Steve G.

Should libertarians support Chuck Baldwin? Part II

In Immigration, Politics on July 7, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Back on May 27, I wrote a piece for Independent Political Report entitled, “Should libertarians consider Chuck Baldwin?” Unfortunately, it made a couple of incorrect assumptions.

For one, Chuck Baldwin does in fact support the Defense of Marriage Act. Secondly, he also supports an extra-constitutional federal abortion ban.

I recently interviewed Baldwin over the phone, and when asked to make his pitch to libertarians, here is what he said:

I understand that some libertarians do not share my conviction that life begins at conception and that we need to protect it. I understand that some don’t share our concerns on the moral issues, but I’ll say this to all the Libertarians and independents: If you believe that a secure border is critical to our nation’s survival, then I’m the only candidate for president in 2008 you can vote for… I’m also the guy that has historically stood against the Patriot Act, from the beginning. I will never allow eavesdropping on private citizens without a court order. I’m going to stop the New World Order, the NAFTA Superhighway. I really believe that NAFTA and GATT and WTO and all those so-called free trade deals have torn our country apart.

Baldwin was confused by the notion that “all” peaceable immigrants who wanted to work in America be allowed to, and said that the current immigration process is very “generous” and very “fair.”

He also said that he was on the same page with unilateral free trader Ron Paul, and that “maybe some libertarians don’t understand” Ron Paul’s position. Baldwin says he supports a 10% universal tariff to replace the income tax.

You can read the full report on the interview here. I will try to post the audio later today.

  1. Abortion is a lowest-level wedge issue in most elections. Big deal. (Disclaimer, my wife and I have lost a child at 38 weeks, so I know for damn sure how that feels and the gamut of emotions in that situation!).

    Rev. Baldwin has IMO a reasonable immigration stance, but then that’s the one area I disagree with the LP on (which doesn’t stop me from supporting the libertarian wing of the LP, BTW).

    His DOMA position is troubling, though, because if marriage is a “God-ordained institution”, then what role should government have in it at all? I fear his religious beliefs may be clouding some judgment there.

    His “one nation under God” comment is most disturbing, mainly because we are one nation under the Constitution. Again, religious beliefs may be clouding some judgments.

    Let’s just say, “wait and see.”

    BTW, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with his viewpoints, he should be in the debates as well if he can mathematically win.

    His

  2. That last “His” was a typo, not an incomplete thought. Oops.

  3. I thought it was a biblical reference.

    That beats thinking it was a freudian slip :-p

  4. Yes, the CP/ Howard Phillips differ from Ron Paul in the strategy regarding abortion. Both are pro-life, but have different ways of addressing the issue. This issue was also discussed with Phillips’s interview with Kent Snyder last year (it is on youtube). Phillips is witht he “conservative caucus”. Utube channel is TTTV I think.

  5. Baldwin was confused by the notion that “all” peaceable immigrants who wanted to work in America be allowed to, and said that the current immigration process is very “generous” and very “fair.”

    Isn’t it funny how most people who have never had to deal with the immigration system in this country are willing to sing its praises?

    I have never met a single person with significant contact with the INS/ICE — immigrant or American sponsor of an immigrant — who would use the words “generous” or “fair” to describe it, other than with the word “not” also included.

    Incidentally, I’m waiting, any day now, for more comedy about who Libertarians are “supposed to vote for” to expand to Green Party candidates too.

    It’s getting comical. The LP nominee isn’t a libertarian, and the other choices that are being falsely presented as “libertarian” are folks who are anti-free-labor-trade theocrats in the GOP and Constitution Party.

    One of these days, I’ll wake up from this nightmare.😛

  6. Isn’t it funny how most people who have never had to deal with the immigration system in this country are willing to sing its praises?

    I have never met a single person with significant contact with the INS/ICE — immigrant or American sponsor of an immigrant — who would use the words “generous” or “fair” to describe it, other than with the word “not” also included.

    Amen x 1,000,000!


    Incidentally, I’m waiting, any day now, for more comedy about who Libertarians are “supposed to vote for” to expand to Green Party candidates too.

    I’m off to the Green Party convention tomorrow.

    I report – you decide.

    My press pass was remarkably easy to get compared to the tragicomedy with the LP. All it took was a quick email.

    They also have a nice ride and room share service easily and conveniently linked from GP.org

    Look for coverage at

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/

    Got questions for McKinney or other Greens? Let me know.

  7. Philosophically I do not support any taxes. Having said this, I find a low revenue tarriff to be less offensive than a protectionist tarriff. So Chuck Baldwin doesn’t sound as bad on international trade as I thought he was, but I’d like it better if the revenue tarriff he was proposing was lower than 10%.

  8. Brian Miller – I’m not telling you who you should vote for. I’m posing the question, “Is this guy worth voting for?” I, of course, wholeheartedly disagree with his assessment of the immigration system, and think it’s ludicrous to call the current system “generous” or “fair.” I thought that was probably clear from the tone of my post.

    If you’re waiting for someone to make the case for Cynthia McKinney and/or Ralph Nader, then you won’t have to wait long. I have been saying for a long time that I would consider those candidates as potential choices along Rothbardian anti-imperialist lines.

  9. Statist Brian Miller is totally misrepresenting me here. I have in no way tried to portray Chuck Baldwin as a “libertarian.” I have merely posed the question, Is he worth voting for? He has a lot of negatives which I showed in this interview, without any glossing over. In fact, Baldwin is worse than I thought, since he supports DOMA and a national abortion ban. To say I’m advancing him as a “libertarian” is slander, and if I were a statist (I’m not), I’d have half a mind to sue you!!!

  10. Oh get over yourself G.E.

    I find it amusing that someone who was ardently running as a Green Party kiddo two years ago has now appointed himself Grand High Inquisitor of the LP over who is “statist” or not.

    While I appreciate your newfound zeal for Libertarianism, I’ll remind you that I was voting and campaigning for Harry Browne back when you were earnestly embracing the feel-goodism of unreconstructed Green socialism.

  11. I joined the LP in 2005, Miller. I was not in the Green Party “two years ago.”

    When you become a libertarian, be sure to let me know.

    And I was not campaigning for “socialism” during the time of Harry Browne. I was not politically active at the time.

    Get your chronology straight.

    First he accuses me of being a conservative shilling for Baldwin, and then a closet liberal. This is a frequent crutch of conservatives libertines alike who are threatened by authentic libertarian such as myself.

  12. I have a amusing mental image of you replicating your weird behavior in today’s LP back in your Green Party days, renouncing the “bourgeois capitalist Greens” while waving your little red book in the air.

    Eventually, the Angry Young Man becomes the bizarre misanthrope. It’s good to sit back and think beyond yourself from time to time.

  13. No, dickhead. I was a Naderite, not a socialist. I was opposed to the greying Marxists who were particularly anti-libertarian. But even they were largely more libertarian than you.

    Disinter has you pegged.

  14. G.E., just because someone doesn’t pass your litmus test of being a libertarian (whatever that test is, no one’s quite sure), based on your lengthy 29-year existence in life, that doesn’t give you any license to make yourself look stupid by calling them names.

    So, I agree with Brian Miller: Get over yourself, youngster.

    And I’ll add this: Grow up!

  15. … that doesn’t give you any license to make yourself look stupid…

    Stupid is a natural right. Libs don’t need no stinkin’ licenses to look stupid.

    – Susan (channeling Wes today)

  16. I’m on a Ron Paul/Campaign For Liberty meetup that recently tried to promote him as “the most libertarian candidate out there”, and perhaps that’s true…I’m agnostic but honestly at this point I’d take his honest and forthright religious views over Barr’s backdoor, wolf-in-sheeps-clothing fascism.

    I don’t know. I’m not going to vote for him, I’m wavering between a BTP or Ron Paul write-in (I’m in IL, my vote doesn’t matter, Obama will get 60%+), but yeah I’d definitely take Baldwin over Barr though that’s not saying much.

  17. “Stupid is a natural right. Libs don’t need no stinkin’ licenses to look stupid.”

    Too true, Susan.

    G.E. just happens to excel at it. In fact, there may be a business opportunity there in selling it to authoritarians.

  18. No.

  19. Why look at the Constitution Party or other conservative parties, or the Green Party or other socialist parties? If you don’t like the nominee for president of the LP, look at another libertarian party. Charles Jay is a principled libertarian. He has none of the racism and bigotry of Bob Barr. Charles has not supported Republicans with campaign funds in contests against LP candidates as Barr has. Charles has not sung the praises of the Lautenberg amendment, the defense of marriage act, nor Jesse Helms, as Barr has done. Charles is for legalising all drugs, Barr is not. Charles does not object to Wiccan chaplains in the military, Barr does. Charles has not advocated a constitutional amendment to do away with reciprocity among the several states, but Barr’s position on marriage conflicts with reciprocity. Charles has not advocated a constitutional amendment to do away with birth right citizenship, but Barr has – rather than ending the social welfare programs that Barr thinks are making birth right citizenship unworkable, Barr would rather make many Americans give up their citizenship.

  20. Because in some states, a vote for Charles Jay will not be counted.

    Plus, a lot of us Rockwellians thought Baldwin was a lot better than he’s turning out to be.

  21. Not I.

  22. Don’t Vote for Baldwin. This race is about playing politics. Set the stage for the 2012 candidate by voting for and supporting Barr. Future LP ballot access is all about vote totals. End of story.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: