The T-Files

Written by Tony Sarrecchia, Columnist
Originally published in the Sentinel
Tuesday, 07 October 2008

With less than a month to go before the most egregious presidential election in my lifetime is over (horrific because you know that either Obama or McCain will win), I am beginning to feel the Third Party Dilemma.

Since the last Bill Clinton term and the Republican insistence on spending $40 million to investigate the little Willy’s penchant for tarty interns, I have been happily voting for the only party that embodies the type of freedom the founders spilled blood to defend: the Libertarians.

This year, however, the more I read and hear about Senator Barack Obama’s financial plans, the more the Third Party Dilemma pokes its razor-like finger in my frontal lobes. The Dilemma goes like this: a vote for a third party helps the team who represents the antithesis to your beliefs. Therefore, in theory, my vote would go to a Republican; but if I vote for Bob Barr, I actually help the Democrats—who are far too Marxist for my wallet. The same is true with the Greens—a vote for a Green candidate helps the Republicans and hurts the more philosophically similar Democrats.

For the past two presidential cycles I gave the dilemma as much consideration as my congressional representative gave my input on the bailout—none. I didn’t like George W. I still don’t, but I think he stood up quite well to the challenges of his reign, and his approval rating is still higher than the Democratic Congress (26 to 17 percent favorable). I didn’t care if either Gore or Kerry won. Ironically, this year I am even less enthusiastic for the Republicans: I think John McCain treats compromise as if it were a good thing rather than a rejection of principle; and while Sarah Palin is certainly as qualified as anyone on the other team, she portrays herself as a little too average. Frankly, I do not want another C-student in the White House; we have had a C-student in the White House for the last eight years and the results have been decidedly underwhelming.

Then I look at the Obama economic plan and I listen to his economic philosophy. I read things like “We’ve got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money.” That’s just Karl Marx’s “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need, ” with, dare I say, lipstick. Additionally, despite Obama’s apparent love for the middle class and promises to not raise income taxes on them, he has already voted for the 2009 Democratic Budget that increases taxes on individuals earning more than $32,000 and couples earning more than $64,000. If he is breaking his promise while he is still courting us, what will happen once we are married?

Under an Obama reign, every tax would increase, some to as high as 62 percent. Middle-income earners, those in the top 50 percent of all wage earners (adjusted income above $32,000) already shoulder 97 percent of the tax burden. Those making less pay only 3 percent of the tax burden. Obama’s plan would take money from the top 50 percent and hand it to the bottom 50 percent in the form of tax rebates. This is an unacceptable redistribution of wealth from the people who have more money to the people who have less. Remember, Obama did not say the rich, just those who have more.

As a libertarian, I find this type of Marxism as repulsive as being told by Joe Biden that it’s patriotic to pay more taxes. Yet casting a vote for John McCain is still difficult. McCain showed us that, by voting for the $800 billion handout, his support for the free-market is about as stable as a jelly-doughnut. I will pay close attention to the remaining debates and continue my independent research of the candidates. As of now, Bob Barr and the Libertarians still have my vote, but I just cannot shake this troublesome feeling.

In what is a Very Good Thing for U.S. Politics, former U.S. congressman Bob Barr has officially announced his plans to run for President of the United States. Barr offers a choice beyond the same coin different side nominees currently representing the Republicans or the Democrats. As a libertarian, a Bob Barr presidency is an opportunity to return the United States to its fundamental roots as a free market with limited government.

Barr is joining the race because he believes that ‘big government and big spending are the (source) of all problems’; that it is time to go back to our roots of maximum individual liberty; restore the constitution; return our military its role of national security, not international enforcers; and secure our borders. (re: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/)

According to Barr, he decided to run as a Libertarian because “there was not “currently or anywhere on the horizon” a candidate who understood the principles of fiscal conservatism and basic principles on whichÖAmerica was founded.” (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080512174415.16yxf74a&show_article=1) Just as a refresher, those principles are a limited government that works for the people—not the other way around. A government who understands that, should it become destructive of an individual’s unalienable rights, the people have the right to alter or abolish it. The Libertarian’s seek to alter the government back to its original principles of championing individual rights; and allowing the free market, not a Federal lackey or an over-hyped stimulus plan, control the economy.

Granted, third parties usually place about as well in the general election as Paris Hilton would place on Jeopardy!: a distant third. If there is a strong name recognition (Ralph Nader) or a large bankroll (Ross Perot)–third party candidates have acted as spoilers. Some Dems still blame Nader for Al Gore’s loss in 2000. Perot who, by capturing almost 19% of the vote in 1992, helped oust George Bush the First and insert Bill Clinton. Perhaps ‘insert’ is not the best word to use in reference to Bill Clinton, but I digress. Barr’s strong name recognition and strong reputation as a fiscal conservative place him firmly in the wild card spot.

Journalists and talk show hosts have asked Barr about his role as a potential spoiler—as if the Republicans or Democrats were somehow the only political parties entitled to the presidency and all others were usurpers to the throne. Sean Hannity went so far
to say that Barr might “steal” the election from the Republicans (http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/opinion-why-sean-hannity-so-angry), talk about your sense of entitlement. Barr’s response to Hannity was essentially the same as his response here: (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080512174415.16yxf74a&show_article=1) “If Senator McCain … does not succeed in winning the presidency … it will be because Senator McCain did not present, and his party did not present, a vision, an agenda, a platform and a series of programs that actually resonated positively with the American people.”

Folks at the GOP appear to be less concerned about ‘presenting a vision’ and more concerned with a Candidate Barr. According to Barr’s blog (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/), “a number of Republicans have been trying to persuade him not to run for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, but none has given him a convincing reason.” Unless, of course, cowering and whining “please let us win Mr. Libertarian” is a convincing reason.

The Village Voice asked Barr how his decidedly conservative past ties with his current Libertarian affiliation. Barr’s response: “…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 no longer a part of the Republican platform.” (http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/05/10/bob-barr-interviewed-in-the-village-voice/).

Does Barr have a chance of winning the general election? That depends, first he has to get the Libertarian nomination at their convention in Denver. If he wins there, then the questions become, are Americans as frustrated with partisan politics as they say? Are the differences between the Pants Suit, Prince Charming, and the Compromiser significant enough to be considered a choice? Is liberty a concern or are Americans happy giving up more freedoms in the name of spurious security?

According to a story in The Examiner Bob Barr already won his first delegate. From the article: “Stewart Flood, a delegate with the Libertarian Party in South Carolina, proudly walked up to Barr to declare himself the first Libertarian delegate to endorse Barr.

“He’s in it to win it,” said Flood. “Make no mistake about it.”

Last week, Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia was on the Hannity and Colmes show on the Fox News Network.  Congressman Barr has launched a Presidential Exploratory Committee for the 2008 elections, and Hannity and Colmes wanted to take the opportunity to criticize Barr about his decision.  What had Sean Hannity’s tighty whiteys in a knot was that  Congressman Barr plans to run as a Libertarian.

Both Sean and his toady Alan Colmes peppered Barr with questions attempting to marginalize him and the Libertarian party:  “Would you vote for the legalization of heroin or crack?”  (Barr responded no, but added that drugs were an issue “better handled by the state than the Federal government”, as the never-ending War on Drugs would indicate).  When the hosts allowed Barr to answer a question free from annoying interruptions he noted that the Libertarians were not a single-issue party, but a party whose overriding doctrine is to “maximize individual liberty and minimize government power”—much like the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

The Republican Party was once the party of small government and individual liberty, but it has devolved into a megalith of social conservatism (occasionally boarding on theocratic dogma), a behemoth sized government and an eradicator of civil liberties.  Libertarians want a country where, as long as force or fraud is not involved, individuals are free to do as they wish; much like the old Republican Party.  The problem for Libertarians is raising public awareness.  Barr’s name recognition  would go a long way to raising that public awareness–something that would spell disaster for the Republican Party.   And Hannity knows it.

Hannity told Barr that if Barr pulls three percent of the vote from McCain, Hillary or Obama will win the election, Hugo Chavez will be Attorney General and Alec Baldwin will be Secretary of State.  Ok, I just heard the Chavez/Baldwin comment in my head, but Hannity’s voice was tight with fear when he said Barr might “steal” the election from the Republicans.  If the imaginary theft occurred, Hannity said he would hold Barr personally responsible.  Scary.   Barr’s response was if the Republicans were not strong enough to win by more than three percent that was hardly his fault.

The chances of a Libertarian winning in November, even one with as much name recognition as Barr, are about the same as Florida counting its votes right the first time.  Barr and Hannity both know that.  What Hannity and the rest of the Neocons fear are traditional and centrist Republicans defecting to the Libertarian party.  It is in the best interest of the Republican leadership for the public to see the Libertarians as dope smoking ex-hippies who want to privatize the sidewalks.  Neocons do not want you to think of Libertarians as the last bastion for resurrecting civil liberties.  They do not want you to see the Libertarians as the party who will bring the troops home and station them on the US boarders.  They do not want you to see Libertarians as the party who believe the best person to decide what to do what your money is you, rather than a bloated Federal Government with a voracious appetite for your income.

Libertarians tend not to get involved with ideological wars without an exit strategy.  A Libertarian will ask: are we winning the War on Drugs or are we just growing an ever-expanding bureaucracy of upper level DEA managers?  A Libertarian will say that rather than some phony War on Poverty—which actually creates more dependency on the Feds—let’s keep the money in the private sector where jobs can  be created for the poor.  A Libertarian will wonder how can we win the War on Terror if we do not know when it is over.   Perhaps we should end these other wars and start a war on war slogans.

While the democrats will tell you the government programs are the solution to all our problems, and Republicans believe government program growth is necessary in this time of slogan wars, Libertarians believe the only good government program is the one that just ended.  The unalienable rights of the individual to pursue life, liberty and happiness in whatever way that individual defines (barring force or fraud), those terms are paramount to the Libertarian party and most government programs that run counter to that end.  Regardless of Bob Barr winning the election, or even the Libertarian nomination, he can carry the Libertarian message to the people.

And that is why Sean Hannity is so angry.