There is no 2012, or 2016 Libertarian Movement if the wrong 2008 LP candidate is chosen...
Posted by Libertarian_Jury on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 11:03 in We need Mr. Root http://www.rootforamerica.com to represent the LP, or the LP either
1) fades off the ballot after the election, after having been associated with ultra-radical (to the point of unelectability) anarcho-libertarianism (by electing Kubby or Ruwart as pres. candidate)
2) fades into obscurity along with fading off the ballot due to a low vote total (by someone like Smith, or Phillies)
3) gets the stink of an un-libertarian ideology attached to it (by someone like Barr, Milnes, Jingozian, or Imperato, etc...)
If none of these are acceptable to you, then please: come to Denver for memorial day 2008 weekend, and make sure Root gets the nomination!
Thanks,
FJ
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 116 reads
He claims to be a libertarian now, but he did vote for this. He seems to be backing off of it now, but I don't think he truly supports equal treatment under the law for everyone.
Barr might not be a perfect libertarian, but he can probably attract more media attention (hence, more votes) than the others. Hopefully, his views will continue to be influenced by the (libertarian) company he keeps. I know it sounds kind of like marrying the guy in hopes of changing him later, but the alternative might be consignment to purist obscurity.
That said, I'm willing to be convinced that someone else would make a better candidate.
There has never been a greater opportunity for the Libertarian Party to gain recognition as a viable alternative to the Republicrats. So let's consider carefully before throwing it away.
Beebee, you make some good points. I do not know much about Root (yet), but he seems to be far from purist and appears to have they type of charisma that could allow him to gather some momentum.
I'll certainly take the time to check out Root further. Do you have any opinions yet on what, besides charisma (which is certainly important if you're going to be standing in front of a TV camera), you think are his greatest assets?
His website covers his views on the issues, which seem to be more consistent with libertarian principles. His site also has an interesting link to an organization for reforming the LP, which apparently is aimed at making libertarians more electable by focusing on incremental changes to existing policies. I definitely need to do more research on him.
A succinct article about why Bob Barr should not be the LP's presidential candidate: http://www.lewrockwell.com/katz-j/katz-j28.html
Excerpt:
The Paul campaign, and its level of success far higher than any previous liberty-oriented campaign in recent days, should have taught us a few things. For one, Paul succeeded as well as he did not in spite of his radical positions, but because of them. In fact, I believe that his unapologetic radicalism, together with his personal demeanor, was the most important factor in his success. Barr brings the same conservatism as Paul, but none of the radicalism. If he is a libertarian, he is a moderate one at best – or, as he describes it, a "grown-up" libertarianism, a phrase I can only take to refer to an abandonment of any consistent application of principle. Paul also raised a crucially important issue – the Fed and monetary policy – which Barr does not seem interested in raising. We learned that the Fed actually does excite people – it was an unfamiliar issue, one on which the debate was not yet poisoned by the mainstream media. Barr doesn’t mention it in his literature, and even if he did, could not do it justice the way Paul did, as Barr shows no evidence of familiarity with Austrian economics.
Also read this, http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/020962.html
Excerpt:
But many libertarians, and enthusiasts from the Ron Paul Revolution, might find this unsatisfactory: "In a news conference, Barr said 'only a fool' would specify a date and timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. But he said it's 'extremely important' and in the best interest of national defense to draw down dramatically the US troop presence in Iraq and decrease the military and political footprint in Iraq."
Thanks for those links. At first blush, it seems he may be opportunistically trying to capture some of the Ron Paul sentiment and popularity when in reality he is not nearly as principled.
I've just been perusing his website - he's certainly worth checking out. I see that he was on Fox Business this morning debating Mike Gravel (an invitation that Bob Barr apparently declined) - maybe it will be posted later on youtube.