"Barr Exam" by Jacob Sullum (Reason Foundation)

The Libertarian Party is celebrating the defeat of U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, whom it calls the "worst Drug Warrior in Congress." Although I spend much of my time criticizing the war on drugs, I do not share the L.P.'s enthusiasm.

There's no question that Barr, who recently lost his bid for the Republican nomination to represent Georgia's newly redrawn 7th District, is an enthusiastic prohibitionist. The four-term congressman has bucked public opinion by doggedly opposing the medical use of marijuana. He even supports a ban on hemp products because they sometimes contain trace amounts of THC -- too little to get anyone high, but enough to offend Barr's sensibilities.

Yet Barr is also, paradoxically, a vocal champion of privacy and civil liberties. The tragedy of his career is that he does not recognize how the war on drugs undermines those values.

Despite his reputation as a rabid right-winger (based mainly on his early support for impeaching President Clinton), Barr is probably a more consistent defender of individual rights than the typical ACLU member. For one thing, unlike many self-proclaimed civil libertarians, he takes the Second Amendment seriously.

As a freshman, Barr led the fight to repeal the federal ban on so-called assault weapons, an arbitrary abridgment of the right to keep and bear arms that targets guns based on their militaristic appearance. He also introduced an amendment limiting the scope of the Gun-Free School Zones Act to behavior that was already illegal under state or local law.

Such efforts did not have broad support from the general public or Barr's fellow Republicans. His battles with gun controllers reflected his readiness to criticize the government for overstepping its proper bounds, even when party leaders might have preferred that he keep his mouth shut.

Barr, a former federal prosecutor, likewise has not hesitated to challenge law enforcement agencies. He emerged as a relentless inquisitor during the 1995 congressional investigation of the federal government's disastrous confrontation with the Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas.

Barr has repeatedly defended the Fourth Amendment against encroachments by law enforcement officials seeking broader powers. He has tried to rein in the Justice Department's monitoring of Internet traffic and spoken out against the spread of police surveillance cameras.

"Where will the line be drawn?" Barr asked in July 2001. "Can it be drawn? Has government gained so much power to snoop that we have already lost the ability to fight it?"

Barr has also shown a commitment to due process. Last year he said the use of secret evidence in immigration proceedings "violates basic principles of fundamental fairness" and is "blatantly unconstitutional," noting that "a cornerstone of our judicial system is the right of individuals to view and respond to evidence against them."

Refreshing as such views were prior to September 11, Barr's continued defense of civil liberties since then has set him apart from all but a few of his colleagues in Congress. "Let us not rush into a vast expansion of government power in a misguided attempt to protect freedom," he warned less than a week after the attacks. "In doing so, we will inevitably erode the very freedoms we seek to protect."

Barr continues to oppose a national ID card, which he sees as part of "a concerted effort by government to dig deeper and deeper into the lives of lawful Americans." He expressed reservations about President Bush's order authorizing military tribunals for accused terrorists, although he decided, once the details were revealed, that the administration had struck "an appropriate balance between constitutional safeguards and national security."

Similarly, Barr ultimately voted for the anti-terrorism package known as the USA PATRIOT Act, saying "we were able to eliminate or severely limit the most egregious violations of Americans' civil liberties that were contained in the original proposal." Later he seemed to regret the vote, lamenting that "power taken by the government is rarely returned."

Although Barr will never admit it, that observation applies to the war on drugs as well as the war on terrorism. During the last few decades the leading threat to the Fourth Amendment has been the effort to separate illegal intoxicants from people who want them.

In one drug case after another, the Supreme Court has whittled away at protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. By continuing to support the crusade against unauthorized mental states even while proclaiming his commitment to privacy, Bob Barr has been his own worst enemy.

The LP is trying to claim some kind of victory for medical marijuana from its part in helping to defeat Bob Barr -- because they put out a few ads against Barr, who was admittedly a big supporter of the War 0n Drugs. But the news the next day made Barr's defeat seem a lot more of a "payback" or vindication of the Clinton Democrats since Barr was identified (at least in the articles I saw) as an outspoken critic of former President Clinton. Barr's position on drugs was not an issue in the primary election (at least) except to the LP.

So, it makes it look like, regardless of their intentions, that the Libertarians were naive and unwitting allies of the "liberal" Democrats in getting revenge against Barr for being anti-Clinton. Yet, the LP is now enthusiastically claiming this as a big victory. Am I being too critical of the LP strategy here?

Single-Issue Politics

As a libertarian (i.e., an advocate of the Laissez-Faire Republic) , I am all for medical marijuana legalization and am opposed to the so-called War on Drugs, but I am not a single-issue libertarian or single-issue Libertarian. I look at the overall record or set of positions of a candidate instead of focusing on only one to the exclusion of all else. Despite my strong disagreements with Barr on some issues (including his support for the WOD), I believe his overall voting record was very anti-statist and pro-freedom. For a Republican, he wasn't bad overall. In fact, except for his wrong-headed support of the War on Drugs, he was one of the very best from a libertarian perspective in the whole Congress in defense of constitutional rights, civil liberties and due process. Yet, the LP ads gave a very different impression.

Of course, I would love to see an LP candidate (if a true libertarian) actually win a seat in Congress. But I am telling my fellow Libertarians not to hold their breath waiting for the LP candidate to win in the general election. And I am certainly no namby-pamby Republican sympathizer. The Republicans have disappointed us time and time again. But I would rather see a strategy, if there is one, in which we as libertarians can support Republicans when they are properly anti-statist and oppose them when they are pro-statist, but do so in such a way as not to aid the Democrats, who are virtually always pro-statist. I concede that I could be mistaken, but I think there must be a strategy in which we as Libertarians and libertarians can co-operate with other parties, like the Republicans, when they are right (pro-freedom, pro-private property) and express strong disagreement with them when they are wrong (i.e., left) without at the same time giving aid and comfort to the Democrats, who I see as the common enemy. Fortunately, in this case, the position will be filled by a "conservative" Republican and not an ultra-statist Democrat, but if the ads had indriectly helped a more statist candidate to win the seat, it would have been a setback for liberty and not a victory at all.

Republicans should give up and start to come out against the War on (Some) Drugs. It's a huge waste of money. The whole thing was a pointless failure.

[Here's the comment I posted on my blog:]

I'm pleased to see that the Libertarian Party has added a notch to its belt in the continuing struggle to end the Drug War. On Tuesday, Georgia Congressman Bob Barr lost his Republican primary race, after being targeted by the Libertarian Party's Congressional candidate.

Now admittedly the main reason Barr lost was because he foolishly moved from a difficult-but-winnable district into a new, more-heavily-Republican district which was dominated by another incumbent Republican. And the magnitude of Bob Barr's defeat was so large that the Libertarian Party cannot claim sole responsibility for getting rid of him. But the LP undoubtedly contributed to his defeat.

I downloaded the anti-Barr ad and thought it was extremely well-produced and effective. Take a look at it. I think it's pretty obvious that the ad had to work to Barr's strong disadvantage among any voters who saw it. And with $40,000 spent to run the ad (both broadcast TV and 4,000 cable spots), a lot of voters saw it.

Although the ad didn't make a decisive difference in the outcome of the primary, and although it didn't alter the struggle over which major party will control the House of Representatives, it should have a very salutory influence on future races. Fervent Drug Warriors, be they Republicans or Democrats, have been sent a warning that their position has turned into a political detriment. A similar ad campaign could easily peel off several percentage points from a Drug Warrior's vote totals, and cost him or her the election in a tight race.

And that's the whole point. Republicans and Democrats often take their base constituencies for granted, but they can't take the Libertarian Party for granted and they can no longer ignore the impact of their Libertarian challengers. Libertarians are willing to aggressively attack them on the issues. Even if that doesn't translate directly into Libertarian votes it can translate into lost Republican or Democrat votes and lost elections.

It will take time, but eventually Republicans and Democrats will learn that the War On Drugs is a losing cause.

What you said...and what Mr. Sullum says:

Although I spend much of my time criticizing the war on drugs, I do not share the L.P.'s enthusiasm.

The LP seems to have been overtaken by a death wish as it is. At their recent national convention in Indianapolis, this "party of principle" which believes so ardently in free speech and a free press refused press credentials to a writer for Liberty magazine. Liberty's crime? Exposing the fact that the party continues to refuse proper enough owning-up to - that two-time LP presidential candidate Harry Browne, in explicit violation of the LP's own rules and bylaws, secretly hired the party's then-national director to work on his behalf before Browne had secured the LP presidential nomination officially (LP bylaws prohibit party employees from working on behalf of any prospective candidate before the candidate actually wins the party's nomination to whichever office), paying him with laundered party money (meaning party funds recycled into places which had no explicit party connection). Liberty stayed with that one so firmly that it rattled the LP's powers that be. And, what do you know, despite Browne's having been exposed as corrupt the LP still saw fit to welcome him to this year's national convention. Need I remind anyone that the LP otherwise would have thought it criminal for the Republican Party to invite Richard Nixon to a national convention post-1974...or the Democratic Party to invite Bill Clinton anywhere? An interesting sidebar: Harry Browne attended the LP convention as a delegate from Massachussetts - his own state's delegation didn't pick him as a delegate.

The new issue of Liberty - which was, as editor R.W. Bradford notes therein, just about the only journal of sociopolitical opinion to truly take the LP seriously - zaps the LP but good over their freezeout of the magazine's correspondents (Real political parties don't fear an independent, critical press, says the subhead to Bradford's own contribution, "Fear of the Press"), noting among other things that the LP is just about the only organisation dealing with politics or public policy to have committed such a freezeout. (Liberty writers who did get into the convention had to buy into formal party memberships to attend.) The previous issue of the magazine featured a very pungent zap against the LP for going to the mattresses, such as they could, against Bob Barr solely because of his stance on the drug war. I disagree with Barr's position on the drug war, too; I think he is wrong to uphold and support its continuance, and on the very grounds by which he has otherwise been so staunch an ally of freedom, of individualism, and of properly-construed government as opposed to the inproperly-consecrated State. But Liberty and Jacob Sullum are right as rain: One of freedom's absolute best friends - a damn better friend than most who those daring to call themselves Republicans - did not deserve to be rousted out in a primary simply because he was wrong on one issue.

Third party, my left ventricle. Liberty has it right when, in the current issue, it wisecracks about the Libertarian Party being America's fifth party.

For years, the majority of libertarians who are not involved in the LP have argued that the LP is ineffective and a waste of energy, coming perilously close to sharing the major media's view of the LP as an amusing sideshow. Now the LP has banned the only publication that doesn't share this view.

Which makes you wonder: Maybe those libertarians and the major media are right. Perhaps the LP has marginalised itself to the point that it is simply irrelevant. Certainly there are a lot of reasons to believe this. While the LP got off to a fast start in the 1970s, culminating in the election of a handful of state legislators and winning nearly a million votes for its presidential candidate in 1980, its electoral appeal has declined ever since, with candidates seldom getting more than a percent or two in contested races for partisan office, despite spending huge amounts of money and energy, and running many times more candidates for office than any other third party.

...Cynics among the party's critics suggest that the party's staff has become a self-perpetuating elite, more concerned with their own positions and salaries than with the health of the party. The more optimistic of its critics see the staff as well-intentioned incompetents.

Most of these problems the party brought upon itself. Bad management, wasting resources, raising money for one purpose but spending it on another, paying its professional staff substantial salaries despite the absence of any measurable success - these are all things that could have been prevented by competent leadership. In effect, the Libertarian Party has marginalised itself.

- R.W. Bradford, from "Fear of the Press"; Liberty, September 2002.

I have said it before (since learning myself of just how corrupt and fraudulent Harry Browne and his minions really were - and it only began with figuring out that something was terribly wrong with someone who spun a further marginalisation of electoral influence and result as a "great moral victory") but I will say it again: The United States would only benefit from a libertarian party in its midst, if only as the kind of ideological pressure point upon a Major Party (the Republican Party, realistically) that, say, the Conservative Party long effected in New York upon the Republicans. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party is not that party. But don't take my word for it. No less than the LP's founder told the convention that the party is bound for demise unless it doubles membership every 2-10 years and makes a "major" electoral impact in 2004. It is easier to get the Chicago Cubs into the World Series than for the Libertarian Party as too long operated and governed to make a "major" electoral impact any time, anywhere, anymore...

I didn't know about the LP's tinkering in the Barr race, but it is another example of why the LP is becoming more of a joke. As you and others have said, Representative Barr was a friend to most libertarians on most issues. However, they attacked him as an enemy because he doesn't support legalization of drugs. I'll never do all that Mr. Barr has done for our country, but just in discussing issues on the internet, I've noticed the same problem.

I agree with libertarians to some extent on many issues. While I don't see their "no initiation of force" principle as the "be all and end all" of political thought, I think it is a good question to ask. I think many of their ideas could work. They wouldn't work quite as well as libertarians think that they would, but they wouldn't be total disasters either. Many non-libertarians have mistaken me for a libertarian when we have discussed various issues. Unfortunately, because I am not willing to support legalization of drugs, I am regularly flamed by libertarians. (The other issue that gets me flamed is my opposition to legalization of child pornography.) Being flamed is part of discussing politics on the internet, and it doesn't bother me that much. However, after it happens a few times, I lose sympathy for the party or those who espouse its ideas on these issues.

WFTR
Bill

Good comments.

I also read the recent issue of "Liberty" so far as the LP meeting. Interesting about Bill Winter, the fellow who would not give the press credentials to the "Liberty" writer.

Winter was amazingly effective in NH as the head of the state party and as a peripheral observer I would credit him with building the party into a significant player in NH politics, with the candidate for governor getting over 5% of the vote and the Republican governor, Steve Merrill, appointing her to the state Liquor Commission, a plumb that got her out of the way.

Winter was very hard working, articulate and was able to get increasing attendance at monthly meetings with enthusiastic attendees. Of course, some of the success was due to the help of a popular radio host from Boston, Gene Burns, who did a series of free talks in NH to build the Party. Burns was able to turn out several hundred people at a crack. Winter was able to get more and more attention from state media and pols. He certainly seemed like a dedicated true believer. After he left NH to go to the national office, the state party began its consistent decline to obscurity here in NH.

So, I was pretty surprised to read about his ridiculous actions regarding the writer. I suppose that perhaps he too has been seduced by the power and percs, such as they are in this fading party.

The only issue that I can think of on which Dr. Paul has any disagreement whatsoever with other libertarians is abortion. When he ran as the Libertarian Party's candidate for President in 1988, he openly said that he differed on that point, and virtually nobody considered that a big problem. There are a substantial number of pro-life people in the LP and even the Libertarian Party Platform acknowledges those differences:

Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.

We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.

Regarding "euthanasia on demand", the Libertarian Party has never advocated euthanasia. It does however support the right of individuals to commit suicide, as indicated in the following Platform plank:

...we advocate...the repeal of all laws interfering with the right to commit suicide as infringements of the ultimate right of an individual to his or her own life.

I doubt that Dr. Paul disagrees with that. Indeed, he opposed federal attempts to restrict states from allowing drug-assisted suicides, saying that while he personally opposes euthanasia, "it's even worse to introduce the notion that our federal congresses and our federal courts have the wisdom to tell all the states how to achieve the goals of protecting life and liberty." He insisted, "There is no way medically, legally or morally to tell the difference" between "alleviating pain" and "intentionally killing the patient."

So with the single, partial exception of the abortion issue, Dr. Paul appears to me to be a very consistent advocate of Libertarian views. And even in the case of abortion, the overwhelming majority of libertarians would agree with Dr. Paul that the issue belongs on the state level, not the federal level.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.