Bob Barr is a nut.
For those who aren’t instantly familiar with Bob Barr, here’s a recent New Yorker profile of the man. Frankly, I think the man is a nutbar, but that’s my typical view of libertarians. There’s a wide degree of variety amongst libertarians themselves as to what constitutes “libertarianism”. For a more extended look at the political platypus that is libertarianism, here’s entries from Wikipedia, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. However, my general understanding of it can be expressed simply: government baaaaad, personal liberty goooood.
In my more generous moments, I regard this as profoundly wishful thinking. More often that not, I regard it as a psychotically naive philosophy that looks to reduce human society to a matter of trucks ‘n guns. Why trucks? Because there’s no government to build roads. Why guns? Because there’s no government to stop someone from taking your truck.
I remember reading that one of the more extreme militia groups from the 80’s and 90’s used to argue that they didn’t believe in government above the county level. My reply: “You guys must really love communism . . . because unless your county can afford tanks and fighter planes, you’d last all of seven minutes during a Soviet invasion.” That’s an exaggeration, of course. No way would they last a whole seven minutes.
Which expresses my fundamental problem with libertarians: humans are assholes, therefore government is necessary. Government is, by nature, a societal attempt to limit the inherent assholishness of mankind so that everyone can play nice and get through the workday.
Some libertarians assert that government inherently restricts human liberty in anything it does and therefore should be replaced wherever and whenever possible by commerical interests. After all, the free market is the best guarantor of human rights and a free society and mankind’s best interests . . . for reasons that are never adequately explained but are self-evident to the free-market advocates. Business is, by nature, a societal attempt to make money off assholishness and thus tends to limit the ways in which that assholishness is not personally profitable. Consequently, business only guards individual liberty to the degree that it is profitable. To wit: the slave trade, child labor, melamine-laced baby formula, the tobacco industry, and the career of Rush Limbaugh.
So I regard libertarians as nuts. I tend to favor government over business when it comes to roads, schools, guns, non-flammable children’s clothing, non-tainted food, and cars that don’t explode when you tap the rear bumper. If that means that I must have my photo taken if I want a driver’s license, well, that’s a sacrifice that I’m willing to make.
So why do I bring up Bob Barr? Because among his enablers political supporters is Chuck, whom I’ve known for probably 15 years or so. We’re good friends and I regard him warmly despite our many and massive political differences. So it pains me to announce that Chuck has offically jumped the shark. I mean, he’s put on the leather jacket, greased back his hair, practiced his Fonzie impression, got on that bike, and hit the ramp at top speed to really jump that shark.
Chuck has been an avowed libertarian for years. I say “avowed” because I don’t regard him as a libertarian, despite his fevent avowals and dedicated bumper-stickerage. I regard him as a neo-conservative. Why? Because a libertarian would object to the Bush administration’s suspension of habeas corpus, indefinite detention without charges, unwarranted wire-tapping, and other curtailment of civil liberties. (Occasionally, I’ll tell him that he’s just another conservative who hates paying taxes, but I do that just to annoy him.)
And now he’s objecting to media and corporate encouragement of get-out-the-vote efforts as demeaning and devaluing democracy. Or voting. Or something like that. Best I can tell, he’s arguing that the participation of an uninformed voter is simply the means by which Big Media, et al., can stifle fringe groups like the Libertarian party. Thus, when Starbucks offers a free coffee to people who vote, it’s perpetuating the dominance of the two big parties and crushing the small voice of those not co-opted by the big political machines.
Which brings us neatly back to Bob Barr, who drinks a helluva lot of coffee. Actually, espresso. Apparently he’ll drink up to fifteen shots of espresso in a day, usually in five-shot-installments. (Alas, if only he’d gotten more than that many votes . . . .)
Bob Barr was the Libertarian Party’s candidate for president. He didn’t win. Why? Two reasons. The first is that libertarians are a fringe group and, as such, will not gain mainstream success because any significant issue that might become a rallying point will generally get co-opted by the mainstream parties. The second is that Bob’s not just a nutbar, he’s fucking insane.
Having converted from the Republican Party, Barr had to work hard to win over the Libertarian Party’s rank and file. At the Rally For The Republic (Ron Paul’s Minneapolis counter to the St. Paul Republican convention), Bob Barr chatted with a woman in a wheelchair whose daughter had severe epilepsy. How did that charmer Bob court her vote? By telling her that he opposed the Americans With Disabilities Act. The result? Her angry husband shouting, “Get out of here, Bob!” and “No to Barr!”
In mid-September, Ron Paul held a forum to spotlight third-party candidates. As a former Libertarian Party presidential candidate, Paul still swung a lot of weight with the LP rank and file, even though he’d campaigned in the Republican primaries. Barr was scheduled to attend, apparently promising Paul he would be there. Barr stood him up with maybe ten minutes notice . . . to avoid being reduced to the level of the other third party candidates. Ron Paul was furious. Two weeks later, Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.
I respect that Barr has the conviction of his beliefs. Unfortunaely, those beliefs apparently involve ensuring that the Libertarian Party will remain a fringe group by dividing and polarizing anyone nuts enough to be a member.
I think your characterization of Libertarians as nutbars is preposterous. Libertarians have had a significant impact on modern politics. Damon W. Root at reason magazine agrees.
I didn’t say they weren’t influential, I just said they were nuts. Having had a significant impact doesn’t mean that you’re sane or even that you’re right. Karl Marx can be reasonably argued as having had a significant impact on modern politics, but his historical analyses are pure Looney Tunes.
And I don’t find Root’s article to be persuasive in the slightest. He cherry-picks his examples and misses the larger historical context. He dismisses modern progressivism (whatever that may be, I don’t really know how that label’s applied these days) because of errors of the original progressives. Ultimately, he says that libertarianism is important because government abuses people because of “the illiberal impulses of progressive majorities”.
He doesn’t explain how business and commerce is the solution to the problems he cited. He doesn’t acknowledge that much of the New Deal was aimed at solving or correcting inhumane conditions created by business and commerce. And, perhaps most pertinent, he doesn’t explain how libertarianism is important to protecting people today, only how it may have been somehow relevant a century ago.