Jim Antle covers Virgil Goode and Gary Johnson in this article on options for anti-war conservatives.
This dilemma is particularly acute this year. Let’s just go back to 2008, when the two major party candidates were Obama and a far more committed hawk than Romney in John McCain. At least the Constitution Party nominated Chuck Baldwin, a candidate who had opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. The Libertarian Party nominated Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman who had turned sharply against the war. Both men were fairly decent choices for the antiwar conservative.
Four years later, the Constitution Party nominee is a former Republican congressman who (like Barr) voted for the Iraq War but (unlike Barr) hasn’t had much to say about his second thoughts since. In his acceptance speech, Virgil Goode apologized for his support for the Patriot Act but not Iraq. In an interview with this writer for the print edition of TAC, Goode seemed not to have gotten the memo — or the Duelfer report — on Iraqi WMD.
The Libertarians have nominated Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico, for president. Johnson opposed the Iraq War. He wants out of Afghanistan and never wanted into Libya. Johnson hasn’t exactly been humming McCain’s catchy tune “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran.”
But Johnson is much less conservative than Goode on issues like immigration (he’s as close to open borders as anyone this side of the Wall Street Journal editorial page can be) and abortion. His eagerness to dispatch U.S. troops to fight the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda while talking cheerfully about a 40 percent cut in military spending could be a forgivable bit of third-party incoherence, but it sounds like a prescription for disaster.
Jeez…makes it so tempting to respond…
Anyone up to finding a good thread to repost that tangent?
Since we’ve been asked to get back on topic…
“That is just a hyperbolic lie. All Barr did was save taxpayer money by not funding pagan priests in the military.”
Actually, Barr’s efforts to render the Army paganrein came to a complete cropper, namely the armed forces responded that the proposal was unconstitutional, and therefore the military continues to salary members of the Chaplain’s Corps who are neopagans.”
I agree about Goode.
Johnson, to my knowledge, did not oppose the Serbia operation, but if he did, I don’t think he would have tried to nullify federal military operations as Governor. He believed that laws have to be changed, rather than having him act unilaterally as Governor to issue pardons for people found guilty by the courts of laws passed by the legislature and signed by previous governors.
I don’t agree with him that he shouldn’t have pardoned those folks. From what I hear him say now it sounds like he is more inclined towards pardons also.
Antle’s target audience – antiwar conservatives – may mostly disagree with Johnson that drug laws should be repealed at all.
Would still like to see you post the other thing elsewhere.
On topic:
Goode had no such record of working to make laws less draconian, as Barr clearly did — something acknowledged by anyone who knows what “Draconian” means and was paying attention to legislative developments during the 1990s.
Nor did Goode join the lawsuit vs Clinton (plaintiffs included Barr, Paul, Kucinich) over war powers during Clinton’s illegal murder of Serbians via bombs, which gives Barr another leg up on Constitutional righteousness.
Johnson sat all this out in Albequerque while elsewhere in New Mexico, NATO based their Serbian murder operations largely out of Holloman Air Force and thousands of Americans rotted in New Mexico prisons for cannabis possession, waiting for Johnson’s pardon.
Off topic for this thread, but I’ll respond to you if you re-post that nonsense in a more appropriate thread.
We are now trying to get this discussion back on the original subject discussed by the author, Goode vs. Johnson.
1. DOMA – No one went to prison or was punished in any way because of DOMA. Thefore, not “draconian.”
2. Medical marijuana – the laws remained just as draconian, not “more draconian.”
3, No one in the military was “persecuted” or even punished in the least. That is just a hyperbolic lie. All Barr did was save taxpayer money by not funding pagan priests in the military. If anything, he made the situation less “draconian” for taxpayers .
4. Barr obviously made the PATRIOT Act less draconian rather than more draconian, as anyone who was actually following the legislation at the time knows.
As noted, this article is about Goode and Johnson, so we should talk about Barr and Baldwin elsewhere, but since you ask, DOMA, marijuana laws and persecution of pagans in the US military were among numerous instances of Barr working actively to make laws against victimless “crimes” more draconian while he was in Congress. His hatred of freedom was so extreme that he prevented the votes in DC from being counted which would have provided relief to sick and dying people with AIDS, cancer and other severe diseases with relief by medicinal marijuana. Regardless of his excuses about sunset provisions, he did vote for the “usapatriot” act among many other things. I’ll leave it to others to detail his record as a prosecutor.
Trying to get this discussion back on track, my segue would be that many of the points made above about Barr are equally applicable to Goode and his time in Congress.
Johnson, as a Governor, did not have much of an opportunity to walk or not walk the talk on foreign policy, but he did walk the talk on fiscal issues.
actively working to imprison people for victimless crimes as a prosecutor and then
Can you cite anything on how “active” he was prosecuting people for simple possession? It seems most of his “active work” in DOJ was aimed at jailing the Bush family’s business partners in the Medellin cartel.
(He also jailed a Republican Congressman for the “victimless crime” of perjury.)
working hard to make those laws even more draconian as a Congressman.
Which laws, exactly, do you think Barr made more draconian as a Congressman? Please cite or retract. He spend pert near all of his legislative energy protecting the Fourth Amendment from Justice Department plans to gut it in the name of the drug war.
OK, so would you like to address the points made about Goode and Johnson?
That’s interesting. The article was about Goode and Johnson, and this conversation is about Barr and Baldwin. just sayin’.
I would have loved Baldwin for President again, but he’s not going to run this time. Probably for the better, long term – he does have a definite purpose in the movement to be a statesman and a thinker.
There’s the great parable of Buddha on the path with 3 followers that goes something like this: Follower 1 passionately made an argument, to which the Buddha said, “You’re right.” Follower 2 passionately made the opposite argument, to which the Buddha said, “You’re right.” Follower 3 said, “Buddha, these followers have made opposing arguments, they both can’t be right,” to which the Buddha said, “You’re right.”
Sounds like the Buddha would have been a hell of a politician!
@25
Dang right!
Johnson could have done more by issuing more pardons, true. His point that we need to change legislation instead, while I personally find it weak, is not necessarily irreconcilable with our core values. It’s just not in my opinion the most optimal way to confine our activities to that alone when other means of change are within grasp also.
However, that is far different from actively working to imprison people for victimless crimes as a prosecutor and then working hard to make those laws even more draconian as a Congressman.
A Barr campaign narrative casting him as Saul on the road to Damascus, as was discussed pre-nom, I may have gotten behind. Barr as the candidate for those who saw the good parts of his record as the only important parts, not so much.
Johnson’s overall focus seems to be good, from what I have seen. Some of the details less so, but I’d rather help than nitpick at this point.
more….
There’s the great parable of Buddha on the path with 3 followers that goes something like this: Follower 1 passionately made an argument, to which the Buddha said, “You’re right.” Follower 2 passionately made the opposite argument, to which the Buddha said, “You’re right.” Follower 3 said, “Buddha, these followers have made opposing arguments, they both can’t be right,” to which the Buddha said, “You’re right.”
24 teeth, yes, Root seems to be quite the pinball at times. What is the takeaway? Dose him with tranquilizers? Write angry screeds condemning his passionate flip flops? What is to be gained from character assassination?
JT: one factor is what such a person has done since professing a change of heart. On that point, there was in fact credible evidence in 2008 that Barr had repudiated his earlier views.
There was more evidence that Barr’s conversion was sincere, than there was for Root’s conversion.
And apart from Barr’s post-conversion actions being more libertarian than were Root’s, other factors are the degree and speed of their conversions.
Barr converted relatively slowly, and only partially, to libertarianism. This implied some sincerity.
Root’s conversion was fast and thorough. In 2006 he’s passionately pro-Iraq War and anti-gay marriage — then by early 2008 he’s passionately pro-non-intervention and pro-gay marriage.
Then by late 2008, he’s passionately pro-Afghan surge and pro-state’s rights for gay marriage.
With a detour in 2007 for “Iraq is the wrong war, Iran is the right war.”
That Root always claims to be passionate about whatever position he takes, though he takes diametrically opposing views — sometimes within a week (e.g., his Mubarak flip-flop) — suggests the insincerity of his (repeated) conversions back and forth.
more still…
As I recall, Neo knew that Cypher was a distraction. No need to hunt Cypher down when more important work was on his plate.
more…
Bob Barr is like Cypher in THE MATRIX. He couldn’t handle the search for truth in the Real World, so he went back to the falseness of the illusory Matrix.
RTAA, I agree with what you say in post 13. All good points.
However, I’d add that one factor is what such a person has done since professing a change of heart. On that point, there was in fact credible evidence in 2008 that Barr had repudiated his earlier views. He had worked with the Marijuana Policy Project. He had worked with the ACLU against the Patriot Act. He had served as a member of the LNC. This was all far ahead of when he entered the race for the Libertarian nomination for President.
We certainly need to seriously consider a person’s past behavior pre-alleged conversion. But to do so without also seriously considering that person’s behavior post-alleged conversion isn’t just.
I’m not saying that Libertarians who opposed or supported BB in 2008 were wrong to do so at the time. I’m saying that there was solid evidence on both sides.
17 a, yes, I think you’re correct in a sense…Baldwin may well have more “integrity” than Barr if such a thing could be measured. My guess is YOU probably do, too. At the time, I still likely would have said that Barr was the better candidate for the LP.
Integrity is a wonderful quality. VERY difficult to maintain integrity when one is part of the Machine. Many wounds when one sells out to the Machine.
GJ has wounds, too. My guess is even you have wounds, I know I do.
LibertarianGirl said: “Let them prove themselves ad earn their chops before giving them the keys to the city.
Amen on this one LibertarianGirl.
12 p: I do understand that trust issues exist in such cases and should not be either dismissed out of hand nor overblown, and that striking the right balance may not be easy.
me: Yes. In the present we look at the record. If the record indicates a pattern of advocating more-archism, that does call into question whether a less-archist is sincere in his/her current views. While the present is the only reality, peace and liberty is best advocated by someone who’s resume aligns more with peace and liberty. If it doesn’t, if it seems like a SIGNIFICANT pattern, it’s perfectly reasonable to hear an explanation while at the same time recognizing that we all make mistakes.
Pre-convention, some Ls here were dragging out the fact that GJ didn’t pardon all drug-law prisoners. Maybe they thought that was significant. I didn’t.
“Robert Capozzi // May 27, 2012 at 1:37 am
7 a: Nuff said.
me: As dialog in the film Memento, perhaps. (In that movie, time rolled backwards.) Barr has done what he’s done in 12, but how that has any bearing on what happened in 08 seems…non-obvious. Can you walk us through your logic?”
Barr’s actions post 2008 indicate that he is a liar and his campaign was a sham. Barr didn’t change, he just conned a bunch of Libertarian Party members into giving him their party’s presidential nomination and sending him money. It was all a big ruse.
I think that Chuck Baldwin has more integrity than Bob Barr.
I could go on with more reasons about why I don’t think that Bob Barr was a good candidate, and why I think that Chuck Baldwin is better than Bob Barr, but I think most of the regular readers here already know those reasons.
11 teeth: Whereas Robert “Memento” Capozzi lives without history. He sees and knows only the present.
me: Yes, thanks for understanding my perspective. Lao Tzu – the first L – could not have said it any better….
@ 12 , I think conversions are and should always be questioned , in the beginning and who knows for how long , they may or may not be genuine but one thing should we should all remember is time is a good indicator.
Let them prove themselves ad earn their chops before giving them the keys to the city..
I voted for him , I didnt want to , in the end it was DFN who convinced me , he told me “don’t contribute any money to the campaign give instead to local races and when the time comes , hold your nose and vote for him ” , so I did…
under what circumstances if any would you accept such a conversion as genuine?
There’s no simple formula. Deciding whether to accept a conversion as genuine requires judgement and discernment.
Essentially, you analyze a person’s past history, as well as current circumstances (do they have something to gain by lying?) and then judge.
Although you can’t be wholly accurate, such judgment is necessary, because the alternative is to accept every claim at face value.
So, how to judge?
Many factors to consider.
1. The time duration of a person’s past beliefs (months, years, decades?).
2. The passion and commitment to those beliefs, as demonstrated by statements and actions.
3. The time duration of a person’s new beliefs (a recent convert, or someone who’s long done grunt work for that new belief).
4. The circumstances of the person’s history, including those of his conversion. Was he likely pressured against his will (by family, neighbors, constituents) to pursue his old beliefs? Did he have anything to gain personally by converting, or was there a personal sacrifice to convert?
I could go on. But I think what I’m saying is pretty obvious, and that nearly everyone exercises such judgement.
Awesome Teeth,
I don’t think that explains Andy’s logic. He was arguing based on the actions of Barr post-2008 election, not on the basis of his actions in his prior stint as a Republican politician, prosecutor, and CIA employee. That was LG’s argument, and I think it made much more sense in context than Andy’s did.
Given your further elucidation of it, under what circumstances if any would you accept such a conversion as genuine? I would expect, and have known, politicians and other power brokers who already claim to understand and hold libertarian views in private, but express and more importantly act on different views in public because they are more interested in power and money than principle. I’m not at liberty to name names. Perhaps at some point some of them will experience pangs of conscience. Maybe Barr was one of them. Maybe not.
I do understand that trust issues exist in such cases and should not be either dismissed out of hand nor overblown, and that striking the right balance may not be easy.
Capozzi: As dialog in the film Memento, perhaps. (In that movie, time rolled backwards.) Barr has done what he’s done in 12, but how that has any bearing on what happened in 08 seems…non-obvious. Can you walk us through your logic?
Sure, I think I understand his logic.
Memento is actually a good analogy for you. You are like its main character. You live in the moment. Past history does not exist for Robert Capozzi — no events to learn from or from which to predict future behavior.
Normal people analyze past events and behavior, and from that predict other people’s honesty and future behavior.
Normal people analyzed Barr (and Root) in their historical context, and from that, logically inferred that they were not to be trusted when they claimed to be born-again libertarians.
Whereas Robert “Memento” Capozzi lives without history. He sees and knows only the present. His reality begins anew each minute.
If Barr (or Obama, or Romney) says, “I am a passionate Rothbardian, anarcho-capitalist.” — Capozzi accepts that at face value.
To Capozzi, only “mind readers” disbelieve a person’s present claims, because there is only the present. Barr has no past. There is no past.
Thank you, Robert “Memento” Capozzi. You’ve provided the perfect illustration for your present-bound worldview. I understand now why everyone else appears to you to be a “mind reader.”
That’s true. The theory in 2008 was that he had changed. Many of us were skeptical, but at the same time many of us wanted to believe it was genuine. More recent events tend to bear out the skeptics more, I would say.
For me, the key was always how much any such change would be emphasized more than whether it was genuine, given that I am not telepathic.
To that end I asked Mr. Barr how he would reconcile his record and those who supported him because of it with those who looked at him as a changed man and supported him for those reasons. His answer was that he would emphasize issues where both groups agree, as those are the most important issues anyway.
That was not an answer that led me to support him. I did not back him for the nomination and did not actively support his candidacy afterwards. I remained open to considering whether or not he was the least bad choice at that time, but in the end I did not have to decide because I was not able to vote in a government election anyway due to ID and related issues. I did vote in the LP convention on the nomination and it was not for Congressman Barr. I did help get both Barr and Baldwin on the ballot, among others, and helped provide coverage of both of their campaigns among others.
well I think his logic is all encompassing like you know , Barr authored Doma , sent people to prison for drugs and was a spook for the feds doing who knows what , Baldwin did none of those things
7 a: Nuff said.
me: As dialog in the film Memento, perhaps. (In that movie, time rolled backwards.) Barr has done what he’s done in 12, but how that has any bearing on what happened in 08 seems…non-obvious. Can you walk us through your logic?
“paulie // May 26, 2012 at 11:51 pm
I agree about 2012. Not sure I agree about 2008.”
I agree with the poster that said that Baldwin was a better choice than Barr. Barr endorsed Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Baldwin endorsed Ron Paul. Nuff said.
I agree about 2012. Not sure I agree about 2008.
Unlike 2008 when Baldwin was the better choice over Barr, I believe this election cycle it is clear that Johnson is the better choice when contrasted with Goode. Just my $0.02 worth.
Libertarians aren’t conservatives.
Antle doesn’t say we are. He considers whether or not we are a “lesser evil” than the other choices for antiwar conservatives.
Yes, very good (I recommend following the link and reading the rest).
Of course, unlike Antle, I find Johnson not being a social conservative to be a point in his favor.
Libertarians aren’t conservatives.
Good article