[cross-posted at Liberty & Power]
Are you a Ron Paul supporter?
Or are you an anti-voting agorist or voluntaryist?
Either way, Bob Barr’s national field director has decided it would be a clever strategy to insult you. (Conical hat tip to Tom Woods.)
This is the first time in my life (even counting 1992!) that I’ve been rooting for an LP candidate to lose. That’s a remarkable accomplishment, Mr. Barr.
Ferguson has deleted his post. But you can still read it here. (Thanks, Anthony!)
Yes, that’s a direct slap at principled non-voters. But is it a slap at Ron Paul supporters . . . or is it recognition that Ron Paul has wasted and is wasting their support of him?
I like Ron Paul. But I’ve never considered him a political genius. His late-80s presidential bid was a waste of effort, a huge disappointment. And his recent effort did not spend money well. If you cannot make a decent television ad, then you might as well give up.
I have little evidence that the Barr people know how to marshall their rhetorical efforts that well either, of course. But Barr is low on Sisyphus’s hill; Paul had pushed the stone up higher. So we expect more of Ron. And frankly, I see no reason to praise Ron’s effort. It’s just another puff of wind shouting no into the hurricane of modern governance.
Sure, but if your main target audience is Ron Paul supporters (as Barr’s surely is), talking about how worthless Ron Paul is seems like an odd strategy.
Hey, he’s removed the post! But it’s viewable here.
Politically, it wasn’t the smartest thing to say. But the stuff about Ron Paul seemed right on the money, so to speak.
As a non-voter, I guess I should be offended by what he said about us. But I’m not easily offended, so it really doesn’t bother me.
Headline: “Bob Barr’s national field director attacks Ron Paul on MySpace blog”
Establishment libertarianism rushes to further political irrelevance.
Setting aside the laughable notion that Barr is a “credible pro-freedom candidate”, aren’t all presidential campaigns about the candidate’s ego? Obviously, no candidate would say so publicly but I find no reason to believe that Barr’s campaign is about the issues rather than Barr’s ego after he skipped a press conference where he would not be endorsed followed by this petulant post by his national field director.
I actually tend to agree that principled non-voters have been about the same impact on the public as apathetic non-voters, which is why I agree with Paul’s point that:
The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess.
It seems to me that an organized effort to get the message out could make principled non-voters more relevant.
I actually tend to agree that principled non-voters have been about the same impact on the public as apathetic non-voters
Oops, that should be “had”.
I think Mike’s statement was the best advertisement in favor of principled non-voting I’ve seen in a long time. I’d like to say it was all a result of my fiendish genius in putting together an agorist counter-economic plot involving a well-placed bribe, the promotion of non-voting and bringing the Libertarian Party into disrepute among libertarians. I’d like to, but I can’t. Sadly, I had nothing to do with that mess at all. Sometimes fate just hands us a freebie. [shrug]
‘Fess up, Brad. We all know you were behind Project Barr-Spangled Banner.
“There is no difference between the wannabe political philosopher who refuses to cast a vote “out of principle” and the lazy citizen who chooses to remain ignorant of the issues, the candidates and his or her government.” -Mike Ferguson
A “wannabe political philosopher”?
Did that sting a little, Roderick?
Since I don’t refuse to cast a vote out of principle, the comment doesn’t hit me. But it is dickish.
I love it when political hacks “self-vetted” themselves. It really does help simplify the information flow.