Bradley in DC
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 12,279
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/05/should-libertarians-consider-chuck-baldwin/
Should libertarians consider Chuck Baldwin?
May 27th, 2008 · 14 Comments
Following the nomination of former Republican congressman Bob Barr, many Libertarians are struggling with whether they’ll be able to support their party’s candidate.
Bob Barr’s positives are obvious to all. The 46% of LP delegates who rejected him on the final ballot were well aware of Barr’s pros, and decided they were outweighed by his cons. Many felt they could support the LP ticket if it were given balance by Steve Kubby’s nomination as VP, but the plan fell short by a few votes.
Still, the majority of Ruwart backers were begrudgingly willing to support Barr. This cohort was increased, no doubt, by Dr. Ruwart’s LNC election victory, and that of her campaign manager, Lee Wrights. But there remain many Mary supporters — as evidenced by the comments on this blog — who range from unsure to outright unwilling to support Barr. The question: Is Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin a suitable alternative?
To most radicals, the answer is a firm no. Baldwin, a Baptist minister, is not shy about his religion. He is fervently pro-life and somewhat hostile to pro-choicers. His views on homosexuality will not win over many radicals, and his stances on immigration (seal the border, protect American jobs, protect American culture) and free trade (he’s for “fair” trade) are most troubling of all.
But now for the positive: Chuck Baldwin will be the only candidate on the ballot (where the CP has access) who is against fiat money and the Fed. After the educational gains Ron Paul made in this libertarian area, many radicals are disappointed that their candidates appear unconcerned by monetary reform. Secondly, Baldwin is a committed constitutionalist. He does not advocate unconstitutional measures to further his socially conservative agenda. He has opposed DOMA and the federal-marriage amendment, and also opposes a national abortion ban.
Finally, in contrasting to Bob Barr, Baldwin does not support the Fair Tax, and is not a former CIA operative. He is a firm non-interventionist and opposed the PATRIOT Act from day one. He’s against foreign aid, both military and monetary. And he has been unwavering in his political convictions for many years.
Many radicals have said they could never support Baldwin or any Constitution Party candidate. However, a subset of the radical caucus — call them the “Rockwellian tendency” — can overlook personal views they disagree with in deference to philosophy of governing. To this distinct minority of libertarians, Baldwin’s pro-life and anti-gay views are of little concern, but his anti-immigration and anti-free trade positions are and will be troubling. It will be a matter of weighing the pros and cons.
Murray Rothbard, hero to the radicals, supported Pat Buchanan with many of the same views that Baldwin now advocates. Will the radicals, at least those of a Rockwellian bent, throw their support behind Baldwin? Or will they be won over by Bob Barr? Only time will tell.
Filed Under: Constitution Party · Libertarian Party
14 RESPONSES SO FAR ↓
1neuralnoise // May 27, 2008 at 2:02 am
Bah. A principled stand for a third party is one thing, but if one is to abandon principle for the least evil on the ballot –
the least evil can actually win this time, and his name is Obama.
2G.E. // May 27, 2008 at 2:06 am
Knowing that either “Bom-Bom-Bom, Bom-Bomb Iran” McCain or Obama is going to win, I will be rooting for Obama. But I will not be voting for him.
3Lance Brown // May 27, 2008 at 2:14 am
If libertarians are going to vote for a flawed libertarian, they should vote for the Libertarian one. (Bob Barr.) The Constitution Party is a distraction; the LP remains and will remain the best vehicle for electoral advances toward liberty.
4Mike Theodore // May 27, 2008 at 2:16 am
Constitution Party just seems like a party for old pastors that like liberty, but can’t stomach the social freedom of the LP. I wouldn’t vote for these guys.
5Kris Overstreet // May 27, 2008 at 3:00 am
I personally can’t consider Chuck Baldwin as a candidate without first thinking of him as the standard-bearer of a theocratic political movement. The enforcement of Biblical standards of conduct and social mores with the power of government is so utterly abhorrent to me that it overrides all other considerations.
When the Constitution Party adopts secularism and abandons, once and for all, its naked Christian fundamentalist agenda, then maybe I’ll reconsider.
6MattSwartz // May 27, 2008 at 3:06 am
It’s easy for me to support Baldwin because I’m already fairly socially conservative for a libertarian (you can say that for this reason I’m not a libertarian, but I didn’t ask you).
The war, federalism, sound money, abortion, fiscal responsibility, and shrinking the size of the Federal Government are my issues, and Baldwin represents me perfectly on all of them. I wish he were less pushy about Christianity, because I think that’s unbecoming, and I accept that he arrives at his positions using a different rationale than I do, but for me, Baldwin’s the best candidate on the ballot.
7G.E. // May 27, 2008 at 3:09 am
Matt - You don’t care about free trade?
8MattSwartz // May 27, 2008 at 3:13 am
I care about it, yes, but not as much as I care about the things I mentioned.
Protectionism is a bad idea, and if it were our main trade philosophy, things would get ugly, but it doesn’t rise to the level of life-taking policies (war, abortion) or fraudulent policies (FedGov domination, inflation money) in my calculus of disapproval.
9G.E. // May 27, 2008 at 4:02 am
Protectionism has killed more human beings than abortion has. I’ll bet you that.
10MattSwartz // May 27, 2008 at 4:07 am
If you count in war dead, then you’re probably right, but I don’t see what that has to do with a non-interventionist candidate in a country where protectionism, while unwise, won’t lead to starvation.
11G.E. // May 27, 2008 at 4:11 am
Protectionism has, throughout history, led to economic stagnation and poverty. This has held back increases in the standards of living, most notably in health and medicine. The feudalist and mercantilist systems, of which protectionism was the foundation, murdered virtually every human being who ever lived under them before their time.
But going forward, I still would bet that protectionism would have greater effect on human life than abortion. Not to mention that protectionism promotes war. Protectionism probably also promotes abortion!
12bsharitt // May 27, 2008 at 6:37 am
Being a Christian wack job and formerly working for the moral majority is just as bad as being a former drug warrior in my book, maybe even worse. I could never vote for a candidate from the bible thumping constitution party.
13Simon Girty // May 27, 2008 at 7:11 am
I see two reasons to remain hopeful in the future of the LP. One, Barr’s conversion to libertarianism might be real. Two, the LP can be rescued and put back on the right track in the future. Baldwin is what he is and will never change and the Constitution Party will never replace the LP.
14Bill Woolsey // May 27, 2008 at 8:04 am
I read Baldwin’s take on the Fed and I found it troubling.
Paul, of course, is a critic of the Fed and favors a return to the gold standard. However, his actual monetary reform program is to end legal restrictions that interfere with the use of gold as a parallel currency.
Badlwin doesn’t say anything about gold or even fiat currency. He calls for a nondebt, noninterest currency. In other contexts, he is complaining about the bankers.
Well, I read this as Baldwin believing the false conspiracy theory that the private owners of the Federal Reserve are making large profits from interest on the issue of “debt-based” federal reserse notes. And, further, the currency he is proposing is a straight fiat currency issued by the Treasury.
Paul’s position on fiat currency was always one version or other of sound, free market economics. Paul explains that the polticians
are spening newly created money and that this leads to inflation. He also emphasizes (to much,
in my opinion) the distortions in production
caused by excessively _low_ interest rates
during the inflationary process.
As an aside, many, if not most, libertarian economists today, favor having all money issued by private competing banks. With
many favoring a tie to gold through redemption.
Having all fiat money issued directly by the
Treasury is a step in the wrong direction.
Especially if the noition is that you are somehow
saving money by cutting out the “profits” made
by the owners of the Fed.
Should libertarians consider Chuck Baldwin?
May 27th, 2008 · 14 Comments
Following the nomination of former Republican congressman Bob Barr, many Libertarians are struggling with whether they’ll be able to support their party’s candidate.
Bob Barr’s positives are obvious to all. The 46% of LP delegates who rejected him on the final ballot were well aware of Barr’s pros, and decided they were outweighed by his cons. Many felt they could support the LP ticket if it were given balance by Steve Kubby’s nomination as VP, but the plan fell short by a few votes.
Still, the majority of Ruwart backers were begrudgingly willing to support Barr. This cohort was increased, no doubt, by Dr. Ruwart’s LNC election victory, and that of her campaign manager, Lee Wrights. But there remain many Mary supporters — as evidenced by the comments on this blog — who range from unsure to outright unwilling to support Barr. The question: Is Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin a suitable alternative?
To most radicals, the answer is a firm no. Baldwin, a Baptist minister, is not shy about his religion. He is fervently pro-life and somewhat hostile to pro-choicers. His views on homosexuality will not win over many radicals, and his stances on immigration (seal the border, protect American jobs, protect American culture) and free trade (he’s for “fair” trade) are most troubling of all.
But now for the positive: Chuck Baldwin will be the only candidate on the ballot (where the CP has access) who is against fiat money and the Fed. After the educational gains Ron Paul made in this libertarian area, many radicals are disappointed that their candidates appear unconcerned by monetary reform. Secondly, Baldwin is a committed constitutionalist. He does not advocate unconstitutional measures to further his socially conservative agenda. He has opposed DOMA and the federal-marriage amendment, and also opposes a national abortion ban.
Finally, in contrasting to Bob Barr, Baldwin does not support the Fair Tax, and is not a former CIA operative. He is a firm non-interventionist and opposed the PATRIOT Act from day one. He’s against foreign aid, both military and monetary. And he has been unwavering in his political convictions for many years.
Many radicals have said they could never support Baldwin or any Constitution Party candidate. However, a subset of the radical caucus — call them the “Rockwellian tendency” — can overlook personal views they disagree with in deference to philosophy of governing. To this distinct minority of libertarians, Baldwin’s pro-life and anti-gay views are of little concern, but his anti-immigration and anti-free trade positions are and will be troubling. It will be a matter of weighing the pros and cons.
Murray Rothbard, hero to the radicals, supported Pat Buchanan with many of the same views that Baldwin now advocates. Will the radicals, at least those of a Rockwellian bent, throw their support behind Baldwin? Or will they be won over by Bob Barr? Only time will tell.
Filed Under: Constitution Party · Libertarian Party
14 RESPONSES SO FAR ↓
1neuralnoise // May 27, 2008 at 2:02 am
Bah. A principled stand for a third party is one thing, but if one is to abandon principle for the least evil on the ballot –
the least evil can actually win this time, and his name is Obama.
2G.E. // May 27, 2008 at 2:06 am
Knowing that either “Bom-Bom-Bom, Bom-Bomb Iran” McCain or Obama is going to win, I will be rooting for Obama. But I will not be voting for him.
3Lance Brown // May 27, 2008 at 2:14 am
If libertarians are going to vote for a flawed libertarian, they should vote for the Libertarian one. (Bob Barr.) The Constitution Party is a distraction; the LP remains and will remain the best vehicle for electoral advances toward liberty.
4Mike Theodore // May 27, 2008 at 2:16 am
Constitution Party just seems like a party for old pastors that like liberty, but can’t stomach the social freedom of the LP. I wouldn’t vote for these guys.
5Kris Overstreet // May 27, 2008 at 3:00 am
I personally can’t consider Chuck Baldwin as a candidate without first thinking of him as the standard-bearer of a theocratic political movement. The enforcement of Biblical standards of conduct and social mores with the power of government is so utterly abhorrent to me that it overrides all other considerations.
When the Constitution Party adopts secularism and abandons, once and for all, its naked Christian fundamentalist agenda, then maybe I’ll reconsider.
6MattSwartz // May 27, 2008 at 3:06 am
It’s easy for me to support Baldwin because I’m already fairly socially conservative for a libertarian (you can say that for this reason I’m not a libertarian, but I didn’t ask you).
The war, federalism, sound money, abortion, fiscal responsibility, and shrinking the size of the Federal Government are my issues, and Baldwin represents me perfectly on all of them. I wish he were less pushy about Christianity, because I think that’s unbecoming, and I accept that he arrives at his positions using a different rationale than I do, but for me, Baldwin’s the best candidate on the ballot.
7G.E. // May 27, 2008 at 3:09 am
Matt - You don’t care about free trade?
8MattSwartz // May 27, 2008 at 3:13 am
I care about it, yes, but not as much as I care about the things I mentioned.
Protectionism is a bad idea, and if it were our main trade philosophy, things would get ugly, but it doesn’t rise to the level of life-taking policies (war, abortion) or fraudulent policies (FedGov domination, inflation money) in my calculus of disapproval.
9G.E. // May 27, 2008 at 4:02 am
Protectionism has killed more human beings than abortion has. I’ll bet you that.
10MattSwartz // May 27, 2008 at 4:07 am
If you count in war dead, then you’re probably right, but I don’t see what that has to do with a non-interventionist candidate in a country where protectionism, while unwise, won’t lead to starvation.
11G.E. // May 27, 2008 at 4:11 am
Protectionism has, throughout history, led to economic stagnation and poverty. This has held back increases in the standards of living, most notably in health and medicine. The feudalist and mercantilist systems, of which protectionism was the foundation, murdered virtually every human being who ever lived under them before their time.
But going forward, I still would bet that protectionism would have greater effect on human life than abortion. Not to mention that protectionism promotes war. Protectionism probably also promotes abortion!
12bsharitt // May 27, 2008 at 6:37 am
Being a Christian wack job and formerly working for the moral majority is just as bad as being a former drug warrior in my book, maybe even worse. I could never vote for a candidate from the bible thumping constitution party.
13Simon Girty // May 27, 2008 at 7:11 am
I see two reasons to remain hopeful in the future of the LP. One, Barr’s conversion to libertarianism might be real. Two, the LP can be rescued and put back on the right track in the future. Baldwin is what he is and will never change and the Constitution Party will never replace the LP.
14Bill Woolsey // May 27, 2008 at 8:04 am
I read Baldwin’s take on the Fed and I found it troubling.
Paul, of course, is a critic of the Fed and favors a return to the gold standard. However, his actual monetary reform program is to end legal restrictions that interfere with the use of gold as a parallel currency.
Badlwin doesn’t say anything about gold or even fiat currency. He calls for a nondebt, noninterest currency. In other contexts, he is complaining about the bankers.
Well, I read this as Baldwin believing the false conspiracy theory that the private owners of the Federal Reserve are making large profits from interest on the issue of “debt-based” federal reserse notes. And, further, the currency he is proposing is a straight fiat currency issued by the Treasury.
Paul’s position on fiat currency was always one version or other of sound, free market economics. Paul explains that the polticians
are spening newly created money and that this leads to inflation. He also emphasizes (to much,
in my opinion) the distortions in production
caused by excessively _low_ interest rates
during the inflationary process.
As an aside, many, if not most, libertarian economists today, favor having all money issued by private competing banks. With
many favoring a tie to gold through redemption.
Having all fiat money issued directly by the
Treasury is a step in the wrong direction.
Especially if the noition is that you are somehow
saving money by cutting out the “profits” made
by the owners of the Fed.
Geez guys, not everyone is like Hagee and the rest who want to bring on Armageddon. Why do you think we've been supporting Ron Paul?
