Endorsing Baldwin
Posted on September 29th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
It has been vexing to find my old support of Ron Paul so starkly at odds with the my later support of Bob Barr. I admit that I have been discouraged by the falling-out between them and what is admittedly the mistake of Ron Paul in refusing to make a choice several weeks ago rather than offer a blanket endorsement of third-party candidates generally. In end, despite my reservations about the disorganization inside the Constitution Party and the various state-level efforts to recruit Paul as presidential nominee, all of which reflect the typical confusion and disorder that I have come to expect from my party, I am actually a registered member of the New Mexico affiliate of the Constitution Party. I had not watched Barr’s running commentary on the presidential debate on Friday, and I only heard his post-debate remarks today. Give Barr credit–he is talking about providing leadership, and his remarks on Friday have led me to conclude that I will not vote for him in November.
No doubt he has the support of various Reason folks who refused to defend Ron Paul against the attacks leveled against him when it actually mattered, and he is welcome to that unreliable support. The main reason for supporting Barr rather than Baldwin in the first place was that Barr would prove to be a more viable candidate and would win more votes than any Libertarian or rightist third-party candidate in recent history. The objective in supporting Barr was supposed to be that he would provide someone who would unite both Paul-supporting libertarians with cultural conservatives who remembered Barr’s past record and wanted a conservative alternative to McCain. However, Ron Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin has made clear that the better candidate to support to pursue that end is Chuck Baldwin.
Considering how recently Barr has endorsed a whole host of libertarian positions, he is no position to lecture anyone about a lack of fidelity to the cause of liberty. I was willing to overlook much of Barr’s past record on the grounds that he had changed his mind, but through a series of decisions that he made I am no longer inclined to do that. If I wanted to hear Chuck Baldwin attacked as a theocrat I could find that just as easily on the left. In the end, Ron Paul retains a great deal more credibility in my eyes than Barr will ever have. Whatever mistakes he has made this year, I take him far more seriously and his endorsement has more weight with me than anything Barr might say.
Vote for Chuck Baldwin for President!
Filed under: politics
I initially supported Barr, but noticed that on his Issues page, the “life” issues, particularly Abortion isn’t there. Is it above his paygrade too? Ron Paul could state his position clearly because he didn’t care about being popular or offending anyone. You knew where he stood and that he wouldn’t change or “grow in office”. Anyone can parrot a Party’s talking points.
Daniel, I am ninety percent with you on this one (although I am, perhaps foolishly tempted to pull the Old Right-conservative-for-Nader move).
I am curious about your thoughts on one matter: Baldwin’s praise for Jerome Corsi, as Schwenkler offered as reason for his not supporting Baldwin. I’m not too worried about Baldwin the “theocrat”, but this one troubles me, too.
Cheers,
NPO
This is, after all, a protest vote, so I can’t imagine it makes much difference unless you think there’s going to be some qualitative breakthrough for one of the parties. I would, however, like to know a bit more about your reasoning.
tz: On abortion, Barr has said repeatedly that he is personally opposed but thinks the states should be permitted to decide their own laws.
Daniel: I’ve been waiting to see if you’d weigh in here. Do you really think that Baldwin is a serious presidential candidate? I mean, I know he doesn’t have a chance of winning, but do you really think he’d make a better president than, say, Barr would? Even leaving aside the strange Jerome Corsi love that Nathan refers to, there’s all the weird conspiratorial stuff about the North American Union, the impending Mexican takeover of the Southern U.S., etc., all of which gives me at least the strong sense that he’s not … fit. (In much of this he’s similar to the aged version of Ralph Nader, I think.) So even if you agree – as I don’t, really, and perhaps that’s actually the crucial difference between us – with Baldwin’s stances on trade, immigration, international law, etc., what is there in the way he’s presented himself that makes you think he has the intelligence and prudence to be anything more than an occasionally effective demagogue? I ask, not to be hostile, but because I really do respect your opinions here and I know that you know much more about Baldwin and the CP than I do …
Sorry to go off topic Daniel, but it looks like Commisar Paulson’s $700 billion monstrosity might not have enough votes:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93GH3IG1&show_article=1
219 to pass in the House, if I recall…
I won’t support any candidate who gives support to 9/11 truthers. Paul always bothered me by appearing on the Alex Jones show and otherwise treating them as serious people, but I was still able to vote for him in good conscience because he never actually expressed support for their views.
Baldwin has gone beyond that. It’s not just that he has flirted with such views, but that in the famous clip of doing so, he bases his flirtation on a meeting he had with one guy (Steven Jones). Can we trust someone whose views are so easily manipulated by a single conversation with a plausible-sounding person? Isn’t that how we ended up Iraq? (Baldwin is wrong about Kennedy too, I might add.)
Is Baldwin a serious candidate? I think he is serious enough, which may not sound like a ringing endorsement. On policy I think he has had better, more consistent judgement than Barr, and I would say this even if I were limiting the discussion to foreign policy, civil liberties and powers of the federal government. The more conspiratorial stuff doesn’t encourage me, but one thing I’ve noticed is that most “serious” people wind up coming to wrong conclusions about policy. Warning about the North American Union may be rather eccentric, but the support for sovereignty reflected in it seems more credible to me than a lot of very serious people who end up undermining the same.
I admit that his loyalty to Paul and Barr’s contempt have pushed me in this direction as much as anything else. I will admit that I am moved by as much anti-Barr sentiment now as support for Baldwin. Listening to Barr talk about how we have to retain overflight and basing rights all over the world (why? to do what?) was something of a last straw for me. If this is a protest, I’m not sure what the message is when one of the protest candidates feels obliged to concede something so significant. If a non-interventionist candidate wants to retain the ability to launch strikes anywhere in the world, I suppose I don’t think he is much of a non-interventionist.
Thanks Daniel. You are doing the right thing. Baldwin has very good instincts on policy and thankfully, as a committed Christian those instincts do not include moral libertinism or doctrinaire secularism. (The Paul endorsement of Baldwin has really driven the militant secularists and God-haters out into the open.)
I have no problem with fretting about the NAU, and I think a lot of those who do think the NAU is conspiracy theory territory are “I’m conservative, bit I’m not one of THOSE conservatives†posers.
9/11 conspiracy theorist are clearly part of any far right coalition and must be lived with. Again, I see a lot of posing. “Eww … conspiracy theorist are icky.†Their support should be accepted, but their ideas not uncritically (or even critically for that matter) endorsed.
As far as the Baldwin is just a preacher and an internet columnist line, recall that he did not want to or intend to run. He was practically begged to run by Howard Phillips and others to save the CP from neocon Alan Keyes. For that reason alone he deserves our support. Also recall that all the “big names†took a pass.
Corsi is an outspoken member of the CP. As a high profile member, I’m sure Chuck appreciates that. He also supports Corsi’s work against the NAU. He does not support Corsi’s hand-wringing about Iran.
That’s a good reminder about his role in defeating Keyes. That should count as another reason, since whatever flaws Baldwin may have the idea that Keyes might have been representing the party remains horrifying beyond description.
For the record, from what I have learned about Corsi’s book, it seems that it is not a very good book and I understand John’s concerns about Baldwin touting it. Still, I remain at a loss to understand why it is imperative that our candidates have to disown people who have said or written objectionable things while it is perfectly fine by conventional standards for major candidates to support heinous policies that actually harm people.
[...] Previously he had endorsed Bob Barr, but he has had enough of Barr’s shenanigans. [...]
I reject the idea that conspiracy theories are harmless. Wasn’t the Iraq War basically based on a conspiracy theory? People who believe stupid things will do stupid things, even if they happen by chance to be opposed to other stupid things.
As for 9/11 truthers specifically, Kathy Shaidle is right: “No one with an ounce of integrity could sincerely believe in 9/11 conspiracies and continue to go on, not only living, but grabbing their morning vente latte and texting their equally vapid pals as if nothing had happened.” (Obviously she has lefist truthers in mind; substitute more right-wing habits for Paulite/Baldwinite truthers.)” Such a person is a “morally bankrupt and unserious individual, … an ethical exhibitionist, a poseur, [and] a dilettante.”
The URL for the full Shaidle quotation, by the way, should anyone want it, is: http://shaidle.blogmatrix.com/:entry:shaidle-2007-05-06-0002
And yes, there are errant quotation marks after “Paulite/Baldwinite truthers.)” in the post above. My apologies.
Daniel, this is all very embarrassing. Why not just suck it up, be a mensch, and vote Obama? Sometimes you have to do things you don’t like, but let’s face it, if you genuinely feel that the worst thing that can happen to this country is for John McCain to become the next President, the best thing you can do in that case is to vote for Obama. Voting for a third party candidate is making sure your vote doesn’t count at all. I’m not really sure how you can justify your vote, except by pretending there isn’t any difference between McCain and Obama, which is the same as pretending there was no difference between Gore and Bush in 2000. Voting in a swing state makes it all the more crucial.
Because Obama holds disgraceful and indefensible views? How about that? I am getting tired of having to explain why I don’t support someone with whom I agree on essentially nothing.
As I have been arguing for the last several days, and as everyone who watched the debate Friday knows, there are not very many differences between the two of them and in terms of what either one will be able to do once in office the differences will be even smaller. Besides, if Obama cannot win without my vote he isn’t going to get close to winning.
James, I don’t have much use for conspiracy theories either, but I don’t think all conspiracy theorists examine evidence and then come to a conclusion. In my experience, conspiracy theories are embraced because of a habit of mind. A predisposition. It is a default judgment of some.
When I first drifted to the “far”-right, I used to spend a lot of time worrying about conspiracy theorists. But what I found out is that they were everywhere. I was wasting my time and alienating potential allies. Conspiracy theorists, like the poor, we have always with us. Spend too much time fretting about them and you will either give yourself an ulcer or drift back to the useless “mainstream” right.
There will be no “far”-right coalition that doesn’t include them.
Also, I am a bit perplexed by the guy who goes to the mat for the cause of anti-conspiracy. It definitely has a “but I’m not one of them” feel to it. (Very similar to the “but I’m not a racist” PC-cons.) Don’t forget that to the mainstream right, talking about the Fed and gold makes one a fringe conspiracy theorist. Talking third-party makes one a conspiracy theorist.
There are definitely unsavory elements of any movement that it is best to keep at arm’s length, but there is also MUCH danger in purges. Look at the modern “conservative†movement, for example.
Well, the problem is less with conspiracy theorists as such than with the idea that we should vote for a conspiracy theorist for president. But I agree that that isn’t the biggest deal, nor is his effusive praise of Corsi (which is, of course, more troubling than a simple unwillingness to “disown” him) the end of the world – in any case it’s clearly a less important issue than basing rights.
The thing that frustrates me most about all of this is that Baldwin clearly isn’t the kind of candidate who can draw a wide enough array of voters to make a real electoral difference: Barr failed there as well, of course, but at least in his case the potential was there. If there’s ever going to be a serious third-party challenge, it’s going to have to come from someone who uses a lot less “Christian nation” rhetoric than Baldwin does.
Voting for a conspiracy theorist is a big deal. I cannot vote for Baldwin in good conscience.
For one, it proves something already about the candidate’s grasp of issues. Or lack of. To hold to a theory of 9/11 being an inside job, for example, one must presume a belief about the administration as having an almost cartoony level of super competence and even omnipotence. As well as casting a spell over every complicit member of the conspiracy. Leaks or conscientious objections from within this administration, unthinkable right?
And then as a CT candidate, one has already demonstrated very little understanding of history and U.S. foreign policy. It only takes a reasonable amount of research into the history of U.S. foreign policy to identify the trajectories from which 9/11 arose. For such conspiracy theorist candidates, that’s not enough. There must always be a larger secretive order to the world, administered by demi god like puppet masters manipulating the course of history to devious ends. Somehow the only ones who GET IT are people incompetent in any of the relevant fields but can get the messaeg out with their blogs, newsletters, and youtube clips.
So this sort of conspiracy scenario of course resembles what we’ve all learned from the movies more than anything else. The kind of conspirators we are being told about originated in PLOT DEVICES.
Meanwhile, governments do lie and cover up, but not in the way they do it in the movies. This is JUST like how details on supposed UFO sightings changed after Close Encounters of the Third Kind was inducted into our collective imagination.
By my lights, going from Bush to say a Baldwin with his CT elements is just exchanging one fallacious model of Manicheanism for another. We don’t need another leader like this, someone demonstrably unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality with high priority issues. And we ought not to encourage their like with a “protest vote”
but that’s just me
j
OK, I must have missed something. What is the issue with Corsi? Corsi was definitely fear mongering on Iran, but he has backed off that some. Baldwin disagrees with him on Iran. Corsi is right to warn of a NAU even if it may not be as tight an idea as he presents it. If you don’t think there are people who would like an EU style union in North America, then you are kidding yourself. But I get the feeling these issues are not what you are objecting to.
Corsi has said in numerous interviews about his Obama book including on Larry King that he supports Chuck Baldwin. This is a great thing. All the other “mainstream” conservatives should repudiate McCain and do the same. (Fat chance, I know.)
I said “The Paul endorsement of Baldwin has really driven the militant secularists and God-haters out into the open.”
You said “it’s going to have to come from someone who uses a lot less “Christian nation†rhetoric than Baldwin does.”
Thanks for proving my point. America may or may not be a “Christian nation” in the sense that some “Christian nation” proponents believe it to be, but it was and still is to some extent a Christian nation in the particularistic sense. Wishing to conserve that seems to me a non-negotiable bare minimum requirement of being able to call yourself a conservative. Need I remind you that secularism and pluralism are liberal values?
Red,
I speak only, for sure, for myself, but I think that John has similar views, that, inter alia, Corsi is a problem because his book trashing Obama, compared to, say, Freddoso’s, is absolutely laced (or, I admit, so I have heard; I’ve been sufficiently turned off not even to bother picking it up) with half-truths, falsehoods, and unfair smearing, rather than accurate, legitimate criticism of a man whose many faults can easily be noted, and, all too often, have been ignored by a mainstream media fawning left and right over him.
NPO
Larison,
Would you post about the upcoming internet debate that includes Chuck Baldwin?
It is on Revolution Broadcasting on October 9, 2008 from 9pm to midnight EST (8-11pm CST).
There is also Trevor Lyman’s moneybomb for another third party debate – he just needs to get 10,000 pledges (any amount) by October 8.
Thsi is probably Baldwin’s best chance at some publicity.
Joe Branca: Thank you. You said it more eloquently than I was able to.
I am not really fond of Barr either, though (let alone Nader or McKinney). The fact that we have not merely two bad candidates, but six, really depresses me.
Daneil,
First, I think everyone has to vote by assuming that their vote may actually swing the election, otherwise no one will bother voting. I, for instance, am arguing this matter because I think your vote matters.
Second, every candidate, including Barr, Baldwin, Nader, and every other thrid party candidate holds some disgraceful and indefensible views.Of course, ideological views are not as important as what will actually happen to the country under that candidate’s leadership.
Third, the reality is that either Obama or McCain will be the next President. If you think the country will actually be the same under either of them, then fine, I’ll lay off your case. But if you think one is likely to be significantly worse than the other, as with Bush/Gore, I think one has to lay aside ideology and vote for the better candidate. In relation to just one issue – actually going to war with Iran – I think there’s as huge a difference between these two candidates, just as there was with Bush/Gore.
So, if you don’t take personal offense at me challenging you on your voting choice, I’d like you to address the difference between ideological responsibility and practical responsibility, and why you feel it really doesn’t make a difference whether Obama or McCain is elected.
I hate to break it to the “you have a responsibility to vote for one of the two party social democrats” crowd, but nobody’s individual vote matters. Do the math. The likelihood of a single vote mattering is essentially zero. Therefore you should vote your conscience. Big picture wise, to vote for either of the two duopoly parties simply rewards them and reinforces the system. Voting third party is a way to not reinforce and vote against the system. Your argument is circular (You can’t vote third party because nobody votes third party) and one that perpetually empowers the status quo.
A Christian who votes for either a baby killer (Obama) or a war monger (McCain) should be ashamed of themselves, IMO.
I don’t know if Corsi’s book is full of exaggerations, I haven’t really followed the debate. But even if it is, is that worse than stoking fear that might plunge us into war with Iran? Corsi endorsed Baldwin on Larry King. What would you have Baldwin do, throw him under the bus? Baldwin clearly identifies with Corsi on some things (NAU) and not others (Iran). I very much disagree with Corsi on Iran, but I wouldn’t run from his endorsement. Mountains out of molehills.
The question is raised about how Baldwin would govern. Well he would bring home the troops for one. Will McBama?
I have looked at the so-called conspiracy statements from Baldwin. He calls for a new investigation and says “I don’t know†if there was a conspiracy. This seems reasonable, and given the votes he is vying for, politically astute. If he was ever vying for some mainstream votes, then it might come back to haunt him but he is not. He is vying for disaffected voters and his competition is primarily Barr and staying home and maybe Nader and McKinney. If so-called conservatives really were, then he would be competing with McCain, but they aren’t so he isn’t. He does not endorse any particular conspiracy. I really don’t know what you would have him do. Tell the questioners to go jump? You heard that when he answered the question that way, the crowd applauded.
This is really quite comical. So Baldwin is a no go because he is tainted by Corsi and Stephen Jones but the baby killer or the Iran bomber are just fine and dandy. Give me a break. Sounds like a bunch of two party shills talking themselves out of doing the right thing.
“I’d like you to address the difference between ideological responsibility and practical responsibility, and why you feel it really doesn’t make a difference whether Obama or McCain is elected.”
Their differences on foreign policy are, when you get down to it, wafer-thin, and in the wake of the last few weeks their differences on fiscal and domestic matters will be pretty much irrelevant to how they will actually govern. So in terms of what either one will do if elected, it really doesn’t make a difference. It certainly doesn’t make enough of a difference to back a candidate whose views are the opposite of mine on just about every issue.
Obviously, I don’t think Baldwin holds disgraceful and indefensible views, which is why I consider him worth supporting. If you could give an example of such a view, perhaps I would be inclined to change my mind, but you would probably consider indefensible things that I think are sensible. You probably find some of his views to be both of these things. That’s your prerogative, and that would make sense coming from an Obama supporter. The point is not just that Obama has “some” views that are like this. I think most things that he stands for could be described this way, and even the views that are defensible I don’t agree with. There is virtually no common ground at all.
Daniel,
Thanks for clarifying your views. Clearly, you don’t see any differerence, and I of course think you are wrong there, but that’s another story.I wonder if you would, in retrospect, say the same thing about the Bush/Gore 2000 election. Do you think Gore would have invaded Iraq? Do you think Obama is more of a militant interventionist than Gore, or McCain less of one than Bush?
I went to Baldwin’s website to check out his views, and quickly came across this policy which seems to be central to his candidacy:
The Baldwin/Castle Doctrine
No foreign government or world government body or entity, not even an ally or neighbor of the US is allowed to own any portion of US roads, airports, homes, buildings, lands, waters, resources (oil, gas, precious metals, minerals, etc,), religious facilities (no matter what faith), stocks, bonds, US treasury notes, businesses, banks, military bases or military assets or manufacturing facilities in the US regardless of how much the foreign governments donate to the political campaigns or private fortunes of US officials, elected or bureaucratic, or even to the US treasury.
Now, I think this alone qualifies as way beyond “indefensible and disgraceful”, particuarly in that it’s the first item on his list of policies. Do you actually support this? Do you support congress enacting this into law come January when or if Baldwin becomes President?
I think the part about a ban on foreign governments holding bonds and Treasury notes makes no sense, considering how much of our debt is held by foreign governments and investors. You’ve got me there. As for the rest, though, I can’t think of any examples where foreign governments own portions of our roads or homes or military bases, etc. So, no, I don’t support this. Half of it is redundant, and half of it seems unworkable. So I would have to qualify my earlier statement: Baldwin holds one or two views that I don’t accept.
Here’s another crazy idea. Baldwin supports the Paul Bill stripping the Supreme Court of any authority over abortion, which is nutty enough, but then there’s this:
Under my administration, we could end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades [by passing the Paul Bill]. And if Congress refuses to pass Dr. Paul’s bill, I will use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office.
Now, what Baldwin seems to be proposing is that pro-life brownshirts violently attack abortion clinics, and presumably attack any workers, doctors, patients, and pro-choice supporters, and burn down the facilities, without the government in any way intervening to protect them. Which means that any state or local police force which does so would be barred from receiving any federal funds. Or, that federal troops be used to actually prevent such state and local forces from protecting abortion clinics. There’s no other sensible interpretation of his vow that his actions will end legal abortion within days of his taking office.
Is this really a sane policy? I think it’s beyond “indefensible and disgraceful”. Whatever your views on abortion, do we really want the federal government sanctioning violent vigilantes attacking the opponents of its policies? Where exactly does this end? What exactly is the point of limited government if it uses violent vigilantes to impose by force whatever policies it deems correct, even if the democratic process does not? Will this same policy be used to prevent gay marriages say, by allowing people to attack gay marriage ceremonies violently with no police protection? Or any other act which Baldwin deems offensive to his particular “Christian” values?
In short, Daniel, I think this guy is a dangerous nutjob who is utterly unqualified for any kind of elective office, including dog catcher. He has no understanding of any serious issues, of how to govern sensibly and sanely, by any standards, liberal or conservative. He’s a disgrace and a fool. How can you possibly defend voting for him. Bob Barr may have his problems, but he’s miles ahead of this guy. That Ron Paul could endorse him shows just how poor Paul’s judgment is. I really think you should re-think your support for Baldwin, and even if I’m obviously coming from a very different political orientation, I do generally respect your views even when I disagree with them. But in this case, I can’t respect your support for Baldwin at all.
As an aside, do you also support Baldwin’s policy of imposing tarrifs on all imports, and returning to a tarrif-based federal revenue system such as we had in the 19th century? Which means abrogating virtually all our trade agreements and withdrawing from the WTO? Any idea of what the consequences of such a policy would be?
Regarding foreign ownership of American property, Baldwin explains his doctrine thusly:
We’ve heard about the Spanish company Centra holding the lease on the Trans Texas Corridor, the Indiana Tollway, etc., and many are probably aware that foreign companies are buying American infrastructure rapidly. Now the Sovereign Wealth funds which many countries hold are buying our foreclosed homes. Abu Dhabi has $875 billion, Norway $391 billion, Singapore $303 billion, Kuwait $264 billion in their funds to name a few. These countries are hiring American real estate companies to buy billions in foreclosed American real estate at bargain prices. This is intolerable, embarrassing and unacceptable for a Sovereign and once great nation to endure.
So Baldwin is talking about any form of investment by foreign governments in any kind of security instrument tied to home mortgages, for example. Many foreign governments re-invest their dollars in American investments of one kind or another, not just treasury bonds. Baldwin would forbid this. Watch the value of the dollar crash to that of the yen, and maybe soon thereafter, the lira. This guy hasn’t the slightest comprehension of economics. But you want him to be President. Not only would either McCain or Obama be far superior, but so would Sarah Palin.
I don’t think what he’s proposing here concerning investments is actually within the power of the federal government to do, or at least not under the kind of interpretation of the Constitution that I assume he otherwise endorses, so again I don’t agree with it. It seems to me that you’re reading too much into the statement on abortion, but I have always had my doubts about this sort of end-abortion-by-fiat rhetoric when it came from Howard Phillips. I don’t support tariffs on all imports; I am willing to contemplate using tariffs, but not that extensively. Find me another candidate who takes sovereignty, trade and life remotely seriously, and then maybe I’ll think about it again. Oh, that’s right, there isn’t one. Let me also be clear, as I said above, that this is as much a protest against Barr as it is support for Baldwin. Barr’s remarks on bases and overflight rights are a dealbreaker with me anyway, which leaves the options of Baldwin or not voting.  Â
Your far superior candidates favor in principle launching unnecessary and hazardous wars (on Iran, for starters), trampling on the Constitution (support for the PATRIOT Act) and they support, as of this weekend, embarking on a huge expansion of government power in the financial sector. That doesn’t even touch on their dangerous views on Russia. Yes, tell me about how superior they are.
I guess I don’t know who I’m dealing with. I assumed since this is Am Con that the commenters were people who fancied themselves paleocons. I thought this was about, “I’m a paleocon, but I’m too ’smart’ to vote for Baldwin.” But I guess not. I don’t think these folks consider themselves conservative anything.
Striping jurisdiction from SCOTUS is Constitutional and would be an excellent policy. That this hasn’t been done so far proves that the GOP is not serious about abortion.
Baldwin favors abolition of the income tax and a revenue tariff. This too is a great idea and one I don’t see how any conservative could disagree with. To what degree Baldwin support protectionist tariffs (not just for revenue) is not clear. Here he has some supporters who are very pro-free trade and some who are not. I think he is trying to walk a fine line here. But all conservative should support getting out of sovereignty sacrificing free-trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO even if they are free-traders.
Clearly there is a lot of Baldwin hate out there. But it is hardly an argument against Baldwin that liberals and other non-conservatives don’t like him. If they did, he would be doing something wrong.
Mr. Phillips: Conrad G. is obviously a liberal who admires Mr. Larison’s work to an extent, but also enjoys needling him and provoking him. I suppose some might consider him a “troll,” though I wouldn’t go that far. Since this is a public site, anyone can posts here who wants to. I suppose an abusive or obviously unhinged poster could, would, and should be banned, but it would probably be unwise to ban someone solely on account of expressing unpopular (at least here; usually popular in the world at large) beliefs. Eventually he will probably get tired and go away, and even if he doesn’t, that doesn’t mean other posters are liberal.
One good thing that has to be said about Barr is that even if he has soft-pedaled his stance on abortion, he still professes it, whereas he could gain greater popularity with Reason-style libertarians by abandoning it. That would seem to indicate that (despite the lurid rumors about his past, the main thing which keeps me from endorsing him) he really believes it. Does anyone know how he stands on ESCR?
I certainly wasn’t suggesting anyone be banned. Just trying to put my comments in perspective. We seemed to be arguing past each other.
The issue with third party candidates is not whether they are qualified because, as things currently stand, they aren’t going to win. Voting third party is about sending a message. Besides, who is qualified to be President the way the office is currently conceived (CaC, CEO, Leader of the Free World, etc.)? Baldwin is certainly qualified to veto unconstitutional legislation which is the main job of a constitutional President. He has an extensive track record of where he stands on the issues. His very large archive is available for all to see. I challenge paleos to go take a look. There is very little to object to and much to admire.
More later.
For the record, as others who’ve posted here for a while have noted, I’m a liberal who is intrigued by paleocon ideas, and who admires a fair amount of Larison’s writings, but of course disagrees to a serious extent as well. I’m someone who enjoys engaging people with widely different perspectives, as this both challenges and makes me question my own ideas, and I hope has a similar effect on others. I don’t think that’s the definition of a troll. To me, it’s what being “liberal” means.
I can certainly see the value of many of Ron Paul’s ideas, even if as a politician he’s lacking many needed qualities. I can also see an integrity in Bob Barr, and also a necessary sense of realism. In Baldwin, I’m sorry, this dude is just a dangerous nutcase, and I can’t respect him. Daniel’s decision to vote for him seems desperate and self-blinding. I think he’s better off not voting at all, if he can’t find anyone else. Or, perhaps, a write-in vote for Ron Paul. However, on practical grounds I still think there’s enough of a practical difference between McCain and Obama to justify voting Obama to keep the very dangerous McCain out of power, but I can certainly understand why some will disagree. The argument that one’s vote doesn’t matter is, I think, utterly irresponsible, and unfortunately that’s how many paleocons here seem to regard their votes. It’s one thing if there were a truly legitimate and sane paleocon candidate out there to vote for, but there isn’t.
Unfortunately the paleocon movement seems to have no real practical path to achieving its goals, and is so obsessed with ideological purity that it cannot even imagine finding one. Oddly enough, I don’t find all the goals of the paleocon vision unattractive. Quite a few are in agreement with liberal goals. But the inability to compromise or to find a practical path to acheive those goals places them in the company of too many nutty fringe movements out there that, having given up on practical matters, devote themselves to pointless exercises in ideological purity that are essentially narcissistic, and thus genuinely at odds with the elements of the conservative tradition I actually do admire and respect.
Daniel,
Regarding Baldwin’s desire to end all foreign investments, you may be right that the Constitution doesn’t allow this sort of thing, and your’re definitely right that there’s nothing “conservative” about this exercise of state power. Which is precisely my point. This isn’t just some peripheral part of Baldwin’s campaign, it is front and center his main policy. It goes by the name of the “Baldwin Doctrine” for god’s sake, and is listed first on his issues page. What this tells me is that this guy isn’t even a conservative at all when it comes to state power. He just wants to use state power in his way, to achieve his ends, rather than to establish a genuinely conservative or libertarian society. He’s willing to trample the Constitution far more blatantly than the Patriot Act does. And yes, given this attitude I think it’s very clear that he wants to sanction violent brownshirts to do his work if congress won’t go along with his agenda, and have the state stand by and not interfere or protect pro-choice advocates and abortion clinics.
Now, I’m well aware that this is not the kind of thing you would knowingly sanction, so I’m simply pointing this out to you in the hope that you will take off the blinders and realize that this dude is simply beyond the pale. Why don’t you just write in Ron Paul?
Also, regarding the power of congress to limit appellate jurisdiction, this is a loophole in the Constitution that I think has to be treated very carefully, or it become an end-around the bill of rights. Previously, congress has only acted to limit appellate jurisdiction in rare cases involving conflicts at the level of the state, such as preventing tax disputes from being argued in courts, or allowing public entities to regulate utility prices, etc. It has never been used to limit any state infringements on individual rights from being contested at the federal level, and doing so is about the worst precedent I could ever imagine our government doing. Using appellate jurisdiction to override the right to control one’s own reproductive rights is opening the door to a fascist state, plain and simple, which violates every libertarian principle there is. How anyone could oppose the Patriot Act, and yet be in favor of this, is beyond me, regardless of how strongly one feels about abortion. We could end free speech in this country in an instant with a simple majority vote of congress and the President’s signature, simply by making all lawsuits involving free speech free of appellate jurisdiction. I hope you see the dangers here.
Of course, any one vote doesn’t matter. That’s not a conceit. That’s a recognition of the reality that one vote out of tens of millions is not important.
I was originally willing to support Barr because he seemed a plausible candidate to win a larger share of the vote and build on Ron Paul’s success in the primaries. He preferred to have a public fit over Paul’s admittedly mistaken multi-endorsement, thereby guaranteeing that a lot of Paul supporters and donors wouldn’t lift a finger for him and so more or less ended his prospects as the candidate who was most likely to win a larger number of votes than previous LP candidates. Originally, I wanted to back Barr and resisted those who were calling on me to back Baldwin because I thought it made no sense to split the vote betwee different rightist parties that were arguing for many of the same things. However, whatever chance Barr had to improve the LP’s share of the vote has more or less evaporated, which makes it far less necessary to overlook Barr’s flaws and to ignore his remarks when he says things regarding foreign policy that certainly do not represent my views.
I will vote for the person whose views most closely resemble mine, and on the whole I have always been closer to the Constitution Party than the Libertarians. If that is narcissism, I don’t know what you call the Pavlovian and identitarian responses of most voters who gush about how like them this or that candidate is. It seems to me that people who vote based on gut feelings, identity and lifestyle politics are a lot more self-absorbed than those of us who take policy differences seriously, and they account for a huge part of the electorate. The reasons most Obama voters can give for why they are backing him are laughably trivial, and the same is true for most McCain voters, but that’s just the way things are. The idea that I should take voting more seriously than 80 or 90% of the electorate is amusing, but ultimately pretty silly. It is the “responsible” voters who are indeed responsible for foisting terrible major party candidates on us every election, so forgive me if I don’t care to join them in legitimizing one of the two.
Daniel,
Saying that you’re no worse than the average voter isn’t saying much. I was under the impression that we are all elitists here, you most of all, who don’t fall sway to these merely narcissistic identity appeals. I’m not suggesting its narcissistic to be a member of the Constitution party. I’m saying it’s narcissistic to be primarly looking for a candidate who makes one feel better about oneself in some abstract, ideological sense, without actually being a real, honest to goodness Presidential figure who can actually govern the country. That you have some basic agreements with Baldwin in the abstract does not outweigh the reality that he’s a very bad candidate who would make a terrible President. You are even assiduously overlooking terrible violations of your own values in the man and his “doctrines”, if you can call them that. On the other hand, perhaps I have misjudged you. I had assumed you were a serious person who took his politics seriously, rather than the kind of callow ideologue looking for a mirror to comb his hair in who Baldwin seems to attract. I’m not sure how important Barr’s falling out with Paul is, I don’t have high speed internet in my area to download video, but Baldwin seems unnacceptable to any serious person, regardless of their ideology, unless that ideology is a form of brownshirting fascism.
BTW, Daniel, all I’m asking you to do is take the same, judicious, skeptical approach to Baldwin as you have done to Sarah Palin. I think you’ll find he’s even less qualified than she is.
One other smal example of Baldwin’s sheer idiocy. There’s this from his main policy article “If I Were President”:
There is absolutely no reason for us to be dependent upon OPEC. There is enough gas and oil under the soil of Alaska (not to mention the Dakotas and the Gulf of Mexico) to meet the energy needs of the United States for the next 150-200 years. There is also no reason that gas should cost more than $1.50 a gallon (which is about what it was before Bush became President).
Even Sarah Palin isn’t this stupid. How can you support someone who is actually stupider than Sarah Palin?
Red: I didn’t mean to insinuate you wanted to ban anyone. I just meant that you were oddly extrapolating from one liberal poster to an imaginary herd of liberal posters, and that at any site where dissenters from the prevailing ethos of the site are allowed to comment, one or more will inevitably do so.
Honestly, the names of all the dissenters were running together in my mind. So conradg is a liberal. That wasn’t necessarily what I was picking up on. More an “oh so serious” vibe, so serious that “I couldn’t possibly vote for a yahoo like Baldwin.”
Third party politics is a messy business by its very nature. You have to be willing to get your hands dirty if you want to play.
Play in the two major parties all you want in the primaries. That is fine. But you can’t just inevitability support one or the other dud in the general. That is not serious. That is sheepish.
Two things have to be clear here:
First, no one thinks that Baldwin has a snowball in Hell’s chance of winning. So his particular positions are not as much of an issue.
Second, the real goal here is to build a party to oppose the current two parties. The Constitution Party is extreme on some issues, but it is more nation-oriented than the Libertarian Party, and more friendly to traditional social mores. In particualar, it is more immigration-restrictionist. While both parties support federalism in principal, the CP is more interested in state and local control in practice, and in clear state-federal divisions. Finally, it has a position on monetary policy (pro-gold standard) whereas the Libertarian Party does not, to my knowledge.
The point is, people are not voting for Baldwin to get his agenda passed, they are voting for him to increase the political organization of people with socially conservative, pro-national sovereignty, pro-sound money ideas.
Well if that’s the goal, then the CP isn’t going to get you there: any serious third-party effort is going to have to make some compromises, and it seems obvious to me that a fundamentally anti-war and decentralizing libertarian coalition is the way to go. Wherever Baldwin stands on the issues, there’s no denying that his rhetoric, together with his extreme stances on things like trade, make him a poor fit to bring together the sort of cross-spectrum coalition that is really needed for an effective protest vote. Then again I guess that Barr has failed in that, too …
Oh, and RedPhillips: I think it was me, more than anyone else, who got under your skin with my questions about Baldwin’s seriousness – but I’m a Barr supporter, and have no desire to “play in the two major parties”.
I understand the goals of third party cadidates: party building. But why do they have to nominate such nut-cases with no capacity whatsoever to build a credible party? It’s no different on the left, which is why I go for the two-party system in most cases. Perot was the last guy with a chance, but he revealed himself as a nutcase also, and no one could put together an actual party in his wake. So I tend to look at all this as ideological masturbation, with no real point to it at all except narcissistically getting off. If voting doesn’t matter, then don’t vote at all, but if you are going to vote, try to vote for someone who will really matter in the scheme of things. A credible third party candidate, platform, or party could make sense, but only if they actually make sense. Baldwin doesn’t. This is like building sandcastles below the tide line.
A credible third party candidate, platform, or party could make sense, but only if they actually make sense. Baldwin doesn’t. This is like building sandcastles below the tide line.
If there is enough support for the Constitution Party, they may be able to get better candidates, or be able to get more reasonable people into lower offices.
But why do they have to nominate such nut-cases
Well, the major parties nominated nutcases also, so it all evens out.
Wherever Baldwin stands on the issues, there’s no denying that his rhetoric, together with his extreme stances on things like trade, make him a poor fit to bring together the sort of cross-spectrum coalition that is really needed for an effective protest vote.
Well, again my hope is to get a better quality of candidates if there are more votes available.
I will give a spirited defense of Baldwin when I have more time, but for now I say again, read his archives. There is very little there that paleocons will object to. Libertarians will object to some of it. Liberals will object to most of it. If they didn’t he would be doing something wrong. Baldwin is a very solid paleocon candidate, period.
Conradg, calling someone a nutcase is not an argument. It is childish name calling. There are many who think that all third party candidates are nutcases. That anyone who talks about gold or the Fed or the Constitution even are nutcases. You are going to have to to better than foot stomping and name calling. “Ew, Baldwin is a nutcase.” The mainstream boys said the same thing about Ron Paul.
I don’t see how voting for a bad 3rd party candidate does anything but encourage 3rd parties to nominate more bad candidates. I don’t think all 3rd party candidates are nutcases. Barr and Nader are not nutcases, for example. The argument that the major parties also nominate nutcases doesn’t fly. One can have profound disagreements with Obama or McCain, Bush or Gore or Kerry or Clinton or Dole, but they are not nuts. Baldwin is nuts, as I have already documented. The “Baldwin Doctrine” is sheer fruitcake thinking. Sorry for the pejorative, but in this case it fits. I’m sure I don’t know enough about the inner workings of the Paleocon movement to say why such people would support Baldwin, but if they had any interest in widening their appeal, they would reject Baldwin and others like him, and at least nominate some fairly sane and sensible individual who has at least a basic grasp on reality.
condadg,
I think that a large part of Daniel’s point is that “nutcase” is in part a matter of definition, and that anything within the “accepted” range of political discourse is automatically accepted as “not nuts.” As a person who increasingly identifies as a left libertarian, I would certainly agree that Baldwin is a bit of a nutcase. But I would also put McCain in that category. Just because McCain’s foriegn policy views are relatively mainstream doesn’t make them any less nutty.
Yes, I really, really, do believe that McCain is every bit as nutty as Baldwin. And, on balance, Baldwin, while every bit as nutty as McCain, holds nutty views that, on the whole, are much less dangerous than McCain’s nutty views.
LM,
I agree that McCain is starting to slip into nutcase territory, which is why I think he’s also starting to tank in the polls. No one says this outloud, but he seems unstable. But Baldwin is really much worse, and he has no media spotlight on him, so no one much cares.
My point is that if paleocons want to grow their numbers, aquire some kind of party legitimacy as a movement, they have to nominate candidates who at least have a basic sanity about them and can make solid arguments for their cause that stand up outside the small world of inner-third party bickering. Baldwin simply can’t do that. If I were to make a suggestion, why not nominate someone young, smart, intellectually aggressive, highly literate, with a firm grasp on the general political scene, and yet possessed of all the basic paleocon values and agendas. There’s no need to find someone with actual political experience, if they can speak loudly and attract basic respect from others. In other words, where’s the “Draft Daniel Larison and James Poulos” movement among paleocons?
If I were to make a suggestion, why not nominate someone young, smart, intellectually aggressive, highly literate, with a firm grasp on the general political scene, and yet possessed of all the basic paleocon values and agendas.
That’s not a bad idea, but for this election, we have to go with the choices we have. The only problem with Barr and Nader is that I do not think that the Barr campaign is going to build the Libertarian Party much after the election, and Nader is not building any party with his candidacy.
I’m not very familiar with the third party conservative world, but is it possible that what’s needed is a new third party, maybe called “The Paleoconservative Party”, which doesn’t have the baggage of the Libertarians and Constitutionalists, but aims at a real national agenda and reformation of the conservative movement? I was under the impression that name “Conservative Party” is already taken. I’m talking about the kind of party that could actually try to change the conservative movement, and gain real credibility at the national level of intelligent debate, if not actual electoral power. Looking at that the coming conservative wasteland as Daniel is, with the likelihood that Obama will win handily in November, and probably be impregnable for re-election, what do conservatives really have to lose by trying to build a party that presents an alternative agenda that is both realistic and intelligently presented? It could actually gain some votes in a Presidential election year from conservatives disaffected with the Republican party, which is going to lose the next two elections anyway (or so it seems from here).
conradq,
Hmm, how do I say this without sounding like I’m insulting our host and other commenters (and I really am not insulting them – I have genuine respect for most of their views, while not agreeing with them). The fact that Daniel talks mostly about things that an anti-war liberal can agree with, and stays away (for the most part) from the things that you would find most … out of the mainstream? … shouldn’t obscure the fact that Daniel in particular, and the paleocons in general, hold beliefs that, by your lights, are pretty out there. Maybe not quite as out there Baldwin, but … let’s put it this way: A true paleocon party, for better or worse, is not going to ever have electoral success, absent a sea change in the political beliefs of the typical American.
LM,
I’m under no illusion that I would be attracted to vote for Paleocons, but I do think they have something valuable to contribute to the political conversation, and thus I’d like to see them gain at least some credibility. Even though I’m a liberal, I think conservatism is a valuable tradition that needs to re-assess itself and grow stronger in order to make healthy contributions to the polity. Right now, conservatism is toxic and a drain on the country, for the most part, and I don’t see that as a good thing. I’m not expecting conservatism to become “like liberalism”, just to become something that has a healthy backbone and can create a “vision” of our country and the world that I can at least respect. It’s important in politics to have healthy opposition, rather than the toxic vengence we so often see.
[...] Prior to this recent slew of endorsements, Chuck Baldwin was endorsed by heroic constitutionalist, Ron Paul. He has also been endorsed by American Conservative blogger and paleoconservative favorite Daniel Larison. [...]