|
November 2008
Vol. 22, No. 10
Voters' Guide
Not Just for Libertarians
Choosing among those who seek the presidency is not necessarily an easy task for the intelligent libertarian. Liberty's editors do their best to help.
J. Bradley Jansen lives and writes in Washington, D.C.
In the August 2002 issue of Liberty I extolled the virtues of then-U.S. Representative Bob Barr, who was up for reelection in the Republican Party primary in his home district in Georgia. In a recent article in the American Spectator, I updated my libertarian defense of Barr. I won’t repeat myself here. I will say that Barr is the best qualified candidate in the current election and is especially well suited to deal with the challenges the country faces today. Serious challenges require serious responses and real leadership. Barr has the right mix of experience and commitment to lead the country.
Our policies of foreign interventionism have created an environment ripe for terrorist recruitment against us. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, brought that lesson home. But already in spring 2000, back in the period of our naivete about the threats to our country from international crime, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction, Barr was there testifying before the House Intelligence Committee. Besides explaining the need to update our laws so as to reflect changing technologies and threats, the former Central Intelligence Agency analyst offered leadership and clear guidance about protecting our liberties as well as our lives. His words are worth quoting at length:
While Americans remain solidly in support of a strong foreign intelligence gathering capability, they are not willing to do so at the expense of their domestic civil liberties. Any blurring of the heretofore bright line between gathering of true, foreign intelligence, and surreptitious gathering of evidence of criminal wrongdoing by our citizens, must be brought into sharp focus, and eliminated. Failure to take the steps to do so will erode the public confidence in our intelligence agencies that is a hallmark of their success. Failure to take steps to do so is a serious breach of our public duty to ensure the Bill of Rights is respected even as our nation defends itself against foreign adversaries and enemies.
The importance of effective foreign intelligence gathering, and of constitutional domestic law enforcement — both of which must respect U.S. citizens’ right to privacy — demands more than stock answers and boilerplate explanations. What is required is a thorough and sifting examination of authorities, jurisdiction, actions, and remedies. This is especially true, given that an entire generation has come and gone since the last time such important steps were taken.
Still further back, in 1998, Barr alone stood with Ron Paul in explaining to their fellow House members why a proposed national ID system would violate our privacy and civil liberties without making us safer. Imagine how much better off we would have been had a Barr Administration responded to the tragedies of September 11.
Bob Barr has a long record working with broad coalitions to make policy. Although a drug warrior in Congress, he often worked with drug war opponents in coalitions to protect privacy and other civil liberties. There is no other choice for those who value our rights and liberties — and our desire to work together to achieve legitimate goals.
Barr, of course, is the candidate most likely to follow a noninterventionist foreign policy and keep America out of unnecessary wars. He not only voted to stop Clinton’s military strikes in Yugoslavia but joined a few other congressmen in suing the president for peace. The man who led the impeachment against President Clinton also led the charge against the lawlessness of the Bush Administration.
One of the main functions of the federal government is to protect our national security, but a Barr presidency will keep us safe and free. Barr understands that the two go together. He rejects the false dichotomy that makes people think we need to choose between them.
Turning to economic policies: Barr’s background is that of a fiscal conservative. He came to Congress as one of the Republican revolutionaries voting to get rid of whole cabinet departments — a position not articulated again in national politics until Ron Paul’s run in the Republican presidential debates. The growth in government spending under President Bush denies Republicans running on his record any right to be rewarded. The Bush record on fiscal issues is certainly not one that deserves to be renewed.
We need a change, not warmed-over New Deal redistributionist policies. Unfortunately, however, the two major parties offer only small variations of more of the same. One of President Clinton’s greatest achievements was the far-reaching welfare reforms that gave states more power to try new policies. Escaping the one-size-fits-all approaches from major party candidates continues to be crucial.
Regarding social policies, Barr’s positions have evolved. Many Americans share his concern about drug abuse, for example; but more than anyone else in the libertarian camp, Barr has the authority and insight to explain why using the heavy hand of the federal government is not the best approach. His preference for devolving changes to the state and local, or nongovernmental, level best illustrates the way to avoid what F.A. Hayek called the “fatal conceit,” the idea that a few planners at the top think they know more than all of the rest of us combined.
Relying less on the centralized solutions of the past and respecting the spontaneous order of modern life offers the best way of addressing the varied problems we face. Only by allowing maximum flexibility and openness can we realize in public policy the potential of new solutions, just as the internet has increased accountability and transparency in our public life.
In the real world, issues are often not as easy as ideological platitudes suggest. Barr retains his paramount concern for protecting this country, and our rights, against real threats. While he wants to end government policies that fail to produce results (including the drug war), he recognizes the inter-relationships of the drug trade, which finances terrorists, with other issues. This explains his positions on the Andean conflicts. Insight and realism show his leadership.
In 2002, David Keene of the American Conservative Union defended Barr, saying, “[The] man’s ubiquitous. He fights for his beliefs in committee, on the House floor and in the media. [He’s] brimming with ideas, unwilling to compromise on matters of principle, and ready to take on all comers in the fight for what [he sees] as right.”
That sentiment is shared by the civil libertarians of the Left. “Social issues journalist” Walter Brasch observes: “[Barr] has spoken out against the neo-conservative movement for its super-patriotic suppression of dissent, rising beliefs in a ‘tax-and-spend’ bureaucracy, and unqualified support of the PATRIOT Act . . . Bob Barr isn’t the ogre portrayed by many liberals and moderates, nor is he the saint that the conservatives believe. He is just a man of principle who believes our Constitution must be protected and defended against all enemies — foreign and domestic.”
Barr has earned the respect of the Left and Right as a man willing to stand up for his beliefs. He has demonstrated in office and out that he works for change. His willingness to work with everyone on a variety of issues and try to broker agreements that move the ball in the right direction demonstrates the experience — the principled experience — that is lacking in other choices.
If you approve of the status quo, vote for one of the two major party candidates. They are the candidates of the status quo. But if you want real change based on a new framework, vote for Bob Barr. Only a vote for Barr is a vote for smaller government and respect for individual rights, privacy, and civil liberties. The other choices offer parts of what the country wants and needs. Only Barr offers the best of the two other choices, and the long overdue political realignment that we need.
Barr’s name evokes images from many past fights, and the one constant has been his strong defense of the rule of law against transgressions of the Right and the Left. When Republicans excuse current policies, they have forfeited your vote. When Democrats, elected to end a senseless war, end up retroactively endorsing lawless spying and surveillance on Americans, they also have forfeited your vote. But Barr has been tried and tested. He is the best choice to stand up for Americans’ rights and liberties.
When I worked in Ron Paul’s congressional office, a former staffer wrote a memo explaining that our job was to be leaders and set the goal posts. Dr. Paul did that in the Republican primaries. Now we need a fighter, a person who is not afraid to get his hands dirty, to run the ball down the field. Bob Barr is that man. Not only is he the right candidate to take the freedom movement to the next level, but he is the right choice to lead the country.
|
|