Why Bob Barr Should Not Run as a Libertarian

Joe Bell

In 2006, former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, then a Republican, joined the Libertarian Party. Barr, a conservative, is in the process of positioning himself for a presidential run under the banner of his new organization and if he does he will likely hand the keys to the White House over to either Senator Barack Obama, D.Ill., or Senator Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

A Barr candidacy could produce a repeat of the 1992 election where Governor Bill Clinton was escorted into the Oval Office by third party candidate, Ross Perot, who drew votes away from Republican President George H.W. Bush. In that election, Clinton received 44.9 million votes (43 percent); Bush received 39.1 million votes (37.4 percent), and Perot received 19.7 million votes (18.9 percent). The votes that went to Perot would have undoubtedly pushed Bush into the winner’s circle.

The 2000 election also serves as an indicator of how a Barr run might impact the 2008 outcome. In February 2004, USA Today reported that Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader won less than 3 percent of the national vote. Nader’s supporters, the newspaper said, “who tend to be more liberal than the electorate at large, could have made a difference in two states that Democratic nominee Al Gore narrowly lost: Florida and New Hampshire. Those states gave 29 electoral votes to Bush, who lost the popular vote to Gore but won the presidency because of the Electoral College majority.”

Nader received more than 97,000 votes in Florida and since those votes would have probably gone to Gore (had Nader not run) Bush would have lost Florida. Instead, Bush won that state by 537 votes.

All conservatives can appreciate Barr’s dismay that today’s Republican Party is a jumble of assorted ideas. Nowhere is the party’s embrace of both conservative and liberal policies more clearly seen than in the GOP’s presidential candidate, Arizona Senator John McCain. McCain was ahead of the curve in citing the need to send more troops to Iraq but he was on the wrong side of immigration reform. McCain is a long-time champion of curbing earmarks but he was instrumental in passing reckless campaign finance reform. He has opposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge but has said he would appoint only those justices to the Supreme Court who would interpret, not re-write, the Constitution. Clearly, the Arizona senator has a mixed record.

McCain is not a conservative, but neither is the Republican Party truly conservative. Both are a slushy hash of contrasting thoughts. Nevertheless, despite the frustration of belonging to a party that all too frequently lurches to the left, conservatives should reject a Bob Barr candidacy because a McCain administration would be far preferable to an Obama or Clinton II administration. Only a unified Republican Party can prevent a genuine apostle of the left from occupying the White House. Such unity requires a degree of conciliation but cooperation need not compel conservatives to discard their principles.

The place for conservatives to promote their agenda is from the large stage that is the Republican Party. Abandoning that national platform for a small stage might make conservatives feel good, for a while, about their ideological consistency but their voices will become muted and the agenda will stall. Conservatives do not triumph when they engineer scenarios that help liberals win elections.

On April 23, Barr placed a letter on his web site titled, “Light up the Darkness.” Barr wrote, “Anyone who dares to challenge the establishment, two-party system is bound to pay a price for such audacity.”

Yes, some would suggest there is a boldness, perhaps even a sense of impudence, involved in challenging a cement-like system that is populated largely by individuals whose primary concern is oftentimes to ensure the survival of that system, which supports them and their interests. The GOP, like the Democrat Party, has become such a slab of cement. However, cement can be chipped and shaped, but not if those who would sculpt the block abandon the task. Conservatives need to continue to promote their program from within the Republican Party.

A conservative rejection of the GOP is no more a way to advance conservative policy than it is wise to embrace bipartisanship in order to move forward with a ‘consensus.’ Leadership does not involve negotiating on a policy until it is so diluted that a majority agrees with it and claims victory. Leaders do what is right.

The argument is often made that, “If we don’t work with the other side of the aisle nothing will get done.” Good. It’s better to do nothing than to do what is wrong. When conservatives can defeat liberal policies, including those that erupt from within their ranks, they should rise to the challenge. But whatever they do, their action should take place within the GOP.

A third party run that will take votes away from Republicans, even if the effort is born in principle, is ill-advised because it will put liberal Democrats in office. That is the worst possible case scenario.

###

Joseph Bell has hosted a radio talk show and is a former editorial writer/columnist for several Connecticut newspapers. A former liberal Democrat, Bell has not been on the conservative side of the aisle for very long. He voted for Clinton/Gore in 1992. Abandoning the convictions that he had held and defended through adolescence and into adulthood was not easy. Sincere soul-searching and a commitment to distinguish fact from fiction compelled him to accept that liberal ideology was bankrupt.

jbellopedresponse@hotmail.com