Bob Barr, The Libertarian Party, Ideological Purity, and Campaign '08
Over Memorial Day weekend, the Libertarian Party nominated Bob Barr as their candidate for President.
In a previous blog, I was pretty harsh on the LP, asking what it says about the "party of principle" to nominate Barr. I've been mulling over my initial thoughts since Barr won the nomination. The LP tends to attract a lot of fringe elements (hence why many libertarians distinguish themselves from their capital-L counterparts), but Barr is the first serious candidate they've nominated in years. It shows they're trying to legitimize themselves, and have their ideas taken seriously. Granted, they're not winning anything this year, but taking a small step forward is better than a step backwards.
One of my knocks against Barr was a record not consistent with what libertarians would stand for. He voted to authorize Bush the war-making decision in Iraq, voted for the PATRIOT Act, and was a fierce drug warrior, among other things. It raises an important question: just how important is a candidate's ideology? Libertarians are often accused by conservatives of being too idealistic. Considering just how bloated conservatism has become, I consider that a badge of honor.
But does the demand for ideological purity unnecessarily weed out good candidates? Many libertarians, myself included, are suspicious of Barr. That said, one study shows Barr to have a fairly libertarian voting record during his days in Congress. Not perfect, but not bad either. And Barr, in the words of Reason magazine correspondent David Weigel, nailed himself to the cross and apologized for his past transgressions.
For me, ideology is important. It appears the opposite of ideology is bi-partisanship, and getting things done for the sake of getting things done, regardless of the consequences. And those consequences seem to result in our rights, our freedoms, our privacy, not to mention the money in our wallets, slowly eroding away. But to expect 100% purity is impossible.
From there, it comes to whether you can trust a candidate when he/she says they've made a mistake and have learned from it. The lack of sincerity on her vote for the Iraq War is likely what sunk Hillary. Is Barr's apology sincere?? That's something libertarians, myself included, need to consider.
The trust factor also comes in when pondering a potential candidate who you for the most part disagree with, but share his/her views on key elements of that candidate's platform. In particular with Obama, is he serious about ending the Iraq War? Is he serious about restoring the civil liberties the Bush administration has trampled? Considering he's failed to even show up when key votes have come up in the Senate that directly deal with civil liberties, and considering he's probably not being straight with voters regarding his plans for Iraq, how can you rely on what he says during the campaign? Trust, or a lack thereof, is what will most likely prevent me from voting for Obama.
In a previous blog, I was pretty harsh on the LP, asking what it says about the "party of principle" to nominate Barr. I've been mulling over my initial thoughts since Barr won the nomination. The LP tends to attract a lot of fringe elements (hence why many libertarians distinguish themselves from their capital-L counterparts), but Barr is the first serious candidate they've nominated in years. It shows they're trying to legitimize themselves, and have their ideas taken seriously. Granted, they're not winning anything this year, but taking a small step forward is better than a step backwards.
One of my knocks against Barr was a record not consistent with what libertarians would stand for. He voted to authorize Bush the war-making decision in Iraq, voted for the PATRIOT Act, and was a fierce drug warrior, among other things. It raises an important question: just how important is a candidate's ideology? Libertarians are often accused by conservatives of being too idealistic. Considering just how bloated conservatism has become, I consider that a badge of honor.
But does the demand for ideological purity unnecessarily weed out good candidates? Many libertarians, myself included, are suspicious of Barr. That said, one study shows Barr to have a fairly libertarian voting record during his days in Congress. Not perfect, but not bad either. And Barr, in the words of Reason magazine correspondent David Weigel, nailed himself to the cross and apologized for his past transgressions.
For me, ideology is important. It appears the opposite of ideology is bi-partisanship, and getting things done for the sake of getting things done, regardless of the consequences. And those consequences seem to result in our rights, our freedoms, our privacy, not to mention the money in our wallets, slowly eroding away. But to expect 100% purity is impossible.
From there, it comes to whether you can trust a candidate when he/she says they've made a mistake and have learned from it. The lack of sincerity on her vote for the Iraq War is likely what sunk Hillary. Is Barr's apology sincere?? That's something libertarians, myself included, need to consider.
The trust factor also comes in when pondering a potential candidate who you for the most part disagree with, but share his/her views on key elements of that candidate's platform. In particular with Obama, is he serious about ending the Iraq War? Is he serious about restoring the civil liberties the Bush administration has trampled? Considering he's failed to even show up when key votes have come up in the Senate that directly deal with civil liberties, and considering he's probably not being straight with voters regarding his plans for Iraq, how can you rely on what he says during the campaign? Trust, or a lack thereof, is what will most likely prevent me from voting for Obama.
Comments