Barr-ing the Door to McCain?

Former Republican congressman Bob Barr announced yesterday that he is seeking the Libertarian Party nod. With Alan Keyes having lost his bid for the Constitution Party nod that means ace Kazakhstan reporter Borat scored an interview with only one man who'll be on the presidential ballot this fall. Barr, you'll remember, was the one punk'd into thinking he had just eaten cheese made from breast milk.

Actually it is not clear that Barr will be on the ballot either. At the press conference to announce he bid he reaffirmed his anti-abortion views, his anti-immigration views and soft-pedaled his opposition to the war in Iraq. He's for a troop withdrawal, but not an immediate one and would not create a timetable. In response to a question about military bases abroad he said he would "re-evaluate" the need for them but indicated some may be needed to defend American interests. And the former drug warrior hasn't changed on that too much either; he's still "personally opposed" but would allow states to hold referendums on things like medical marijuana.

So he's likely to face some opposition from hard core LP members when the party meets (later this month I think) to pick it's nominee.

Should he get the nod, Barr made pretty clear that he'll go after John McCain's base, votes the senator can ill-afford to lose. As the American Spectator reported:

"When asked what his problems were with McCain, he quipped, 'How long do we have here?'"

Ron Paul As President vs. Ron Paul As Person

I was going to write a post on the importance of distinguishing Ron Paul as a person and Ron Paul as president, but then I found this Samizdata post in which Perry de Havilland says almost exactly what I was going to say, but far more eloquently.

In response to David Boaz's (pretty good) post at Cato@Liberty that mentions how Paul has "slimed the noble cause of liberty and limited government," here are the money paragraphs from de Havilland:

Please, gentlemen, take a deep breath. I realise racism is the cardinal sin of our time and that it carries the automatic penalty of public abomination and auto da fe, followed by burning at the stake (it even gets you banned from commenting at Samizdata, although probably not for the reasons most people think), but the notion that the cause of liberty is inextricably tied up with Ron Paul's campaign is excessive hyperventilating, both from Ron Paul's supporters and his detractors.

I never felt he was the dream candidate, just the only one serious about shrinking the size of the state and frankly if he wanted to do that in order to preserve the purity of his precious bodily fluids rather than to increase the general sum of liberty, well so be it, just so long as he really is serious about shrinking the state.

Most of the quotes from the Paul newsletter really are indefensible (some are defensible), but I won't get into that since they have been covered and covered again since the TNR article. What is obvious is that Ron Paul's character has been tarnished.

The point is that I still believe, despite his character and how important his character may be to voters, that Ron Paul as president would understand the limitations of his presidential powers as delimited by the Constitution. And most, if not all, of the other candidates would not.

Not only because of the newsletter controversy but also because of the recent elections, Paul's hopes for president are now none (as opposed to slim-to-none before). This may very well be my last post about Ron Paul. But goddamn, the remainder of the field is depressing.

As far as the claim that Paul has tarnished libertarianism goes, I don't buy it. After all, libertarianism hasn't really been drawing the masses recently. Is there really that much to tarnish? Although each person at both Cato and Reason is a far more "solid libertarian" than Ron Paul, let's face it, Paul has reached more people. And if a few of those people were intrigued enough to look into libertarianism further (like I was about 4 years ago, thanks to Radley Balko's FoxNews articles), perhaps they will discover the ideals for the sake of the ideals, not for the sake of the candidate.

Ron Paul deserves the criticism he has brought upon himself. But I believe that libertarianism in general has been helped by his campaign, not hurt. Those who have been drawn to libertarian ideals thanks to Paul's campaign will - and must, if the libertarian movement is to become significant - understand individual liberty as an ideal in and of itself and look past the quirkiness of Ron Paul as an individual.

It Really Is About The Issues, Not Ron Paul

Professor Roderick T. Long has a new post up at Liberty & Power that is somewhat of a supplement to Professor Horwitz's post about Ron Paul that I blogged about yesterday.

While I agreed with the points that Horwitz made (but had a different conclusion about the Paul campaign), I think Professor Long may be putting words in the mouths of Paul's more enthusiastic supporters that they may not actually be inclined to say.

The argument goes like this: “Even if you think Paul is wrong on some particular issues, he’s still far, far more libertarian than any of the other candidates, so why not support him?” [Emphasis in original]

So far so good. Actually, this is the rationale for my support of Paul's campaign. I elaborate on this in yesterday's post. But here's where I think Long is incorrect:

The reason I find this argument puzzling is that those who make it would not, I suspect, find it plausible in most other contexts.

Imagine, for example, that instead of Ron Paul it’s Randy Barnett who’s running for President. Paul and Barnett have a lot in common; they’re both fairly thoroughgoing libertarians, they’re both enthusiasts for the Constitution, and they both take some positions that many libertarians regard as deviations.

Understanding that I cannot speak for Long, what he seems to be saying here is that there is something about Ron Paul personally that is drawing libertarians to his campaign. And that if the presidential candidate was someone with libertarian positions similar to Paul's, but not Paul, Paul's current supporters may not support that other candidate. As a Paul supporter, I will say that this is not true for me, and I would definitely be willing to support another candidate with a quasi-libertarian platform, even if he or she is not Paul. I agree with this paragraph from Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch's article about libertarianism and Paul in the Washington Post:

That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him -- and the much larger subset of Americans who are increasingly disillusioned with the two major political parties' soft consensus on making government ever more intrusive at all levels, whether it's listening to phone calls without a warrant, imposing fines of half a million dollars for broadcast "obscenities" or jailing grandmothers for buying prescribed marijuana from legal dispensaries.

Also, to be honest, I had not heard of Randy Barnett prior to seeing his name dropped in Long's post. But from what Professor Long says about Barnett in his post ("Barnett’s two major deviations ... would be his support for the war and his insufficiently decentralist approach to federalism."), Barnett may not be a good example of an alternative to Ron Paul. One of the major attractions to Paul's campaign for independents and libertarians is his opposition to the war in Iraq. That war is not only putting American troops in harm's way for a questionable reason, but it is severely damaging America's reputation abroad.

I'm going to risk putting words in other Paul supporters' mouths here too, but I would think that they would agree with me that Ron Paul is the most likely candidate to bring the troops home anytime soon. Yes, all the Democratic candidates are speaking out against the war, but it seems to me that they are saying this more to beat the Republican candidate than to actually bring the troops home promptly. Maybe I'm being cynical, and believe me, I'd love to be proven wrong if a Democrat is elected president, but I'm not convinced as to the Democrats' sincerity. One of my favorite things about Paul (and I think even most of Paul's critics would agree) is that when he says something, he means it.

Paul's service in the House of Representatives, voting no on nearly every (every?) spending increase, has been admirable. And his outspoken (although, in my opinion, not outspoken enough) opposition to the War on Drugs is almost unheard of in modern politics, in either party. However, I see no reason why I wouldn't be willing to support any other candidate who spoke out in favor of such positions.

We've Been Given The Right To Choose Between A Douche And A Turd

In a very interesting post on the Liberty & Power blog, Professor Steven Horwitz expressed his doubts about Ron Paul and his campaign. I recommend reading the whole post. Prof. Horwitz makes some excellent points.

The post got me thinking... Here's why: 1) I agree with 100% of Professor Horwitz's post. 2) I'm still enthusiastic about Ron Paul's campaign. Look, I know Ron Paul is not the perfect candidate. I'm not sure I've heard anyone claim that he is. However, Paul is the best serious candidate to run for president in my lifetime. It's unfortunate, sure. But in politics, it almost always boils down to choosing the least bad candidate. I believe Paul is the least bad in 2008.

Moving on, Horwitz begins by addressing three concerns about Paul's stances: abortion, immigration and free trade agreements.

Horwitz agrees with Paul that "Roe [v. Wade] was bad constitutional law", but he claims the Court "got to the right result for the wrong reasons." I agree, but what does he want from Paul here? As far as the authority of the president goes, don't Horwitz and Paul agree completely on policy? Perhaps Horwitz wishes Paul was not so outspoken about his personal opposition to abortion, but it is perfectly in line with Paul's principles that he would not move to ban abortion at the federal level (which is, of course, is the only level he would have authority over as president).

Issues #2 and #3 of Horwitz's post, however, do fall within the scope of the federal government. And I cannot defend Paul's positions here, except to mention once again that I believe that Paul qualifies as the "least bad" candidate overall, despite these somewhat "un-libertarian" views. No candidate seems to be campaigning on a platform of open borders or completely free trade. The Democratic candidates will likely be best on the immigration issue, whereas the Republicans are more likely to support free trade. But while the Democratic candidates may be willing to pass a few policy steps towards more open borders, they will not address the philosophical issue of, in Horwitz's words, "Why should employers be prevented from engaging in labor contracts with adults from anywhere in the world?". And while the Republican candidates may be more willing to support free trade agreements, they will not speak of free trade as the right of individuals to, well... Please refer to the quote in the previous sentence.

The next two paragraphs are worth quoting directly, even though they're quite long:

All of this leads to my general discomfort with Paul, which I think I would characterize as a lack of cosmopolitanism. For example, I don't think he's a racist but there are reasons why he's getting donations from KKK leaders. Even though many of his positions are solidly libertarian, the way they are framed, along with the three above, lend themselves to appealing to the nativist/Buchanan types in a way that I think goes against the historical progressive spirit of classical liberalism. I share David Bernstein's concerns about the way in which Paul addresses the racism issue, even if there's nothing in it that is "un-libertarian" in policy terms. This is an example of the sort of left-libertarianism view I advocated for above (and that I believe L&P co-blogger Roderick Long shares, though I don't know what he thinks of Paul). If the true spirit of libertarianism is a cosmopolitan one, we can and should do a lot better than a policy statement on racism that refers largely, if not only, to the way in which state-enforced racial categories (mostly of the left) have "divided" America. That may well be a problem, but its silence on the racism of the right and the real ways in which people of color continue to face discrimination (though much less than in the past) cuts against the grain of what should be libertarianism's progressivism. What is so difficult and so wrong about saying racism exists in other forms and that as people committed to equal and individual rights we should work to end it?

Libertarianism's progressive spirit is one of cosmopolitanism and openness to cultural change (perhaps best captured in our own time by Virginia Postrel's work). Paul's cultural conservatism and several of his positions push in the opposite direction and, in my view, might do long-term damage to libertarianism even if it reaps some short-term benefits in this campaign. I do not believe the future of libertarianism is in making alliances with the forces of nativism and the wrong sort of isolationism, nor with those who cannot see the ways in which the US is still not a society that treats women, gays/lesbians, and persons of color as equal individuals, both under the law and culturally. (To be clear, I'm not advocating for any state intervention to address these problems - in fact, the state is the source of some/many but not all of them). The future of libertarianism is to align with Postrel's forces of "dynamism" both left and right. Paul's campaign is attracting young people, but I suspect mostly because he does indeed tell it like it is and that straight talking appeals to cynical youth. And I do admire Paul greatly for his honesty and his intellect. But in the long run, the young will never sign on to a movement rooted in cultural conservatism. Paul's campaign is, in that sense, running a huge risk of long-term damage to libertarianism.

I'm not clear on what Horwitz is hoping for here. It seems as though he wishes Paul would speak out more against racism and his less-than-reputable financial supporters. But it seems like he is, to some extent, singling out Paul here. Does Horwitz believe that none of the other candidates have financial supporters who are less than reputable? Assuming that Horwitz recognizes that some shady characters donate to almost every campaign, doesn't he think they should all speak out against them?

In addition, even if Paul is lacking in "cosmopolitanism", I believe that the social issues about which Horwitz expresses concern are getting better without the endorsement of any specific politician, Paul or otherwise. I am definitely not claiming that blacks, Hispanics, gays or lesbians are treated equally as others, and I am not claiming that these specific social issues are unimportant. But America in general is making progress on these social issues without the help of government. (In fact, it's arguable that progress will be faster if government stays out.) Very few politicians have spoken out enthusiastically for gay rights, but can anyone say he or she would rather be openly gay 20 years ago than now? Can anyone say he or she would rather be openly atheist 20 years ago?

On the other hand, monetary policy and free trade do not seem to get increasing support over time without political support (at least not at this time). Although I cannot exactly explain the reasons, libertarian social issues seem to be progressing much faster than libertarian economic issues.

After this criticism, I feel it's necessary to say again: I agree with 100% of Professor Horwitz's post on the level of political philosophy. I only disagree with him on the level of practical politics. Yes, this does reflect very poorly on modern politics, but I don't know of any self-described libertarian who is satisfied with the current political climate.

Professor Horwitz is criticizing Paul's campaign, fairly, from a purely ideological standpoint. I guess my disagreement stems from my frustration with politics in general. In a perfect world (or even a semi-perfect world), we might have a candidate for president who fits the libertarian blueprint detailed in Horwitz's post. But the current political scene is not even close to perfect. So I can't help but be enthusiastic about Ron Paul's candidacy, simply because he's the best candidate in my lifetime who is actually making headlines. And now that a protectionist nanny-statist is leading the GOP polls in Iowa, Ron Paul's imperfect libertarianism is still very refreshing to me.

In case you don't already know, the post title is explained here.

Why I Should be Able to Kill My Pretend Dog

I'm basically of the same mind as my co-blogger, with the difference being that I don't think it is difficult to mount a defense of dog fighting.

Now.....I like dogs and I don't understand why someone would want to torture and kill their dog. But, truthfully, I'm not that repulsed by the stories coming out of the Vick case. It is just an animal, and I think it's best not to assign the same level of care, concern and rights to animals as we do to human beings. That being said, if a local grouping of people decide that they want to impose restrictions of some sort on the care of pets, then I fully agree and support that type of action in a democratic society. It's legitimate response. However, if a locality decided not to criminalize tortuous behavior of pets I would fully support that as well. In my mind dogs, cats, fish, ferrets are the property of owners, and therefore the property owners can decide how they would like to use their property. I think you approach dangerous territory once you begin prescribing rights to animals, of any sort. I hunt, I fish, and I'm one of the billions of people around the world who do so. I'm OK with social mores, i.e. we value dogs more so than quail or turkey or deer. But you're imposing your own morality via the barrel of the state's gun when you say that we are OK with you killing undomesticated animals for fun, but not domesticated animals. Shun the guy, push these type of abusers to the fringes of society...but throw them in jail? Is that an appropriate response? I tend to think not. In the end I think this type of social question is best left to the voters in a particular jurisdiction, much in the same way I would treat abortion.

Note: You can get into the weeds about how dogfighting and the heinous acts committed by Vick post-fights are on a different level from hunting. I would probably agree. However, I don't think I get to draw the line for everyone because different folks would draw the line in a different place. Say PETA for instance. Who's to say I'm right and they're wrong, or I'm wrong and they're right? I understand we have to draw the line somewhere, but leave it up to the localities to decide, it certainly shouldn't be a federal decision.

The Ron Paul Article in the NYT Magazine

The NYT Magazine story on Ron Paul is much more balanced than I had thought it would be. It hit on the key point that I tell my leftist friends: be consistent; if you don't want the government controlling your marijuana use then don't let them control any other personal freedoms so long as those freedoms do not inhibit the freedom of or harm someone else. Libertarianism 101 and, thankfully, the readers of the NYT are getting a dose of it.

On the lefty theme from the article:

Paul is a harsh critic of the Federal Reserve, both for its policies and its unaccountability. “We first bonded,” recalls Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat, “because we were both conspicuous nonworshipers at the Temple of the Fed and of the High Priest Greenspan.”

More from comrade Frank:

“He is one of the easiest people in Congress to work with, because he bases his positions on the merits of issues,” says Barney Frank, who has worked with Paul on efforts to ease the regulation of gambling and medical marijuana. “He is independent but not ornery.”

And another reason to love Ron Paul:

He was the only Texas Republican to vote against last year’s Federal Marriage Amendment, meant to stymie gay marriage. He detests the federal war on drugs.

Paul has been slammed for his "opposition to abortion." But his stand is thus:

Paul also opposes abortion, which he believes should be addressed at the state level, not the national one.

I agree with him in that it abortion laws ought to be a legislative decision and not a SCOTUS one. After all, it is the fiat of SCOTUS's Roe v. Wade decision that gives energy and recruiting power to anti-libertarian Christian zealots.

For Reason's story on how Ron Paul is taking in more US troop money than any other Republican candidate go here.