I think a Barr/Gravel or Gravel/Barr ticket would have been ideal (relatively ideal). That would certainly get media attention and hopefully result in a more balanced perception of libertarians. Since I'm guessing that most Americans frame politics along the Democrat/Republican axis, it would have been great for people to actually have to stop and think about why the Libertarian Party has a former Republican and a former Democrat on the same ticket.
With Barr/Root the perception of the LP (and by extension "libertarians" in general for most people) being "ultraconservative" or at least right-leaning will probably continue, if not intensify.
Chris Hallquist
· 1 year ago
You've got an extra "http//" in that bottom link.
Ben W.
· 1 year ago
My defense of Barr: a) he's a heck of a lot more credible as a political entity than the other candidates, including Gravel
b) even someone who has conservative views on topics can argue credibly from the standpoint of supporting federalism
c) his motive argument of wanting to open up the political process is valid and much-needed
d) the republican brand is seriously tainted, and republicans will be far more receptive to alternatives than liberals. IMO the only thing which would counter this is if Hillary had won the nomination, in which case conservatives would unite behind the Republican just to keep her out.
I wouldn't say I'm enthused either, exactly, but Barr probably has a better chance than others at actually being heard.
Michael
· 1 year ago
Wait, so who is Barr's VP? I watches the end of the convention but didn't see who it was.
I think that it's hard to go from Democrat to Libertarian, since Democrats are liberal and Libertarians are essentially ultra-conservative.
Michael
· 1 year ago
Wait, so who is Barr's VP? I watched the end of the convention but didn't see who it was.
I think that it's hard to go from Democrat to Libertarian, since Democrats are liberal and Libertarians are essentially ultra-conservative.
Steve Horwitz
· 1 year ago
A few thoughts I just posted over at Liberty and Power ( http://hnn.us/comments/123067.html ). I'm not enthused about Barr, but I do see some possible upsides.
As someone whose substantive views were probably closest to Ruwart, here's a few thoughts.
Downside of Barr:
1. He's a politician. 2. Although I do think he's on the road to libertarianism, I'm not yet convinced he's there sufficiently. I remain skeptical but open to be persuaded. 3. He will reinforce the image of the LP as disaffected conservatives. That is not an image I wish to project. 4. There is a long-run risk of turning the LP into the GOP Jr., which is a real problem.
Upside:
1. He's a politician. He has a name and knows how to play the game that the LP should be playing. 2. He will bring media attention to the LP and its ideas and especially the reasons he broke with the GOP (civil liberties and the war esp.). 3. His call for withdrawal from Iraq distances him from BO and JM. 4. He'll likely pull more votes from McCain from Obama, and that is a GOOD thing for liberty, on the margin anyway.
If Barr and Root can run a campaign that articulates three things clearly, I'll declare it a good thing:
1. A clear defense of a non-corporatist free market economic policy that stresses the way deregulation, competition, and economic growth can address the problems that will be on the agendas of the major candidates.
2. A foreign policy of "trade, don't invade" that includes a clear call for withdrawing from Iraq as quickly as possible.
3. Convey an air of tolerance of "experiments in living" on the social/cultural front. The federalist position here is acceptable IF it's accompanied by some understanding that it would be a good thing if more states backed off the war on drugs and allowed for same-sex marriage (among many other things). Given Root's background, internet gambling might be another issue here too.
Can they do this? Does Bob Barr really mean it all? Stay tuned.
Micha Ghertner
· 1 year ago
When it comes to filthy non-theoretical politics, the soft bigotry of low expectations is where it's at, yo.
Christopher Monnier
· 1 year ago
> I think that it’s hard to go from Democrat to Libertarian, since Democrats are liberal and Libertarians are essentially ultra-conservative.
Is this supposed to be ironic based on my comment? Libertarians are NOT ultra-conservative. Libertarians are liberal.
chad
· 1 year ago
Now you know how republicans feel. And this one is voting Barr.
Jared Lorz
· 1 year ago
I can't in good conscience vote for Bob Barr. To me it would be rubber stamping the Republican hijacking of the Libertarian Party. They pooped in their sandbox now they have to play in it!! First it's Bob Barr, next it's going to be Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh joining and the next thing you know, the Republicans will have successfully rebranded their BS and Libertarian platform.
Butler T. Reynolds
· 1 year ago
I sort of feel your pain, but Gravel?
The LP can't catch a break. Get a purist, and he's not mainstream enough. Get a more mainstream guy, and he's not libertarian enough.
scenic central virginia
· 1 year ago
I'm going to direct you to my knock-down argument in favor of Barr: it's here and here.
But allow me to add one remark:
Bob Barr will NOT inspire a cult of personality and this is an excellent thing. One of the most important messages in libertarianism is don't look for your salvation in politicians. By nominating Barr, we prevent the possibility of replicating, the creepy bowing and scraping of kow-towing Obama-maniacs.
Is it possible for people to sell the libertarian message in an inspiring way? Sure. I would hardly object if a taller, more movie star-esque version of Milton Friedman were selling libertarian ideas back in the day. But a body of ideas shouldn't be bound to the particularities of one person. One creepy part of the Ron Paul phenomenon was "The Church of Ron, Ron Paul, Reverend." Liberty is the thing--we don't want the messenger outshining the message. Bob Barr is sensible but far from charismatic. He won't outshine anything.
jwpegler
· 1 year ago
During the debate Gravel said that people can’t truly be free if they are hungry and uneducated. This is exactly what socialists of all stripes have been saying for more than 100 years. This excites you in what way???
Hugh
· 1 year ago
There is no question, at least to me, that if Ayn Rand had never been born, there would be no Libertarian party.
Ayn Rand was known to NEVER trust anyone with a mustache or beard. I'm not sure of the validity of this, but looking at Barr and his sideways glances at the camera in many of his photos, his cattiness brought back these thoughts. In my mind, he looks like a crook.
Shave and have the guts to look at the camera.
wootendw
· 1 year ago
Ayn Rand had, at most, a mild mistrust of some men with beards. And Barr looks directly into the camera when he has something to say.
Hugh
· 1 year ago
I've never seen him look into the camera. (at least on still photos) He looks like a Realtor or car salesman. Ayn Rand had a BIG distrust of beards and mustaches, not a mild distrust.
student
· 1 year ago
Gravel is not an economic libertarian AT ALL, When asked about government role in economy, schools, regulation, he kept saying "well, that we can work out." I am practical (I wouldn't abolish welfare or anything, but Gravel is just an old fashioned liberal- socially and economically liberal).
John Combs
· 1 year ago
Is this supposed to be ironic based on my comment? Libertarians are NOT ultra-conservative. Libertarians are liberal.
you're right, they're not ultra-conservative. also, you're wrong. they're not liberal.
libertarian was the name of a political point of view long before it was a political party. even thoreau and emerson claimed to be libertarian.
so libertarians are libertarians. we came BEFORE conservatism in america as well as liberalism. we are neither and both conservatives and liberals have more in common with each other than either has with libertarians
John Combs
· 1 year ago
ayn rand's philosophical point of view is one that i hold very dear to my heart and disagree with only a small amount of issues, all very minor and all issues were ones she herself said she knew little about.
and, from an objectivist's point of view of integrity, reason and purpose, i can't believe some of you are seriously judging a candidate based on her prejudices of physical appearance. why didn't she trust men with beards?...probably because she just plain didn't like beards. that's not logic...that's childish.
John Combs
· 1 year ago
also, Gravel is a terrible candidate for the LP. watching the debate, he seemed to still believe that authority was better at handling most decisions that individuals.
also...mary ruwart...very bad for PR for us...never mind why. it's a dead issue now that we need to drop...but if she'd been our candidate......
All Comments
With Barr/Root the perception of the LP (and by extension "libertarians" in general for most people) being "ultraconservative" or at least right-leaning will probably continue, if not intensify.
a) he's a heck of a lot more credible as a political entity than the other candidates, including Gravel
b) even someone who has conservative views on topics can argue credibly from the standpoint of supporting federalism
c) his motive argument of wanting to open up the political process is valid and much-needed
d) the republican brand is seriously tainted, and republicans will be far more receptive to alternatives than liberals. IMO the only thing which would counter this is if Hillary had won the nomination, in which case conservatives would unite behind the Republican just to keep her out.
I wouldn't say I'm enthused either, exactly, but Barr probably has a better chance than others at actually being heard.
I think that it's hard to go from Democrat to Libertarian, since Democrats are liberal and Libertarians are essentially ultra-conservative.
I think that it's hard to go from Democrat to Libertarian, since Democrats are liberal and Libertarians are essentially ultra-conservative.
As someone whose substantive views were probably closest to Ruwart, here's a few thoughts.
Downside of Barr:
1. He's a politician.
2. Although I do think he's on the road to libertarianism, I'm not yet convinced he's there sufficiently. I remain skeptical but open to be persuaded.
3. He will reinforce the image of the LP as disaffected conservatives. That is not an image I wish to project.
4. There is a long-run risk of turning the LP into the GOP Jr., which is a real problem.
Upside:
1. He's a politician. He has a name and knows how to play the game that the LP should be playing.
2. He will bring media attention to the LP and its ideas and especially the reasons he broke with the GOP (civil liberties and the war esp.).
3. His call for withdrawal from Iraq distances him from BO and JM.
4. He'll likely pull more votes from McCain from Obama, and that is a GOOD thing for liberty, on the margin anyway.
If Barr and Root can run a campaign that articulates three things clearly, I'll declare it a good thing:
1. A clear defense of a non-corporatist free market economic policy that stresses the way deregulation, competition, and economic growth can address the problems that will be on the agendas of the major candidates.
2. A foreign policy of "trade, don't invade" that includes a clear call for withdrawing from Iraq as quickly as possible.
3. Convey an air of tolerance of "experiments in living" on the social/cultural front. The federalist position here is acceptable IF it's accompanied by some understanding that it would be a good thing if more states backed off the war on drugs and allowed for same-sex marriage (among many other things). Given Root's background, internet gambling might be another issue here too.
Can they do this? Does Bob Barr really mean it all? Stay tuned.
Is this supposed to be ironic based on my comment? Libertarians are NOT ultra-conservative. Libertarians are liberal.
The LP can't catch a break. Get a purist, and he's not mainstream enough. Get a more mainstream guy, and he's not libertarian enough.
But allow me to add one remark:
Bob Barr will NOT inspire a cult of personality and this is an excellent thing. One of the most important messages in libertarianism is don't look for your salvation in politicians. By nominating Barr, we prevent the possibility of replicating, the creepy bowing and scraping of kow-towing Obama-maniacs.
Is it possible for people to sell the libertarian message in an inspiring way? Sure. I would hardly object if a taller, more movie star-esque version of Milton Friedman were selling libertarian ideas back in the day. But a body of ideas shouldn't be bound to the particularities of one person. One creepy part of the Ron Paul phenomenon was "The Church of Ron, Ron Paul, Reverend." Liberty is the thing--we don't want the messenger outshining the message. Bob Barr is sensible but far from charismatic. He won't outshine anything.
Ayn Rand was known to NEVER trust anyone with a mustache or beard. I'm not sure of the validity of this, but looking at Barr and his sideways glances at the camera in many of his photos, his cattiness brought back these thoughts. In my mind, he looks like a crook.
Shave and have the guts to look at the camera.
you're right, they're not ultra-conservative. also, you're wrong. they're not liberal.
libertarian was the name of a political point of view long before it was a political party. even thoreau and emerson claimed to be libertarian.
so libertarians are libertarians. we came BEFORE conservatism in america as well as liberalism. we are neither and both conservatives and liberals have more in common with each other than either has with libertarians
and, from an objectivist's point of view of integrity, reason and purpose, i can't believe some of you are seriously judging a candidate based on her prejudices of physical appearance. why didn't she trust men with beards?...probably because she just plain didn't like beards. that's not logic...that's childish.
also...mary ruwart...very bad for PR for us...never mind why. it's a dead issue now that we need to drop...but if she'd been our candidate......