Thursday, May 15, 2008

Why the Libertarian Party Should Nominate Bob Barr for President

The number one reason is because in 2004, Libertarian Party Presidential nominee Michael Badnarik won fewer than 398,000 votes (out of over 122 million cast), for just 0.32% of the total.

Ever since David Bergland won the 1984 LP Presidential nomination, the party has been more-or-less on a downward spiral with regard to its ability to field national candidates that have attracted a significant number of votes, as well as significant media attention. The high water mark of the national LP was Ed Clark's 1980 run for President, in which he received over 921,000 votes, for just slightly over 1% of the total. In Alaska, he scored an astounding 11.7% of the vote, and actually edged out independent John Anderson for third place. 28 years later, Ed Clark's record has never even been approached.

Clearly, its time for a slightly different strategy, emphasis on "slightly." Because contrary to the propaganda from the purist wing of the LP, Bob Barr is pretty libertarian. Now please don't think I have anything against fine men like Michael Badnarik or David Bergland. Although I doubt he remembers me, my then-girlfriend and I actually had lunch with Mr. Bergland and his charming wife back in 1994. I remember him as a splendid fellow, and if he were the nominee of the LP this year, I would seriously consider voting for him. But I wouldn't want him to be the nominee in 2008, with all due respect (and in fairness, I don't think he'd want to be either), because we've tried nominating obscure, Libertarian activists, generally with positions a bit farther outside the mainstream than is absolutely necessary, in the last six elections, and it hasn't worked very well. Why not another tact? Just this one time, perhaps, you know, in order to see how it goes. Let's see just how well it works to nominate a significant national figure with whom we share many ideals, one who has a proven track record of actually winning elections.

Why not?

Some people might claim we already tried that with Ron Paul in 1988, and it didn't really work out all that better than with candidates like Mr. Bergland, Mr. Badnarik, Andre Marrou, and the late Dr. Harry Browne. To them I would say that while I have enormous respect and affection for Ron Paul (I even changed my registration to Republican last December in order to vote for him in the California Presidential Primary election, and have been somewhat active in support of his campaign - Hell, if the truth be told, I wish Ron Paul were seeking the LP nomination this year, but alas, he is not), he was not a very well-known member of Congress twenty years ago (his race for the GOP Presidential nomination this year has greatly increased his public profile and national stature).

Bob Barr was a prominent Congressman from the great state of Georgia. He was so reviled by the Democrats, that the Georgia Legislature actually used the corrupt, "gerrymandering" tactic to re-district him right out of his Congressional seat in 2002. Now if that's not a badge of honor, I don't know what could be. He was one of the House Managers who prosecuted President Bill Clinton in his Impeachment Trial before the United States Senate (where, sadly, President Clinton was acquitted of the crimes he did, in fact, actually commit, in an unjust fit of partisan-induced Senatorial jury nullification). It might be an exaggeration to describe Bob Barr as an American hero, but it wouldn't be a Hell of a big one.

The most recent Zogby Poll showed Bob Barr attaining the historic level of 4% of the popular vote in a race between John McInsane and Hillarious Clinton (while he achieved 3% support in a perhaps far more likely race between McInsane and Senator Obama).

That is the only time any potential LP nominee has ever shown up in the national polls, with the possible exception of Ed Clark in 1980.

Now if some neo-"conservative," typical Republican Party hack officeholder were seeking the LP nomination, I'd say "No way!" But Bob Barr is not some GOP infiltrator; he's a libertarian (and a Libertarian). He's been a member of the party since 2005, and a member of its National Committee since 2006 (he even contributed $9,500 to the LP National Committee). He also endorsed the Presidential candidacy of 2004 Libertarian Party nominee Michael Badnarik, back when he was still a Republican. And let's face it, the fact that Bob Barr's views, while very much within the freedom-loving tradition of Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ron Paul, aren't quite as doctrinaire as those of some of the other party candidates, is actually something of a strength. Its the other factor that will enable him to reach out to more voters than any previous LP nominee. While it does constitute a compromise, its only a slight one, and not a fundamental one at all, and the potential pay-off is enormous. And hey, we can always nominate someone like our last six nominees in 2012, if we decide the Barr nomination was a mistake. Although I suspect most Libertarians will agree it wasn't one, even the ones who opposed his candidacy at the National Convention.

Its true, he's not quite as good on some issues as are people like Mary Ruwart and Steve Kubby. But his positions on the issues are good ones. Some might say they aren't quite good enough, but then good enough for what? Good enough to get zero national media attention and go down to ignominious defeat? Sure, Bob Barr ain't going to win the election this year, but he might well wrack up a couple of million votes, and thus help to continue the work of the Ron Paul Revolution. He may also be able to attract so many libertarian, paleo-libertarian, and yes, even paleo-conservative voters, so as to be able to spoil the election for that awful man from Arizona. And that, my friends and neighbours, is what we call The Big Time.

When a minor political party can dictate the results of the national election, by preventing someone horrible from winning (due to being able to take advantage of dissatisfaction among traditionally GOP voters), that is when a minor party starts to bridge the gap between minor and major party status. Its only one step, but its a doozy. And Ms. Ruwart, Mr. Kubby, Sen. Gravel, etc., well, they just can't do that. They don't offer the LP the chance to become, for the first time in its 37-year history, a true force in American national politics. And Bob Barr does.

--Jake Featherston

1 comment:

Mark said...

I'm no fan of Bob Barr, and I certainly won't be voting for him. But everything you said about the LP is absolutely true - if they don't nominate Barr, they deserve every defeat they suffer for the next generation.