatens every libertarian value Barr professes to champion.’ ”
And the LA Times political bloggers:
But what’s been largely overlooked is Paul’s candidacy as a reflection of a powerful lingering dissatisfaction with the Arizona senator among the party’s most conservative conservatives.
Barr, at his press conference today, made a comment that every Democratic political junkie will see as a flashback to 2000 — Barr confirmed that he was asked by McCain supporters not to run for fear he would pull votes from the GOP, but he defended his decision by saying that “American voters deserve better than simply the lesser of two evils.” And who does that sound like?
While it is certainly amusing to watch our friends across the aisle struggle watching their weak candidate struggle to manage their traditional coalition, I do wonder what this means in the long term. Rs may publicly flirt with the idea of mutiny, but they are still Republicans, and at the end of the day someone turns on the Borg-tone and they magically return to the hive.
Or is the damage to the brand so catastrophic that electoral distance from that brand (and its most highly visible proponents) enough to encourage more defections?
grab the popcorn boys, the media has had their fun with HRC and Obama…time to focus on the nutjobs
As we saw with Ross Perot or Ralph Nader, you only have to make a difference on the edges to move the election from one side to the other.
I may send Bob a donation… or not.
You know, LG, I would not be surprised to see another Operation Chaos bubble up here — focused on donations and other support to either Barr or Paul. There are some diaries about Barr and today’s discoveries of these Libertarians (at least these higher profile ones) that hint at that possibility.
Guys, what the media has missed (or ignored) is that Barr is only one of about seven significant candidates for the LP nomination, and there is by no means any assurance he’s going to walk into that nomination.
Many Libertarians will be unable to get past the fact that Barr was one of the authors of the Patriot Act, co-wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, and has been–for the past 2 years while a member of the Libertarian National Committee–been running a PAC that has been funneling thousands of dollars of money to Republicans in races where the Libertarians had candidates running.
Many of us see Bob Barr as part of a neocon attempt to take over the LP (we’ve suddenly had Richard Vigueri thrust upon us as a convention keynote speaker).
Even if you want to see an Operation Chaos in reverse, don’t start sending Barr money yet–he hasn’t got the nomination.
Libertarians are offering a new voice to the big-government GOP and to the democratic party, there are more than a few left-libertarians…. the GOP however were not willing to listen to the ideas of sound money, protection of civil liberties, and defense of the constitutional rights of each and every one of us.
Now if the Dems have an epiphany about peacefulness, reluctance to use war as a foreign policy decision making tool where diplomacy and trade are needed, cooperation, no force against the individual, no coercion, constitutionally limited activity and mutually beneficial fair trade there could be greater movement in your direction.
But whenever I look at Lieberman on the tube it makes me wonder about the special interest impact on the Democratic Party.
Otherwise the meltdown in the GOP will create a legitimate third party with its own right and left elements. Either way the old GOP is basically no more; I am calling it here.
Libertarian are notoriously diverse, but I think they would agree that their position has always been that everyone has some things they expect their government to ensure that the libertarian party represents because we are typically arguing for the ideals of the American Constitution: like for example the 4th Amendment, a government that ensures the liberty of the people, etc….
Bob Barr is by no means a shoe-in for nomination at the Libertarian convention as he has many ideas that simply do not jive with Libertarian philosophy like the fact that he co-authored the patriot act, and has been a neo conservative. He has none of the stature of Ron Paul, but if keeps John McCain from winning….every little bit helps.
Steve and Tyler may have a different opinion on this.
(we’ve suddenly had Richard Vigueri thrust upon us as a convention keynote speaker)
What’s up with that? Viguerie has been pretty vocal over the past few years about how BushCo has betrayed “real” repubs (whatever that is) and even put up a website for Ron Paul for awhile. Viguerie is especially good at separating candidates from their money.
Even tho the Libertarian convention isn’t over, I’m interested in the sudden media interest over a couple of news cycles and how they set up the narrative over McCain.
The Operation Chaos stuff wouldn’t be limited to Barr — Ron Paul’s people have been pretty vigorously trying to take over local GOP committees in a few states: NV, ID, MS and ME that I know of and there are probably more. Which itself is interesting since that effort recalls how the social conservatives started their road to power.
Brian –
The Democratic party is the natural home for libertarians. The problem is that there are more “gun nuts” than there are real libertarians.
That’s why they’ve gone to the GOP over the years. If they really cared about the whole constitution then they would have been leaving the GOP in droves begining around 1980.
Jason
“The Democratic Party is the natural home for libertarians.”?
On some social agendas possibly.
But since you have personally declared anybody who wants to shrink government or reduce/eliminate taxes to be a wingnut, there’s not really much room for us gun nutty, anti-drug war, anti-Federal domination of public education, pro-gay marriage (which your party has yet to approach), slashed defense budget (which Obama has promised to raise) folks in the Democratic Party.
Nor can you make much of a case that the Democrats give that much of a rat’s ass about the Constitution, except when it suits their political purposes.
Nobody in the current American political scene is pristine–not Democrats, not GOPers, not Libertarians.
shrink government or reduce/eliminate taxes
It is not about a small government or less taxes (unless you are a wingnut).
The question is are you getting a decent return on your investment? Are you getting safe food and a functioning infrastructure?
You get what you pay for,
And the fact that you see coercive taxes as an investment is precisely why the Democratic Party is not and never will be the home for Libertarians.
You have unfortunately mouthed all the appropriate George Lakoff/Rockbridge Institute talking (“thinking”) points for so long that you have come to believe them.
“You get what you pay for” is a statement that only applies when the transaction is voluntary.
Still haven’t mustered the nerve to deal with the fact that Barack Obama has been shilling for the support of the military/industrial lobbyists, and has actually promised repeatedly (on his official campaign website) to increase the size of both the armed forces and the defense budget, have you?
Steve –
You can’t pretend that taxes are una unvarnished evil.
Please stop it , you sound like a ninny.
Hey you can’t but like a guy who has licked wipped cream off of ladies breast
jason
I have never taken the position you ascribe to me (nor do i lose any sleep over any names you think up for me).
Virtually unlimited taxation for purposes of blatant social engineering, I oppose.
Taxes used to underwrite millions of dollars in loans to Dunkin Donuts from Homeland Security I oppose.
Taxes hidden in the form of regulatory fees that were never voted on by Congress I oppose.
Taxes on the working poor I oppose.
The problem, Jason, is that you (a) only ever select tiny portions of any argument out of context to respond to; and (b) you still insist on reducing everything to Lakoff progressive-style chunks of “framing” that sound nifty but actually mean nothing.
Again, I’m wondering, where are you on Senator Obama’s promise to significantly increase the size of the US military and the size of the US defense budget, both of which will directly line the pockets of the military/industrial complex lobbyists who have so whole-heartedly endorsed him? Are you willing to pay additional taxes for an Obama defense budget that will be higher than Dubya’s?
That is the crux of the problem Steve, if Democrats took fiscal responsibility to the government and did NOT make it an issue of perosnal choice and taxing the people, it would make more sense and make it easier for the libertarian left to support them with gusto.
You are dead on about taxing the working poor and increase the defense department budget and as of yet neither Obama or Clinton has discussed this issue, in fact they want to seem so strong on national defense they are willing to spend even more. That is more than a little alarming for a party that has consistently said they against the war and against the policies of the Bush white house.
Still you have to look at McCain as the alternative and cringe.
Steve –
Talk about theories and talking points. You take the cake my man.
It is pure libertarian theory to argue that Democrats want to tax you to death. Get a grip. Reagan and Bush did more to increase the size of the government than any president other than FDR.
Oh….by the way, you are a pumpkin headed spindle wit. (That should keep you up tonight.)
“Still you have to look at McCain as the alternative and cringe.”
What makes me cringe, Brian, is the abject failure of our political system to provide us with more distinct choices.
I have already sworn off McCain publicly simply for his refusal to drop the doctrine of preemptive war, but I cannot in good conscience vote for Obama, either, despite many stands on certain social issues (gay rights, evolution in the classroom, etc.) that I agree with.
What scares me about the Obama supporters is their inability to see that he is, after all, nothing more than a traditional liberal politician in more upscale packaging.
The problem, Jason, is that you (a) only ever select tiny portions of any argument out of context to respond to; and (b) you still insist on reducing everything to Lakoff progressive-style chunks of “framing” that sound nifty but actually mean nothing.
This is pretty rich, coming from you Steve. (a) covers almost every argument you’ve gotten into here — as a way to argue some position that most often is not oven on the table in the first place and (b), well, I don’t know what the Rackoff-style talking points on the libertarian side would be called, but include the “coercive taxes” phrase in it.
What scares me about the Obama supporters is their inability to see that he is, after all, nothing more than a traditional liberal politician in more upscale packaging.
Speaking of Talking Points.
You are at a Democratic Liberal website. Why would you expect that most of us would not know a liberal politician when we see him or her?
“Why would you expect that most of us would not know a liberal politician when we see him or her?”
(I do quotes because every time I try to do italics it gets stuck in the queue for some reason I don’t understand.)
What my point is, that you dodged pretty thoroughly, is that all of you have been consistently arguing that Barack Obama is a “different” type of politician, and not a typical mainstream liberal.
What I expect is the intellectual consistency to deal with his less appealing aspects, like his defense ties and pandering to that industry.
And I’m sorry if I have talked about positions “not on the table.” Somehow I missed the restriction.
Ah… but I’ve always said that Obama is a politician. A really good politician. What is different, and in my opinion most compelling, about Obama is his method. Yes, I agree with most of his policies, but that’s not the only reason I support him.
What Obama has done, and continues to do, with voters is, IMO, pretty amazing. He has got us off our butts. He has made it clear that “we” have a responsibility to make change happen. He has empowered his supporters. This is the Obama magic.
I can’t just vote for him and then sit back. I have to buy in and step up.
IMO, one of the most important duties of President is to set the tone. And Obama’s tone is sweet! 🙂
And, come on Steve, Obama gets mucho points for calling out the gas tax pandering. It’s risky moves like this that only increase my support. Taking this stand, especially in NC and IN, revealed a lot about this man and how he’d govern.
What my point is, that you dodged pretty thoroughly, is that all of you have been consistently arguing that Barack Obama is a “different” type of politician, and not a typical mainstream liberal.
Which only means that you have not been reading the people you presume to lecture here. Much of the “difference” discussed is in terms of how Dems have (not) distinguished themselves recently in many areas of political behavior and in how progressives really want those differences.
I am not sure that I could pick out even three people posting at this site that I could name as being part of the Obama is Our Savior crowd (and some of these folks surely exist). Obama is not a perfect progressive much less a perfect politician. But letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is not usually a recipe for rational governing, either.
And this: What I expect is the intellectual consistency to deal with his less appealing aspects, like his defense ties and pandering to that industry. is the topic you really want to talk about, as this is the fourth time you’ve tried to make it into a gauntlet. Not that this isn’t a perfectly fine topic, but how you got to this via Jason’s post is the example of leveraging others posts to get to whatever topic you want to spank us on today.
jason
be nice to me or I will subpoena your naked pictures of Jenna Bush
Cassandra,
I think we need to make a clear distinction between the policies and the people who govern. I like the candidates and feel the republicans have made too many mistakes to continue to govern effectively and with the consent of the majority of the people.
I do not disagree with the many of the democratic social policies, I admit it, becuase I am more to the left than the normal libertarian and am a civil libertarian. I want Americans to be free and working for their dreams, to fulfill their potential.
But I do not agree with the policy of increasing the defense budget by 30% we are already up 50% of the total world defense budgets. I also do not think taxing the working poor is a good way to create prosperity in a nation, and it does not mean that after a certain limit there should not be taxes.
What we need to understand is, I think, that to effectively govern in this age our foreign policy is impacting our domestic policies. And, the tighter we clamp down on civil liberties and rights at home by moniotring bank accounts, e-mails, blog postings, the less relative freedom the people have and the more intimidated they are to exercise their rights.
Those are the kind of topics I would like to see the democratic party address; everyone knows FDR’s speech called the four freedoms, I would like the democrats to work to fulfill that. Once they make meaningful contributions in this area I think together we can get back to the effective job of governing the nation without making the average person live in fear of a job, a home, a simple chance at having a part in the American dream.
Over the last seven years that faith that the people had has been ruptured.
There is also a peculiar fact that I think needs to be addressed that is, I know for me that whenever Americans are dying anywhere in the world as a result of bad policy decisions, how can I be happy? I do not feel safer or more free, if anything for the first time in my life I feel less free, poor, and trying to scrape by. To survive at this point feels like enough. I do not ask to have a car or home or anything else any more becuase I feel all of that is out of reach for me, simply becuase I got sick.
I do not want to spank anybody, I want Americans to solve the problems we face constructively on the right and on the left and make sure that we do not forget that a political argument is not personal fight. Despite my experience I firmly beleive that 99.9% of the problems we have at home and in the world now can be overcome through talking as long as we are willing to talk to each other openly first.
Can we do that to focus on bringing the country together?
You know, Brian, this:
What we need to understand is, I think, that to effectively govern in this age our foreign policy is impacting our domestic policies. And, the tighter we clamp down on civil liberties and rights at home by moniotring bank accounts, e-mails, blog postings, the less relative freedom the people have and the more intimidated they are to exercise their rights.
is going to get you alot of agreement across a pretty broad political spectrum these days. The folks who would disagree would likely correlate pretty strongly to those who improbably still think that BushCo is doing a good job.
There are plenty of progressives pushing back on the myriad of ways that this government tries to privilege itself and its corporate partners at the expense of its citizens. There are folks over at the Daily Kos and other blogs who are providing damn near daily updates and action items on telecom immunity. There was a giant effort on net neutrality (which may not be Tier A civil liberties stuff but important) that is still not over. Efforts to close the cell phone data loophole and to try to give citizens the right to not be a part of the astonishing markets created from their data and push back on most of the Patriot Act provisions as the opportunity presents themselves are but a few of the actions that I have taken part in along with very many progressives. (And I suppose I ought to stipulate here that we aren’t successful on all of this.)
Not seeing that there is some overlap in the interests of some Progressives and some Libertarians to focus pretty entirely on where we fail to cut the mustard just seems counterproductive. And is not paying attention to Progressive politics.
Markos (of the Daily Kos) has been trying to make the case for alliances with libertarians and libertarian democrats (and I am NOT proselytizing here) for some time. You can see from many of the trackbacks the challenges.
This fledgling alliance between Barney Frank and Ron Paul on these very limited issues seems promising and has the possibility of being instructive. We can constructively and sometimes innovatively face our problems together — but the word together does imply some pragmatism in getting to the place we want. Everybody who stand off in the corner yelling about the superiority and purity of their ideas or commitment are sort of always gonna be in that corner, you know?
My typical litmus test is relatively low compared to some other Libertarians; it is this… will the ruling party guarantee the constitutional rights of the people?
That includes the second amendment but does not include it in the way you may think. I am not a wingnut. I envision the state, like the state of Delaware, issuing us guns or letting us buy guns and training us to protect and defend our homes and our state from attack. So that citizens and the state limited by the constitution work together, one protects the rights of the people and the people protect the existence of the state. But this implies trust that the state will protect the constitutional guarantees of the people and that the people cultivate virtue in themselves for the good of their fellow citizens in the state.
Right now, for example, I think the state government and the people need to work together to ensure that corruption is not taking place and to protect our rights and rebuild the trust of the people… after seeing the seamy underbelly of politics, I know we need to ensure that corruption is not the norm.
That is not ideologically pure; in fact it is the traditional Jeffersonian ideal of what a republic should be…. many libertarians would not agree with this. I am sure you have found that every party has an ideologically pure strain, and for libertarians it happens to be on the issues of the size and scope of what government can do to us or tries to do for us and taxes are a critical issue here, how can one reasonably say that taxing the poor who work is a good idea? – Libertarians have argued that government should not be in the businesses that either we perceive we can do better or that is contraindicated by the guarantee of inherent rights of the people.
Expanding the military budget when schools are falling apart and roads and bridges, and expanding regulatory authority that is not serving the interest of the people during a period of recession and a crisis of confidence is not wise.
I think we are correct to point this out, but I think it takes a coalition with both parties to agree on the fundemental rights and responsibilities of the government and people.
I would be interested in your thoughts on that….