Libertarian Barr Stumps in N.C.: Palin an Example of the Arrogance of Mainstream Politics

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. --Bob Barr's campaign for president would be funny if it weren't so serious.

Whereas McCain rallies draw thousands, and Obama rallies tens of thousands, the Libertarian candidate spoke last night to about 100 people in a UNC classroom. The board had just been erased, and a little cloud of chalk hovered behind Barr, who looks a little like a professor anyway. Or at least Richard Dreyfuss playing a professor.

Barr wasn't much on the stump--he didn't talk about his credentials, and he doesn't have a catch phrase. He is charismatic if you like dry, erudite humor.

"My sons played soccer, and I went to a lot of games," he said. "I remember those conversations in the bleachers: no one was talking about Keynes or the Austrian school of economics. Now, maybe they talk about those things at hockey games in Alaska, but I'd say my being a soccer dad in Georgia no more qualifies me to be president than being a hockey mom in Alaska."

The audience--a good 90% of whom were men, and a good number of those in jeans and white tennis shoes--gave a low, appreciative chuckle.

When Barr finished his talk, which started and ended exactly on time, he asked if he could perhaps have a drink of water before the Q&A. No one seemed to think it was his responsibility to produce a glass or bottle. While the president of the College Libertarians collected note cards with questions, the candidate cleared his throat and rubbed his eyes. Eventually someone called out, "There's a water fountain just outside if you want a quick drink." Barr darted into the hallway and returned a few minutes later, apparently satisfied with the non-celebrity treatment.

But that of course is Barr's point: elections have become constrained, limited, un-substantive processes. Although Barr is on the ballot in most states, he is not really campaigning to win, and it is unclear that he will make even enough of a dent among Republicans to compromise McCain.

Instead, Barr's campaigning to get Americans to "open up the process" and demand more political parties, more honest debate, and a more authentic picture of candidates and how they would respond to "anything remotely resembling a real-life situation."

Barr's argument centers around defining the job of the president. Is it simply to manipulate the levers of power? he asked. To manage the economy? To provide security?

Or--and here the emphasis in his voice betrays that this is the right answer--"To protect and defend the freedom of the American people as guaranteed by the Constitution."

In Barr's view, the more authority government has, the less the citizens do. After all, we give government power by virtue of our taxes and our consent. For example, Barr cites the Departments of Education and Energy, relatively recent inventions. Only tenuously Constitutional in the first place, these departments have failed year after year in meeting their goals, yet both Obama and McCain are planning to expand them.

"Their view of government is to do things," Barr said. "Democrats and Republicans are for increased power and bureaucracy in Washington."

In general, Barr does not have much good to say about the mainstream candidates. At his most complimentary, he quotes Judge Brandeis: "The greatest dangers of liberty lie in the zeal of well-meaning individuals."

McCain and Obama may be well-meaning, Barr concedes--but they don't understand the proper role of the president or the federal government.

At worst, in Barr's view modern politics is an example of raw arrogance. For this he points to the lack of accountability in the bailout package, and on Sarah Palin's refusal to answer questions in the vice presidential debate.

"I have to admire her gall," Barr said. "She just told the American people, 'I don't care what you want to know. Here's what I want to tell you.' She didn't even bat an eye. Well, maybe she winked."

Unlike Ron Paul, who's working to reform the party from within, Barr believes that change will come only from the outside--from the American people demanding that the standard of public discourse be raised.

Yet, Barr is vague at best on the mechanics of that movement. People who hear his message of reform can pay their $25 and join the Libertarian Party, or--he waved his hand breezily--"write letters to the editor, spread the message, talk to friends..."

Even the College Libertarians, who sponsored the evening, have only recently had their constitution recognized by the university (which seemed ironic), and they admit it's hard to compete with the Young Democrats and College Republicans, especially this year, when so many young people are fired up about Obama.

In fact, most people in the room weren't even students. They were simply dedicated Libertarians, delighted that their own candidate was making an appearance in a state that has been drowned in Republican and Democratic rallies these last weeks.

"Of course I'm voting for Bob Barr," said Greg Robertson, blinking at the absurdity of any other option. "It's the only logical choice."

Comments

[KingRat22]

AMERICA'S SOLUTION!!!!!

IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO VOTE FOR LIBERTARIAN BOB BARR FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!! SO, IF YOU WANT SMALLER GOVERNMENT, LOWER TAXES, MORE FREEDOM, RULE BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, A THIRD POLITICAL PARTY IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AND UTMOST COMPETANCY IN PRESIDENT... VOTE FOR BOB BARR ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 4TH!!!!!

Campaign Website: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

YouTube Website: http://www.youtube.com/bobbarr2008

ALSO, IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO 'REDUCE THE POWER' OF THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS IN NATIONAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT... VOTE FOR LIBERTARIAN, OTHER 3RD POLITICAL PARTY AND INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES ON ELECTION DAY TOO!!!!!

Libertarian Party Website: http://www.lp.org/

HELP THE 3RD PARTY POLITICAL SYSTEM 'GROW' BY ENDORSING IT WITH YOUR VOTE NOW!!!!!

[gbrooks]

Bob Barr had my vote. He lost it when he screwed up the non-partisan promotion of 3rd parties hosted by Ron Paul.

With the decline and ridiculousness of the Republican Party, I had long considered the LP the next natural home for someone like me. Then I had the misfortune of actually contacting the LP and was faced with the communications director, Mr. Davis, who was insulting, unprofessional, and made it clear that my support did not matter.

So, this year, I'll be enthusiastically supporting Barack Obama. You guys blew it.

[candlewax]

At this point, I have more respect for Barr then I do McCain.

[sclucie]

Keep it up Barr! Make sure you make it to Montana and Colorado!

[MelRoy]

I like Barr. If this wasn't such a crucial election where every vote counts I would have probably voted for him.

[prabbit]

I am curious as to why you would've voted for him. He seems to be the antithesis of the typical HuffPo reader. Other than his stance on the Iraq war and some aspects of privacy/su­rveillance­, there doesn't seem to be much that is progressive about him.

[prabbit]

Why would you vote for him? There seems to be very little about him that is progressive other than his stand on the Iraq war and privacy issues. He was a leading proponent of the Clinton impeachment and was proven to be a complete hypocrite concerning the issue of choice.

[gbrooks]

He's a hypocrite on more than just the issue of choice.

[prabbit]

Supported constitutional amendment undermining separation of church and state. "Congress has the opportunity to send enemies of religious freedom a clear message that their attempts to erase religious belief from America's culture by cleverly manipulating the judicial system will not be tolerated."
Became first member of Congress to introduce "inquiry of impeachment," long before public heard of Monica Lewinsky.
Gave keynote speech at gathering of racist/ant­i-immigran­t Council of Conservative Citizens, a direct descendant of White Citizens Councils, a southern 1950s pro-segregation group.
Calling hate crimes legislation to protect gays and lesbian rights, women and disabled Americans "a backdoor way to obtain protected status for sexual orientation and sexual deviancy."
Sponsored anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act. Married three times, sued by second wife, and, according to published reports, seen at fundraising event licking whipped cream off chests of two women, Barr explained his sponsorship of DOMA this way: "The flames of hedonism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundations of our society: the family unit."
Earning consistent 100 percent ratings from Christian Coalition.
Sponsoring amendment ­ passed by Congress ­barring the Washington D.C. Board of Elections from tallying the votes on referendum legalizing the use of marijuana for patients with cancer, AIDS or glaucoma. Officials estimate cost of counting the votes at $1.64.
Pledged to eliminate National Endowment for the Arts.
Voting to cut funding for Head Start, Medicare, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, student loans.

[MarsAmbassador]

Barr is a useless hypocrite. Just read his record. Ron Paul is CLEARLY the only person in all of Washington that actually has a brain and chooses to use it for the betterment of America.

RON PAUL '08!

[ArmyCentrist]

Barr has a point, but I'm not going to waste my vote, sorry.

[qxav949]

If their cause wasn't so serious, I would laugh out loud at the notion that these people (Barr, nader et al) consider themselves viable alternatives. What a joke!

[Omidal]

Maybe they should come together and formed a vibrant third party.

[peacegurl48]

Amen, Mr Barr!

[FellowMan]

3rd parties have to work from the ground up. When they start putting people in office at municipal and state levels then maybe they'll have a chance at breaking thru on the nat'l level. til then, keep dreaming.

btw, Having Barr represent the Libertarian Party has probably set them back for years. An awesome example of the mass-confusion and dysfunction among conservatives right now.

[gbrooks]

I could not agree more. And the LP stood to make some amazing gains this election cycle. Too bad they didn't choose Mary Ruwart.

[canucklivinginUSA]

There was also a College Libertarians event at my school, Kennesaw State University in Georgia. I was intrigue by it but unfortunately had an exam, so I didn't go. I am all for third parties but I highly doubt that America is ready for that

[Neaguy]

Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader are having a presidential candidate debate today in Cleveland. An actual debate, not a joint, corporate-sponsored press conference.

Their VP running mates debate Sunday.

Open the debates, expand our choices.

[k6007]

hear, hear.

[TrooAmerican]

The real problem with cutting government and allowing a market place to determine its own outcome, is this....
private corporations are not in business for the good of the People of the United States. They exist for the sake of personal gain and profit, therefore all of the market type Mistakes they might make by such things accounting scandals, monopolies, gouging, consortiums or collusion, that might actually bring down the market would ALL seriously harm americans who have ZERO control over such private entities.
There is plenty of knowledge available by experts and experienced politicians and business persons, to keep most of that at bay. But Capitalist companies will continually ignore facts and history to the greed of Instant Profits.

This is a problem. This is NOT capable of being "Fixed" by capitalist market forces, nor kept at bay by experience of past failures. While a Government watchdog agency or regulator, would use History as a tool to guard against future failures and predation, a Non Regulated Private sector corporation would use history as a guideline to launch a new and better altered plan similar to the past that failed but different in that they would account for that failure, most often being caught.

Government has responsibility to protect Citizens from both external threats as well as internal threats from foriegn threats as well as corporate business predators that do as they please with vast money piles while citizens have little or no recourse to help themselves against that power.

[kristycu]

i agree

[tao53nyc]

Except when the government "regulators" (including and especially Senators and Congressmen) are in the pockets of the big corporate lobbyists. That's when you have REAL tyranny...THAT's how you get $700 Billion bailouts of bankers and insurance companies! Real "capitalism", not the "crony capitalism" you are describing, serves the needs and wants of consumers, and nothing else. The military-i­ndustrial-­congressio­nal complex, or the medical-ph­armaceutic­al-industr­ial-congre­ssional complex didn't happen in a vacuum created by greedy corporations. Government itself opened the door to those abuses - Congress holds up a big "For Sale" sign every two years, and the megacorps are always the first in the gate waving their checkbooks.

Conversely, when customers aren't happy with a company's products or practices, they go to their competitors. That's why "free markets" are self-regul­ating...be­cause the "regulators" are you and me, and we "vote" with our dollars. We're supposed to have a separation of church and state in this country - I think we also need a separation of the economy and the state, corporate lobbying should be illegal, and any pol who takes money from a lobbyist anyway should be removed from office and tried for treason.

[MarsAmbassador]

I agree. And it reminds me of a Wizard of Id cartoon from years ago. King was talking to his fortune teller and she told him that in the future, there would be no King, only representatives of the people. King said, so there will be no more tyrants? Fortune teller says, Contrary, there will be hundreds.