Bob Barr?
Ok, so as many of you probably know I cast myself as a Libertarian. I've been watching the Libertarian National Convention on C-SPAN this afternoon and they have selected Bob Barr as the Libertarian nominee for President in the 2008 election. I am trying to decide wether or not to continue my support. Bob Barr has a history of voting and being on
( Read more... )
I think you may be mischaracterizing these political spectrums, or at least defining them more narrowly than they are traditionally defined. The Democratic party leans left (at least in comparison to the Republican party), but it is hardly representative of the left. And nor is the Republican party representative of the right.
The term "libertarian" is, likewise, a very general term, and the Libertarian Party is not representative of it. However, "libertarian" and "Libertarian" are the same words, and so using one term ("libertarian", in my case) will frequently cause people to believe you mean the other term ("Libertarian"). Thus I prefer to avoid the term altogether.
Likewise, if someone started a U.S. Liberal Party that became prominent enough that self-proclaimed "liberals" would be frequently mistaken for "Liberals", I would cease to use that term to describe myself.
"So again, what is it about libertarianism that may described as 'authoritarian'."
Authoritarianism and libertarianism are polar opposites; it is, by definition, impossible for libertarianism to be authoritarian. What I said was that the Libertarian Party (or at least a substantial proportion of it) is too authoritarian for me. This is precisely why I prefer to avoid using these terms; even you (a Libertarian, I presume) have made the all-too-easy mistake of failing to differentiate between libertarians and Libertarians.
"Ron Paul is not a libertarian...."
He is a former member of the Libertarian Party (thus why I wrote "the views held by many of its current and former members...") and he is very widely supported by Libertarians.
Reply
Ron Paul is decidedly not universally supported by libertarians
The support he does get is simply because he's the closest thing, similarly with Bob Barr.
RP does not represent libertarians nor the LP, and it's mistaken to consider homophobic Ron Paul as any representation of libertarians as it is to consider racist Obama as any representation of the left.
However even RP or BB are far less authoritarian than any of the real candidates running. So, again, I'm not sure how you can consider libs, the LP, or any candidate self described as libertarian as 'too authoritarian'. Compared to Obama? To McCain? To Hillary? Now you may not believe BB is as libertarian as he has reinvented himself, (nor do I) but at least he's giving libertarian philosophy lip service.. atm anyway.
In general the LP is more lib than it's candidates, and it's always a cause for disagreement. Political expediency vs ideological integrity. Obviously with BB expediency won the day.
As for terminology I specifically use the term left and right to be distinct from the Dems and GOP. But there's nothing to describe libertarian ideology other than 'libertarian'. Hence LP to mean the party.
Reply
I accept that Ron Paul is not universally supported by Libertarians (nor libertarians as a whole). But he is (or, at least, was) very widely supported. If I were to go around calling myself a libertarian, many people would mistake me for a Libertarian and very likely assume that I am (or ever was) a Ron Paul supporter. Am I wrong?
Likewise, I am in no way, shape, or form a supporter of Bob Barr. But if I called myself a libertarian, many would assume I was, since he is the Libertarian Party's nominee.
As I have been saying all along, I do not call myself a libertarian-as accurate as that term may be-because I do not want to be mistaken for a Libertarian (a subset of libertarians who do not satisfactorily encompass my views). I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing against here.
As for political expediency vs. ideological integrity, this is the beauty of third parties. They don't have to worry about political expediency, because they're not going to get the nomination. What they are there for is to represent the underrepresented and to push main party candidates to adopt third party ideals. When third parties lose sight of that and start grabbing for the center, they fail as third parties and ultimately alienate independent voters like me.
The one good thing about it (from the point of view of a non-Libertarian libertarian, of course) is that the re-centering of the Libertarian Party will steal a number of votes from the Republican Party: a small step toward stopgapping the U.S.'s unfortunate climb toward neoconservative-socially conservative, fiscally liberal-policy, in favor of somewhat more liberal-socially liberal, fiscally moderate (at least compared to the neocons!)-policy. If this is what you mean by political expediency, then I'll have to agree with you. If I were a member of the Libertarian Party, however, I would be outraged by this turn of events. And since many of my friends are Libertarians, I am at least disgusted on their behalf.
Reply
I was talking about candidates and party's expediency, not ours. They both have agendas that do not include winning the presidency, obviously. Barr clearly doesn't expect to win the white house. But he can gain publicity by using the LP. The LP presumably is using Barr for the same reason. One might hope that some people interested in Barr might be exposed to lib ideas and see their coherence and be willing to drop non lib ideas like radical pro life stances, or what have you.
There's no neocon running for office so there's no issue at the moment. Bush is a lame duck, thank goodness.
But no of course I won't vote for Barr, and most libertarians won't and likely most LP members won't. With Hillary out we are faced with a radical leftist (people really should check his legislative record) and racist* Obama, (the only good thing I can say for him is he's radically pro choice too) vs doddering, pro-life, centrist McCain, but McCain is one of only five senators that never uses earmarks (which I have to say gives him a lot of credibility on the fiscal responsibility front) and he's strong on the bill of rights. I don't know if he can follow through on his claim of vetoing every bill with earmarks, but as a minority party executive he certainly would have a lot of leeway.
I'm not a McCain fan, but looks like there's no choice this one. Often I end up voting in favor of a mismatched executive and legislature (can do less harm) and it looks like I will do so again.
WTB federalist, pro choice, pro same sex marriage, pro bill of rights candidate.
"Whatever it is that the government does, sensible Americans would prefer that the government do it to somebody else. This is the idea behind foreign policy." - P.J. O'Rourke
* Obamawashed people like to say "Guilt by association!" which might have some merit, if he were being tried for a crime. He's not. He's asking for position of greatest amount of responsibility in the world, appearance of impropriety is valid to question. In any case it's not what Wright said, or Otis, or Pfleger. It's not that the church is openly racist. It's not that he attended the church for 20 years while this stuff was allowed to be said, and invited people who would say it. The thing you can't get away from is that the church invited these guys, and the audience cheered these guys. This isn't church like many churchgoers know it, where sleeping through some objectionable sermons might be plausible. These guys are loud, bombastic, and rile the audience up with their message of racism. Which audience eats it up like candy. So Obama never saw this? He doesn't agree with this? He 'repudiates' this message? What are we to believe he's that dense? Narcoleptic? Sorry, I don't buy it. He is not owed the presidency and I can't get past rabid racism.
Reply
I guess we run in different crowds. Most of the people I know or meet are at least somewhat more politically aware. (This may be a function of running around with scientists.)
"There's no neocon running for office so there's no issue at the moment."
I would argue that McCain is very likely a neocon, as evidenced by his platform regarding Iraq, Iran, immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. He does seem vaguely better than Bush, however, though I worry that a lot of that is an attempt to distance himself from an unpopular presidency.
"With Hillary out we are faced with a radical leftist (people really should check his legislative record)...."
I have checked his bill sponsorship record, but I have not seen his full voting record. What specifically concerns you? I'm currently an Obama supporter (the whole political expediency thing; I obviously disgaree with him on quite a lot), so I'm very interested in seeing what I might be overlooking.
"Often I end up voting in favor of a mismatched executive and legislature (can do less harm) and it looks like I will do so again."
I agree with you on this. The more checks and balances, the better; at the very least, it slows the erosion of legislative power over the executive branch (since legislators are more apt to protect that power when they don't like the president).
As for Obama's church, I'm not sure how it is racist, unless you define "racist" as taking particular interest in some races more than others. What specifically bothers you about it?
Reply
McCain is definitely not a neocon. He has an old school right ideology. He does alas believe in a lot more govt than libertarians, or even most conservatives want. (tho not neocons of course!) He's not naive enough to think we can pull out of Iraq now we are there and not have Iran take over the place. He's also not dishonest enough to deny the surge worked. He's also not insane enough to say he would invade Pakistan(I mean wtf?!) or talk to Ahmadinejad without precondition. I'm not a fan at all of McCain but compared to Obama at least he's got measurable integrity and honesty. I also like McCain's modesty. He only wants to be president of 50 states compared to Obama's 57;)
As for Obama's church, racism is racism. It's not only racism if you are white. Replace the word 'Black' with 'White' in the document and it becomes abundantly clear. That's not a religious treatise, it's a political manifesto. A very troubling one.
I do like Obama's history of rejecting 'sanctity of marriage' type resolutions and strong pro-choice position. I can understand single issue voters going for him for those reasons. But I look at the overall picture and on everything else Obama is full of fail, and even if not, really there's no way I can get past the racist taint.
As for same sex marriage I am pleased to note Cali supremes doing some good there. I do NOT see that as judicial activism either. The constitution protects the individual, and if the law affords any benefit from marriage then anyone should be able to avail themselves of that benefit. To me it's very simple. If marriage is something that 'comes from god', then the government can constitutionally have NO provision respecting it, and hence marriage must be legally meaningless. If it does not then it must be afforded to anyone.
By extension I would even say that includes poly groupings, but that's a battle for another decade;)
Reply
"Replace the word 'Black' with 'White' in the document and it becomes abundantly clear."
I happen to disagree. Taking particular interest in white people is not inherently racist. The only reason white pride is associated with racism is because most of the people who celebrate being white are racist in addition to being interested in their race. Note that being proud of having European ancestry-e.g., all those folks who trace their Scottish ancestry and go to highland festivals and whatnot-is generally not regarded as racist; but that's because people who run around with "Kiss Me, I'm Irish" bumper stickers typically don't display discriminatory behavior toward non-Irish groups.
But, to me, all of that is a moot point. Ron Paul's religious views don't trouble me; his homophobia doesn't trouble me; his personal views, as much as I disagree with them, mean nothing to me. It's his platform I'm interested in, and his platform is one that would erode the liberties of many people. You can be against something on a personal level (e.g., I'm against incest) and still believe that others should have a right to practice it if they so please (e.g., I don't think the law belongs between consenting adults, no matter how distasteful their acts might be), and I'm forgiving of politicians that are capable of making that distinction. So even if Obama is racist, which I don't think he is, it would not deter me so long as his platform is satisfactory.
Reply
Just read up on Black Liberation Theology. It's an eye opener. I can't vote for a racist. Isms pervade a persons thinking, and his judgment is seriously in question. It's not like he's not already on questionable ground with Rezko, Ayres, UCH, et al. He's all about earmarks and patronage. He talks about change but he's an old school politics poster boy.
Back to neocons; Hawks and doves have existed before the word neocon existed, and there are dovish neocons. In the first part of the 20th century the right has been dovish and the left hawkish (FDR). I personally think the executive is always going to tend to be hawkish, because everyone wants to be a war president. Then the other side is pushed into dovism and war criticism. Even Obama isn't a dove, he just wants to ensure Iraq (their war) fails and 'win' a war with Afghanistan and .. Pakistan?;)
Lots of government spending is also associated with neoconservatism but is hardly unique to neocons. What ties neocons and the left is the idea that it's a great idea to soak the populace to fund your own agenda. This commonality is how Bush got elected in the first damned place, things like the 'no child left behind' crap lured them in. Bush is no enemy of spending tax dollars. If enough people would realize it's morally problematic to rob other people's life work because you have an idea but don't want to pay for it yourself neither Bush nor Obama would ever have a chance. I'm not a radical lib btw. I do believe there are roles for govt. But I think now that the average american spends 50% of his work life for the government we really need people who will at least ask the question "Yeah I like this idea, but do we really think it's such a good idea that we're gonna steal more work lifespan from the populace?"
Now back to RP. What about his platform would erode liberties? He's not a patriot act guy. He's for radically smaller government. He's very federalist. He's arguably a homophobe but is against any legislation to ban same sex marriages (and voted to that effect) on the basis that it's not the job of legislation to promote a moral agenda. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about abortion. So except for abortion, on every single other issue to my reading, he is on the side of individual liberty. There's no other candidate more so. What are you thinking of exactly, other than abortion? (which I concur is a big deal)
As you say, being against something on a personal level but thinking it's unethical to force others is the hallmark of libertarianism. Similarly being for something on a personal level but not thinking it's ethical to force others is also. IE I am against smoking bans for private property (restaurants, bars,etc), though I confess a guilty happiness when they pass;p I don't have a problem with bans on public property tho.
Reply
Are they saying "us first", though? Believing that Group A should have XYZ is not the same as saying Group B should not.
""The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology."
It's a dated book, written toward the end of the Civil Rights Movement. When people read such books, they keep in mind the historical context and reject the parts that don't fit with their modern perspective. The Civil Rights Movement has gone away, and racial tensions are not so high as they were in 1969; do you really think that now, in 2008, these churchgoers think God is against white people?
The field of Classical Mechanics is based on works by Isaac Newton. Does that mean physicists today agree with everything Newton wrote? Of course not; they know Newton was a 17th century religious nutcase, and they take his works in context.
"Even Obama isn't a dove, he just wants to ensure Iraq (their war) fails and 'win' a war with Afghanistan and .. Pakistan?;)"
Afghanistan was "their" war, too.
Again, I have reservations about Obama's proposed foreign policy. He does, however, have net fewer nations he wants to send troops into. They both want to go after Al Qaeda; the difference is that McCain, in addition, wants troops where Al Qaeda has only minor, if any, presence (Iraq, Iran, etc.), while Obama wants troops only where Al Qaeda's forces are strongest (Afghanistan, etc.). Effectively, Obama has one enemy and McCain has multiple-and the more enemies we fight, the more tax dollars we spend.
"Lots of government spending is also associated with neoconservatism but is hardly unique to neocons."
It's not unique, in and of itself; every government favors spending in their preferred areas. What's particularly unique about the neocons is the sheer degree of government spending they somehow manage to get away with, compared to both their liberal and paleoconservative counterparts. Consider the U.S. national debt, for example:
"I do believe there are roles for govt. But I think now that the average american spends 50% of his work life for the government we really need people who will at least ask the question 'Yeah I like this idea, but do we really think it's such a good idea that we're gonna steal more work lifespan from the populace?'"
I absolutely agree. People are going to be put on the streets by the precedence Reagan set for our Republican presidents; it makes me sick to the stomach every time I think about all the tax dollars being blown on things that don't sufficiently benefit the people who have to pony up the cash. What's depressing is that the biggest block of voters have no real incentive to care; they'll never have to pay for the burdens they place on later generations.
"He's for radically smaller government."
He's for radically smaller federal government, but radically larger (or more powerful, anyway) local governments. I, however, think that the majority of the powers he would take from the federal government should go straight to the people; that is, the federal government should not be allowed to restrict the rights of individuals, but it could (and should) restrict the rights of local governments to restrict the rights of the people. So not only should the federal government refrain from defining marriage, but it also should not permit state governments to define it (except for bookkeeping and contractual purposes)
Additionally, I really don't like his stance on immigration; I don't think the federal government (nor state government) has any business telling people where they are allowed to live. This is more important to me than abortion. It affects many more people and is, in my opinion, a greater breach of privacy.
"I am against smoking bans for private property (restaurants, bars,etc), though I confess a guilty happiness when they pass;p I don't have a problem with bans on public property tho."
Hehehe, I definitely feel your pain (and guilty pleasure) on this one....
Reply
Yes they are. Well more really, they are saying "us only", and "not them". It's a racist manifesto for a racist organization. The racism in the copy on their website is solidly confirmed when you hear the actual sermons. The racism in the copy on their website is solidly confirmed by the sources they admit they draw from.
"It's a dated book, written toward the end of the Civil Rights Movement. When people read such books, they keep in mind the historical context and reject the parts that don't fit with their modern perspective."
It may be dated to you and I, as evidenced by the fact that we're not the ones using it as a reference for making racist value systems. They are. It's clearly not dated to [i]TUCC[/i].
The bible and the koran are dated as well, this hasn't stopped them being used as justifications for evil. I don't think the age of a book somehow makes the message less malign.
"The field of Classical Mechanics is based on works by Isaac Newton. Does that mean physicists today agree with everything Newton wrote?"
Non sequitur. The ones that [b]say[/b] they believe that do believe that. This makes them nuts, but relatively harmless. People that believe and admit to believing racist ideology are far less harmless.
We don't have to make assumptions. They say up front what the origin of their doctrine is.
"What's particularly unique about the neocons is the sheer degree of government spending they somehow manage to get away with, compared to both their liberal and paleoconservative counterparts."
No question. It's been estimated that at least 18B has been lost in Iraq due to corruption, which the Bush administration has turned a blind eye to. Hawks and doves alike would have to agree that had that been spent on the actual occupation and rebuilding effort instead of being pissed away we would have to be a lot farther along in either democratizing the region or withdrawing (whichever you prefer). Hawks and doves alike should be pissed off at Bush. I'm in the middle and I am certainly pissed off.
As you say taxes and spending always go up. That doesn't make it correct for either party. It's really sad that Pelosi and Reid gutted earmark reform, which they were all for when they were not the majority. The original version required all earmarks to be published on the internet before a bill could be considered. Unfortunately once the dems got control that all went to shit. Which is not to say the GOP would not have done the same had they retained the majority.
"He's for radically smaller federal government, but radically larger (or more powerful, anyway) local governments. I, however, think that the majority of the powers he would take from the federal government should go straight to the people;.. (except for bookkeeping and contractual purposes)"
Well you could hardly call McCain a federalist, but certainly he's more so than Obama;P That said, to me, that's a good thing. The closer the power is to the people the better. The Bill of Rights restricts the federal govt from many things, but not the states, for the most part. Considering states to be 'political petri dishes' is a lot better than making sweeping national changes that can screw EVERYTHING up. Just look at gas prices. Just look at the mortgage collapse. People in third world countries are starving because of our idiotic energy policy. These are the result of command and control attempts to manipulate the economy.
I certainly agree philosophically that individual liberty should be optimized.
You think the borders should be wide open? There are ramifications from that. Do you think people should be able to immigrate to whichever country they like? Why have nations at all?
Personally I have no problem really with immigrations if 1) they speak english, 2) they pay taxes and 3) they are ineligible for any public services for 10 years.
Really if you don't have a socialist state immigration as a problem goes away.
Reply
Perhaps I have missed it. What, precisely, leads you to this conclusion? I see nothing damning in the PDF you linked. They speak of becoming "soldiers for Black Freedom and the dignity of all humankind," a phrase which not only fails to exclude non-blacks, but actively includes them.
I have listened to actual sermons and, again, I have heard nothing that strikes me as racist. I have heard some anti-government comments but, hell, even you and I are having an anti-government conversation.
"It's clearly not dated to [i]TUCC[/i]."
Clearly? What leads you to believe so? Where has the church so "clearly" agreed that God hates white people?
"The bible and the koran are dated as well, this hasn't stopped them being used as justifications for evil."
Actually, I think the Bible and the Koran go right along with what I'm saying. People pick out the parts of the Bible and the Koran that they like, and leave out the parts they don't like. How many Christians opposing homosexuality simultaneously eat pork and shrimp or wear poly-cotton blends?
"We don't have to make assumptions. They say up front what the origin of their doctrine is."
They say their church is based upon the systematized liberation theology. They don't say it is systematized liberation theology. Likewise, moderns classical mechanics is based upon Newton's writings. When you watch a movie that claims it is based upon a true story, you can bet that the director took artistic license.
"It's really sad that Pelosi and Reid gutted earmark reform, which they were all for when they were not the majority."
Yikes, I hadn't heard about that! Do you have any details?
So far, I have not been too impressed with Congress. They've been letting the voters down. I wonder if part of it may be an attempt (however subconscious) to make the Republicans look bad, since the president ultimately gets blamed for everything that goes wrong or right.
[continued...]
Reply
I understand your sentiment here, but I have very grave reservations about the whole matter-largely due to living in Georgia. For example, Georgia is currently trying to pass an amendment that would define life as beginning at conception and make it illegal to ctravel to other states in order to commit "murder". This would not only make abortion illegal at any stage of the pregnancy, regardless of the safety of the mother, but it would make day-after pills and even birth control pills (used as hormone therapy for many diseases, including the life-threatening endometriosis) illegal, since birth control pills effectively destroy both fertilized and unfertilized eggs. The only thing protecting us Georgians from this disaster is the federal courts' decision that early pregnancy is a private matter.
I'm sure if I lived in a place like California, I would probably agree with you on this matter. But, as a citizen of Georgia, I can definitely see the empowering of local governments as a very serious threat to large portions of our society. With the federal government, the threat is at least somewhat diluted by the more libertarian-minded segments of the U.S.
"Considering states to be 'political petri dishes' is a lot better than making sweeping national changes that can screw EVERYTHING up. Just look at gas prices. Just look at the mortgage collapse."
Oh, yeah. Definitely. This is why I'd like to see the federal government serve primarily to guarantee the rights of individuals and, to a lesser extent, to manage certain inter-state or multi-state matters (e.g., signing treaties, ruling in disputes between states, etc.). Day-to-day managerial tasks (e.g., school systems, roads, criminal law, etc.) should be left entirely to the local governments, except where local government decisions infringe on the people's rights.
"You think the borders should be wide open? There are ramifications from that. Do you think people should be able to immigrate to whichever country they like? Why have nations at all?"
Why have states at all? If you randomly decide to move to Montana tomorrow, there's nothing Montana can do about it. Of course, your move will be documented for taxation, etc., purposes-I'm certainly not proposing that immigration into the U.S. shouldn't be documented-but the U.S. holds your right to live in Montana as self-evident, regardless of language, use of public services, or even criminal history.
I think the U.S. should hold that all people are created equal-not just all Americans-and grant every single adult within the jurisdiction of the U.S. the same basic rights. That would necessarily include allowing Joe Schmoe from the other side of the world the same right to live in Montana as you have. It may not make the people of Montana very happy, but your right to live where you please should supercede your right to have neighbors that look and talk like you.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment