Why I'm Sticking with Bob Barr

Recently, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) held a press conference in Washington, D.C. to repudiate major party presidential candidates and declare that people ought to support third party candidates like the Rev. Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party), former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (Green Party), consumer activist Ralph Nader (Independent), and former Rep. Bob Barr (Libertarian Party). All of the said figures showed up with the exception of Barr, who opted out at the last minute. All across the blogs and forums, libertarians announced that they were turning against Barr, most of them joining Baldwin. Chances are that Chuck Baldwin will probably get a few votes this year that he could never expect at any other time.

Since Bob Barr joined the Libertarian Party in 2006, ideological libertarians have had a love-hate relationship with the former conservative Republican. Bob Barr was once a vehement supporter of the War on Drugs and this has angered many libertarians, in spite of the fact that he has repudiated his previous stance. The same is true of the Patriot Act, which Barr once supported but now opposes. For some reason, no matter how much Barr repudiates his previous stances some libertarians are not satisfied; they want Bob Barr to become a philosophical anarchist like Murray Rothbard and despise the fact that he positions himself as a moderate. Because these people are not satisfied by anything less than a principled radical, they choose instead to endorse an extreme right-wing, Religious Right candidate like Chuck Baldwin.

As much as I might not agree with Barr's moderate stances (myself being a principled libertarian) I can sympathize, because in my transformation from liberal to libertarian over the past few years I was moderate to begin with. Additionally, I do not understand why the candidate of a party that is more socially conservative than the Republicans (and a champion of extreme protectionist and anti-immigrant causes to boot) is the libertarian choice. Is it simply because he campaigned for Ron Paul during the primaries? If we are using the same stick by which many libertarians judge Bob Barr then Ron Paul himself ought to be repudiated for catering to right-wing conservatives rather than trumpeting the libertarian message. In truth I dislike the fact that both Bob Barr and Ron Paul try to portray themselves as "true conservatives" and the fact that both men advocate nationalism; they pander too much to the right. Now, because Bob Barr has done what Ron Paul has people are outraged and now want to vote for a candidate of the far-right. It is absurdity itself. Even imperfect as Bob Barr is, no true libertarian would endorse the extreme social conservatism, protectionism, and nationalism of the Constitution Party and their paleoconservative cohorts. It is not to say I hate Chuck Baldwin, Pat Buchanan, and other paleos, it is just to say that it is foolish to vote for them when there is a Libertarian who actually has a base of support.

Even as Libertarian Party founder David Nolan proclaims the Barr campaign to be dead, Barr is polling far higher than any other LP presidential nominee of the past. The fact is that as a libertarian I care for the future of the movement, and even if I do not agree with Bob Barr I still see him as the best representative of libertarianism in this election. Just because I do not find Barr sufficiently radical does not mean that I cannot vote for him, for even as I do the principles remain the same. I do not have to change my ideology to vote for the most viable libertarian nor do I have to refuse to vote for those who digress from libertarian dogma in order to remain a principled libertarian. Do not accuse me of selling out, for I am the same person who critiqued moderate libertarians who were ga-ga over Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, but I was not criticizing them for supporting an insufficient libertarian, but an out and out neocon. In spite of Bob Barr's flaws on some issues I do not see how his broader philosophy is in conflict with the principles of libertarianism, and that is the main point; I do not vote on a laundry list of specific policy positions, but on a basic pro-liberty philosophy that a candidate I support must share with me. Bob Barr may not agree with me all of the time, but he does share a basic pro-liberty orientation that few others do.

I would encourage all self-described libertarians to vote for the Libertarian Party nominee this November. While some of you reading this may question my libertarian credentials it is actually you who needs to do the questioning, especially those of you who are thinking of voting for Baldwin. The Barr campaign is not over even I do admit that its managers are not the best; ultimately the only thing that can bury Bob Barr for good is disunity among libertarians. If there is one thing that is keeping this movement from going forward it is the sectarianism that has come to dominate in pro-liberty circles; I am here to tell you that I am dead ready to abandon that and move forward. Why can't we just agree to disagree among ourselves and move forward? Wouldn't it be so much easier to work together as a broader pro-liberty coalition and work out the details in the end? The answer is yes, and it is the reason I am sticking with the Bob Barr campaign.