Barr Buzz
Jim Babka on Jul 16th 2008
Former Senator Jesse Helms died July 4. Libertarian nominee Bob Barr eulogized the late Senator with a heaping helping of high hagiography. That’s really upsetting some Libertarians, including some dude running for President from the Boston Tea Party because, well, Helms was a racist, sexist, and homophobe. And, according to the Tea Party candidate, if Bob has something nice to say about Jesse, then Bob must be those things too!
Indeed, racism is offensive. Jesse Helms said and did some quite uncharitable things. I don’t care for that. But I think this criticism misses the most important point (which I’ll get to in a minute), because any politician, even those who’ve done good, have probably done something, if not lots of somethings, that are very anti-libertarian. Personally, I think both Tony Snow and Tim Russert were pro-establishment and statism-enablers. But I was still saddened by both of their deaths. I dealt with Tony briefly in 2000, and found him to be a gentleman.
As a Christian, I always hope for mercy on the soul of the departed. I further believe the dead deserve a bit of the benefit of the doubt in our published or broadcast remembrances of them because they can no longer hear the criticism — but their family and dear friends can. Reasonable people can disagree with me, but I’ve been on the other side of postmortem criticism as a survivor and spokesperson for a “great man,” and so I view this as a Golden Rule issue.
The Tea Party candidate sees himself as the true Libertarian candidate — from a spin-off party, formed after the 2006 Libertarian Party Convention. I don’t know if this party will have their candidate on a single ballot. They appear to exist entirely for unherdable cats, hell-bent on criticizing the LP.
The Boston Tea Party candidate doesn’t source his quotes nor date them. He even accuses Barr of positions that Barr has repudiated and apologized for. If this candidate was alone, then you could dismiss his critique on Barr as political ax-grinding.
But the Internet is abuzz with this story. The Tea Party blog post is not isolated. Barr has a problem: Lots of people in the LP, including prominent members like David Nolan and Mary Ruwart, think he’s not really _yet_ a Libertarian. If you Google “Bob Barr, Jesse Helms,” you’ll find several blog posts about this tempest in a tea pot. And it looks to me like Barr gave some further credence to the doubters in the tiny and shrinking LP subculture.
But I promised I’d get to the real problem with Barr’s statement, and here it is — Barr’s statement itself. It’s not Who it was about, or what that Who did. Here’s the statement from the Barr2008 site:
I was deeply saddened to hear of Sen. Helms’ passing and want his family to know they are in my heart and prayers at this time. Sen. Helms was one of the finest, most courageous and deeply principled men to ever serve in the United States Congress. As President’s Reagan’s right hand and ally, he helped bring down Communism so that nations might grow and flourish in freedom. He was a stalwart ally of freedom fighters around the globe, knowing that we are all diminished if we allow fascism to flourish. He was also the consummate gentleman, revered by colleagues, staff and friends for his unfailing kindness, good humor, generosity and patriotism.
Today, as we celebrate our freedom and independence, we should stop and give thanks to God for the life and work of Jesse Helms. As a nation we are stronger and the world is freer for his commitment to liberty. May God bless his family.
Could you imagine other Libertarian nominees like Harry Browne or David Bergland writing that?
Here’s what’s specifically wrong with this statement . . .
1) Ronald Reagan did not bring down Communism. He might’ve hastened the demise of its largest and most important State. But State Communism was a system that was inherently doomed to fail and had only lasted as long as it had in the Soviet Empire because Western Democracies had subsidized it. Let’s give credit where it’s due: Reagan slowed subsidies to the Soviets and invited them into an arms race they were doomed to lose — because their system was too anti-human to be able to produce and keep up. But Reagan didn’t defeat Communism like some kind of Superman. Barr is promoting the GOP myth machine. Ask yourself, “Would Murray Rothbard agree with that?”
2) “If crime fighters fight crime, and firefighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?” asked George Carlin. The Libertarian message is non-interventionist. Barr had to go to lengths to demonstrate he was opposed to Iraq just to get his new party’s nomination. After all, he voted for the Iraq resolution. Well, he said he wanted the troops to come home from Iraq. But I noticed, while watching the C-SPAN televised debate, that he never called for a totally non-interventionist foreign policy. Perhaps he doesn’t really believe in it . . .
3) We are “diminished if fascism flourishes?” Given the context, it’s clear he’s not speaking domestically. Again, perhaps he’s wanted libertarians to believe that he really harbors libertarian foreign policy ideals in his heart, but that, “We live in dangerous times,” or some other nonsense. So we have to butt into other nation’s affairs — play world policeman.
But James Madison, George Washington, and their colleagues lived in dangerous times too — much more so than today. Madison and friends gave us the Bill of Rights. Washington urged us to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy. Since, “War is the health of the State,” then supporting interventionism is supporting Big Government, period — case closed. And Libertarians are, if anything, anti-Big Government.
David Bergland, while campaigning in 1984, was told by a voter who wasn’t going to vote Libertarian because he believed it was “unrealistic.” The voter said, “Really, I’m a Libertarian at heart.” Bergland replied, “Well, when it reaches your balls, give me a call.”
I’m not the one suggesting that Barr has a problem. I’ve had numerous people ask me what I think of Barr — people who lead groups and have radio shows. I tell them that I remain hopeful that he can use his potentially powerful conversion/enlightenment story to persuade conservatives to become former conservatives, like I did. But when it comes to a non-interventionist foreign policy, it still appears Barr has to prove what parts of his anatomy are really Libertarian.
Filed in The Barracks, The Basement, The Bureau
Yes, Colorado and Florida are both going to have Boston Tea Party’s candidate Charles Jay on the ballot. We expect to be on the ballot in about ten or twelve states, and we have candidates registering as write-in candidates in states where that is required. As well, the Boston Tea Party is endorsing candidates from other parties (mostly LP so far) who agree with our smaller government platform.
We are hell bent on criticising both the government and the Libertarian Party where criticism is appropriate. In the case of the LP, we direct almost all of our criticisms at the national party organisation which has attempted to silence LNC member Angela Keaton for daring to ask questions about how the LP is spending money, which has attacked candidates in the pre-convention process as far back as 1996, and which has used national headquarters staff and resources to preferentially benefit campaigns as recently as this year. Many committed libertarians are concerned with the LP in all cases where it acts corruptly, negligently, or mistakenly.
As someone who is, shall we say, testicularly challenged, I must make do with only my brain as far a decision-making processes.
And my brain tells me that the Boston Tea Party, far from being simply an outlet for Barr-bashing, is a fast growing party that has tapped into some of the very real discontect with the Republican takeover of the Libertarian Party.
Mr. Barr’s comments did nothing more than add fuel to many former (as well as present) Libertarians that Mr. Barr is not only sympathetic to the Republican party’s intolerant and statist ideals, but in fact is willing to throw the principals that founded the Party of Principals under the bus to further his political/neocon goals.
I for one would like to see Mr. Barr spend at least as much time furthering liberty and personal freedom as he has spent underminding the Constitution with his homophobic and drug-warrior legislation before trying to run for president. Actions really do speak louder than words.
As far as the Boston Tea Party existing merely to criticizing the LP, I think of it more along the lines of a Venn Diagram-with the inner circle being freedom and personal liberties and the Libertarian Party (if not necessarily their candidates) and the Boston Tea Party as the inner connected outer rings.
Man, I am sooo glad to be out of the LP.
I can sympathize with you “glad to be out of the LP” sentiment. You were not there in Denver. IT was an abomination, of any of the three prior LP national conventions I attended were any gauge.
Even though the unofficial all-inclusive debate was advertised well before the convention, the only candidate who did NOT participate was Barr. I had heard several Barr supporters say that he couldn’t make it because his schedule made that time slot unavailable for him . . . he was having the all-important rally. Yeah right. With free food and drink to influence delegates to vote for him, either right away or on subsequent ballots, Barr couldn’t tear himself away because of scheduling. However, Mary Ruwart HAD a scheduled event as well, but realized that the delegates deserved a fair chance at seeing ALL the candidates answer questions at a common forum, before committing their token.
The problem with Barr regarding this unofficial debate was that he thumbed his nose at the delegates, AND the Libertarian Party. He SEGREGATED himself from the rest of the party!
The other (major) problem with Barr was that he basically lied during the C-Span debate, where he came on fairly strongly libertarian (not nearly strong enough if you took the time to analyze his calculated answers) by somewhat repudiating his prior self as a congressman, federal prosecutor, and CIA operative! Now that he is trying to appeal to the electorage in general, he is doing just as all statist politicians (isn’t that a redundancy) do . . . he is re- hedging his repudiations and largely going back to his former positions again.
Couple this conservative ticket of Barr/W.A.R. with the vaguefying of the LP platform, and we no longer have a “Party of Principle”.
I highly doubt that Harry Browne would approve. One can only hope that the 2008 LP presidential ticket will continue to show its true conservative colors, and continue to slowly convince the supporters that something has gone rotten in Denmark. We can also hope that Mary Ruwart will have the last hurrah through all of this and emerge as the LP candidate in 2012.
Don’t let facts get in the way of ideology.
Just because Mr. Rothbard said the Soviet Union was destined to collapse on its own, doesn’t make it so. Bad forms of government can last for centuries. Rome did not fall in a day. Tyranny is the norm for human government.
The Soviet system was crashing…in the 1930s. Then, they had starvation and massive prison camps. By the 70s, the prison camps were mostly closed, and the people were fed. Life was gray and boring in the old Soviet Union, but the system was “working.”
And it was spreading.
It is possible that the Soviet Union would have collapsed in the 80s on its own, but most observable facts point in the other direction. So put some error bars on your assertion.
I was recently asked by our publisher for the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, forthcoming this August, if we would include in it some last-minute mention of Barr. My answer: No, because it’s too soon to know whether he really should be counted a libertarian, let alone to know what his effect will be on the libertarian movement. I may have been being overly charitable, there.
That said, I may vote for him all the same, as the least of the several evils on the ballot before me. The idea that democracy legitimizes anything of what follows from it has never had less weight with me than it does right now.
I was Harry Browne’s Press Secretary in 2000. I ended up managing the organization he co-founded. And I was the guest host of his show during the last nine months of his life. And yet, I find the question, “What would Harry Browne think of this presidential race?” almost amusing. I doubt he’d be satisfied. But I know for sure he wouldn’t publish his every concern while the campaign was still underway.
But Harry Browne was not treated well by the same people (or type of people) who are most vocally critical of Barr (in many cases I can do a direct name by name comparison).
Let me be clear: Bob Barr is no Harry Browne! It’s not even close. But Harry was vilified for all kinds of ill-conceived, ill-informed reasons. A commenter above says that the national office “has attacked candidates in the pre-convention process as far back as 1996.” Well, I was around in 1996 and 2000, and that’s absolutely NOT true. But this is precisely the kind of stuff that was spread around (and yes, I know what happened to Mary Ruwart this year).
And the notion that somehow Barr cheated by not showing up to some event or that he hi-jacked the party, as a caller put it during one of my Jerry Hughes Show Friday appearances, is just plain silly. And as I’ve already written on this blog, the same type of accusations were made about Harry Browne (and Ron Paul, and anyone else who ran for office).
It’s toxic. It’s silly. And there’s not enough Libertarians to tolerate all this circular firing squad activity.
Partisan politics, unfortunately, represents automatic compromise. By throwing your lot in with others, you automatically are agreeing to make some concessions. Not everybody is you. Not everyone is going to do things the way you do them. They don’t agree with you 100% of the time.
I think Jason Kuznicki made the right decision about whether to include Barr. I think the critics who are trying to undermine the Barr campaign are wrong.
Here’s how I’d draw the line. Ludwig von Mises, in a gross overgeneralization of his work, “The Anti-Capitalist Mentality,” said basically, if you don’t like something about a particular enterprise, then weigh whether or not it’s a big enough problem to stop patronizing it. If so, then simply stop patronizing it or start a competitive enterprise of your own. But don’t try to fix that which you don’t own. Only the anti-capitalist wastes any time in shouting at, demonstrating on, or picketing against the enterprise.
And Harry Browne, for twenty years before he ran for President, said in “How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World,” that trying to reform the behaviors or choices of others fall into the Utopia Trap and are choosing the “indirect alternative,” over the “direct alternative” — choosing a form of bondage, instead of true individual freedom.
So if you go to the convention and can’t get your candidate selected, you can go home and sit on your hands. But you hurt your party when you openly attack the candidate who won while the campaign is still going on. The Tea Party, unfortunately, has a limited future, and it has nothing to do with my personal opinion, but rather the campaign laws — particularly those administered by the FEC and the ballot access laws. Unfortunately, the same thing can be said for the LP. But it has one additional problem — it can’t achieve unity.
I was in Denver, and was disgusted by Barr, and only slightly less so by Root. I’ve been active in the LP since the first Bush wanted me to read his lips… I am an Officer on the LPMA State Committee, a two term Elected Libertarian officeholder (admittedly at the bottom of the political food chain, I ran and I got elected…) and I am going to be a Presidential Elector if the LP carries Mass. (a VERY low probability)
Considering that Barr has problems with EVERY libertarian position that I feel strongly on, there is no way in hell I could vote for him, either in the general, or as a Presidential Elector. (This would not IMNSHO make me a “faithless elector” - I pledged to cast a vote for the libertarian candidate - Barr is NOT a Libertarian, and purchasing the nomination doesn’t make him one!) I haven’t always LIKED the candidates running under the LP banner, but Barr is the FIRST I’ve ever found so totally unacceptable that I couldn’t at least hold my nose…
ART
LPMA Operations Facilitator
LPMA Presidential Elector
Billerica Town Meeting Rep.
Speaking for myself only
I have been a Libertarian Party member and voter (and sometimes an activist, party official, and candidate) since 1975. I am not going to weigh in on whether Bob Barr has truly had a “Road to Damascus” moment and become a libertarian. That is something he must decide.
But anyone who has performed as many anti-liberty acts as Bob Barr performed while in power should, as a convert to the ways of liberty, shovel a lot of shit for a lot of years trying to undo his actions before he decides that he is The Man To Lead The Cause.
Jim,
I disliked the press release regarding Helms.
Like you, my primary concern was not the overly broad praise and therefore, the logical deduction that Barr must agree with every unsavoray position of Helms. It was the specific praise of Helm’s foreign policy views.
However, on reconsideration, I was less concerned. For a variety of reasons, I would rather that Barr had not issued the release, but I think it is most important to avoid making historical litmus’ tests.
In particular, I don’t think it is necessary for converts to libertarianism to adopt
the view that the Soviet Union was not a serious threat. During the late Cold War, I supported the consensus LP view that the Soviet threat was exaggerated, that Europe and Japan should defend themselves, and that trying to stop communist movements in the third world was a mistake. Harry Browne and David Bergland held that view was well.
I don’t think it is necessary for new libertarians to sign on to that (our) view. Given the situation today, is substantially less foreign intervention a good idea?
For some reason or other, Barr is advocating closing down foreign bases, making rich allies responsible for their defense, withdrawal from Iraq, and defusing the conflict with Iran. That is good enough for me. I don’t require that he adopt my view on the proper foreign policy relative to the Soviet Union over 20 years ago.
I would rather not have a candidate who harps on how important it was for the U.S. to confront the Soviet Union, but then points out that after the fall of the Soviet Union conditions have changed. However, I could tolerate such a canddiate and can even see some benefits to such a position. Fortunately, Barr isn’t emphasizing that so far, but it was in the Helm’s release. (Well, without even mentioning that conditions have changed.)
I fully accept that libertarians may change their minds on foreign policy. That is, someone may support substantially less interervention, and then, because of a change in conditions, support more intervention. This could even happen to me.
The neo-libertarians (or liberventionists) made such a change after 9-11. I think this change in view was completely unjustified. But I continue to hold out hope that such people will return to their senses. That is, they will see how the inviasion of Iraq was a mistake.
I also very much disliked the statement about fascism diminishing all of us. While I agree with the statement in general terms, the context was in praise of Helm’s anti-communist interventionism. (And isn’t a paradox that Helms had a reputation of rembracing the most tyrannical regimes as long as they were anti-communist?)
And, of course, this is exactly the rhetoric emphasized by neo-conservatives. My view is that foreign tyrrany is a bad thing, but that an interventionist foreign policy is still a mistake. However, that is hardly the impression created by the context in Barr’s release.
I hope that the Barr campaign can learn to avoid these misteps.
Do you think it might be possible to sue under fraud or truth-in-advertising statutes to force the LP to change its name to the Libertarian-ish Party?
David Bergland, while campaigning in 1984, was told by a voter who wasn’t going to vote Libertarian because he believed it was “unrealistic.” The voter said, “Really, I’m a Libertarian at heart.” Bergland replied, “Well, when it reaches your balls, give me a call.”
Yes, and it is that arrogant, insulting, condescending mindset that has kept the LP firmly entrenched on the margins of American politics. The “purists” (read: extremists) seemingly would rather engage in mental masturbation over how many Ayn Rands can dance on the head of a pin than actual getting somone who advocates and endorses libertarian ideas elected, petualnt children who, unless they can get EVERYTHING they want enacted- RIGHT NOW!- they won’t play. The difference between Libertarians, and libertarians, perhaps?