The Stars and Barr
(posted by Jim Henley)
John Schwenkler tries to measure his disappointment in Bob Barr’s fulsome encomium for the late Senator Jesse Helms. And by the way, every time I type that, I remember the old Dave Barry version of his name: “Senator Jess Helms (R - Spider Family).” But it’s worse than John allows. I say this as someone who’s had Barr on his blogroll since, what? 2004? and within the last week told people that, much as I want John McCain to lose this election, I might vote for Barr, Maryland being a safe Blue state, if Obama continues to tick me off on things like FISA.
First off, there are very few parts of Barr’s press release that are not lies. But beyond that, Barr’s campaign didn’t have to say anything. Helms was not an active public figure at the time of his death. Barr was never one of Helms’ Senate colleagues. Barr was not a Georgian. Nobody seems to have stuck a microphone in front of Barr’s face demanding some words about the late Senator. Barr went out of his way to issue the fullest possible praise for Helms immediately, and put it on his official campaign website. Barr didn’t have to go out of his way to be nasty, like I did elsewhere, or go over the top with praise, a la the Heritage Foundation and a gobsmackingly large swathe of the establishment Right.It was gratuitous. The statement’s completely optional nature rankles as much as the text itself.
John says, “if there were any evidence that he subscribed to the worst elements of the Helmsian worldview, he’d lose my vote right quick.” But Barr is a protest candidate. So his candidacy just is the things he chooses to say about the topics he bothers to address. With a major-party candidate like Obama or McCain, you can argue that their public statements are less important than their general policy positions, the talent pool from which they’d fish up an administration or the impact of their elections on the shape of the courts. For people like Bob Barr and Ralph Nader, none of that comes into play. One votes for them to “send a message” or one doesn’t vote for them. Bob Barr just went out his way to make his message a little creepier.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
[...] fulsome encomium for the late Senator Jesse Helms. And by the way, every time I [...] Pingback by The Art of the Possible » Blog Archive » The Stars and Barr July 7, 2008 @ 7:11 pm RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment [...]
July 7th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Hi Jim,
Thanks very much for the link and the criticism. Aside from the (very insufficient) remarks in my little addendum, I’d say two things:
1. Barr wants to be in the news, since that’s the only way to gain any sort of momentum. Releasing statements on all sorts of things is one good way to do that.
2. Not unrelatedly, Barr is trying (among other things) to appeal to the sort of Southern disgruntled Republican who may look fondly on Helms or at least certain parts of his legacy. Releasing statements that praise elder statesmen of the Southern Right is a good way to do that, too.
That said, I really do think that there’s a lot to what you’re saying, and I entirely understand why things like this - and many, many other things - would lead one not to vote for Barr. But PLEASE don’t throw your weight behind Obama …
July 7th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Weight? I have weight? Shit! That’s awesome!!!!
A post just for you, up-blog as of minutes ago. And note the new category I made for it and others like it . . .
July 8th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Re Dave Barry:
Ever hear that National Lampoon radio bit?
Voiceover: Inbred Theatre presents “Pork Bucket Place,” starring Sissy Spacek and Senator Jesse Helms.
Helms [making horrible slurping noises]: Come on, give it up, you skanky little beast! I’m gonna make you squeal like a pig!
Spacek: Stop it, Jesse. I’m tryin’ to watch my religious program.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Dude, I’ve been trying not to get on your case. But really, after first darling Ron Paul and now Bob Barr, I wonder why I ever thought that libertarianism was connected with racism? You’re never going to see what you don’t want to see, which is that these aren’t accidents. The libertarian agenda is a racist agenda, because it criminalizes only those crimes that poor people commit and disallows any kind of attempt to use collective power to change the social setup. Racists know this. You don’t because… why?
And the end effect is that of course nothing will stop you from finding some reason not to vote for Obama. I don’t like what he did on FISA either, but sadly, I don’t get to specify my ideal candidate. The fact that you think FISA outweighs everything else — well, way to focus on what’s important to white middle-class people.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
You really think the surveillance/police state is only of importance to middle-class whites? Ever hear of Fred Hampton? How about what COINTELPRO did to the black nationalist movement?
Various participants in this blog have, in the past, defended the right of poor people to squat on abandoned urban property, defended the homesteading rights of the South Central farmers, defended the right of poor people to self-employment in the face of anti-jitney laws and other cartels, and pointed to the central function of the corporate state as subsidizing the operating expenses of big business and protecting it from competition.
And in case you haven’t noticed, there’s no libertarian Holy See to officially endorse Paul or Barr on behalf of the entire movement. It may have slipped by you, but LRC’s endorsement of Paul and the LP’s nomination of Barr were actually *controversial*. The LP was split almost down the middle over the Barr thing, and some libertarians are as stridently agin it as they were against Milsted’s agenda a couple of years ago.
Your critique is slightly more sophisticated than the usual “pot-smoking Republican” canards at Daily Kos, I’ll give you that.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Various libertarians can be found to defend just about anything, Kevin, because libertarians fringe out into all sorts of directions. But in case you haven’t noticed, what you call vulgar libertarianism *is* libertarianism, for all practical purposes. No matter how much you say that these choices of political leadership are controversial — I can’t think of any libertarian decision that isn’t “controversial” among libertarians somewhere — the fact remains that those are the choices that the majority of libertarians keep making. How sympathetic are you to arguments that whenever the state does something bad over and over, there are statists somewhere who say they shouldn’t do that?
July 8th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
…which is exactly why vulgar libertarianism needs to be actively attacked. Is it any wonder that libertarianism is not popular when the most common image of a libertarian is a wealthy Ayn Rand quoting dickhead, completely oblivious to how in reality the State backs wealth when it’s class fighting time?
July 8th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
The libertarian agenda is a racist agenda, because it criminalizes only those crimes that poor people commit
You know, I never really thought about how laws against murder and gang-rape are simply a veiled means of oppressing the nonwhite poor as they engage in their traditional past-times that white bourgouise culture simply doesn’t “dig”. Thanks for clearing my mind, man.
July 8th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Rich,
How’s this for non-vulgar libertarianism?
http://www.attackthesystem.com
July 8th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I would be quite sympathetic to that argument, Rick, because the whole point of this blog is that people who are “statists” (in the sense of not being doctrinaire adherents of the nonaggression principle) are nevertheless amenable to reasoned discourse, and that libertarians can form useful alliances with them against specific forms of statism that we all agree are bad.
And whether a majority of libertarians share the sympathies you object to, the fact remains that those sympathies are not implied in the fundamental tenets of libertarianism as such (i.e., nonaggression and free markets).
July 8th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Considering even “vulgar” libertarians (though perhaps not uber-vulgar ala Brink Lindsey and the like) are opponents of Empire, while most assuredly an unqualified Obama supporter is not, I’m not certain that only non-vulgar libertarians are at the level of, or exceed, Obama’s “anti-authoritarian” cred.
But of course, vulgar libertarians oppose the US Empire because it stands to benefit white middle class people to the detriment of everyone else…
July 8th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Anyone who thinks Obama’s program would mean more freedom and liberty for poor, non-white Americans than Ron Paul’s is ignoring the war on drugs, among other such little things. It’s Obama who is going after the middle class white vote — they’re the political center, after all. He’s not going to let the hundreds of thousands of poor innocent blacks out of America’s rape rooms. Is this not important? Is this not, all by itself, a reason to condemn that candidate up and down? I think it is.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I’m a libertarian in the classical anarchist tradition rather than a modern “vulgar” libertarian, or even a non-vulgar libertarian. I supported Ron Paul because of his desire to shut down the US empire, the police state, the drug war and his track record to back it up.
I’m skeptical of Barr, who is at best a johnny-come-lately or, more likely, a con man.
Obama is just another shyster professional politician. I’m amazed that so many take him seriously.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Kevin, I think it’s important to recognize Rich’s actual argument, before he goes on the crazy “surveillance-state opposition is just a white thing” tangent. He’s essentially saying that the way libertarians define “property rights” and “aggression” are per se racist in the context of a country where white people long since grabbed all the good stuff by force of arms. That argument isn’t crazy at all, and indeed has considerable force. After all, many orthodox libertarian strains accept John Locke’s “first to mix his labor with the land” requisite for “private property.” The practical effect of that “mix” business has been to secure the rights of white, Euro landowners to property they siezed from non-whites. Euros were pleased to present themselves a case that the dusky inhabitants of those lands hadn’t really mixed their labor with them, and Euros were surprised to find the case they presented themselves frightfully compelling. What could they do, faced with such impeccable logic, but rule in their own favor?
You see a similar dodge in the way Ayn Rand retroactively licensed the white displacement of the aboriginal American tribes. We didn’t take “their” land, because, since they didn’t have formal, fee-simple freehold tenure and didn’t commission buildings from Frank Lloyd Wright, they were just wasting it anyway. Only after Euros have claimed possession of such tracts do “property rights” come into play, and now the Non-Aggression Principle means that, should the obstreperous darkies dispute those claims with force - they would probably call it trying to take what’s theirs back - they are aggressors, and stopping them from taking their stuff back is legitimate self-defense or, for minarchists, a justified function of the Night Watchman state.
It seems to me that this argument is largely correct. Kevin - and I! - would call it “vulgar libertarianism,” but once Rich points out that we’ve just implicated the ideas of John Locke, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, most of Cato, the bulk of the staff of reason, pretty much all the great inter-war forebears of contemporary libertarianism, and probably people I’m forgetting, his argument that “vulgar libertarianism IS libertarianism” seems to have considerable force. Which is why I long since stopped trying to guard the name from these people or get upset when anyone referred to me as a “liberal” or - gasp! a leftist.
And yet, states still by their nature tend to be malign, self-interested and vehicles for the establishment to safeguard its perquisites. It’s . . . a problem.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Anthony, you’re quite right that Paul is much better than Obama on the war on drugs. Barr, too, is better than Obama on the war on drugs. Neither of them will be president. Obama might and probably will be. However tepid his transgressions against statist orthodoxy on drug war prohibition, it’s still the first time (as far as I am aware) that somebody who might become president has transgressed against the drug war consensus since the drug war began. Beyond that, in practical effect, there is a huge gulf between the resources an Obama administration would commit to enforcing federal drug laws and the resources a McCain administration would commit.
Also, Paul and Barr are fairly fervent immigration restrictionists, a position I find as objectionable as any Obama has taken.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
However tepid his transgressions against statist orthodoxy on drug war prohibition, it’s still the first time (as far as I am aware) that somebody who might become president has transgressed against the drug war consensus since the drug war began. Beyond that, in practical effect, there is a huge gulf between the resources an Obama administration would commit to enforcing federal drug laws and the resources a McCain administration would commit.
Whoa, where is the evidence for this? I’ve seen none. I have, however, seen this:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2007/aug/28/obama_what_new_orleans_needs_is_
When Barack Obama speaks of “change,” he’s not talking about the war on drugs. He likes it just fine the way it is. Obama’s faith in the drug war is so strong, he even thinks it can help revitalize New Orleans:
If elected, Mr. Obama said he would establish a Drug Enforcement Agency office in New Orleans that would be dedicated to stopping drug gangs across the region. [NYTimes]
Obama has supported continued engagement with Columbia on their end of the drug war as well.
Which reminds me, on the Cuban embargo? Also not as good as Paul.
But you’ve nailed it: Paul is unelectable. So we’re back to pretending Obama is pretty good because we kind of have to. I guess.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
I think that Jim Henley, thankfully, has already said what I was going to say about “nonaggression and free markets”. Let’s just take that as read, OK? The nonaggression principle depends totally on where you set the boundaries of the case. “Free markets” are maintained because poor people are prohibited from sleeping under private bridges, while rich people virtuously don’t have to.
Let me instead go on about the “crazy ’surveillance-state opposition is just a white thing’ tangent”. Here’s what I wrote: “The fact that you think FISA outweighs everything else — well, way to focus on what’s important to white middle-class people.” What might be more important to non-white people than FISA? Well, how about being sent to war? How about being locked up in the drug war? (Obama is campaigning on no jail for non-violent first offenders.) How about the fact that when the economy is finally screwed through rampant Republican borrowing and corruption, the people at the bottom will suffer worst?
No, FISA is not just a white thing. But it’s a relative luxury that white middle-class people can invest their effort in because they aren’t seriously worried about even more vital issues. It’s like the white middle-class foofaraw about the Kelo decision. Why, one might think that eminent domain was never ever ever used before to, say, put a freeway through a black neighborhood.
Libertarians can call themselves whatever they like. (Personally, I think that anarchism is a lot more intellectually respectable. But whatever.) But the fact is that *insofar as libertarianism has any political force* rather than being a hobby for individual dilettantes, it’s a racist movement, depending on racist tropes for its survival. What to do about that is up to you. But let’s stop being surprised when Paul is linked to Stormfront, or Barr to Helms, or whatever the next is. Those people are your base, OK?
July 8th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
“Let me instead go on about the “crazy ’surveillance-state opposition is just a white thing’ tangent”. Here’s what I wrote: “The fact that you think FISA outweighs everything else — well, way to focus on what’s important to white middle-class people.” What might be more important to non-white people than FISA? Well, how about being sent to war? How about being locked up in the drug war? (Obama is campaigning on no jail for non-violent first offenders.) How about the fact that when the economy is finally screwed through rampant Republican borrowing and corruption, the people at the bottom will suffer worst?”
I made a similar argument at one point in favor of Ron Paul:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/preston4.html
I don’t trust Obama. He has a lengthy history of dumping people he no longer needs once he gets where he wants to be. I don’t think we can believe a word he says.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Of course. That’s the whole point of the distinction: simply saying “ok, no aggression and no intervention in the economy starting…NOW!” doesn’t count, since it fails to even question, let alone deal with* the result of the tons of previous force.
In a way I do agree that the distinction is, realistically speaking, academic by now. As you get more honest and consistent about property rights, eventually you sound like a leftist. Years back I used to question others pointing that out to me, these days I’m inclined to say “damn right, and what exactly is wrong with it?”.
(* - this would be, in a nutshell, my preference for the goal of a liberal/libertarian alliance. To gradually, as far as possible, point out the gains of violence and dismantle them, whether directly or by pulling the foundation from underneath and letting them collapse under the contradictions. Step One is for the average liberal to question political power more & the average libertarian to stop whitewashing history.)
July 8th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Whoa, where is the evidence for this? I’ve seen none.
Well, how about this. I concede it isn’t much. “Pretty good” is a relative thing. The alternative is abysmal.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Well, your link is newer than mine. That’s good.
Too bad it’s hard to know where Obama really stands lately.
And I’d submit that just as Obama isn’t all that committed to withdrawing from Iraq soon, neither is McCain that committed to staying forever. The reality is closer to consensus than the facade of partisan battling would have it.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:08 am
What might be more important to non-white people than FISA? Well, how about being sent to war?
Right, and libertarians (and Paul, if he be their proxy) oppose war much more forcefully than Obama has. In fact, the draft is often compared to…slavery!
July 9th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Funnily enough, apparently one of the things that “white people like” is Obama:
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/19/8-barack-obama/?cp=125
July 9th, 2008 at 4:19 am
Yeah it doesn’t get any less crazy at greater length.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:37 am
What’s the old saying about people finding it hard to see something if their job depends on not seeing it? That’s what’s going on here (with “self image” substituted for “job”, of course). Your connection to what remains of libertarianism depends on you dismissing as crazy what you’d see in a moment if liberals or conservatives were doing it.
Look at the people in this thread. It’s all stuff like: Obama is (gasp) a politician! Therefore, can’t vote for him. Or he didn’t denounce the entire drug war. He didn’t sign the full libertarian pledge. Whatever, the point is that these people really don’t care what justification they need to find to stick with the racists. If racism was important to them, they’d have rejected Paul — surely the suggestion that he’d treat people unequally according to race is in theory just as much against libertarian dogma as FISA is. But they don’t care about that.
You can treat it as crazy that people wouldn’t see what was going on with libertarianism and e.g. the Kelo decision. But it’s certainly not just my own trope. Libertarians were content to not freak out as long as it was black and poor people being displaced. But a threat to white middle-class people? Well, that’s different.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Yeah, my interest in being psychologized by you is not zero, but rather, negative. I just wanted to make sure that people were able to pry your actual argument out of your characteristic communication style. That work is long done. TTFN.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Y’know Rich, some libertarians are black…
I personally never fell for the hero worship crap towards Paul. My view of him was as a useful kamikaze pilot, in the hopes that something else — something looking to the left — would come of the wreckage from his obvious failure.
As for Kelo: what? So since some people didn’t give a fuck until white people were involved the crapness of the ruling should be ignored? How do you expect to stop it in the future then?
July 9th, 2008 at 10:02 am
[...] b-psycho: Y’know Rich, some libertarians are black… I personally never fell for the hero worship crap towards Paul. My view of him was as a useful kamikaz… [...]
July 9th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Barr was not a Georgian.
You meant ‘Barr was not a North Carolinian’, yes?
July 9th, 2008 at 11:36 am
No, damn you, Nell - I meant “Helms was not a Georgian!”
July 9th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I just found this site today, and am very encouraged about the idea. I have long held that true liberty will come about from an alliance of the progressive/communitarian left and the libertarian right. But what is all of this “libertarianism is inherently racist” crap? Members of Stormfront may share common ground with libertarians in regards to mistrust of government (and may have supported Paul), but that is the end of the similarity.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I should know better than to jump in on this, but I just can’t help myself.
1. The LP is a tiny fraction of even so-called “movement” libertarians.
2. You call anarchists intellectually honest, demonstrating that you are unaware that anarchists are, in fact, a not insignificant wing of the (small-l) libertarian movement.
3. You paint libertarians with a brush that, perhaps understandably, demonstrates clear ignorance of the libertarian movement. Just about every one of those who you would regard as clearly racist come from or are closely aligned with a specific branch of the “paleo” wing of libertarianism. I’ve known enough “paleos” to know that wing is not inherently racist; however, most paleos have a number of specific and significant differences in policy preferences and worldview with the other forms of libertarianism that are particularly appealing to racists. On top of that, the relationship between the “paleo” establishment and the more commonly known libertarian “flagship” organizations like Cato and Reason makes the relationship between the Montagues and Capulets look downright cordial, in large part because of those specific policy differences.
4. Disappointing as it is, Barr’s statement is not per se racist, and is as or more likely an attempt to pander to Southern conservative evangelicals than it is an actual endorsement of specific Helms justifications.
5. The latest polling shows that a clear majority of libertarians favor Obama over both Barr and McCain.
6. Most, perhaps all, of the libertarians at this site recognize that libertarianism has its blindspots, and I don’t think I’m going out on a limb to say that one of the major purposes of this site is to help libertarians understand some of the worst of those blindspots (some of which, I would argue, arise in large part from our now mostly-defunct fifty years’ membership in the coalition of the political Right). That said, the fact is that all ideologies/political coalitions have their share of blindspots, which relatively few adherents are willing to acknowledge.
7. The year Ron Paul narrowly (and I do mean narrowly) won the LP nomination, the man who almost beat him was Russell Means. Are you really going to call Russell Means an adherent to a white supremacist ideology?
8. Although there are several people here who have made clear they cannot support Obama (myself included), I’m more than a little certain that we all find him preferable to McCain. But more importantly, the reasons we won’t support him are the very same reasons why a lot of liberal Democrats are either revoking their support of him or, more frequently, have completely lost their passion for him and are now supporting him simply because he’s the lesser of two evils or because of an overriding desire for an opportunity for universal health care (a desire to which libertarians don’t subscribe). Are those liberals adherents to a fundamentally racist ideology?
9. Re: Kelo- I wonder if you realize that the Institute for Justice, the libertarian legal foundation that brought Kelo, had first built its reputation almost entirely on the following cases: a 1998 Atlantic City eminent domain case against Donald Trump where they were protecting an almost-entirely African-American neighborhood; several inner city school choice lawsuits, including Zelman, where the plaintiffs were African-Americans from disproportionately African-American cities; and a Washington, DC case where they protected hair-braiding shops from onerous- and possibly racist- licensing restrictions. So the idea that libertarians only cared about eminent domain abuse when it affected white people is demonstrably false.
10. It is strange that you accuse libertarians of racism for scaling back or ending their support of Obama on the basis of his weakness against the War on Drugs, given that the libertarian argument against the War on Drugs in many ways centers on the principle that the War on Drugs is one of, if not the, most racist policy in existence.
I could go on, but 10 seems like a good stopping point.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Mark, I’m not going to do a point 1-10 reply. But on my main point, I view all political decisions, even the choice to try to opt out entirely, as a choice of the lesser of evils. That’s the nature of politics, as a area that necessarily requires compromise between different people. Therefore, people reveal what’s really important to them politically by their choice of which evils are lesser.
Libertarians — with which I’m quite familiar, actually — have a pattern of choices in this regard, as a group of course, not as individuals. That pattern shows them flipping out and saying “I can’t support X because of Y” where X is the less-racist politician and Y is something like FISA. X is never the more-racist politician and Y is never something like oh, I don’t know — like Bob Barr proposing to ban the practice of Wicca in the military. The point is that any politician will come short of libertarian doctrine in some way. You will find the excuse to make the decision that you always wanted to make.
Is Obama the lesser evil? Of course. He’s stronger in libertarian terms on the drug war than the other electable candidate, not weaker. He wants to get out of Iraq, not stay for the next 100 years. I’m not going to go through every issue. But to say that FISA was of deciding importance? Please. Bush could pardon whoever he wanted during his term, and most of the Constitution is, as far as I can tell, pretty much a dead letter in any case, especially with regard to poor people. That’s not to say that cynicism should keep people from opposing things like FISA, but it does say that they aren’t the most important things.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
[...] Rich Puchalsky: Mark, I’m not going to do a point 1-10 reply. But on my main point, I view all political decisions, even the choice to try to opt out entirely, as a … [...]
July 10th, 2008 at 4:14 am
I’m puzzled; where does Rich get this strange idea that libertarianism is all about which politician one supports? The Libertarian Party is a joke if viewed as an actual political party. It only makes sense as an educational vehicle (and not a very good one at that).
FISA doesn’t interest me much either, but I understand the sentiment behind the opposition; those interested in electoral politics think it’s a winnable contested issue in the way the drug war is not. That is why it is so disappointing for libertarian Obama supporters, who neither expect an LP candidate to be elected or the drug war to be voted away. It’s precisely their willingness to sacrifice principle to “practical” electoral politics that makes FISA a big issue.
However much the philosophical backing behind the concept of “property rights” may be historically tainted, the fact remains that the alternative to libertarianism is even worse.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:24 am
I’ve seen all this Obama “hope/change” hype before with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. It means nothing. Jimmy continued U.S. support for all of America’s fascist client states of the era-Indonesia, Iran, Chile-and even gave support to Pol Pot (this from a “human rights” administration). Bill Clinton was just a continuation of Reagan-Bush policies. The domestic police state continued to expand dramatically under Clinton.
A president is just a figurehead, comparable to a CEO who merely implements policies already decided on by the board of directors. The “board of directors” here is the consensus of US elites/ruling class.
I remember hearing a lot of talk about going easier on “first time non-violent drug offenders” or whatever from Janet “Waco” Reno. Do you seriously think Obama is going to use federal funds to local/state law enforcement to bribe localities to rein in the drug war or order his attorney general or US attorneys or the DEA to do so? Hell, no, he could care less. He’d be more worried about the Republicans and the pro-Republican branches of the media depicting him as soft on drugs and crime.
On foreign policy, Obama will do what Jimmy Carter did, simply turn things over to the conventional foreign policy establishment. This means the return of the likes of Albright, Lake, Berger, Cohen, etc. or comparable figures.
I predict an Obama administration will be a repeat of the Carter administration with Obama simply becoming part of the status quo during a time of economic downturn, possibly rallying the Republicans for a big comeback in 2012 or 2016.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Micha wrote:
“FISA doesn’t interest me much either, but I understand the sentiment behind the opposition; those interested in electoral politics think it’s a winnable contested issue in the way the drug war is not. That is why it is so disappointing for libertarian Obama supporters, who neither expect an LP candidate to be elected or the drug war to be voted away. It’s precisely their willingness to sacrifice principle to “practical” electoral politics that makes FISA a big issue.”
This hits it right on the head, I think. I would just add that I don’t even care so much about the sacrifice of principle to electoral politics as I do about what that sacrifice says about Obama’s electoral priorities (and those of many other Dem politicians). Politicians pander, and I accept that; but the groups to whom they pander are the groups most likely to have an influence in their governance/legislation. Given the passion that libertarians and principled liberals had for this issue, and given that the issue was a real opportunity to bring libertarians into the Dem coalition, Obama’s choice (and that of the Dem leadership) sent the message that they would rather get their 50+1% with the support of “centrist” independents (about which I wrote here: http://publiusendures.blogspot.com/2008/07/myth-of-moderate-why-political-center.html ) than with the support of libertarian independents, even though they could get that 50+1% with either. To me, this says that an Obama Administration would be most heavily influenced by the “centrist” establishment rather than principled liberals….and libertarians not at all. I would much rather vote for a third party candidate who has a chance to score 4 or 5 percent of the vote in the hopes, however long (though I am optimistic), of shaking up the political coalitions. Of course, others will disagree, but that is to be expected.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Micha: “I’m puzzled; where does Rich get this strange idea that libertarianism is all about which politician one supports?”
Micha, you may like to listen to classical music or to hip-hop, but whatever your choice is in that regard, it doesn’t affect me. Similarly, you may call yourself an anarcho-capitalist or a paleo-libertarian or whatever — that’s nice, everyone should have some hobbies that they like. But the only way in which that affects me or anyone else is insofar as it translates into actual political acts. Voting is certainly not the only political act, but it’s a convenient proxy in these discussions for a broader range of political involvement. If you’re not going to act, why should I care what you think?
I mean, sure, you can “educate”. Good luck with that. In practice what generally seems to happen with libertarian education is what happened here. A concern about actual behavior is translated back into a theoretical discussion of property rights, going back to Locke, and it’s all very comforting. I mean, sure, I could say what I always say in these discussions — property rights are a social construct, are whatever people say they are, and that they get redefined all the time based on political action — but that just leads right back to the subject of what libertarians actually support. Which has been, in practice, no matter what variant libertarian theories are out there, property rights for the rich but not for the poor.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:45 am
@Rich:
“Which has been, in practice, no matter what variant libertarian theories are out there, property rights for the rich but not for the poor.”
To which I respond that this ignores the IJ’s work that is precisely geared to protecting the rights of the poor (see my comments above). Had you said libertarians are “more often than not concerned in practice with property rights for the rich but not for the poor,” you would have an argument, and maybe I’d even agree with you. But you didn’t say that.
Instead you made the absolutist statement that “in practice, no matter what variant libertarian theories are out there…” While I could certainly point to other examples with which I’m familiar despite my relatively brief (to date) involvement with “movement libertarianism,” your absolute statement requires just one counter-example to disprove.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Rich,
Why do you assume that my vote (if I were so inclined to do that sort of thing, which I’m not) would effect you anyway? This myopic focus on voting is insane, whether it is coming from libertarians or their critics. Here is Peter Boettke on the subject:
And the solution to your final complaint is, of course, not the deny property rights to the rich, but to extend them to the poor, which is, I think, a pretty good summary of the entire left-libertarian project, as described on this website and others.
This focus on motives is silly. Who cares what you think the motives underlying libertarian support for markets in place of government is? The question is what actually helps poor people, not who professes greater care or concern for them. Those who think regulated markets are the answer, while they may be well intentioned, are hurting the very people they are trying to help: