Bob Barr for president...I guess

In one of the five most exciting things I've seen on C-SPAN (a more selective list than you might think), the Libertarian Party chose Bob Barr as their 2008 candidate for president. As far as I can tell, subsequent news accounts have omitted the side of the story that, from a Libertarian perspective, is most interesting.

In 2004, the nomination came down to Michael Badnarik and Aaron Russo. At the convention, Badnarik was well-spoken, likeable, and philosophically libertarian in every way, but he was unknown and had no money. Russo was something of a newcomer--a former Republican who, despite his largely libertarian views, was less than inspiring when it came to speaking about his personal beliefs, but he had more money than any other candidate and a degree of notoriety as a movie producer. It was a simple trade-off: the "more libertarian" candidate or the candidate likely to get more votes (try to imagine that even being an issue at a Republican or Democratic convention). Badnarik won by a narrow margin and went on to win less than half a percent of the popular vote.

The issue was the same this year, but the result was different. Barr won by a narrow margin over the "more libertarian" Mary Ruwart (my choice, Mike Gravel, was eliminated after the fourth ballot--it's a sad day when your personal favorite presidential candidate is a longshot for the nomination of a minor party). The implications of this are clear: Barr, formerly a Republican Congressman, will bring in Republicans frustrated with McCain, but he will drive away Libertarians skeptical that Barr has genuinely changed his mind on a number of views he has held throughout his political career. He will get more votes than any Libertarian has in the past, but if he can't do it without tearing the party apart it may turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.