Thanks for your assessment. Mr. Barr will be attending the NC Libertarian State Convention, albeit briefly. He's schedule to be the closing speaker on Sunday, April 29 at about noon.
I'm keeping an open mind. I'm similarly predisposed to question sudden "conversions" but I do believe they can happen and can be sincere. And I don't believe in challenging people as not being "libertarian" enough.
If he is the presidential nominee, it will be the final nail in the right-wing coffin. The LP will forever be the party of "REALLY right-wing Republicans" and it will never, ever have any chance of recuriting leftist defectors who have legitimate epiphanies.
undercover_anarchist,
I can't say for sure that he'll run, but the distinct impression I got from his answer, the tone of his answer, his facial expression, etc., was that he's considering it.
I think I've been as forward as anyone in stating that I believe now is an important time for the LP to reach out more to the left than to the right, and at least on the surface a Barr nomination would seem to go against that.
I'm trying to keep myself agnostic on it for the moment, though. Yes, Barr was a "right-winger" par excellence. Now, he's been an ACLU lobbyist for several years. There are some interesting possibilities there in terms of hyping a left-right "fusion" on civil liberties issues.
Makes my brain hurt, it does.
Thanks for the report, Tom.
I think it's a good thing that the convention is over a year away. A lot can happen over that time, and probably will.
Coming out as a minarchist or anarchist after years of living in right-wing denial can be a difficult even painful process. Barr is finally owning his true self. He will be well within the orthodox libertarian camp soon enough. In due time "mainstream libertarians" will complain that Barr is too radical.
Conversions do happen.
I enthusiastically voted for Clinton in 92. I was actually just beginning my move toward libertarianism then though. By 96 I was a pretty radical libertarian.
Did he actually say anything specific about his position on drugs? In his recent interview with Reason he hinted by dodging a direct question that he has NOT changed his mind on the drug issue, but his position wasn't clear to me. He could easily put this to bed by making a clear statement of his position. Did he?
Kristen,
The question as I posed it didn't call for a "clear statement of his position." It simply assumed that that position is at least as radical as the position he's publicly lobbying for (as a recent hire at the Marijuana Policy Project).
Regards,
Tom
I've been skeptical but hopeful regarding Barr. Now I'm more hopeful than ever. What a tremendous asset he could be - just got to get past the big "IF" - the conversion is real and "takes."
But what I've read, he HAS changed his position on the drug war (Not "pro-drug", just anti-drug war).
Joseph,
If he's saying the same things outside the party as he's saying inside the party, then yes, he's definitely going to be an asset.
I think it's safe to say that he doesn't fall into the "radical libertarian" camp. His conversion on the drug war is real, but seems to be more a grudging acceptance of the fact that it's been a back door for things he finds much worse, and of the fact that there needs to be a uniting of pro-liberty causes against a common enemy, than a recognition that it is or was wrong in itself.
BUT ... that's a powerful story right there. Some people are NEVER going to agree that drug laws are bad ... but some of those people will be open to a formerly very bellicose drug warrior like Barr explaining to them that not only have the drug laws not worked, but that they've had horrible unintended consequences and side effects.
I'd be very suspicious of Barr if he had shown up in a tie-dye, ready to light up a big ol' Bob Marley spliff. Instead, he made it clear that he still doesn't like drugs ... and I know a lot of other libertarians who don't like them either (and a lot of drug users who aren't libertarians). I'd rather see grudging, partial, honest agreement than fake "road to Damascus" total conversion stuff. And it works better from the stump as well.
Good to hear this ... as I've noted all along, I consider the possible Barr epiphany to be good news, and if he passed both your gauntlet and the "kid test" ... it may be time to start working on some left-leaning pols for similar outcomes ...
Tom, I quite suprised to see that you have anything good to say about Bob Barr given your attacks against Ron Paul. Bob Barr was never as pro-liberty as Ron Paul is, and probably still isn't.
I hope that Bob Barr's apparent change of heart is for real and that he doesn't end up being a plant that's going to tear down the party.
I had a conversation about Barr recently with a fellow Libertarian who thinks that Bob Barr should be in prison for some of the bad stuff that he voted in favor of in the past, namely saying that the federal government should arrest people for medical marijuana even in states where it is legal. Although I can see his point, I'm willing to cut him some slack if he makes a sincere effort to make right the things he did wrong in the past.
I think that it is too early to consider Bob Barr as a Presidential candidate. Let's see what he does as a party activist and then maybe he could run for a lower level office. If he's for real he could be an asset but we should watch him like a hawk.
Tom, did you ask Barr about the War? The actual bloodletting?
Susan,
No, I didn't ask Barr about the war -- I got one question, and already had settled on the drug policy question as most important, since what I wanted to gauge was the sincerity of his "conversion."
Andy,
You write:
"Tom, I quite suprised to see that you have anything good to say about Bob Barr given your attacks against Ron Paul."
To the best of my recollection, I have never "attacked" Ron Paul.
"Bob Barr was never as pro-liberty as Ron Paul is, and probably still isn't."
Since I've never said Bob Barr is as pro-liberty as Ron Paul, so I see no need to argue about whether or not he is.
"I had a conversation about Barr recently with a fellow Libertarian who thinks that Bob Barr should be in prison for some of the bad stuff that he voted in favor of in the past, namely saying that the federal government should arrest people for medical marijuana even in states where it is legal. Although I can see his point, I'm willing to cut him some slack if he makes a sincere effort to make right the things he did wrong in the past."
As a former drug warrior myself, I'd be hard put to offer an unbiased opinion on the subject.
"I think that it is too early to consider Bob Barr as a Presidential candidate."
I agree that he shouldn't be the LP's 2008 presidential candidate -- but on the basis of the content and tone of his answer to the question of whether or not he's considering running, I think that he may be.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
The candidates in Orlando were Mr. Jingozian, Dr. Link, Mr. Imperato, Mr. Root, and myself. I did not get a conversation with Congressman Barr, though we did shake hands; he was rushing to another engagement.
Saw the below article on Fox News today about Congressman Barr and his switch, including additional information on the marijuana/drug war issue:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2...,266627,00.html
I've been talking with some other "Barr-watchers," and had the following paraphrased statement at second hand from a prominent, long-time LP figure (as a matter of fact, one of the founding members):
"Bob Barr is doing everything that I'd expect him to do if he was planning to seek the presidential nomination."
Of course, there's reasonable "cover" for his activities -- he's already a prominent "public figure" whom we'd expect to be asked to address LP events, do interviews about his "conversion," etc., whether he was running or not.
But ... I get the strong impression that he's on a glide path toward announcing, knowing that he can raise more money, faster, once he announces than the existing crop of candidates. Not being announced gives him more flexibility and lets him work on building his own stature in the party separately from day-to-day comparison with other candidates.
If I was a betting man, I'd bet he's going to throw in.
How about this: What if Barr AND Ron Paul had both openly declared to be running for the LP nomination? It would never happen; one of them would acquiesce to the other; but if it did, that would garner major attention for the LP and cause people to think that the LP nomination were actually valuable.
I know it's been a long time, but as a Wiccan and a Veteran I have some reservations about welcoming Barr in to our ranks. He was the congressman who wanted to forbid certain religions access to the military chapel facilities because they aren't real religions.
Commenting by HaloScan
