“No significant political movement takes place without breaking down old alliances and establishing new ones,” says Joh V. Walsh of LRC. “And so it is with the press conference sponsored today by Ron Paul at the National Press Club. There he was joined by Ralph Nader (Independent), Chuck Baldwin (Constitutionalist) and Cynthia McKinney (Green), to take on the War Party Duopoly.”
Unfortunately, as IPR has covered extensively, the alliance against the “War Party Duopoly” did not include Libertarian Bob Barr. Walsh says of Barr:
This is the alignment we have been waiting for. Its opponents are the dogmatists of the old order, the inflexible dogmatists of the “official” peace movement exemplified by United for Peace and Justice, MoveOn, “Progressive” Democrats of America and the culture warriors who cannot think beyond the stereotypes of the “other side.” They are too often joined by politicians like Bob Barr, who cannot think beyond the old ways…
The LP should be included in the “against the war party duopoly”. It’s a natural fit with what the LP agrees on.
Except for the Reform Caucus and their candidate who believe in the initiation of force against people who aren’t threatening us, as long as their skin is dark enough.
My view resides here:
http://radical-centrist.blogspot.com/2008/09/pauls-and-baldwins-and-barrs-oh-my.html
Here’s my take:
http://radical-centrist.blogspot.com.
Outright Libertarians and other anti-Paul libertine moderate-statists are now embracing Barr and his decision to eschew the populist coalition. Rob Power, an Outright leader, called Chuck Baldwin a “fascist” and McKinney and Nader “communists” and said it was good that Barr wouldn’t appear on stage with them… And they say the anarchists are extreme!
This wing of the party, led by George Phillies, is just as poisonous as the Redpath junta faction.
Regarding Barr’s absence, Barr’s campaign spokesman Andrew Davis said, “He (Barr) didn’t want to dilute his message by being on the same stage as people like Cynthia McKinney, who is completely opposite of what a Libertarian is.†(http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/09/10/barr_paul_veep.html)
Barr was absent for his own naive reasons. Being only recently departed from the Republican Party and holding a voting record that displays his socially conservative tendencies, he has only begun to grasp the unfair nature of ballot access laws and campaign financing. He is, however, beginning to feel the crunch.
Libertarians may not agree with the Greens on a lot of social issues, but they do agree on the four principles presented by Paul, so to reject standing on the stage with McKinney was probably an act of Georgian Republican defiance against McKinney herself.
To her credit, McKinney, who served as a Democrat in Congress from the same state during some of the same years as Barr served as a Republican, speaks respectfully of Barr in public, despite their significant differences on social policy.
Baldwin is right. It is globalists v. constitutionalists, not left v. right.
Also, I am begging folks to start providing evidence to support the claim that Barr is the most libertarian candidate in the race. Combine his voting record with his own rhetoric in the campaign on everything from taxes to Iraq to the expansion of the government and I think you’d be hard pressed to make a case supported by the facts that he’s more libertarian than Baldwin or Nader.
Brandon H.
That is how you know the real dichotomy on these issues. When the Republicans call us “far right” for our foreign policy positions, you can easily just say, “so…you are to the left on some issues?”
(Going back to the first two comments)
I never quite understood why the CP are called far right. While the Republicans have what they call “mainstream”, moderates, and different ideological leanings, the CP just offers less of a variety in the leanings of its members than the Republicans. Yet, I sometimes hear Republicans refer to those opposed to the War in Iraq or the USA PATRIOT Act as “leftists” (even though the Democrats voted for those same things plus the fact that foreign policy is not left vs. right). So we agree with the conservative wing of the Republicans on some issues, take positions that they consider liberal on other issues, and then we are some how called “far right”.
Just curious if someone for the GP could over a similar comparison to anyone who refers to them as “far left”.
I think Bob Barr made the right choice in not joining in with the three others at Ron Paul’s press conference. He made the right choice for this year’s campaign, the right choice for maximizing his votes and fundraising, the right choice for building the Libertarian Party, and the right choice in the fight for Liberty.
Having said that, I can also say that had I been the LP nominee, I would have attended Ron Paul’s press conference, and then held my own after.
So why was this the right move?
1st: It’s because, when it comes to Libertarian Principles, the other 3 candidates up there ARE NO WHERE NEAR LIBERTARIAN – none of them. There is not one of the other 3 who would move the country in a libertarian direction.
Sure, they all have some good points. But you can go back through history and probably find at least one point and maybe even four points of agreement with nearly anyone.
2nd: We are building a brand, a Party of Principle that stands for liberty, and we must not dilute or confuse our message by joining a “me too” gang of even lesser 3rd party hangers on.
And it’s really ironic that those who have lamented Bob Barr’s sometimes conservatarian and not quite Libertarian positions on some issues, that when he took this truly PRINCIPLED stand to be a more pure candidate in support of Liberty, a more pure Libertarian, he has been criticized.
3rd: This is doubly ironic, because Ron Paul was often critiqued as being not pure enough and not quite Libertarian on many issues.
And now that Bob Barr continues to evolve gradually, moving closer and closer to being the Pure Libertarian that many, including myself, wish he was, he is attacked for being too Principled.
4th: For those of us who actually want to win and move the country in a Libertarian direction, we have to realize that Ron Paul’s role is ending.
Now, I don’t blame him. He’s old. He’s tired. His wife has been ill. He had plenty of reasons NOT to run for President. And it’s easier and comfortable now for him to stay with the Republicans. He can make a principled show inside congress and point out the follies and failures of the Democrats and, more importantly, the Republicans.
But, this is where his contribution will end. The Republican Party is a fascist-socialist monolith. It is an evil, diabolical monster. It cannot be changed and the fight for LIBERTY can ony be successfully engaged outside that monster. The Republican monster must be killed if we are ever to be free.
People who remain inside the belly of the Republican monster are feeding the enemy.
The other 3rd parties and not moving in the right direction.
If we are to win, we must build a large, well respected, successful, reasonable, rational, PRINCIPLED Party for Liberty.
the Libertarian Party is that party. And in this election we must all support and stick with Bob Barr for President.
He took a courageous, bold, principled stand for US in our fight for freedom. He will help us grow, build our brand, reach out to new people, and shed some of the image of the LP being cultish, small, single minded zealots.
Now, if it were me, I would have attended Ron Paul’s little show – out of loyalty, because he’s my friend.
Then, I would have held my own Press Conference to show that the LP is the only political vehicle on the road to Liberty.
svf–
“Snubgate” didn’t escape the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, who trashed Barr in a piece yesterday (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/10/AR2008091003463.html):
“Ron Paul, the libertarian gadfly who launched a mass movement in his failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination, convened a third-party unity event at the National Press Club yesterday to bring Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin together into one big, happy family of independent presidential candidates.
But as soon as Paul reached out to apply the Revlon to the snout, Barr went hog-wild, turning the gathering into a barnyard brawl.”
lentil,
Oh, I have no concern about the peace advocacy and the coalition building that Walsh advocates, lentil. Its its admixture with an unexpressed preference – here in this article anyway – for the destruction of Christianity. I don’t make these statements because I simply imagine them to be true, naturally. My concern with Walsh is not with his feelings about Barr or the four principles or anything along those lines, but with what I already know of his noxious hostility toward religion, particularly Christianity. It’s one thing to consider Christianity repellent and quite another to call for its destruction. The latter posture places one right up their with Julius Streicher.
the rhetorical delusions of grandeur spun by the yammering Paulite Fanboys at LRC continue to amaze and nauseate anyone with even a tenuous grasp on reality…
speaking of which, have y’all noticed that the “snubgate saga” essentially exists only in the 24/7 online liberlunacy fishbowl that is LRC, IPR, and RPForums?
Step away from your computers and get some fresh air.
johnlowell,
What you ignore, of course, is that Walsh saw past that at looked at a common bond. There are many disagreements between the candidates and their supporters, but there are also similarities. Each of the four agreed that the importance of the four points outweighed their differences.
Barr, on the other hand, is used to the currently existing system. He is stuck in a conservative cult of personality. The CIA man (ex?) is too full of himself to see the bigger picture.
Good riddance to him and good riddance to the LP.
Perhaps it is time, as was mentioned on Kn@ppster’s Blog, that we start the Green Tea Party.
Most curious. John V. Walsh calling for the inclusion of the terribly Christian Constitutional Party into his realignment? Walsh is of the same opinion, he tells me, as that held by Alexander Cockburn regarding the Christian religion. In an article this Summer at Counterpunch, Cockburn had expressed sadness that the Roman persecutions hadn’t destroyed Christianity. One wonders if he – and Walsh, I’d guess – might have felt similarly about the Holocaust. Were they equally sad about Hitler’s failure to complete the job on the Jews? From what he tells me Walsh’s anti-religious hatred isn’t rivetted on Christianity alone. What about it John? Should Baldwin duck for cover in your realignment?
And really, what authority does Barr derive from to “co-write” such a platform in the first place? The only logical answer is that all four of them had a hand in crafting and agreeing to it along with Paul, though most likely not in direct negotiation. Barr is a swine though, and in the past 48 hours alone he and his staff have passed the whole thing off as part of his genius plan and how the idea is to unite around him.
I’m assuming that if he “co-wrote” the platform then he knew he’d be expected to appear in public with other third party and independents to promote the platform, otherwise what was the point of being involved at all?
But ultimately he decided to spurn Paul and shoot for it all. What kind of gesture is that?
Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr endorsed and co-wrote the four-point platform discussed in the linked article.
Hope this helps.
Matt, I believe the labels far left and far right are deceiving. There are many more axes in the political spectrum that are more complimentary, but in general, I agree.
If the far right and the far left knew how much they actually had in common, the duopoly would be cracked within two election cycles.