Bob Barr: ‘Village Voice’ Asks About the Issues
May 10th, 2008 by StaffAs Hillary Clinton clings to the almost mathematically impossible dream that she can be the Democratic nominee, it’s becoming increasingly clear that November’s general election match-up will pit Barack Obama against John McCain.
While Democrats worry that Ralph Nader could, yet again, take votes from their nominee, Republicans might also be concerned about former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, the front-runner to be Libertarian Party’s nominee. A real right-wing stalwart, could Barr play McCain’s spoiler?
Village Voice: The Libertarian Party is supportive of legalizing same-sex marriage, legalizing currently illegal drugs and keeping abortion legal. You were a sponsor of the “Defense of Marriage Act” and you had a 100 percent rating from the Christian Coalition when you served as a congressman. How do you square those positions with your current involvement in the Libertarian Party?
Bob Barr: Of course, many of the positions that I took in the Congress and that I take now are based on the principle of federalism, which is certainly a libertarian position. It used to be a position reflective of the Republican Party but obviously is not longer a part of the Republican platform. So, for example, regarding the “Defense of Marriage Act,” the fundamental, operative provisions of the “Defense of Marriage Act” say that each state makes up its own mind. I think that’s a fundamentally sound, libertarian-oriented position on federalism. With regard to drug usage similarly, these are issues in my view that ought to be left up to the states, based on the principles of federalism.
With regard to the Christian Coalition I have no idea what my positions, how they would rank them or not. But one thing that I have done, and I’ve explained this on a number of occasions to libertarian groups and other groups, and that is that since 9/11 the threat to our liberty and our basic right to privacy has become so pronounced that it truly has caused me to go back and take a look at the degree to which in previous years I was willing to accept, perhaps, a great deal more government control in certain areas because we did have a sort of residual of freedom and liberty in other areas. That no longer is the case. We have an administration in Washington that claims the power to inquire into virtually every aspect of our lives without court order. Where you have an administration that believes it does not have to abide by the law, where you have an administration that believes that the most fundamental provisions of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights have to give way to executive branch power, clearly something has changed. And that has caused me to go back and really take a long, hard look at some areas where I was willing previously to give the government the benefit of the doubt and conclude that we can no longer afford to do that because there is so little freedom left. We have to hang out every incremental piece that we can and start rolling back the government intrusions in a number of different areas.
VV: So, if different states legalized drugs, or legalized same-sex marriage, it wouldn’t be a problem for you, just so long as it was not at a federal level?
BB: Yes. I believe that those are precisely the type of issues that ought to be up to the voters of the states. There may very well be some aspects of those laws that do bring them within certain aspects of federal jurisdiction, but fundamentally those are states rights issues.
VV: Going back to privacy issues, what is your take on the “Telecom Immunity Bill?”
BB: I see no reason to grant a category of commercial enterprises in this country immunity for violating the law. I think it is a slippery slope and a very dangerous precedent that the government would set by doing that. And it’s unnecessary. If a company receives a directive or a request from an administration that it believes may very well violate a federal law then they have an obligation to tell that to the government and to refuse to violate the law. If they choose, voluntarily, to violate the law as some bureaucrat has told them, then they need to suffer the consequences. They should not be granted retroactive immunity.
VV: Your campaign recently sent out a press release highlighting a seven percent showing in a poll your own campaign commissioned. Have you been getting complaints from some of your former Republican allies that you could hurt John McCain in November?
BB: There have been some. I’ve heard from some Republicans to that effect. I would not enter this race for president to be a spoiler or to take votes from McCain anymore than I presume that his goal would not be to take votes from me. That may happen, on either side of the equation. It may just as well happen if I were to enter the race that I would take votes from whoever the Democrat nominee is, based on my civil liberties positions and the right to privacy. This notion that seems to prevail among the two major parties in recent election cycles, including this one, that somebody that gets in on your side of the ideological spectrum should not do so because it might draw votes from you I think is on one hand terribly arrogant. Neither of the two major parties has a right to exclusivity on the ballot. And I’m not sure its valid at all. The votes that I suspect I would garner if I got into the race would more likely than not be voters that had no intention of voting for Senator McCain anyway.
Read the rest of the article here.
Tags: Barack Obama, Bob Barr, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, Issues, John McCain
May 10th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Thank you Mr, Barr for finally coming out with a principle I can understand and support, federalism. You have my vote and some more cash from me. Good Luck!
May 11th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Very nice response to the last question (Borat)!
It would’ve been nice to see at least a mention of the falling dollar as a cause for the economic recession, but it was a brief answer anyway, and still a very good one.
Oh yes, and good comparison between “President Bush” and “candidate Bush” - PLEASE include this as often as possible in interviews from now on!
May 11th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
So Barr’s support for the DOMA and the War on Drug Users was *Libertarian*? I find that claim a bit thick.
Federalism is not a more imperative libertarian principle than freedom, and neither the DOMA not the WoDU do anything to advance freedom.
For a libertarian, *individual rights* should be more important than (so-called) *states’ rights*.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Moreover, while the first part of DOMA says no state has to recognize same-*** marriages legally performed in another state, the second part of DOMA forbids the entire federal government from recognizing the marriage rights of any same-*** marriage performed in any state where they are legal.
Mr. Barr acts like this second part — which is clearly discrminatory both against states that enact same *** marriage voluntariliy and against persons entering into same *** marriages — does not exist, though he wrote the bill.
Libertarianism, a successor to the classical liberalism on which this country was more or less founded, is not only based on individual liberty but on the law treating people, and for that matter states, equally without regard to status.
In Mr. Barr’s defense, I have read that he has said he would sign a bill overturning DOMA, but I have yet to see that confirmed anywhere.
Perhaps he will confirm it here. As a Libertarian Party member, I am eager to forgive and forget, and eager to see the party nominate someone who can gather more than 0.03 percent of the vote.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
The Republican Party is no longer fiscally conservative. As I will not vote for Marxists either, Barr has my vote in this one. The constitution is not just a piece of paper.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I will only support Bob Barr if he is willing to go on record, in no uncertain terms, that he now opposes and would vote to overturn DOMA and will actively protect a woman’s right to choose.
I agree with poster Susan that individual rights are more of a concern to we Libertarians than state rights.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I don’t know…
States rights vs. Individual rights as a stance for the libertarian party seems like a fine line to walk. Highlighting individual rights forces oversight by a powerful federal government. This is how most of the oppressive federal regulations came into being to begin with: (”Protect the poor citizens of state X from the injustices of their state governments!”).
The idea behind state’s rights is simply that it is not the place of people in California to tell the people in Kansas what to do. Also, in reality, it’s a lot easier to leave your state than it is to leave the country. So, it’s quite possible that state’s rights and individual rights could share importance in the Libertarian party.
the real question is IF Barr will stand by what he says here. I can’t speak too much on the DOMA, but if it did leave the decision up to the states then I would claim that to be a victory for libertarian ideals. If it does not, the Barr is doing exactly what he nails Bush on and saying one thing while doing another.
I have high hopes for Barr, I hope he can restore some of the hope for government that i had after hearing Ron Paul speak.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Ron says “Libertarianism, a successor to the classical liberalism on which this country was more or less founded, is not only based on individual liberty but on the law treating people, and for that matter states, equally without regard to status.”
Thanks, Ron! I think so often Libertarians today are so excited to see viable candidates that they are willing to compromise on the very tenets of our party. We shouldn’t let the little things - such as our basic definition - get in our way.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
My last comment, tongue-in-cheek, obviously.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:09 am
I’d love to see him take Ron Paul as his running mate.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Lisa,
I’m not sure abortion has been definitively filed away as an individual rights issue. After all, if one looks at the rights of an individual baby, one would conclude that abortion should be illegal because it is murder. Also, last time I checked, we libertarians tend to shy away from being single-issue voters. Barr’s commitment to libertarian ideas is what would be important. If he is likely to appoint justices who would interpret the Constitution and the laws rather than create the laws themselves, and if he is likely to veto overreaching pieces of legislation, and if he is likely to downsize the federal government, then he is the best candidate up there. Lastly, abortion is currently legal, and the only way that can be changed is through Constitutional amendment or through the Supreme Court overturning precedent. It’s not clear that all the current conservative justices would overturn Roe v. Wade, given some of their strong inclinations to respecting precedent and their disinclination to legislating from the bench. Overall ,a POTUS has very little influence on the illegalization of abortion — much less than the legislature.
Please don’t be a single-issue voter and keep the whole spectrum in mind.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:39 am
i support bob barr….the us government is out of control…it will take states right to stop this…..then we can work to individual rights….go bob
May 13th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Bob Barr may have had some sort of epiphany regarding drugs, but he’s got a whole lot of ’splaining to do!
He says, “With regard to drug usage similarly, these are issues in my view that ought to be left up to the states, based on the principles of federalism.” OTOH, when the District of Columbia voters overwhelmingly passed a referendum to decriminalize marijuana use, Barr almost single-handedly pushed through an amendment to the DC budget that absolutely forbade any use of any government money to count or publicize the results of that vote.
He’s convinced some people that he’s changed. (He’s now lobbying for the Marijuana Policy Project, a leading law-reform group.) So far, however, he has yet to discuss this change publicly.
– Roy
May 13th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Our governments bad policies has exported Americas best jobs. The low wage jobs that are left or that are replacing the lost good jobs are being takin by cheap illegal immigrant labor. The government refuses to secure our borders and is pushing hard for amnesty for 20 million law breakers. In other words they have exported good jobs and imported cheap labor for whats left. If Bob Barr can say that he is an opponent of a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and he will secure our borders I will then know for sure that he is truely working for Americans.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I seriously wonder about Mr Barr’s concept of Libertarianism. In addition to drafting DOMA, he is most remembered by Pagans in the US for his extreme intolerance of non-Christian religious practices. In public discourse he used the worst sort of slippery-slope arguments to advocate for Christianity and against Wicca in the military. A bit of reference can be found here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/burn_aw2.htm
Mr. Barr needs to answer some questions about his true alignment with the more fundamentalist branches of Christianity - no friends of tolerance and freedom - before he would get any support from me.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I want to remind my fellow Libertarian if you are going to base your Presidental pick on only one or two personal issues you are at best an unwise voter and at worst a selfish voter. A responsible voter looks at all the issues (covered by the media or not) and all the platforms and records of the canidates. I hope that Libertarians are wise voters.
Also remember as a responsible voter you MUST place the Constitution and the country before yourself. If you are unable to do this you are part of the problem not the American you should be.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:46 am
I am new to becoming Libertarian and virt time voting Libertarian for candidate slected by party. Please ask someone on campaign committw to call me as soon as possible 503-292-1948
May 14th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
As I do wish Mr. Barr all the luck, I do feel that the reason why certain things become a federal issue is because the states and the voters of those states can’t or won’t make a decision concerning those matters. It’s easy to say that we can just turn certain powers and decisions over to the states but for certain issues it’s not “That Easy”. If one state decides to legalize drugs for example, it could raise car insurance and health insurance for residents in that state the are NOT using those drugs and could impact the surrounding states. So to have a stance of that nature isn’t very wise. Now with same *** marraiges, I believe a marriage should be the joining of a man and a woman. I believe that should be the definition of a marraige. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t give those who have Civil Union any less rights either. Those are federal issues. Whether to have a traffic light on the corner, or speed limits.. thats a state issue.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
If ’same ***’ or ‘domestic partner’ rights should be “per State” … will they still be paying Federal Taxes? Seems like a “Let them (The States) handle this one and I look like a middle of the road guy”. Just an observation.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
to Kenny:
I lived in South Carolina… the people on motorcycles did not have to wear a helmet… yet I had to have insurance and wear my seat belt… by law!