We've discussed "good" and "bad" Paul ad nauseam on this site, and I suppose it was just a matter of time before the "bad Paul" reared itself again. Paul's inexplicable endorsement of a xenophobe formerly involved in the Moral Majority running on party platform that doesn't pass the smell test when it comes to theocracy boggles the mind. With Paul, it always seems to be 2 steps forward, one step back; or maybe it's one step forward, two steps back.

Personally, I'm losing patience with this continued conflation of libertarianism with social conservatism and xenophobia. A theocrat who disdains central banking nonetheless is still a theocrat. Indeed most theocrats have the common sense that a fractional reserve central bank is essential for funding the police state necessary to enforce zero foreign trade, zero immigration, and ridding the State of undesirables such as unbelievers, hookers, gamblers, metalheads, pot smokers, internet porn consumers, and the like. The theocrat agenda would lose steam quickly if it actually had to be funded from direct taxation. Indeed, that's why honest theocrats will stick with MCain/Palin, wherein at least part of their agenda has a hope of being enacted. In contrast, the likes of Chuck Baldwin are crackpots. Crack-pottery can be nicely characterized by an absurdly inconsistent ideology tied around book sales and talk radio broadcasts(the latter spurring the former). Libertarianism and/or Libertarian Justice Theory is not a crackpot idea, but when right wingers mangle it, it can quickly devolve into such. Let's see, you want to get rid of the Fed and the IRS, but you advocate somehow supernaturally funding a standing army to guard the borders and a central government powerful enough to enforce biblical morality. It's LOL crackpot nonsense.

There is a powerful Austrian critique of the current financial meltdown, but the Austrian School's continued dalliance with the crackpot right, xenophobia, and social conservatism discredits the critique. You are no going to win many converts by endorsing the point of view that the meltdown is a consequence of "God's judgement" for the sins of abortion, homosexuality, multiculturalism, and taking "heaven" out of the classroom. Indeed it is a valid criticism that there is an intentional torpedoing of the message for the sake of mailing lists. Sorry, anyone who endorses crackpots like Chuck Baldwin cannot be taken seriously when it comes to resolving the current financial mess from a libertarian point of view. Period.

There is speculation that the Paul endorsement of Baldwin was mere tit-for-tat for Barr dissing the Paul Press Conference. No doubt, it was a shot across the bow that crackpot Austrianism has more currency in the "libertarian movement" than the faux libertarianism of "true conservatism." Barr is really no libertarian, and certainly no Austrian, and it was egregious mistake for him to challenge Paul as a unifying figure of the libertarian movement. Nevertheless the Barr campaign's argument that Paul's Campaign for Liberty was more about securing mailing lists and less about actual political reform is not an entirely invalid argument. Frankly, that same skepticism has been posted here at Freedom Democrats previously. And Paul's endorsement of the likes of a crackpot like Baldwin only reinforces the validity of that view.

However, it should be pointed out that the Barr campaign in terms of any relevance was toast before "snubgate." Any significant showing by Barr was always predicated on voter disgust with high gas prices, but both Obama and McCain ended up significantly shifting when it came to domestic drilling. And McCain's selection of Palin more or less deflated any last chance of capturing any statistically percentage of the disgruntled conservative vote by Barr. Barr was left more or less with the traditional libertarian vote and such a constituency, based on fund raising totals, was not exactly enamored with Barr from the get go. Barr was already on pace to raise less funds than Badnarik and end up on less ballots than Badnarik. Barr's "earned media" mattered little when it came to libertarian activism, in fact, his earned media tended to impede libertarian activism, and such "earned media" translated only to 2% in polls and it was an open question if that percentage would hold up on election day even before "snubgate." In short, "snubgate" matters little in Barr's likely abysmal showing. In fact, post 2008, for the LNC to retain any fundraising relevance is likely going to necessitate some housecleaning in 2010, with a more radical tilt. Then again, just what is the relevancy of the LNC when it comes to the libertarian movement. Not much. In fact, the LNC probably symbolically represents the most persuasive argument against any libertarian involvement in the political process at all.

In short, 2008 as the year of the libertarian has degenerated into a sorry joke from a political perspective...