I know very little about Bob Barr. Can you give me a URL that shows he's a Cargo Cultist? (Or just outline the issues in a future blog post.) Thanks!
Kevin,
Barr's "exploratory committee" site is located at http://www.bobbarr2008.org.
I believe his issues positions (there's an "issues" tab on the site) -- or rather his tortured attempt to avoid taking any actual issues positions -- qualify him as "cargo cult," but I actually mis-typed. It's not necessarily true that Barr or Root are themselves Cargo Cultists; rather they are the preferred candidates of the Cargo Cultists. There's a difference, and I'll edit the article to reflect it.
I remember that great article, Tom. Great stuff and perfect for the moment. Go for it.
You said "BobBarr2008.org" which is not correct. His site is dot-com. Interestingly, the registered owner of the dot-org domain is:
George Phillies
87 Park Avenue #6
Worcester, Massachusetts 01605
I looked at the "issues" tab on the dot-com site a couple of weeks ago and your phrase "tortured attempt to avoid taking any actual issues positions" probably explains why I said "I know very little about Bob Barr."
Kevin,
Sorry about the .org/.com mixup. Looks like I got it right in the article.
I do confess to being bitterly disappointed in Barr. I expected him to come out Born Again Libertarian, and instead he's doing this weird thing where he doesn't really come out ... at all. Not as a candidate, not on the issues, nothing.
Tom: While I still think the above is solid, I also believe I drew some erroneous conclusions from it at the time. To clarify: I don't have anything against suits, power ties, confidence or smooth rhetorical delivery per se.
What I do have a problem with is the idea that any of those things trump, or can be usefully substituted for, libertarianism in a libertarian campaign.
I don't believe that libertarian ideas can only succeed if they're disguised and smuggled in rather than openly advocated. I don't believe that libertarian ideas can be implemented in the real world by jettisoning them at the first hint of controversy.
I don't think that those of us who argue for a more "mainstream" look (i.e. suits, ties, haircuts) are doing so because we are using it as a substitute for libertarian principles. I think those of us that argue that "mainstream look" realize that dressing like that is often a prerequisite for getting the average joe voter to actually listen to what you have to say.
One thing I fully believe is that most "average Joe voters" are highly discriminatory when it comes to appearance. Not looks or the color of the tie, but overall attempt. Chief Wanna Dubie is a perfect example. "Joe Six-Pack Voter" is NOT going to take ANYTHING that Wanna Dubie says seriously because of his appearance.
Mainstream voters do care about that sort of thing. My belief is that we need to present libertarian solutions to mainstream problems, but look respectable and professional doing it. Anything else furthers ugly stereotypes about Libertarians.
Jeff Wartman's characterizations of "Joe Six Pack" are incredibly arrogant, elitist, and stupid. No wonder he supports Phillies.
It takes a special kind of mindlessness to disagree with the fact that mainstream America won't support a candidate who looks like
this. That's not arrogant or elitist. It's common fucking sense. It's not even a negative characterization.
If you are too uneducated to understand that in American politics it is necessary to appeal to a demographic that may not be a frequent customer of your local head shop, there is no hope for the libertarian movement.
No wonder he supports Phillies.
One of the drawbacks of being independent minded is that you will never find a candidate you agree with on all issues. Do I agree with George on everything? No way. But guess what? I don't agree with anyone on all issues, and would question the sanity of anyone that claims to support every word of what their chosen candidate says.
Jeff,
I agree -- Libertarian candidates have enough hurdles to overcome without bizarre personal appearance being part of the mix ... at least in most cases. I suspect that Stan Jones, Chief Wana Dubie, etc., may be exceptions to the rule, but ...
Hey, I shaved my beard. I'm growing my hair out from bald to respectable. When I go out to campaign (and yes, I am going out to campaign), I dress, at a minimum, "professional casual," i.e. slacks and a shirt that buttons, not cut-offs and a tie-dye.
That said, Cargo Cult Libertarians by definition don't think this is just NECESSARY, they think it is SUFFICIENT, and moreover they don't want any sticky matters of unpopular ideology getting between them and what they seem to be sure will be Victory Delivered By Brooks Brothers.
If you think I'm calling every Libertarian who wears a suit a Cargo Cultist, you're mistaken. Barr's supporters, to my mind, fall well into the Cargo Cult range, because there's no other place for them to fall. He's not making libertarian ideological arguments -- hell, he's barely making any political arguments at all, and only then when he can't avoid it, and when forced to he keeps it as non-specific as possible. His supporters are trafficking exclusively on the fact that he's a former congresscritter who still cleans up well and seems to fit into the Beltway mold. That's their entire sales catalog and they get upset when anyone brings up the idea that perhaps political issues might have something to do with why we're running a presidential candidate.
Just to be clear, I have never called George Phillies a Cargo Cultist, and don't believe he is one. He's definitely taking stands on issues. I agree with some of those stands, disagree with some, and find still others downright reprehensible, but he's not relying exclusively on a power tie and some Beltway lingo to sell himself.
Whether or not any of the above makes any sense, I know not -- I've had the flu, and have discovered that the most efficacious treatment comes from Kentucky. I'm about half way through a fifth of said treatment at the moment, so don't take anything I say too seriously.
Tom --
I know that you're not calling "every Libertarian who wears a suit a Cargo Cultist." I guess I just used the forum to express my deeply held belief that looking professional is a prerequisite for getting people to actually listen to you.
Whether they will, or whether that candidate is a libertarian, is a different story.
I distrust people in suits and ties automatically. They can win me over, but it is an uphill battle. I always suspect they are just another tool of the system when they dress just like the other "tools". Their ideas must be significantly better in order for me to take them seriously, than if they dressed more reasonably.
But that is just me.
Tom,
I do not think dessing formally with a political event
discussion or interview with tie and suit is exclusive to the "Beltway mold". I mean Ron Paul for instance
always dresses nice and formally at political events, yet he is more hated by beltway "libertarians" such as the reason magazine journalists. The same with Barr: I think you do not know Barr yet, have you met him in person? He seems like a likeable person on a personal level. I do agree with Jeff that dressing formally would help create a good imagine for the LP, especially with a "negative perception" by the public of LP as being dope users, potheads etc.
In short: the LP is being perceived as a libertine, not libertarian party and that is not good.
I may also point out that the Greens in Germany years ago used to show up in jeans and T-shirts at regional political meetings and in state parliaments. Once they became mainstream and into the federal government, their leader Joschka Fischer, changed totally and you can always see him in suit and tie at a political event.
It may be interesting to note that Chuck Muth has recently been embroiled in the controversy regarding the GOP convention in Nevada. It seems some people are under the impression that he somehow contributed to the behind-the-scenes fiasco with Jeff Greenspan (official campaign staffer) that led to the convention being a total mess and no national delegates being selected from Nevada...
Stefan,
You're right -- dressing professionally does not make one of the "Beltway mold." Making a FETISH of dressing professionally such that one considers it a replacement for having the right ideas is what distinguishes a Cargo Cultist.
The Reasonoids don't dislike Paul nearly as badly as I do.
Regards,
Tom
Stefan:
See this:
http://knappster.blogspot.com/20...ssance-
man.html
Right on Thomas,
As I understand the cargo cultists, they see an opertunity for the LP because of the dissatisfaction many republicans have with the increasingly state friendly GOP. The plan then, is for us to lure them away by becoming the increasingly state friendly LP.
"It's one thing to have a vision,
and another to have a plan.
it's one thing to have opinions,
and quite another to take a stand.
Some folks choose their battles,
others draw lines in the sand."
The Spud Puppies
Thomas:
thank you for your response as well as the link: enjoyed reading it and provides one with some insight.
Have you met Root, and do you think he has any real conversion on the war? Wonder what your kids would say of him. I struck me as being closer to the Beltway reasonoids "gang in suits" (my term) 
See we do agree on that.
Eric had an interview with David Boaz of the Cato Institute yesterday. Cato and Reason are quite closely linked, hmm
Stefan,
I haven't met Root. I've corresponded with him a few times.
I'm not sure how to respond to your question about his "conversion on the war," because as far as I can tell he plays both sides of the fence. He went from "Iraq, yeah!" to "Iraq was the wrong war, Iran is the right war!" to "I am a non-interventionist" in about a year, but he's still babbling neocon code words like "Islamo-fascism" when he's on the kinds of shows that groove on that kind of stuff.
Now that I've caught him lying in a big way at least once (the McCain endorsement, and probably his reasons for his Lieberman contribution, too), I have to doubt his sincerity in general.
I won't speculate about how my kids might react to him. I know that they love Barr. I know that the oldest one ran like hell from Michael Cloud when he tried to chat him up back in 2000. I trust my kids' instincts, but they haven't met Root.
At this point, given Root's slimy exploitation of the Ruwart non-issue, I'm beginning to lean against my former presumption that he's a decent human being. But I'm not going to write that possibility off entirely just yet.
I don't think that Reason and Cato are that closely linked. They're both Beltway-oriented outfits with some back-and-forth crossover. I don't get involved in the spats between Cato/Reason and LRC/Mises. I'm closer to the latter on many ideological lines, but all of the aforementioned piss me off sometimes, and all of the aforementioned frequently delight me. Vis a vis Ron Paul, I was definitely on the far side of the Reason crowd away from LRC. I thought Reason went too easy on Paul.
Thomas:
I "know" Root also only via the net, and to tell you the trurth judging from his behaviour in video's, I have never really trusted him, although I approached him with an open mind. Now I trust him even less.
Yes, he has still the neocon codeword as you say, and say nothing about the Patriot Act etc. It seems he also still buy the issue of "they hate us because we are rich and free", during radio interview this week. And then just today I have found this link/info on him:
http://www.handicappingreviews.c...p?
CapperCode=65
What do you think? His clients obviously do not even trust him, and blacklisted him. There is only one other guy also blacklisted. This also explains to me why he has raised so little money, as someone who claims to have such a terrific email list of poker players (normally rich people with a dollar and more to loose) as he, he should have raised at least a million or half of it already.
I do have the idea he is still very much the guy witht he previous positions, no wonder Dondero is so crazy about him. Eric sent me and others an email request by Root to vote online for him with an online poll. Obviously I did take up the "offer" but voted vs. Root every time, and in favor of Barr and Ruwart especially.
Apropo Reason, I would disagree with you in their reporting on Paul. Do you know that Matt Welch has been for the Iraq war and sang very much the neocon song all along, and he proclaimed himself a "liberal". If you do want to "classify" him in terms of the candidates, he may be close to Clinton IMHO.
Stefan,
You write:
"Apropo Reason, I would disagree with you in their reporting on Paul. Do you know that Matt Welch has been for the Iraq war and sang very much the neocon song all along, and he proclaimed himself a 'liberal'."
OK, so Matt Welch has been for the Iraq war and sang the neocon song all alow and proclaimed himself a "liberal" ... so?
The facts are the facts. Reason did a pretty good job of reporting the facts on Paul, but they backed off from blatantly stating the obvious conclusions -- for example, the obvious conclusion that since Ron Paul first affirmed his authorship of those newsletter articles and defended their content, then later denied authorship and repudiated their content, Ron Paul is, by any reasonable definition, both a liar and a flip-flopper.
Thomas:
Facts are facts indeed, and in this case clarity and differentiation is needed.
It was published as a newsletter with various authors and Rockwell as an editor, for a while. There were various constibutors. Of course Paul wrote passages and parts in the newsletter, like the conomic and investment stuff. Since when is there anything wrong writing about investment in gold companies etc? In Forbes magazine for instance Steve Forbes may publish some articles himself, but most are from other authors. But the whole magazine is printed in his name. If an author writes and articles he may not agree with, is it really his responsibility. And, he may be so busy with other work, he has no time to review it.
Paul has clearly said he is NOT the author of certain of the passages relevant in the Reason article, it does not reflect his writing style also. And when you closely study them, you will find there was and is a lot of hype and things read into it that can be interpreted in more than one way. SO it will take quite some time to explain all this. Justin Raimundo (and others) have written a convincing article regarding the details in the relevant passages. Why is there no mention of the NAACP Austin Nelson Linder statement on the issue and his personal knowledge of Paul. He mentioned it is pure politics behind it.
Reason is still constantly trying to bring up the issue.
Paul is never heard uttering one racist word, while McCain and how many other Republicans and Democrats are guilty of this. And presidential candidates are supposed to be under higher scrutiny: so why is there no Reason and general MSM discussion about McCain's use of the word "gook", and according to his mother, he used the "n-word" also repeatedly.
Paul: a liar and flip-flopper? Not by any stretch of imagination..
Stefan,
OF THE ARTICLES AT ISSUE, in 1996 Paul claimed authorship and defended the writings in the Dallas Morning News.
OF THOSE SAME ARTICLES, in 2007 Paul denied authorship and denounced the writings in various publications.
Paul was either lying in 1996, or he was lying in 2007. Period.
Paul defended the writings in 1996 and denounced them in 2007. He flip-flopped. Period.
Those are facts. You can like them or not like them. They'll remain facts whether you like them or not.
Regards,
Tom
First: it's OT, and feel free to delete this, but I must compliment your analysis of The Minutemen at TPW. Outstanding sir. Never forget: {Simcox == Minuteman} - although that does seem self-evident.
Also, in Re: Paul. From the West Coast in an LA Daily not likely to get much national coverage comes information about a white supremacist attempting to jack a judiciary election, and using his association with the Ron Paul campaign to aid and abet.
-----------------------------------------
Los Angeles Metropolitan News Enterprise (LA daily legal news pub)
Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - Page 6
Judicial Elections: Los Angeles Superior Court Office No. 125
White Supremacist Is in Contest With Court Commissioner
by Roger M. Grace
http://www.metnews.com/articles/.../
judi042908.htm
-------------------------------------
I picked-up the link from an LA times Editorial:
---------------------
LA Times Editorial - May 5, 2008
Stealth election: A racial separatist running for judge could win if voters don't pay attention.
http://www.latimes.com/news/
opin...0,3673667.story
Commenting by HaloScan
