Barr Defines Libertarianism
AND THEN DEFIES IT
By Mande Wilkes
FITSNews – July 3, 2008 - In a recent appearance on Fox News, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr explained why he embodies libertarian principles – we’re just not sure he understands what those principles are.
As we see it, libertarianism is at its core about personal autonomy, that God-given right which has been under attack by politicians who insist that they know what’s best for each one of us. Bob Barr appears to agree, declaring that libertarianism represents the fight “to shrink the size of the federal government.”
But Barr has an odd method of tackling that goal, and anchor Chris Wallace pointedly called him out on his questionable commitment to individual freedom from expansive governance. One by one, Wallace highlights freedom-limiting legislation that Barr helped pass, revealing the Congressman’s voting record to be inconsistent with his declared libertarian paradigm.
When Wallace questioned how the Defense of Marriage Act – which Barr introduced – squares with libertarian ideals, Barr had at the ready a gleaming rationalization of the law.
“The Defense of Marriage Act simply stands for the proposition that each state can set its own definition of marriage and can’t be forced to adopt a different definition of marriage forced on it by another state. That’s a very conservative principle reflecting the fundamental notion of states’ rights in our country.”
Ok, so the nod to states’ rights was slick – libertarianism loves states’ rights – but it is merely a sly way of disguising the fact that the government just got a little bigger. Not since Little Red Riding Hood and the wolf has there been such a wily bait-and-switch. Seriously, it’s ridiculous to assert that the way to protect states’ rights is to pass another federal law.
When the discussion shifted to Barr’s support of the Patriot Act, things really got interesting – and Barr’s rationalizations went from cunning to clueless.
“The powers in the Patriot Act have been used and abused by the Bush administration far in excess of what the Congress intended for it, and it’s those abuses that have led I and a lot of other folks who voted for it under false pretenses essentially to work against it.”
See, that’s the whole problem with the government: give ‘em an inch and they’ll take a mile. And the point of libertarianism is – listen up, Barr! – that we avoid putting ourselves in the position of having to back-peddle on a law. When a law gives the government power, politicians will use the power to the fullest extent – then beg Congress to sign off on additional power. Government is all about give-and-take – guys like Barr give power, and government takes it. Barr’s apparent lack of understanding on this matter presents a serious problem for the Libertarian Party. The guy they’ve chosen to represent the party of small government doesn’t get why government should be small.
On the topic of Iraq , Barr offered the same weak mea culpa as with the Patriot Act.
“I certainly was wrong, along with a lot of others in the Congress, who now realize that their vote in support of military operations in Iraq was not what the administration intended. They intended to occupy the country even though they didn’t tell us or the American people that at the time.”
That Barr admits his mistakes is a nice gesture, but it does nothing to advance libertarianism. From the looks of it, Barr is nothing more than a good apologist for bad judgments.
It’s like we told Sic before his recent nuptials: A good husband is not one who stands at the ready with a box of Kleenex, it’s one who doesn’t cause the crying in the first place. Likewise, a legitimate libertarian is not one who backtracks effusively on his voting record, it’s one who votes smart from the get-go.
A transcript of Barr’s interview can be found here.
Comments
By Piepton on July 3rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
It is possible, although unlikely, that Barr has only recently become a Libertarian after realizing the consequences of handing unchecked executive power to the colossally incompetent.
In this wishful thinking scenario he could be expected to apologize for those votes that he made while naively expecting the President of the United States to put at least some value in the interests and well-being of the people that he represents.
By Mande on July 3rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Piepton: Good point. I had the same thought, but then I took a hard look at his past: his vigorous opposition to medicinal marijuana, his rabid call for Bill Clinton’s impeachment, his proposal that the military ban the practice of Wicca…
I’m open to sincere changes in politicians’ stances. Unfortunately, in Barr’s case, it seems that for so long and with much zeal, he’s at his core a “deciderer” about other people’s choices. I hope I’m wrong in that assessment, especially because he does appear to have it kind of right with regard to issues of taxation.
Of course, I’m giving him less leeway with his apparent “flip-flopping” than I would if he were a Democrat or a Republican. I believe that libertarianism is more straightforward and less nuanced than other idealogies. As such, I can’t easily reconcile Barr’s historically strident positions on issues regarding individual autonomy. The way I see it, there’s simply no place in libertarianism for the buffet-style libertartianism Barr has heretofore demonstrated.
By A deT. on July 3rd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Barr’s explanation of the Defense of Marriage Act — without speaking to the initiative itself — is completely consistent. One can easily be a Libertarian at the federal level, but more interventionalist at the state level. Indeed, that was the way the whole system was set up: the federal government is supposed to be, by definition, limited. The states were, and are, entirely free to be whatever they want, as part of the Great Experiment.
Quite frankly, I could care less if Barr (or any other federal elected official) is a Marxist when it comes to local issues. I could always just leave the town, county, or state. That option is not effectively available at the federal level.
But, all of this pales in comparison to the larger issue: Barr is a nut.
Sooner or later the GOP needs to find a libertarian-leaning candidate who doesn’t evoke visions of UFO abduction and running naked down main street while smoking a fatty the size of your arm.
Barr ….isn’t that guy.
By A deT. on July 3rd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I mean…just look at the guy….
By Vagabond on July 3rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
With all the attention Ron Paul garnered this year, maybe the party figured having a guy with Bob Barr’s name recognition would keep the Libertarian brand in the news.
It won’t work, because real libertarians know Barr is a social conservative, foreign interventionist hawk, and anyone they bring aboard through Barr won’t stick around to support true libertarian causes in the future.
The party of principle would have been better served to sit this one out and publicly endorse Ron Paul — the only candidate calling out the real $53 trillion debt once Medicare and Social Security are included. But sleep well — the Fed printing presses are churning out new money so we’re all good, right?
By James Sweat on July 3rd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Barr support = Obama support
There is no way around that. If Barr pulls 4 or 5 or 6 percent, it won’t be from Obama (duh!). Barr is an early Christmas present for Obama, and may just be his key to victory (given how close presidential elections are currently).
Anyone who supports this nut should be ashamed. You are helping to elect a Marxist by supporting Barr. If you are truly committed to Libertarian principles, you will do everything you can to STOP Obama, not help him.
By Malesapphist on July 3rd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Look at his former district; He was representin not thinking.
By George Whitfield on July 3rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I like Bob Barr. He is not ideal, But he is a whole lot better than Obama, McCain, and Nader. I will be voting for the Libertarian Bob Barr for President. Peace, prosperity and liberty are too important for America for us just to sit back and criticize.
By John on July 3rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Shrinking the size of government is the same thing as expanding liberty.
That’s liberarianism.
By more parties for more liberty on July 3rd, 2008 at 9:10 pm
The notion of not voting for Barr because Obama might then win is warped thinking from a participant in a flawed two party system .
Neither McCain nor Obama is a fiscal conservative. Each want to dramatically increase federal spending – Obamam with socialized medicine, tMcCain with more war- all financed with more debt.Neither candidate wants to shut down or dramatically reduce any federal program or agency.
The question for any intelligent voter is , Why vote for either one of them ?
By D in NH on July 4th, 2008 at 7:36 am
People can change positions. I grew up in a Massachuseetts liberal family. High Taxes, no guns, no fireworks, no pot and putting so much confidence in Government that when they ignored the popular vote and did the opposite people still bowed to them.
That is why I moved North of the Border to NH and if you want to label me a looney or a Marxist or any other ignorant phrase to justify bashing freedom go for it. I need to go with an open carry pistol (No Permit Required) to drive a car without a Seat Belt and go to a friends house to light fireworks. Go back to a dictator state if you want to control your neighbors and leave me alone.
Barr is saying the right things even if his voting record is different. How is that any different from all the other politicians including Obama and Mccain? At least Bob’s message matches my own believe in following the Constituition. There should only be like 550 employees in Washington and a Military sufficient to protect us from Dangers. Not over 1 million on Federal that do not represent my beliefs and force me to pay taxes to support it……
By Jim Peterson on July 4th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
In order to get rid of the idea that he might still be a socon, Barr is going to have to state something along the lines of “porn falls under the 1st Amendment” or whatever. So far, he has only stated that he doesn’t think there is anything “immoral” about homosexuality. Fine Sir. You seem to have no problem giving a nod to gay sexuality…but I want to see you do a convincing job of defending the private sex lives of heterosexuals who are in no hurry to get married.
By Gary Treistman on July 4th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
When Bob Barr is asked a direct question of libertarianism, like “Why do you support the Defense of Marriage Act, when it limits the choices of people to marry as they see fit?” and then answers “I just want to limit the federal government’s ability to limit states ability to make laws as they see fit”, all he is advocating is a states rights issue.
That answer is NOT a libertarian fundamental.
If a libertarian candidate could strengthen the federal government’s ability to limit the states’ rights to impose liberty restricting laws, then he should do it, states’ rights be damned.
States’ rights are generally a good thing because it empowers the local populace and decentralizes government. But it is not fundamentally a good thing from a libertarian stance. What is good from a libertarian stance is the succession of laws that limit liberty and choices.
By Waldo on July 4th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Y’all protestin’ too much, Mande! WTF does FITS News care about DOMA? Gay people are just a punch line on here.
By A deT. on July 5th, 2008 at 9:06 am
“If a libertarian candidate could strengthen the federal government’s ability to limit the states’ rights to impose liberty restricting laws, then he should do it, states’ rights be damned.”
The Founders would cringe at that one.
By Gary Treistman on July 6th, 2008 at 1:21 am
To A deT.:
No doubt the Founders would cringe at such a statement. Their concern was not so much one of individual liberty, but rather one of independent sovereignty from the federal government from things unenumerated in the Constitution and Amendments.
It is a dirty little secret that the Constitution is not a libertarian document, but rather one that largely coincides with many libertarian axioms. This is a dangerous point for Libertarians, because although we generally laud the Constitution, we don’t really agree with it in toto, and that is something we have in common with say the communist party. It doesn’t take much to take that fact and say libertarians reject the Constitution and want to overthroh (<– for the internet spiders) it.
In short, some goals we have as libertarians simply do not comport with the mandates of the Constitution – and that includes limiting states’ rights via federal law that is closer to a libertarian ideal.