Bob Barr and the Libertarians: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Is Bob Barr a "Looney Tune"? I don't think so. He may be a nasty attack dog for the manner in which he went after the Clintons, but that's personal ugliness, which is matched by other ugly aspects of his personal life. (You could look it up.) However, in terms of policies, I perceive some good stuff in his very brief issues statements. Some of it sounds more progressive than what Obama has proposed.

My main problem with the Libertarians is that I think they completely misunderstand the nature of our corporate-based economic and political system. Therefore they buy into the notion that we have a "free market". They assume that this hypothetical free market will always work its magic. Always for the good. Just get Big Government out of the way.

Nevertheless, despite seeming to be oblivious to the problem of corporatism, Barr and the Libertarians aren't conscious corporatists. They hate taxes so much that they want to end "corporate welfare". However, they're corporate-enablers in that they want government to get out of the way and let the high rollers play.

The part of the "Cut Big Spending" section of Barr's platform that refers to the military reads like this:

* The federal government must take the lead in making significant cuts in spending.
Focusing on earmarks risks distracting attention from the broader problem of a
government wildly wasting the money of hard-working Americans. Tens of billions of
dollars in corporate welfare — essentially aid to dependent corporations — should be
eliminated. Largesse for middle- and upper-income Americans, particularly so-called
“entitlement” programs, must be cut. Billions in so-called defense spending, which protects
America’s populous, prosperous allies rather than Americans, must be eliminated.

I rate the corporate welfare and defense spending sentences as very good. But not the entitlement programs stuff.

Comparing Barr to Obama on military spending is difficult, as Barr is vague on the amounts to be cut and Obama doesn't address the military budget in his formal policy statements. His platform doesn't have a section labeled "Defense" or "Military" and doesn't deal with military spending in the "Homeland Security", "Foreign Policy", or "Fiscal" sections. His aspirations for "Building a 21st Century Military" appear in the "Foreign Policy" section, but without cost specifications or implications.

Barr, in addition to proposing to cut an unspecified number of billions from unspecified parts of the military budget, has a foreign policy rationale that's consistent with his desire to cut military spending, which gives it some credibility:

National Defense

Restoring National Defense

* For far too long and at the cost of American blood and treasure, our great military has
been too willingly and quickly used for purposes other than national defense. Our fighting
men and women deserve better and the integrity of our nation must be restored.

* Our National Defense policy must renew a commitment to non-intervention. We are not
the world's police force and our long, yet recently tarnished, tradition of respecting the
sovereignty of other nations is necessary, not from only a moral standpoint, but to regain
the respect of the world as a principled and peaceful nation.

* The proper use of force is clear. If attacked, the aggressor will experience firsthand the
skillful wrath of the American fighting man. However, invading or initiating force against
another nation based upon perceived threats and speculative intelligence is simply un-
American. We are better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare.

Although he ignores the long history of US foreign interventions, and whitewashes our foreign policy by saying that it has been only "recently tarnished" by deviations from the "tradition of respecting the sovereignty of other nations", his intentions for the future are in line with what I think most "progressives" want. He makes, in interviews, the distinction between non-interventionism and isolationism. He says he's not an isolationist.

Obama, while talking about saving money by gradually ending combat operations in Iraq and then spending that money on urgent domestic needs, has expressed in writing only his intention to expand the military and give it new capabilities. This sounds like something will gladden hearts within the military-industrial complex:

Building a 21st Century Military

The Problem: The excellence of our military is unmatched. But as a result of a misguided war in Iraq,
our forces are under pressure as never before. Obama will make the investments we need so that the
finest military in the world is best-prepared to meet 21st-century threats.

-Rebuild Trust: Obama will rebuild trust with those who serve by ensuring that soldiers and Marines
have sufficient training time before they are sent into battle.

-Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in
uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding
65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

-New Capabilities: Obama will give our troops new equipment, armor, training, and skills like language
training. He will also strengthen our civilian capacity, so that our civilian agencies have the critical skills
and equipment they need to integrate their efforts with our military.

-Strengthen Guard and Reserve: Obama will restore the readiness of the National Guard and Reserves.
He will permit them adequate time to train and rest between deployments, and provide the National
Guard with the equipment they need for foreign and domestic emergencies. He will also give the Guard
a seat at the table by making the Chief of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

More on Barr later. I think his views on Individual liberty are a mixture of good civil liberties thinking on the Bill of Rights and unwittingly pro-corporate wrong-headed thinking against regulating business. On immigration, he and the Libertarian Party present a mix of emphasizing border security and openness to some constructive pro-immigrant reforms. Some of Barr's most ideological stuff is in his section on "Cut Big Spending". I find it ill-conceived, aside from the corporate welfare and military spending cuts mentioned above.

However, on military issues, it's Barr who talks about morality while Obama talks of the war as being only "misguided". Obama seems ready to project US power more "wisely" and "responsibly" whereas Barr is ready to respect others' national sovereignty. Barr opposes occupation and permanent bases in Iraq; Obama wants to keep a residual force in Iraq.

Thus ends Installment 1 on Bob Barr, with Barr looking rather better to me than Obama so far. Some more Good to come, along with some Bad and some real Ugly. Then we can play "Spot the Loony", a la Monty Python.