Constitution Party's 'Ron Paul' - Chuck Baldwin

[revolutionrising]

I'm planning on voting for Chuck Baldwin in November. I cannot bring myself to support Bob Barr because of his support of an interventionist foreign policy, the Patriot Act, and many other atrocities. http://badbarr2008.com.

[Kludge]

Baldwin has no voting record.... As far as rhetoric, Barr and Baldwin are both exceptionally libertarian. Barr has justified or apologized for all of his "non-libertarian" bills (except DOMA I believe). Examples of Barr's voting record


"In the 107th Congress when Ron Paul stood up for our sovereignty against the United Nations (Roll Call votes 245 and 246), it was Bob Barr who supported him ... just as Barr supported Paul in cutting corporate welfare by limiting funding for the Export-Import Bank."
"Barr is a co-sponsor of H. Res. 197, 'Stop U.N. Gun Ban.'"
"Barr supports H.R. 2615 'Stop National Medical ID and the Patient Privacy Protection Act.'"
"Barr is a leading defender of civil liberties. He introduced legislation that forces the National Security Agency's Project ECHELON to provide a full accounting to the Congress of their covert monitoring of millions of phone calls, faxes, and emails."
"He led the fight against National ID Card proposals and introduced legislation in 1998 to check the federal government's abuse of wire-tapping laws — including the use of roving wiretaps — and also opposed governmental interception of cellular phone calls."
"He introduced legislation to mandate that the federal government issue 'Privacy Impact Statements' every time it issues a new rule or regulation."
"He was a chief sponsor of a law to limit abuses of the civil asset forfeiture statutes."
"He fought against OSHA regulations and to limit small business vulnerability to frivolous labor litigation."
"He is a board member of the National Rifle Association, and a staunch defender of the right of Americans to own and use firearms. He has introduced and sponsored legislation to block litigation against gun manufacturers for the acts of their customers and to limit any background checks and mandate they be conducted 'instantly.'"
"Barr has succinctly advocated the principle that while criminals must be punished to the full extent of the law, their civil liberties must be protected with even more vigor."
"He is a staunch defender of American sovereignty and opposes the executive branch's overzealous use of our military abroad he even filed suit against President Clinton's war in Kosovo without congressional approval."
"He is a fierce critic of the United Nations — and to a lesser degree NATO — and has consistently supported efforts to withdraw U.S. membership from the United Nations."
"He co-sponsored a committee amendment to withdraw the U.S. from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank."
"Since his first day in Congress back in 1995, Barr has tirelessly fought to eliminate the Internal Revenue Code, supported the "flat tax" proposal, and consistently supported passage of a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds supermajority of Congress to raise taxes."
"He was an early supporter of lowering the capital gains tax and recently he introduced legislation to provide tax credits for educators: public, private, and homeschool!"
"More than any other member of the Georgia delegation, Congressman Barr has parted with the Republican majority to vote against bloated "pork barrel" spending."
"He has continually fought the unconstitutional [McCain/Feingold] 'campaign finance reforms.' Defending our fundamental rights, he has filed a lawsuit to prevent implementation of the recently passed legislation."
The Barr smear campaign is dangerous and divisive. We should be propping up Baldwin AND Barr, not tearing them both down.

[OptionsTrader]

I'm planning on voting for Chuck Baldwin in November. I cannot bring myself to support Bob Barr because of his support of an interventionist foreign policy, the Patriot Act, and many other atrocities. http://badbarr2008.com.

You, me, Ron Paul's intern I talked to last night, and probably at least 50% of the people that want to write Ron in if it is possible in their states.

[dawnbt]

I'm planning on voting for Chuck Baldwin in November. I cannot bring myself to support Bob Barr because of his support of an interventionist foreign policy, the Patriot Act, and many other atrocities. http://badbarr2008.com.

Ditto!

[FrankRep]

You, me, Ron Paul's intern I talked to last night, and probably at least 50% of the people that want to write Ron in if it is possible in their states.


I'm voting Chuck Baldwin!

[Peace&Freedom]

Baldwin has no voting record.... As far as rhetoric, Barr and Baldwin are both exceptionally libertarian. Barr has justified or apologized for all of his "non-libertarian" bills (except DOMA I believe)...

The Barr smear campaign is dangerous and divisive. We should be propping up Baldwin AND Barr, not tearing them both down.

Barr also apologized for DOMA at the LP convention. Agreed we should be promoting both the CP and LP candidates---it would cap a great year for liberty to see both parties increase their vote totals tenfold.

[allyinoh]

I'm voting Chuck Baldwin!

Me too! =)

Do you know if he'll be on the Ohio ballot?

[Viverrid]

Reposted From the LP.org blog:

LP vs. CP
posted by Andrew Davis on Jun 13, 2008

We often get emails at Libertarian Party headquarters asking what exactly are the differences between the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. The confusion is understandable, especially for party outsiders who are just beginning to look at either as a new political home. The question of the differences in the parties has become even more frequent as Ron Paul supporters are looking for a new home after Paul's announcement that he is discontinuing his campaign.

After all, there is very little in the Republican Party or Democratic Parties that would make a Paul supporter feel welcome or at home.

On the surface, the LP and the CP appear to be quite similar. The very name of the Constitution Party appeals to the libertarian-leaning voter looking for a political party dedicated towards returning to a government strictly bound by the Constitution--as the Libertarian Party wishes for also. Additionally, the LP and the CP are very close on issues like foreign policy, Second Amendment rights, economic policy and health care.

However, beyond their initial similarities on the surface, a more in-depth look at the two parties shows profound differences in both platform and ideology.

The most acute difference between the two parties, and one that will explain much of the content in this article, can be found in the preambles of the two parties.

Constitution Party:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.


Libertarian Party:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

From the get-go, the differences of the two parties are quite obvious. At its very roots, the Constitution Party is unabashedly a party of Christian philosophy and spirituality, where as the Libertarian Party remains much more secular in its composition and values.
The best example of this can be found in objectives of the CP and LP, which are "to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations" and "to build [a world] where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power," respectively.

Though the Constitution Party has a very real and intense dedication to Constitutional provisions--made clear by the fact that they support many of their platform planks with citations from both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence--their raison d'etre is to essentially establish a "Christian" nation, and somehow maintain religious tolerance (though this latter portion is never explained).

Take for instance the CP's views on gambling: "Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country." To their credit, the CP does not say that government should outlaw this behavior although their rhetoric strongly suggests they'd like to see it abolished. Instead, the Constitution Party calls for government to refrain from officially participating in gambling--for apparent moral reasons--by eliminating lotteries and ceasing to subsidize "Indian casinos in the name of economic development."

Other issues like pornography ("Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God…We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy") and the judiciary ("We particularly support all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government) diverge quite distinctly from the LP philosophy.

However, the biggest difference between the two parties, and one that is the best manifestation of the diametric difference of philosophies on the role of government in society, relates to the issue of gay rights.

The Constitution Party, in pursuit of their goal to "restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations," takes a very different approach towards homosexuality than that of the Libertarian Party. The platform of the CP states that "the law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman," and "no government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted."

The CP also does not believe the government should recognize civil unions for gay couples.

While Libertarians hold many different views on the issue of gay marriage, with some believing marriage, both straight and gay, should not be an issue for government and others believing that gay marriage should be recognized so long as straight marriage is recognized--Libertarians believe "government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships."

One might remember the saying in grade-school geometry that "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares." Well, the same can be said of libertarians and Constitution Party members. Many Constitution Party members are libertarians, in some way, shape or form. However, there are very few Libertarians--if any at all--that would comfortably identify themselves as ascribing to the Constitution Party platform.

There is a simple explanation for this: Christian members of the Libertarian Party recognize that the basis of their religion is the idea of free will and volition, and that their morality does not need to be reinforced or supported by government laws or coercion. The Constitution Party, for whatever reason, finds that government should be a model for morality--that is, Christian morality--and all semblances of behavior and lifestyles contrary to this behavioral model should be eliminated through "Constitutional" government methods, with the end goal of establishing a Christian nation.

Perhaps the Constitution Party has more optimism for the functionality of a quasi-theocracy in regards to respect for the Constitution and the freedom to live, but seeing the corruption of the "Christian right" in the Republican Party, their optimism seems far too romanticized. While it is in the Christian ideology that followers of this faith should be testaments to the power of the message and should evangelize to all people of the earth, none (at least those who believe in a libertarian-element to the religion) believe this call to evangelize can be replaced by a call to legislate.

This, indeed, is the tragic fallacy of most Christians in politics, and one that poisons the Constitution Party's platform.

For a party that believes so strongly in the Constitution and preserving its authority, it is puzzling that the CP takes the position that God's law is supreme to Constitutional authority in the government. Many Christians, including myself, do believe that God's law always is supreme to the law of man when the two conflict; however, the difference is that this belief is made at a personal level, and would not expect the same to apply to government.

In order for the authority of the Constitution to remain intact, there can be nothing in government that undermines its supremacy. It was this very problem that sparked the beginnings of the American Revolution. When the British Constitution no longer was supreme, and parliament could pass laws that trumped the laws of this (unwritten) Constitution, the authority of that document was destroyed.

This is one logical incongruity that the Constitution Party fails to answer when it comes to both religious freedom and the people's right to be free in their lives from government. The problem is only amplified by the Constitution Party's lack of positions on privacy issues as it relates to how citizens live their lives.

It should be said that there is some grounds for what the Constitution Party believes that can be traced back to the founding of the nation. The role of religion and government together were widely discussed; however, the general conclusion of our founding fathers may be best encapsulated in this quotation from James Madison:

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.

In order for a society to be free, and a religion to remain uncorrupt, there must be a distinct separation between the two. While it is a mistake on one side to believe that our politicians must divorce themselves of all their religious and moral beliefs before taking office, it is another to suggest that our political leaders should use their own personal precept of morality as a template for laws that apply to an entire nation.

Thomas Jefferson said that truth would stand on its own regardless of whether it has the support of the government. Therefore, there is no need for the government to define and establish what this truth is.

The Libertarian Party wants a world where all individual are free to live their lives in peace, without interference from the government or their fellow man. This entails a tolerance of many other lifestyles, though not approval or acceptance (a key distinction), because it will be recognized that nobody should dictate anything else through law but freedom. Should society turn into a Christian society through this freedom, then so be it. It will at least be done through the volition and consent of all others.

There would be no element of coercion, and that is what any true Constitutionalist should strive to achieve.

- - - - -
Author's Note: I would like to emphasize that this is not an attempt to distort or misconstrue any belief or position of the Constitution Party. I have tried my best to remain objective and present their positions exactly how I believe the Party to stand based upon their platform and messaging. This article is simply to illustrate the ideological differences between two political parties that are often associated together. Comments on this article can be sent to Andrew.davis@lp.org.

[Deborah K]

He will be speaking at the march: http://revolutionmarch.com/rallydetails.aspx

[WRellim]

Reposted From the LP.org blog:

LP vs. CP
posted by Andrew Davis on Jun 13, 2008

[snip...]



Well, gee, that is *exactly* the absolute BEST place to go to find out about the Constitution Party... Sort of like asking the Dems about the GOP (or vice versa).

GMAB.

[Viverrid]

Well, gee, that is *exactly* the absolute BEST place to go to find out about the Constitution Party... Sort of like asking the Dems about the GOP (or vice versa).

GMAB.

Are there aspects of the article that you disagree with?

-Viverrid

[WRellim]

Are there aspects of the article that you disagree with?

-Viverrid



I believe it makes a MAJOR issue out of something that in a Republic which followed the Constitution would actually be a NON-issue.

To wit: the statement that "The CP also does not believe the government should recognize civil unions for gay couples."

What this is really saying is that the CP does not believe the federal government has any legitimate power to "mandate uniformity" onto the states (especially in regards to such things as this which are entirely outside of the scope of federal powers) ... and this is actually a VERY constitutional position.

The LP, conversely seems to toss the constitution aside on this, and desires to push uniformity down onto the state and local level using (illegitimate and unconstitutional) federal powers.

This tends to be THE problem with the LP -- in a desire to have a UNIFORMITY across the entire nation, they (like the Dem and Rep statists) continue to promote the "supremacy" of federal government -- only desiring to force so-called "Libertarian" points down onto the states and localities.

But that is the exact INVERSE of the original intention of the Constitution, which only limited FEDERAL powers -- whether you would have the full panoply of the same "Bill of Rights" freedoms within particular states or localities was dependent upon the construction of the STATE constitutions, NOT upon the Federal Constitution.

In short, the LP advocates a "uniform democracy" (just a more anachical one) rather than the original Republic of States, United.



Now why I believe it would be a "non-issue" in a true Republic under the Constitution is that the major reasons why people are PUSHING for the "Civil Unions" is in order to gain similar "tax benefits" and a host of other government mandated or government controlled legal status points or "goodies" (like insurance, survivor benefits, etc). IMHO under a true Republic -- one sans Soc Security, one w/o an "income tax", and w/o public schools (which would allow you to say goodbye to the whole "prayer/God in schools" issue -- as the issue would no longer exist -- at least from a federal perspective) -- etc -- no one would really care all that much about the "legal" status of marriage. Simple "partnership contracts" could easily be arranged that would resolve the problem.

Certainly SOME states (depending on the "powers" granted to the state or localities in their state constitutions) might be more onerous than others (similar to say how Nevada differs from everyone else regarding gambling and prostitution) -- but THAT was one of the beauties of the individual states being sovereign -- if you didn't LIKE what Massachusetts did you could move to Pennsylvania, or Maine, or Vermont, or Georgia -- or to one of the "Territories" where you were free to build a NEW society and state with a STATE Constitution that more closely matched your beliefs -- Say a UTAH, or conversely a NEVADA.

Too often today, we attempt to use the FEDERAL government to limit or prevent abuse by the state and local governments... thus seeking a "bigger bully" to "protect" us from the "lesser bully" -- the problem is you are still subjecting yourself to a bully, and indeed because you have picked the BIGGEST bully are even more powerless in the face of it when it does you wrong.

[tonesforjonesbones]

That was a great article. I am a Christian libertarian. I was in the Constitution Party first..and I DO believe this country would be better off as a Christian nation..alas, it isn't going to happen by force. What I AM concerned about is that by force Christianity will be , and IS being shut down in the USA. The Libertarian Party is for FREEDOM...free will..and that is what God gave us..free will. HE wants us to come to him from a heart place ..not by any sort of force. I understand why many Christians would go to the Constitution Party and that is really ok by me (lol who am I ..chopped liver..) but I feel like the Libertarian Party is my place unless Ron Paul starts a new political party. If the Constitution Party really wanted to grow, they should get their platform to as many ministers as they can..get the word out to the churches. They should really try to convince James Dobson to endorse Chuck Baldwin...that would certainly bump up his visibility. TONES

[WRellim]

That was a great article. I am a Christian libertarian. I was in the Constitution Party first..and I DO believe this country would be better off as a Christian nation..alas, it isn't going to happen by force. What I AM concerned about is that by force Christianity will be , and IS being shut down in the USA. The Libertarian Party is for FREEDOM...free will..and that is what God gave us..free will. HE wants us to come to him from a heart place ..not by any sort of force. I understand why many Christians would go to the Constitution Party and that is really ok by me (lol who am I ..chopped liver..) but I feel like the Libertarian Party is my place unless Ron Paul starts a new political party. If the Constitution Party really wanted to grow, they should get their platform to as many ministers as they can..get the word out to the churches. They should really try to convince James Dobson to endorse Chuck Baldwin...that would certainly bump up his visibility. TONES

Dobson won't endorse Chuck Baldwin -- specifically BECAUSE Chuck Baldwin is NOT for the type of "theocracy" that you are concerned about... Chuck has written too many articles critical of Dobson, et al and their "agenda" for example:

JAMES DOBSON JUST DOESN'T GET IT!:
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin360.htm
[...]Illustrating further the depth of Dobson's shallowness is the way he and other leaders of the Religious Right are treating the philanderer Newt Gingrich. Dobson told Gilgoff that the former House Speaker was "the brightest guy out there" and "the most articulate politician on the scene today." Jerry Falwell added his praise for Gingrich, saying in his Liberty Journal, "He is a true American statesman and a brilliant political innovator." Falwell has also invited Gingrich to be the commencement speaker at the graduating ceremonies at Liberty University this year.

This about a man who has a history as a serial adulterer. A man who used the occasion of his wife's hospitalization for cancer treatments to tell her he was leaving her for another woman with whom he had been having an affair. This about a man who had to be taken to court to pay what was due his abandoned wife. This about a man who was a major culprit in the House Banking Scandal, having written 22 bad checks at taxpayers' expense. This about a man who, just five months ago, brazenly called for the curtailment of free speech. This about a man who, after having orchestrated the GOP revolution of 1994, used the power of the Speaker's office to try and intimidate the conservative House freshmen into compromising their conservative commitment, including trying to force them to support tax increases. This about a man who is a long-standing member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is a think-tank of internationalists working toward global government.

But now Dobson, Falwell, et al. apparently hold Newt Gingrich in the highest regard, with Dobson gushing over him during the very interview when Gingrich admitted his adultery, and Falwell saying that Gingrich has made a "fresh commitment to God." Just in time for the presidential campaign. How convenient![...]CHRISTIAN RIGHT JUST DOESN'T GET IT
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin417.htm
[...]In 2000 and 2004, my wife and I could not in good conscience vote for G.W. Bush, so we cast an independent ballot those two elections. However, there is no question that, to a great extent, it was the Christian Right's almost universal support for George W. Bush that gave him two terms in the White House.

Unfortunately, it has been the Christian Right's blind support for President Bush in particular and the Republican Party in general that has precipitated a glaring and perhaps fatal defect: the Christian Right cannot, or will not, honestly face the real danger confronting these United States. The reason for this blindness is due, in part, to political partisanship or personal aggrandizement. Regardless, the Christian Right is currently devoid of genuine sagacity. On the whole, they fail to understand the issues that are critical to our nation's--and their own--survival.[...]

GOVERNMENT CANNOT DO CHURCH'S JOB
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin418.htm
One thing that Christians should come to terms with is the truism that government cannot do the church's job. Not in any shape, manner, or form. Yet, by the way many Christians and pastors behave these days, one gets the impression that they don't really understand this truth. Instead, it seems that many Christians and ministers see the government--especially the federal government--as an extension of the church.
[...]
The role of the federal government is to secure the rights that are given to us by God. Namely, the rights of life, liberty, and property. Properly understood, the role of the federal government has little to do with providing "services," and everything to do with securing the liberties of the people. It is just that simple.
So, no I doubt we'll be seeing an endorsement of Chuck Baldwin from the "Dobson gang"...They are too much like the Pharisees, and Baldwin is too much like John the Baptist!

This is one of the reasons it SICKENS me so much to see Chuck Baldwin smeared as a "theocrat" -- as if he were one of the Dobson/Domionist gang, when he emphatically is NOT one of them. (This was a refreshing surprise to me when I first started reading Chuck's writings last year (found out about him through Ron Paul... and I was very WARY at first... thinking, "Oh no, not another one of THOSE GUYS!") But Baldwin REALLY DOES GET IT -- he understands the DISTINCT and SEPARATE roles, purposes and places of government AND the church(es) AND our individual families as well as personal individual responsibilities. And unlike just about everyone else -- he has no desire to comingle any of them.

[Caulfield]

To wit: the statement that "The CP also does not believe the government should recognize civil unions for gay couples."

But their platform states, "Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions."

Granted, the article does not specify "government" at a specific level, but it would seem that the CP's platform says pretty clearly that "any" would mean "all" levels.

[WRellim]

But their platform states, "Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions."

Granted, the article does not specify "government" at a specific level, but it would seem that the CP's platform says pretty clearly that "any" would mean "all" levels.


Yes, but the LP article is then taking that and other minor wording and conflating a whole "construct" of a "theocratic" government from it.

One could just as easily do a smear job on the Libertarian party with the whole "child porn" issue -- as in a "See the Libertarians want to legalize pedophiles roaming the streets making child porn films in your local parks with cub scouts and brownies!"
:eek::eek::eek:

Now of course that is a CRUDE version --- but with a bit more effort, I guarantee you that I could easily write a document that seemed very "objective and erudite" but would still say the same thing -- and THAT would not be a fair explanation of the Libertarian Party platform now would it?
:mad:

Same thing applies to this article -- it is a "hit piece" aimed at the specific fears of a certain demographic.

[DriftWood]

Chuck Baldwin (just like Pat. Buchanan ) is a protectionist. If you ask me, If elected he will do more harm than good.

“In order to keep jobs in this country, we need to have a trade policy that works in the best interest of the American people. To this end, I favor a tariff based revenue system, originally implemented by our founding fathers, and which was the policy of the United States during most of our nation’s history. A tariff on foreign imports, based on the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production abroad and the cost of production of a similar item produced in the United States, would be a Constitutional step toward a fair trade policy that would protect American jobs and, at the same time, raise revenue for our national government."

http://baldwin2008.com/issues/economy/

Putting up high enough tariff barriers so no foreign goods can compete with local ones, is just about as far away from free trade as you can get. It means US will have to produce everything it consumes, and the consumer will have to pay a high price for everything. Just look at the current high prices and how it is hurting people in the US, where do these people go when given a choice? They go to Wallmart and other stores that sell cheap Chinese products. Thats right, they go to the poster boys of free trade, for help. Just imagine what would happen to the poorest consumers in US without free trade (or even managed trade agreements).

Putting up tariffs to keeping jobs in the US makes no sense. Jobs are not end in themselves, they are the means to consumption. Consumption is the end in itself. We only work so that we can consume. So the effort should not be to keep more jobs in the US, but to increase the buying power of the US consumer. The whole point of working is to increase your buying power. The whole point is to minimize the amount of work we have to do to buy stuff. Working just for the hell of it, makes no sense. It is easy to create full employment. All the govt has to do is employ people doing jobs in the most inefficient manner possible, say digging ditches by hand. The idea of every country being self reliant is much the same. Sure it would keep people busy doing all kinds of work. But they would do it less efficiently (thats why they needed to put up those tariffs in the first place), so it would just mean that it takes more people and more work to make the same thing. Its much better for a country to specialize in doing a couple of things really well, and then trade that thing for things that other countries do really well. That way everyone wins, and everyone gets to buy the most efficiently made products. Because all the products available are efficiently made, it means there is so much more stuff around and we can afford so much more of everything. US is more efficient at technology and business, basically office work than other countries. Thats what you should concentrate on, and let the 3rd world countries do what they do best, labor intensive hard work like farming and low tech manufacturing.

(Self sufficiency will lead into poverty. Its the opposite of specialization and division of labor. A self sufficient society is a society where everyone is his own farmer. There are lots of poor 3rd world countries like that.)

Cheers

[haigh]

Barr also apologized for DOMA at the LP convention. Agreed we should be promoting both the CP and LP candidates---it would cap a great year for liberty to see both parties increase their vote totals tenfold.

Here's the 90 second Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) statement from Bob Barr at the 2008 LP Convention

http://youtube.com/watch?v=g1zBkDqYjhU

[haigh]

This growing divide between the Barr and Baldwin forces will be very useful to the tacticians of statism.

[WRellim]

This growing divide between the Barr and Baldwin forces will be very useful to the tacticians of statism.

It's a natural outcome of the polyglot nature of the "R3VOLUTION." I think there are at least three "fracture lines" that are now being revealed.


ONE: A significant percentage (30%..50%) of Ron's supporters were (and are) libertarians, with a significant subset of those being Big "L" Libertarian Party members. It is natural that they will shift again back to the Libertarian Party -- one could say they (I think without any "malice") that they were never interested in Ron's GOP quest, but were always wanting him to run under the LP banner (or as an Independant, which is pretty much the same thing. As witness for that, the many, MANY threads talking about exactly that (including one or two current threads where even STILL they think he will run independent... despite the fact that it is essentially impossible now as the "window of opportunity" for getting on the ballot is closed or closing fast.)

And conversely, there were (are) a significant number of supporters who APPRECIATED the fact that Ron was running as REPUBLICAN and a conservative -- and NOT as the nominee of the LP (with it's current "caricature"). And they tend to desire to work within a party that is less shall we say "pushy" of the more extreme "libertarian" areas of pot, porn, prostitution, gambling -- not to mention abortion & the gay rights agenda. Many of these people were never going to shift to the LP, and feel more comfortable within either the GOP or possibly the CP.


TWO: There is a philosophical divide as well -- In the first group, many "libertarians" view limiting the government to include their view that the Federal Constitution (and therefore the federal government) can and should of necessity be used to limit and preclude State and local governments from imposing anything "tighter" than the very vague and limited powers allocated to the Federal Government -- and instead desire to USE that Federal Government to essentially "mandate" a uniform "libertarianism" across the entire nation. (Based essentially on the use of the 14th Amendment's power and style of "equal protection" -- anointing the Fed as able to negate state and local laws).

Conversely the "devolution" or "states rights" camp (for lack of better terms) believe that the limitations of the Constitution should be used to impose limits on the ONLY the Federal Government, and that the States and localities should be able to implement far more restrictive laws. (Not everyone in this camp WANTS more government, simply that they believe this is the "true" constitutional structure -- one of many States, United, rather than a single uniform or "homogeneous" country.)


THREE: Finally, many of the most vocal supporters of the LP tend to be those who have a problem with religion (most specifically "Evangelical Christians") ... this works two ways though. It not only makes them close their minds to OTHER candidates (Baldwin & the CP especially) -- but it also tends to EXCLUDE and DRIVE OUT people who ARE religious (again most specifically "Evangelical Christians").

So, conversely many of these people in fact DO feel excluded and seek a "home" where they (and their religious beliefs) are NOT treated as some "disease" to be eradicated, but rather something to be celebrated and used as a guide to discernment regarding appropriate policies and positions.


Conclusion
The truth is that these groups were NEVER truly "married" to each other, and only found a temporary "alliance" with Ron Paul as the focus. With each group seeing a "side" of Ron Paul that reflected their own views on matters -- and likewise each group "ignoring" those aspects of Ron that might NOT have meshed so well with their own positions.

What maybe SHOULD be surprising is that the movement has ONLY split into two major factions... rather than into half a dozen. I don't hear many people diving off for the McCain or Obama camps.

In other words... it was gonna happen no matter WHO the candidates were for the CP and LP... unless they had "united" under a Ron Paul nomination (which was NEVER Ron's intention to seek). And I guarantee you that even had Ron succeeded in winning not only the nomination, but the general election as well -- then the factions would have re-appeared and split over certain policy issues at that point in time.

Can't stop it anymore than you can stop the tide from coming in... and that is true even IF you are King Canute.

:(

[DriftWood]

^ Good description.

I think another divide might be on economics, the free traders aganist the protectionists, who might disagree on issues such as immigration and national sovereignty.

Cheers

[haigh]

A thoughtful post WR,
As is true of generalization they are never all right or all wrong. I know in my case as a long time l/L I WAS very interested in Ron’s GOP quest, would have gladly abandoned the LP in his favor, and was most impressed in the way he schooled the LP’ers on the strength of the non-interventionist/sound-money message as opposed to the traditional drugs/gays/prostitution perspective that has dominated the LP, and has served to marginalize the party.

If by November there is an order of magnitude difference in the likely vote totals between Barr and Baldwin, it will be interesting to see whether some of the walls you describe get broken down. This is not likely to happen with those who divide themselves between the religious and the anti-religious, but for those motivated by secular concerns, these walls may crumble. Many will be faced with the choice between "sending a small government message that will be heard" and "do what feels good, principle-wise." And I would wager that pivot will favor the sending of a message.

[familydog]

Chuck Baldwin (just like Pat. Buchanan ) is a protectionist. If you ask me, If elected he will do more harm than good.

Cheers

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/05/14/is-bob-barr-a-libertarian-certainly-not-on-trade/

Looks like Barr would be just as dangerous.

[amy31416]

Am I really so different from everyone around here that I'm simply happy that the majority of us are not voting for the status quo?

If he's on the PA ballot, I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin. I'm voting for the person, not the party or religion. While I don't believe in his religion, I also don't fear it, nor am I bothered by it or any other religion. I find it better to vote for a person who I respect and trust, even if his party has some flaws.

But, I will also have no problem with voting for Barr if that's my option. Do I trust him enough to actually elect him president? Nope. But I certainly don't have any problem with those who will vote for him. In my mind, the Libertarian party has it's flaws too, none related to pushing religion, but flaws nonetheless.

Personally, I'm happy to have two reasonably good choices as a vehicle for sending a message to the GOP. I'm also really happy that the religious Ron Paul supporters have an excellent 3rd party choice in Baldwin. Those who incessantly bash him seem to forget that he's been an avid supporter of Ron Paul for quite a while. Those who incessantly bash Barr forget that Paul has also spoken highly of him.

[Kludge]

Am I really so different from everyone around here that I'm simply happy that the majority of us are not voting for the status quo?

If he's on the PA ballot, I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin. I'm voting for the person, not the party or religion. While I don't believe in his religion, I also don't fear it, nor am I bothered by it or any other religion. I find it better to vote for a person who I respect and trust, even if his party has some flaws.

But, I will also have no problem with voting for Barr if that's my option. Do I trust him enough to actually elect him president? Nope. But I certainly don't have any problem with those who will vote for him. In my mind, the Libertarian party has it's flaws too, none related to pushing religion, but flaws nonetheless.

Personally, I'm happy to have two reasonably good choices as a vehicle for sending a message to the GOP. I'm also really happy that the religious Ron Paul supporters have an excellent 3rd party choice in Baldwin. Those who incessantly bash him seem to forget that he's been an avid supporter of Ron Paul for quite a while. Those who incessantly bash Barr forget that Paul has also spoken highly of him.

+1

Cheers!

[Deborah K]

I would venture a flea bitten guess that RP will endorse Baldwin and not Barr.

[amy31416]

+1

Cheers!

Cheers to you too, glad I'm not the only one.

I say, instead of endlessly debating what we already know are flaws in Baldwin or Barr, the CP or the LP--we recognize both of them for who they are: A hell of a lot better than Obama or McCain.

[DriftWood]

Cheers to you too, glad I'm not the only one.

I say, instead of endlessly debating what we already know are flaws in Baldwin or Barr, the CP or the LP--we recognize both of them for who they are: A hell of a lot better than Obama or McCain.

Yeah, Cheers to the lot of you. They wouldnt get elected but voting would send a message, and maybe that would change things for the better.

Cheers