David Weigel recently interviewed Bob Barr for Reason Magazine and posted some of the various questions ans responses on the Reason Hit & Run blog. When Weigel asked about Chuck Baldwin, Barr had a mouthful to say.
I also asked Barr about Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, who’s making a naked appeal for Ron Paul voters to “continue the rEVOLution” by backing him. “I have not seen the platform of the Constitution Party as they amended it at their convention last month,” Barr said. “I’m not sure exactly what it says. The latest platform that I saw, I have much in common with. There’s a lot of overlap—certainly not complete, but a lot of overlap with the LP. It’s a much more heavily religious-oriented and religious-based platform than ours is.”
“One of the important practical differences between the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party is that Chuck Baldwin will not be on nearly as many ballots as we will. We anticipate being on at least 49 ballots. The Constitution Party will be on far less than that, so from a practical standpoint, if Libertarians who supported Ron Paul wish to actually have a voice, to have their views represented, they’re only going to have one choice and that’s Bob Barr, because Chuck Baldwin won’t be on the ballot in many of those states.”
“With regards to the philosophy generally, my philosophy is a much smaller government, much greater personal freedoms, dramatically reducing the size, the scope, the power of the federal government, and whether or not Chuck Baldwin, whether or not that’s an important, substantive part of his program, I don’t know. But I can assure those supporters of Ron Paul, that’s dead center where I am.”
After reading the post, I asked a high-level Constitution Party official about the article. He answered , “We’re quite confident that we’ll be on 40+ state ballots. Furthermore, a general perusal of Chuck Baldwin’s campaign site or wikipedia entry will show that his campaign and political efforts are centered on smaller government and ressurection of civil liberties. Government that Bob Barr, during his tenure in Congress, helped grow. Liberties that Bob Barr helped to pilfer from We the People.”
In regard to the WTO, I did not mean to say our entering into it was specifically unconstitutional, but the fact is it puts the United States under the authority (albeit limited authority) of an organization with members that are not chosen, directly or indrectly, by the people of the United States. No playing games here, just stating facts. I admit I was ambiguous in my wording, but I agree that our entering the WTO was not outright unconstitutional.
In regard to Fast Track, it IS an expansion of the executive branch that is contrary to, at the very least, the spirit of constitution.
International trade is mentioned once in the Constitution, under Article I; Section 8; Clause 3, and it gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
Fast track gives the president the power to make trade agreements with foreign nations without consulting Congress. Congress can only give the agreement an up or down vote, and can not even debate it to the extend of a normal bill.
I do not claim to be a Constitutional scholar, and I am not trying to play games with it, but please explain how this conforms with the letter and spirit of the Constitution in regards to international treaties and trade.
@ RetroCon – …I don’t consider them (votes in opposition to WTO and Fast Track) votes against free trade, but votes against unelected government and expansion of executive power contrary to the Constitution.
Actually you are conflating non-Constitutionality with ill-advised here, and even though, there are very good sovereignty arguments that can be made in opposition to international treaties, Non-Constitutionality is fallacious, if the treaty was enacted following constitutional Forms. For that reason alone, a treaty’s ratification, gives it legitimate force as “The Supreme Law of the Land”:
Treaties are mentioned three other places in the U.S. Constitution, only one of which directly relates to the authority originate them. This is a delineated Executive power, which must be accepted by 2/3 of the Senate:
The other two references delineate the power of treaty adjudication to the Judiciary, and bars individual states from entering into them:
U.S. Constitution; Article I; Section X; Clause 1: removes from individual states’ powers, treaty making.
U.S Constitution, Article III; Section. 2; Clause 1: statea that the judiciary power reaches over controversies arising from treaties.
Don’t play games with the Constitution to suit your own personal preferences.
“The main thing to remember here, is that the original article was meant to slime Barr…it’s one of many I’ve seen posted here.”
The original article was over at Reason. People who are big supporters of Barr. The article here at IPR simply cites the article at IPR and then a high-level official from the Constitution Party who said lots of truthful things about Barr.
No problem.
From my perspective, Barr has a pretty good record on trade. The reason some groups have said Barr has a mediocre record on free trade is because of votes like the ones against the WTO and Fast Track. However, I don’t consider them votes against free trade, but votes against unelected government and expansion of executive power contrary to the Constitution.
Barr is not perfect, and I actually like Baldwin a little more, but I’ll probably be voting for Barr come November. I doubt Baldwin will even be on the ballot here in NY.
RetroCon – Thanks for that info.
Barr on Foreign Policy and Trade from http://www.ontheissues.org
* Voted NO on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
* Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
* Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
* Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
* Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on ‘Fast Track’ authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
Trent,
None of that makes for “a lesser candidate from a libertarian perspective”.
The main thing to remember here, is that the original article was meant to slime Barr…it’s one of many I’ve seen posted here.
The article and Barr’s marital history have nothing to do with any philosophical or policy viewpoint.
No one can make a cogent argument that Baldwin is somehow libertarian, let alone more so than Barr, the nominee of the LP.
So, they resort to mud.
John and Woolsey,
My point was not to disparage Barr personally–but to explain why I think Barr is a lesser candidate in general,and a lesser candidate from a libertarian perspective.
Being married three times and paying for an abortion would not fly for McCain, it would not fly for Obama, and it doesnt fly for Barr. From the general public’s view–its seen as cavalier and it makes him look like he lacks integrity.
From a libertarian perspective, some parts of the party may be okay with it. But I know plenty of button-down libertarian-types who wants to be known as politically Libertarian,but not personally Libertine. Barr’spersonal history makes such a connection.
Wo0lsey asks: “…Why don’t you try some positive campaigning for a change.”
That would take alot of work. It’s much easier to slime people, talking about divorces, etc. And, after all, that’s what they do on television, which is about what many posters here know about campaigns.
“How is Baldwin better than Barr from a libertarian perspective?”
I’m undecided and probably won’t make up my mind until Election Day. But to play devil’s advocate, here are some “pros” for Baldwin and “cons” for Barr. There are many obvious going in the other direction, but you didn’t ask that.
1. Barr is not making central banking an issue of his campaign. Yes, maybe Baldwin’s criticisms of the Fed are not entirely sound (unlike those of Ron Paul), but at least he’s highlighting this issue. Barr’s silence on monetary policy in the face of his budgetary hawkishness is silly; pure pablum.
2. Baldwin is much, much better on non-trade related foreign policy. Barr is much better than McCain/Obama, but not good enough for most libertarians. He just wrote an editorial in favor of foreign aid, financial and military, to fight the drug war in Columbia a few months ago. He is not committed to getting out of the 130 countries in which we have troops, and he has nothing to say about the U.N., the IMF, the World Bank, etc. Baldwin has the clear advantage here — as do Nader and McKinney, for that matter.
3. Barr has been a government employee for most of his life. A prosecutor for the regime and a CIA man — two of the least favored occupations imaginable for many libertarians. Baldwin is a preacher, which in the eyes of the Statotarians may be worse, it is a legitimate and honorable profession in the private sector.
4. Where Baldwin is right, he’s been right for a long time. Not so with Barr.
#2 is the most important.
How is Baldwin better than Barr from a libertarian perspective?
Let’s see… you say that Barr’s ex-wife had an abortion and Barr is divorced, twice. I don’t see how this makes Baldwin better from a libertarian than Barr. Sounds like irrelevant mud.
I am curious, do you think Ron Paul approves of this negative approach?
Instead of reasons why we should support Baldwin, all I hear from the Baldwin campaign is attacks on someone who is promoting the liberty message in the national media.
Why don’t you try some positive campaigning for a change.
kaliplay asked: “Why won’t they have a debate?”
Trent Hill sums it up well when he says: “Bob Barr wouldnt debate the 10 other libertarian candidates,and he certainly wont debate Baldwin–whom he could lose alot of Paul-supporters to.”
As for the rest of your question, kaliplay, there are no good answers.
My point wasn’t that Baldwin is better than Barr. My point is that even with Baldwin’s failings, we can be failry certain that Baldwin’s positions match Baldwin’s rhetoric. We can be certain that he’s good in the areas where he sounds good and bad in the areas he sounds bad.
Unlike Barr, who is under suspicion even when he sounds good. Take only recent words, take them as if they are true, the Barr is clearly better. Take into allowance Barr’s history and the doubts some people still have of him and Baldwin starts looking better by comparison.
“As any libertarian knows, Baldwin is proposing a policy to expand employment in some parts of the U.S. economy while destroying jobs in other sectors, He is proposing to raise incomes for some Americans while causing even larger reductions in the incomes of other Americans. Baldwin is proposing that the the U.S. become poorer. He is trying to give a larger slice of a smaller pie to some Americans.”
Very true.
“All of you libertarians are claiming Barr converted on the road to Damascus, but the road to Denver seems more realistic.”
Good quote!
Woolsey’s rundown is correct. Baldwin hardly is libertarian nor is he experienced in running campaigns, as Barr is.
Interesting how many people start out by running for President, then complain that they don’t get proper recognition for their “efforts”.
It’ll be interesting to see if the CP can make it to 40plus ballots, and I’m all for them getting on as many ballots as possible. However, the last fundraising totals I saw say no way in hell are they going to achieve that.
Baldwin seems like a well intentioned person, and he seems like he’s got one whole hell of alot to learn about Liberty. You only learn so much by aping Ron Paul.
“Baldwin’s campaign program includes an attack on free trade. He proposes raising tariffs enough to destroy any cost advantage for any foriegn producer.”
Barr’s record in Congress says he’s just as protectionist as Baldwin. Look up the Club for Growth’s report on his congressional career. In fact, the only people who believe Barr is better than Baldwin are people that are convinced Barr has geniunely changed his opinion on every issue. For those people—McCain says he’s good for America, do you believe HIM?
“From a libertarian perspective, Baldwin is much worse than Barr on on immigration.”
Let us look at Barr’s record. Compare it to Baldwin’s. Barr, in Congress, was actually much worse than Baldwin from a libertarian perspective. Baldwin has ALWAYS said we should get rid of the welfare state to stem the tide of illegal immigration—Barr has only adopted that rhetoric in the last 2 years.
“Where is Baldwin better than Barr?”
Let us count the ways. Barr is personally flawed, which the American people (and especially the voters he’s aiming at) will hate. 3 marriages and paying for an abortion while sponsoring DOMA and claiming to be pro-life—that’s a pretty serious hypocrisy that doesnt even include our current situation. Then you inclde the fact that Barr has done a 180 on about 10 different issues, and you’ve got to start questioning the validity of the man’s conversions. Barr voted for the Patriot Act, didn’t endorse or work for Ron Paul, voted for the War in Iraq, his PAC contributed only3% of funds to candidates, his PAC contributed to neo-con Republicans as recently as 6 months ago.
All of you libertarians are claiming Barr converted on the road to Damascus, but the road to Denver seems more realistic.
Barr’s was completely unlibertarian and big government until recently, and he’s still a hypocritic guy.
Baldwin’s campaign program includes an attack on free trade. He proposes raising tariffs enough to destroy any cost advantage for any foriegn producer. He explicitly states this is to protect manufacturing industry in the U.S. and to protect jobs in those industries.
As any libertarian knows, Baldwin is proposing a policy to expand employment in some parts of the U.S. economy while destroying jobs in other sectors, He is proposing to raise incomes for some Americans while causing even larger reductions in the incomes of other Americans. Baldwin is proposing that the the U.S. become poorer. He is trying to give a larger slice of a smaller pie to some Americans.
Baldwin was the state director of Moral Majority in Florida. Baldwin claims that abortion will become illegal the day after he becomes President. How is that possible?
From a libertarian perspective, Baldwin is much worse than Barr on on immigration.
Where is Baldwin better than Barr?
Barr was a mainstream Republican in Congress and he has become a libertarian.
Baldwin is a paleoconservative. With his talk of sealing the borders and prohibitive tarriffs, he is clearly a true isolationist.
Ya’ll wanna laugh?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26574201@N07/2534153458/
Of course he’s threatened by him.
The CP is a little less libertarian than the LP, but it is far more so than any other party except the LP. The CP was also smart enough to refuse a Republican takeover attempt. Baldwin’s libertairan credentials are undisputed.
Barr’s credentials are disputed. Baldwin is certainly less than 100% libertarian (otherwise he’d be in the LP instead of the CP) but he’s definitely more than some suspect Barr is.
Oh I know GE. Bob Barr wouldnt debate the 10 other libertarian candidates,and he certainly wont debate Baldwin–whom he could lose alot of Paul-supporters to.
It’s like the presidential election of 1948. Although we had never had presidential debates, Henry Wallace demanded that Harry Truman and Thomas Dewey debate him. They wouldn’t. Then Norman Thomas demanded that Henry Wallace debate him. But Wallace wouldn’t. Then the Socialist Labor Party demanded that Norman Thomas debate the SLP candidate. So Thomas said, “Yes, I will, provided we also invite the Socialist Workers presidential candidate.” And the SLP refused. So we had a debate between Norman Thomas and Farrell Dobbs, the SWP candidate.
Why won’t they have a debate? Why do we third parties have to carry out the same ridiculous shenanigans of the bigwigs, being selective about debates, not letting real issues come out for people to actually have a chance to choose…
“and whether or not Chuck Baldwin, whether or not that’s an important, substantive part of his program, I don’t know.”
I don’t believe that for a second. Bob Barr surely knows where Baldwin stands. If he doesn’t he is inexcusable uninformed for a candidate.
Never gonna happen.
My opinion: Barr is threatened by Baldwin, and is attempting to downplay him, without insulting him and starting a flame war.
I hope to see a Barr/Baldwin debate.