Barr finally takes some firm positions: the wrong ones Posted to colliething.org

Below are a few interesting quotes from Bob Barr from an interview published May 17. Interspersed is my commentary on some of them. Other quotes from this interview were featured on Barr's campaign site, but these ones - important to delegates still unclear about Barr's positions on the issues - were left out. I have always found Barr's writing and speaking frustratingly slippery - politician-speak, in other words. But when he does take an actual firm position, it isn't particularly Libertarian.

Barr on marriage:
I do not wholeheartedly embrace the notion, for example, though, that the government cannot define any social relationship. Some libertarians believe rather strongly that the government should not even define marriage -- even the state government. I have no problem with the people of a state defining a relationship known as marriage. I believe that ought to be up to the states, not the federal government. That would be an example of where there would be a difference in degree to which we would apply the fundamental libertarian philosophy of maximized individual liberty and minimized government power.

Susan:
The first four sentences in the passage above are clearly antilibertarian, and Barr finally makes it painfully obvious that the issue of "states' rights" is more important to him than libertarianism as a candidate. Many Libs do support the devolution of federal power to the states as a step in the direction of individual liberty, but Barr makes it clear here that he is interested in states, not individuals themselves, having the power over an individual's choices.

The last sentence is purely bizarre for a candidate looking for a political party's nomination. What Barr seems to me to be saying is that he is only willing to "apply the fundamental libertarian philosophy" to a limited degree.

Barr on differences between himself and Ron Paul:
I'm sure there are differences, but I'll leave that up to other folks to make the comparison.

Barr on Afghanistan vs Iraq:
I think there are differences. I'm not an isolationist. If we have evidence that a nation or a nongovernmental entity has been engaged in acts that pose a clear and present threat to the United States or to our forces, we have every right, defensively, to take action to remove that threat, to neutralize that threat. That may very well have been the case in Afghanistan. But that is certainly not the case for a continued massive presence in Afghanistan.

Susan:
I am delighted to hear Barr say that at least a 'massive' presence in Afghanistan is unwarranted. However, as with his Iraq comments, I find no evidence that he is committed to getting the U.S. government out of Afghanistan, only declaring that the U.S. should reduce levels of involvement. But I am disappointed - though hardly surprised - that Barr confuses noninterventionism with isolationism. The idea that the U.S. has the right to invade and take over another country because some criminals who are targeting the U.S. live there is one step away from Bush's pre-emption doctrine.

Barr on the War on Drug Users:
I do not think that the American people are ready to embrace the notion that there ought to be across-the board legalization of drugs.

Susan:
I do not think that Bob Barr is ready to embrace the notion that there ought to be across-the-board legalization of drugs. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Libertarian Party does have this 'notion'. I understand that a candidate may not hew 100% to the platform or party line, but Barr's deviations represent, to me, fundamental and significant philosophical differences rather than strategic calculations. Barr wants to advance his notion of conservatism, not the LP's notion of libertarianism.
  ¶ 4:48 PM