Bob Barr Enters Presidential Race as Libertarian

[FireMax]

No doubt, you are right on in much of what you say. I especially agree with this part.

This is exactly why the Republican party has the brand-identity it has at the moment; they preach one thing while doing something else.

That is so true. But more than that, the GOP has taken a page from the Clinton play book and practiced "triangulation" where you take your opponent's positions, and make them your own. I don't mind when a socialist does that, but when a Republican takes a liberal position... I must ask "what is the purpose" other than simply to win more votes at the expense of sacrificing their principles.

 

[Danzig]

I agree with Goslash. You can allow yourself to be deceived into voting for the lesser of two evils. You can be peer pressured into voting for the lesser of two evil. But nobody can FORCE you to vote for the lesser of two evil.

I refuse to do so. If a man has not integrity then he is not a man. I will vote for he who best represents what I believe a politician should be.

 

[WINSTON THE WOLF]

I agree with Goslash. You can allow yourself to be deceived into voting for the lesser of two evils. You can be peer pressured into voting for the lesser of two evil. But nobody can FORCE you to vote for the lesser of two evil.

I refuse to do so. If a man has not integrity then he is not a man. I will vote for he who best represents what I believe a politician should be.

+1000

 

[GoSlash27]

That's not to say that I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. It's just that the lesser evil must not be counter to my conservative principles. In this case, McCain simply doesn't have anything "conservative" about him. For that matter, neither does the Republican party in general.

Referencing my quote from Reagan up-stream, what does it say about the current state of the Republican party that most libertarians broke for Kerry last cycle?
This Libertarian Constitutionalist angle is what the Republican party is *supposed* to be about. Look back at what Jefferson and Goldwater had to say about it.
The Republican party in general and McCain in particular have spent so much time maneuvering for power that they no longer represent the conservative ethos. They don't know what they believe in anymore, so how on earth are they going to compromise to achieve it?
They can't and IMO that situation needs remedied.

I take no malicious pleasure in my write-in for Paul. It's not a case of "taking my ball and going home". It is sometimes necessary to chastise my son to correct his behavior. I take no pleasure in that either; it's simply necessary from time to time.

 

[GoSlash27]

Clarification:
These days the center of the Republican party is Populist; right where the Democratic party is "supposed" to be. Not fair of me to say that they don't have an ethos, it just doesn't have anything to do with conservatism.

 

[Frank Ettin]

There is only one environment in which the "rebirth of conservative ideals" can occur, and that's when the Republicans are not in power. ...At the same time, it helps create the necessary environment for the change by putting the Dems in charge.

And there is absolutely no reason to believe this is true. You have provided no evidence to support this contention, and historically it has not happened.

...We can't "minimize the damage" and expect change.

Again you offer no evidence -- no reason to believe this proposition.

So how does allowing a neo-socialist to occupy the White House further conservative interests?

 

[FireMax]

fiddletown, what further evidence do you need to know that the GOP along with McCain have sold out their conservative principles. For goodness sake, John McCain just outlined his proposal to deal with global warming by taxing american businesses. How much further to the left can John McCain go after that???

 

[GoSlash27]

An elaboration on my last post. Makes more sense with pictures.
The political spectrum isn't actually 1 dimension (a simple line left to right), but 2 dimensions with all the groups arrayed around a center.

The image on the left is the current left/right demarcation with my opinion of where each candidate fits. The image on the right is where the founders of the Republican party intended the dividing line to be. Hence the problem: The standard-bearer of the Republican party happens to be the most classically liberal out of the group, the presumptive "Libertarian" candidate is anything but, and the least classically liberal viable candidate is.... Obama

 

[Frank Ettin]

...what further evidence do you need to know that the GOP along with McCain have sold out their conservative principles. For goodness sake, John McCain just outlined his proposal to deal with global warming by taxing american businesses. How much further to the left can John McCain go after that???

The point is that he is not as far left as Obama. McCain would also be accessible to conservative influence. He has demonstrated that by backing off of amnesty in response to objections from his constituents (as reported in other threads in these Forums). McCain will be approachable by conservatives and will at least be open to discussion of conservative view points. He will have to be by virtue of his Republican affiliation, and McCain understands that as a politician. What sort of reception do you think that conservatives will get in an Obama White House?

And there is also the nature of politics. Achieving results through politics is a collaborative process. It requires the formation of coalitions. No one but a dictator can implement policies without the support others. And certain activities require a critical mass of support. Who will be more open to collaborate with more conservative interests -- McCain or Obama?

Politics is involved in any activity in which two or more people are needed. Have you ever operated a successful business with one or more partners? Have you served on a committee at your church or gun club? Have you served in a managerial or leadership capacity in a business or union? Have you participated with other to coach a kid’s sports team or to run some other organized activities for your children? Have you collaborated with relatives to put on a family activity like a reunion or big anniversary celebration? Politics will be a factor in any such activity, and the person whose perspective will finally decide the form of the final result will be the person who can best understand and use the fundamentals of political interaction, like: identifying resources in the group and their strengths and weaknesses; communicating his points of view in a manner that can be best accepted and processed by those other members of the group whose support will be needed; building alliances and finding areas of common ground; resolving conflicts in a constructive manner.

With McCain, conservatives will have a seat at the table. Do you think that they will with Obama?

 

[GoSlash27]

fiddletown,
Last time this happened was the Goldwater resurgence, which bore fruit in the Reagan presidency. It has happened before.

As to the mechanism involved, I'll be happy to outline it for you, although I know you can't explain how a McCain vote would do anything to bring about the realignment of the party

The Republicans lose. Badly. Not just the presidential race, mind you, but both houses. Even in the few races they can afford to fund, they still lose.

They have to find out why, don't they?

And the reason is simple (and is borne out by polls that they'll be looking at and I can forward upon request) : They went so far populist that they lost the libertarian base. They will look further and see that the fastest growing and youngest contingent also happens to be the libertarians.
Meanwhile, all these Paulites are raising a ruckus at the grassroots level (and say what you want about 'em, but they're very passionate) and forcing the realignment.

It's just like any other business involving marketing; if the people ain't buyin' what you're selling it's necessary to reformulate the product.
And so they will. In fact, the process is already started.
Just as Gingrich reformulated the product with the "Contract for America". It works when they follow it. It'll work this time too, but they don't start the process until forced to.

Your idea of backing a liberal candidate in hopes of a few table scraps he's not willing to fight for is not only a temporary desperation move IMO, but more importantly could force a further shift of the Republican party away from it's base.

Think about it: If McCain were to somehow win, wouldn't that signal to the party that it needs to be more McCain-like in order to win elections?

 

[RDak]

I'm voting for McCain. I simply can't do anything that would allow Obama or Clanton to get in.

 

[FireMax]

fiddletown
The point is that he is not as far left as Obama.

So, according to your logic, the republicans can send you a liberal and you'll vote for them as long as they aren't as liberal as the other guy? Why would any conservative vote for a liberal?

I just cannot understand such logic. It makes no sense to me to say "I'll vote for this liberal instead of that one because he's less liberal". That is what you seem to be suggesting. If you think that this GOP deserves a seat at the table, I respectfully disagree. They have lost their conservative roots... what conservative wants the GOP to speak for them any longer?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Last time this happened was the Goldwater resurgence, which bore fruit in the Reagan presidency....

Except Kennedy didn't win because people didn't vote for Goldwater to teach the Party a lesson. It was a close race. And Reagan was some time coming. In that time, a lot a damage was done, and I don't think we've recovered.

...according to your logic, the republicans can send you a liberal and you'll vote for them as long as they aren't as liberal as the other guy? Why would any conservative vote for a liberal?

According to your logic, you would prefer to see a neo-socialist in the White House than someone who would at least be accessible to conservative influence. (And McCain would be, because he will understand that he could not be in the White House without some conservative votes.)

Instead, you would "teach the Republicans a lesson" and hope that doing so will cause them to reconstitute their party to be more to your liking -- and without any good, empirical evidence that your doing so would have the effect you desire.

Among other things, instead of helping reinvent the Republican Party, the election of Obama could just as easily lead to a further consolation of liberal-socialist power and support. It seems that you wish to see things spiral out of control in hopes that somehow, when everything is sorted out, your view will be triumphant -- while having no good reason to suppose so.

 

[GoSlash27]

what conservative wants the GOP to speak for them any longer?

*sheepishly raises hand*

The problem is that they don't speak for me now and have no intention of doing so unless I force them to.
If the Democrats decide that they want to take on the libertarian (technically conservative) mantle... well, I guess I'll just be a Democrat. The party's not important; they're just a power structure. It's the ideals they work for that are important.

I do not support big government, deficit spending, the erosion of freedom, or the warfare/ welfare state and will not pretend otherwise for the sake of promoting a party.

 

[GoSlash27]

Except Kennedy didn't win because people didn't vote for Goldwater to teach the Party a lesson.

Wrong parallel. Goldwater was the "Paul" of his day, not the McCain. The Republican base had been refusing to vote for the McCain types for a long time prior. The Goldwater resurgence was only possible because people had been refusing to vote for the Republicans of the day who were (to quote your guy) "East-coast elites".

And Reagan was some time coming. In that time, a lot a damage was done, and I don't think we've recovered.

Such is the nature of the beast. Too much authority for too long leads to hubris and corruption. The Republicans aren't immune and it takes time to fix the damage and rebuild trust.
That's why it's important to begin the rebuilding ASAP. The democrats will do a great deal of damage regardless of who's in the white house. The sooner the Republican party becomes something people will vote for, the sooner the damage will end.
Notice how the Republicans couldn't even win a putatively incumbent seat in Mississippi despite all the money they threw at it? You've got bigger problems than just the white house race. The problem runs deeper than that.

Incidentally, the Reagan presidency was also brought about by the college-age libertarians. They were loud, brash, obnoxious, and viewed as outsiders. They were literally the "Paulistas" of the time.
Funny how things come full-circle

 

[Frank Ettin]

...That's why it's important to begin the rebuilding ASAP...

You keep going back to this notion or "rebuilding", and I don't see it. Goldwater's loss didn't lead to Reagan. Goldwater's loss led to Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter. Carter's overall weakness and catastrophic mis-handling of the Iranian hostage matter set the stage for Reagan.

 

[FireMax]

fiddletown
According to your logic, you would prefer to see a neo-socialist in the White House

Not even remotely true. I despise the majority of what socialists claim they stand for. To see one hold the highest office of this land will be a horrible thing. But, asking me to vote for someone who I feel is a socialist in order to avoid a different socialist from getting elected... well, the GOP is asking a bit much of me and people like me... don't you think?

 

[Wildalaska]

The sooner the Republican party becomes something people will vote for, the sooner the damage will end.

The American electorate doesnt want a screecher, they want a centrist. They don't want a ideologue, they want a problem solver.

Ronald Reagan was more "liberal" than the right thought and more liberal than the left beleived. He was a facilitator and communicator. He was a warrior in foreign policy.

WildtheclosetthingwehavetohimismccainwithlessspeakingskillsAlaska ™

 

[GoSlash27]

Goldwater's loss didn't lead to Reagan. Goldwater's loss led to Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter.

"He transformed the Republican Party from an Eastern elitist organization to the breeding ground for the election of Ronald Reagan.”

-Sen. John McCain

it took 16 years to count the votes [of the 1964 election], and Goldwater won.”

-George Will

You might want to read up on the subject.
http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=189

 

[GoSlash27]

WA,

The American electorate doesnt want a screecher, they want a centrist. They don't want a ideologue, they want a problem solver.

True enough. Preferably one without an "R" after his name.

But you see, there's 2 parties, not one. The two candidates should represent their own base, else there's no point in having elections in the first place.

And maybe this is where I'm mistaken, but I believe that the Republican party should represent Conservatism, not populism.