Comments (30)

• Morty

  The reason he didn't choose to use that opportunity to make points about liberty is because he doesn't support liberty. He sounds like a moderate Republican because he IS a moderate Republican.

  Published: October 21, 2008 9:30 PM

• cynic

  Maybe this election will finally make the LP so forgettable that it won't matter in the slightest anyway.

  Don't wish that on the LP! They are the only party that is not completely controlled by fascists and communists.

  Published: October 21, 2008 9:50 PM

• David Bratton

  The the LP only serves to lure away libertarians who might be of some influence, however small, in the Republican party to a party where influence will never matter.
  

  Published: October 21, 2008 10:08 PM

• Bruce Koerber

  I watched the newsreel and thought that Bob Barr spoke openly and presented an alternative view.

  It is true that he cannot be compared to Ron Paul since Ron Paul is a statesman like no other.

  It is also true that it is unlikely that anyone would be excited about what was said during the newsreel so in that regard it did little to weaken the stranglehold of the unConstitutional coup on the election process.

  All I know at this point in time is I wish I lived in Louisiana or Montana!

  Published: October 21, 2008 10:09 PM

• Daniel C

  I remember well the debates in the comment sections of this blog, with LP reformers asking "do you want to uphold principle without compromise and get nowhere or do you want to make our message of liberty mainstream-friendly so that we can see success in elections?"

  I think we're seeing the answer. It was nothing but a false dichotomy, and we're now seeing the worst of both worlds: watered down, putrid attempts to articulate liberty in the mainstream with even *less* political success than before.

  Published: October 21, 2008 11:11 PM

• Walt D.

  Bob Barr was eliminated from the Republican primary by people who had targeted him for his pro "War on Drugs" position. How can anyone, pray tell, be Libertarian and be a staunch advocate of the "War on Drugs"?

  Published: October 21, 2008 11:16 PM

• Walt D.

  Bob Barr was eliminated from the Republican primary by people who had targeted him for his pro "War on Drugs" position. How can anyone, pray tell, be Libertarian and be a staunch advocate of the "War on Drugs"?

  Published: October 21, 2008 11:17 PM

• Danny

  It seems clear that Barr was pushed into the LP for one purpose, and that to ensure that the enthusiasm created by Dr. Paul's candidacy would have no outlet.

  There is only one valid reason for the LP to exist and that is to be an outlet for real Liberty.

  Published: October 21, 2008 11:34 PM

• Alex Peak

  Mr. Bratton,

  What makes you think we were all Republicans before becoming a libertarian?

  My ideological shift went from supporting Democrats from 1996 to 2000, to supporting Greens from 2000 to 2003, to supporting Libertarians from 2004 to present.

  (The first election in which I could actually vote was 2004, so I think I can be forgiven for my views prior to that.)

  My ideological shift went from naive liberal to Bill Maher liberal, to classical liberal, to Harry Browne libertarian, to Murray Rothbard libertarian.

  Nowhere in that progression have I been a Republican, and given the Republican Party's distaste for Ron Paul, I have little faith that they're going to cease being the party of Bigger Government any time soon.

  If you think I have any desire to see Mr. McCain elected (or Mr. Obama, for that matter), I implore you to think again.

  Respectfully,
  Alex Peak

  Published: October 21, 2008 11:36 PM

• jc

  meh, didn't think he was that bad. he just wasn't combative with one of the few journalists paying attention to him. can't blame him for that big of self-interested prostration.

  Published: October 22, 2008 12:37 AM

• David Bratton

  Alex Peak,
  The GOP has been the only party in recent decades where libertarian economic ideas have even been considered. And it is still the only party where we have any chance of exerting any influence on public policy.

  As for Ron Paul, you may note he is, for better or for worse, still a Republican.

  The point I wanted to make was that the Libertarian party, instead of spotlighting libertarian ideas, tends to remove them completely from the public debate.

  Published: October 22, 2008 12:41 AM

• Oil Shock

  A really strong libertarian party would be a better libertarian influence on Republican party than a weak libertarian minority inside the republican party. If libertarian party can get 5-10% of the votes, it will catch the attention of the Demolicans. They will want to get a piece of the action. Green party pulls Democrats to the left, libertarians can have a similar influence on republicans.

  Published: October 22, 2008 12:59 AM

• Bill

  Sorry, but I disagree with this. As a Big L since 1984, I have watched us put up a long parade of irrelevant candidates. Becoming more irrelevant is not possible.

  I guess if the point is to have a candidate that we hardcores can sanctimoniously feel 100% comfortable with; and then have our little circle jerk every 4 years which pulls in 500k votes - if we're lucky - then yeah...Barr is a bad choice.

  What I heard in that interview were positions that were far, far better than any position our next president will hold.

  Barr has had his share of mis-steps along the way, but he'll introduce more people to the LP than any candidate since Ed Clark, and pull more votes than any candidate since Ed. And I'll put some FRNs on that.

  Yeah, I know you and Lew don't like him because he's not Ron Paul, but Ron didn't want the LP nomination. Short of getting Drew Carey, Dave Barry or Penn Gillette to run, there aren't a lot of Libs out there with even a hint of name recognition.

  We spend so much energy fighting amongst ourselves, it's no wonder the masses think we're nuts. All the while the leviathan grows unchecked.

  Published: October 22, 2008 1:28 AM

• Mark

  The current Republican White House is more socialist than LBJ (Johnson). McCain is likely worse than Bush. Should we give up on the Libertarian Party? Sounds like what Jeff Tucker is saying is we should give up and let the facists take over, or else change citizenship to another country. A better solution is to influence the Libertarian Party. Believe me, when this Greater Depression plays out, people will be looking for a BIG CHANGE! Now is the time to get SERIOUS with the Libertarian Party, this is its golden moment. (Influence it for good). If it gets more support, people might consider it when they demand massive political change. The time to support it is when Republicans field statist candidates like McCain.

  Published: October 22, 2008 4:23 AM

• D. Frank Robinson

  I was among the founders of the LP. I wanted the LP to focus on getting people elected to the House of Representatives from 1977 on. Guess what? The only really successful libertarian has come from the House of Representatives. It wasn't the message, it wasn't always the messengers it was the office sought. I haven't given up on the LP because they have one more Congressional election before the deluge. Forget the Bob Barristers and their delusions of grandeur and start campaigning for Congress 2010...NOW!

  Published: October 22, 2008 5:53 AM

• Keith

  I don't think Barr was that bad, but he's way too bland to be a "successful" third party candidate. He's running as if the LP is a main stream major party. A third party must be radical in order to pull those voters willing to be extremists for the cause (like Paul did this year). The trick is finding the right extreme cause(s) to emphasize. Until you reach the tipping point and become a major party, it's useless to act like one.
  

  Published: October 22, 2008 6:12 AM

• DS

  Disappointing, since I thought at one point Barr had some momentum to get some national attention in the process of not winning the presidency. But while his nuanced differences with the major parties are still preferable to philosphical arguments in favor of the rights of child molestors and the like, ultimately I've been disappointed by not taking the opportunity to show real differences.

  Seriously, what are the mechanics of writing in a candidate on the ballot? This is information that many people who visit this site surely want to know. If I'm going to vote for somebody who isn't going to win I think Ron Paul sends a much more dramatic message than None of the Above (ie, Barr).

  Published: October 22, 2008 6:43 AM

• jeffrey

  But, you see, the reason the media pay attention to the LP it all is to gain a different point of view. Judy W fully expected a different perspective and kept trying to elicit one from him. When he sounded like any other evasive politician spouting cliches of the day, she was clearly taken aback. She was probably wondering why she bothered to waste air time with this blather.

  The LP is either the radical alternative or it is nothing. Even from a marketing point of view, you have to maintain your niche or you sink into irrelevance.

  I gather from the above comments that the big goal of this presidential pick was to get someone with "name recognition." But the real name recognition is the word "libertarian." It doesn't matter if you get some semi-famous guy who is not saying libertarian things. Famous people are ubiquitous. What is unusual is for someone to say something unusual and different. If that person is an unknown, all the better. It makes the person interesting and worthy of interviewing.

  Barr's baloney about needing to prosecute people after the market crash was stupid and silly. He seemed to be in complete denial about market realities, like he was campaigning in some other decade. It was really weird. He seems not to know the first thing about economics. Amazing that the LP would be so degenerate as to pick such a know nothing to be its spokesman. And his foreign policy material was just creepily stupid and not based on any libertarian principle at all.

  Of course the LP will do worse this year than ever before. But I gather that the party is too far gone to recognize the problem here, even in the face of utter failure. It would be far better for the party to shut its doors rather than stay on this track. I especially for sorry for anyone who was bamboozled into giving the LP money.

  Published: October 22, 2008 7:57 AM

• craig norris

  The LP needs to replace liberty's torch in the logo with a giant umbrella.

  The LP has become an Umbrellla party as of late. They have accepted memberships from Mike Gravel and Bob Barr who's prior voting records are the opposite of what the party was founded on. Both men failed to run in their own respective parties, and are both now seeking to run under the LP.

  The party of principal holds no principals now. It is a party looking to grow and will accept anyone no matter what to grow.

  Let us bury the LP.

  Jeff Tucker-
  Thanks for posting this, I was considering writing briefly on the subject on the c4l site.

  Published: October 22, 2008 10:56 AM

• Eric Sundwall

  Mr. Tucker,

  I suppose a nice gig at an operation like the Mises Institutute gives you call to trash what is otherwise a decent effort, party activity that is, not the current campaign.

  While I agree with some of your analysis about purposes and marketing, to summarily trash the whole party and its entire membership is crude and unnecessary.

  Barr was a far from unanimous decision in Denver. I'm certain Mary Ruwart would have fit your ideological glove. It took six rounds to defeat her.

  The radical element in the party is certainly diminishing as the years go by. Libertarians making their hay in the pluralistic mush of influence (CATO) and ideas (Mises) will of course do fine in the modern game of communications and funding. Personalities and books sell to every niche. Ask Ann Coulter and Michael Moore.

  I get it. Don't patronize me because I chose to be an activist, party member or even an individual blogger. My independence is born from work and intelligence beyond a well paying liberty gig and tight knit cabal of think a-likes.

  Some of us deign to get dirty every once and a while and play with the little people. The elitism fostered by institutes, organizations and all too often government, is very similar. I walk among the masses and still hold Austrian Economics close to may breast and breath. Why must you beat your chest and wag a finger ?

  I'm guessing Mary would not have been on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Sure, the moderates have taken over and think this experiment will do something different. I doubt it too. Yep, third parties are the rock of Sisyphus rolling back down the hill, but don't blast everyone within as stupid or evil. We might not send them to your website as much . . . .

  Sincerely,

  Eric Sundwall
  Chair, LPNY

  Published: October 22, 2008 11:07 AM

• Jeffrey Tucker

  Eric, I'm all for anyone who is willing to spend time to fix up the Party. My impression is that a party that makes Barr the nominee is pretty far gone - despite all the efforts of good people. He has done serious damage to the very word Libertarian.

  I really wouldn't know if there is any hope for someone like Ruwart -- and, yes, she surely would have gained attention by holding to principle.

  If someone wants to devote his or her life to making the LP what it might be, there is no harm in that. It's just my impression that most people are unwilling to do that--high opportunity costs--and, as a result, the dummies take over.

  Published: October 22, 2008 11:13 AM

• JT

  Jeffrey: "The LP is either the radical alternative or it is nothing. Even from a marketing point of view, you have to maintain your niche or you sink into irrelevance."

  What on earth do you mean "sink into irrelevance"? The LP in its radical form has never been relevant! A Libertarian has never been elected to the House of Reps. in the party's 36-year history. The majority of its candidates for state or federal offices get a single-digit percentage of the vote. So how much further could it possibly sink?

  Published: October 22, 2008 1:13 PM

• Anonymous

  There is a required element of marketing for your message. I believe Barr doesn't present a fresh image. Rather a tired or reserved presentation befitting a college lecture. Ron Paul, even at his age, presents an image of youthful energy which is alluring to young people and people who feel Ron Paul can indeed make a real change. Although Obama proposals offer no real change at all, he very effectively taps into the same vein. The LP party needs someone the masses would be excited about. A candidate at the level of Jessie Ventura is an example.

  Published: October 22, 2008 1:19 PM

• Rich Paul

  Yes, lets give up the Libertarian Party, give up on America, and vote Republican, so the we can have a government which grows (normally) about 0.03% slower than the Democrats want it to, unless we get another moron like Bush, and then it can grow twice as fast the the Democrats want it to.

  Although I am part of the Campiagn for Liberty, I'm not convinced that the Republican Party can be saved. I will work with them until either it becomes clear that there will be no progress in that direction, or until the LP takes off. But I sure as hell won't vote for the scum they've been nominating.

  The sad thing is that all the time we spend attacking others in the Liberty movement, we can't spend fighting for Liberty. Lets see if we can post something more constructive here, eh?
  

  Published: October 22, 2008 3:23 PM

• Tom Burlingame

  Is it possible that the Libertarian Party has been
  infiltrated? By entities with a divide and conquer
  strategy?

  I support the Libertarian Party 100%!! In spite of its
  flaws and mistakes. I too, am a libertarian purist.
  We must continue, in my view, to work and influence
  the party in the direction of pure libertarian principle.

  Purists, speak up! Take charge! If I were to put
  a single word on our banner, it would be:
  SOVEREIGNTY. 100% individual sovereignty,
  based on the principle of 100% self ownership,
  which is the basis of ALL our natural rights.

  Let's speak this message loud and clear, and
  reclaim the party to a more purist message!

  Tom Burlingame

  
  

  Published: October 22, 2008 4:18 PM

• Tom Burlingame

  Is it possible that the Libertarian Party has been
  infiltrated? By entities with a divide and conquer
  strategy?

  I support the Libertarian Party 100%!! In spite of its
  flaws and mistakes. I too, am a libertarian purist.
  We must continue, in my view, to work and influence
  the party in the direction of pure libertarian principle.

  Purists, speak up! Take charge! If I were to put
  a single word on our banner, it would be:
  SOVEREIGNTY. 100% individual sovereignty,
  based on the principle of 100% self ownership,
  which is the basis of ALL our natural rights.

  Let's speak this message loud and clear, and
  reclaim the party to a more purist message!

  Tom Burlingame

  
  

  Published: October 22, 2008 4:20 PM

• Alex Peak

  Mr. Norris,

  I have no problem with either Mr. Gravel or Mr. Barr joining the party. The more, the better. Although I agree with you that neither one was yet libertarian enough to deserve the nomination, there's a difference I think we should recognise between being-libertarian-enough-to-join and being-libertarian-enough-to-be-our-presidential-candidate. They both meet the one threshhold, but not the other.

  Although my personal views are closer to Dr. Ruwart's, I'm of the opinion currently that we should have nominated Mr. Kubby.

  Mr. Bratton,

  Has the GOP implimented any libertarian economic ideas in recent decades? Or have they bowed to bigger and bigger government?

  I fail to see how the GOP is, in action, any less socialist than the Democratic Party. The only reason the GOP has even considered any libertarian economic ideas (ideas which they immediately reject) is that the GOP has a few good men in it willing to bring up these ideas (e.g. Ron Paul), good men who are far outweighed by the statists.

  If the LP takes votes away from either or both of the two Establishment parties, I say great! The more votes that go to the LP instead of the Establishment parties, the more sway we can hold over them. Third parties don't have to win elections, they just have to "take away" enough votes from the Establishment to scare it. That's what the LP does, and that's why I'll continue to support it.

  Respectfully,
  Alex Peak

  Published: October 22, 2008 6:55 PM

• Ohm (unit of resistance)

  “…Bob Barr, an interloper, carpetbagger, scavenger, and parasite who latched onto the Libertarian Party to salvage his failing political career and will no doubt hand it back when it has served its purpose, a drained, broken, lifeless wreck.”
  L. Neil Smith

  The LP is mortally wounded and with it, any chance of winning freedom through electoral polcitics. Let it bleed out, bury it, and get on with organizing resistance cells.
  

  Published: October 23, 2008 11:40 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  There was never a chance of winning freedom through electoral politics. Politics is essentially reactive not proactive. Politics follows culture. L. Neil Smith has done a lot more good with the books he's written than he'll ever do with his political activity.
  
  Nonetheless, I like the idea of maintaining a political presence to take advantage of the cultural and social shifts when they occur. All the LP really needs to do is "keep their hand in" and maintain the party until they can take effective political action.

  Published: October 23, 2008 1:47 PM

• Haas

  Man this "moderate" BS isn't happening only in the states - here in NZ our equivalent to the libertarian party is the Act Party- when i asked the leader why don't we give more power to private firms and move towards privatizing security to help the police (since we have an increasing crime problem in NZ) he shrugged off my comment saying we already have private security firms- we will never get a pure libertarian in government because the matter of the fact is government is inherently anti- liberty

  Published: October 24, 2008 5:25 AM