There will be those who, even conceding the unlibertarian nature of Barr's stands on the key issues of the day, still argue that Barr is the best available candidate.  This argument is generally centered on Barr's name recognition, political experience, and his supposed greater ability to get votes and win the election.

This position is grounded on several mistakes.  First, Barr is not an electable candidate.  Unlike other candidates, Barr's name recognition (36% in recent polls) makes him a uniquely polarizing figure.  He is known primarily for his role in the Clinton impeachment.  As a result, Democrats and most independents will need only hear his name in order to remove him from their considerations.  Furthermore, those same Democrats and independents, despite being turned off by their party's failure to take an anti-war stance, and their observation that the Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, is controlled by corporate interests, will now have reason never to seriously consider the libertarian argument.  For the rest of their lives, they will consider libertarianism to be identical with right-wing political tactics.  Potential converts to liberty will be lost.

Ron Paul in a Republican primary took 10% of the vote.  This number likely included many Democrats and independents who would never support Barr, as well as Republicans who will not want to "waste their vote" in a general election, but to give Barr the benefit of the doubt, suppose he can take 10% of the Republican vote.  He will take close to 0% of the Democrats, and perhaps 5% of the independents.  This is a best-case scenario.  So, let's reject from the outset the argument that Barr is the best chance to win the election - even if he is, it doesn't matter, since he can't win.

So, if we acknowledge that the LP candidate will not win the election, what is the purpose of the LP campaign?  Clearly, it is to advance the cause of liberty by presenting the case for freedom in a forum where it will be heard.  So, it is significant that Barr is more likely to be included in the debates than other candidates.  It is also significant, though, what he would say in those debates.  It seems likely that he would so misrepresent the philosophy that he would do us no good. 

It is hoped that, because of the LP's Presidential campaign, people will be inspired by the hope of a freer tommorow.  The candidate must, therefore, present a positive image of improving the world, not simply criticize present policy.  The goal of the campaign must be to set forth a comprehensive dream of a free world.  Perhaps, then, people will be inspired to look into the literature that inspired the candidate - Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, and so on.  Barr displays no particular familiarity with the background of the freedom philosophy, and it is questionable whether one would be inspired by his message.  Most importantly, the Ron Paul youth, and the population at large, can largely be attracted to the LP by the LP's strong, consistent message of peace and anti-interventionism.  Barr is not an non-interventionist, and would do little to attract such people.  He would simply push them away by reinforcing the idea that libertarians are simply lost Republicans.

We must also ask where we are likely to find people who might be moved to learn about liberty.  There is a strong argument that such people are to be found on the left, for several reasons.  First, the LP has played to the right for years, and the right has experienced the statism of their candidates, particularly since 2001.  No person with even a passing interest in liberty remains on the right and is not aware of the libertarians.  Therefore, if they were going to take the plunge, they would have done so already.  However, the LP has not played to the left much at all.  The left now has a strong anti-war contingent, a vulnerable group since the Democrats have done so little to court them.  A person who opposes the warfare state only need be convinced that the problem with war is aggression in order to come to a non-aggression stance, from which it is an easy path to libertarianism.  Besides, as Murray Rothbard argues ( http://www.mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/1_1/1_1_2.pdf ), libertarianism is essentially a leftist doctrine, and while the right steals our rhetoric, some on the left share our fundamental goals.  Barr's ability to reach out to the left and to appeal to leftists is not just impaired - it is non-existent. 

For too long, libertarianism has been associated with the right.  On economics, we allowed ourselves to be considered Republican-heavy; that is, simply more serious about Republican goals than the Republicans.  This was a false and dangerous misconception.  On civil liberties, we ignored the tendencies on the right, still considering ourselves part of a right-wing alliance until those tendencies were unleashed.  Now, by nominating Barr, we will paint ourselves as Republican-lite.  Unfortunately, Americans desiring such an option already have one - the Democrats. 

Yet, even if Barr cannot win, and cannot help us to advance the libertarian message, some may argue that at least he can strike one major blow for liberty.  If nothing else, perhaps Barr can help keep McCain out of office.  Even this modest claim, though, is seriously flawed.  It assumes, at a minimum, that Obama or Hillary (generally this comes with the assumption, which will be used here, that Obama will be the Democratic nominee) will be better in some meaningful way than McCain, and that Barr would pull votes successfully from McCain.  Both of these assumptions are open to doubt.  First, while Obama certainly seems preferable to McCain, the game of choosing the lesser evil is a difficult one.  Many folks who hold this position would follow up with "We must keep McCain out to prevent another Bush," which ignores the fact that many, if not most, libertarians held in 2000 that Bush was the lesser evil.  Does not that experience with choosing the lesser evil at least suggest that this may be problematic?  Obama has not espoused a foreign policy of non-intervention, nor has he ever articulated support for civil liberties.  He supports HR1955, a chilling piece of Orwellian thought-crime legislation.  It is not out of the realm of possibility that Obama could be an even more interventionist President than Bush, bombing country after country out of pure-minded humanitarian idealism.  Republicans have some, albeit minor, restraints put in place by liberals.  Who would restrain Obama?  Recall that McCain could, in a Nixonian move, bring the troops home and be seen as a moderate.  Obama has no political cover to do so.  While I agree that Obama is preferable, I do not agree whole-heartedly enough to see this as a reason to nominate Barr.

Next, consider that most third-party votes come from third-party voters - that is, from people who would not have otherwise voted for one of the two major parties.  While Barr could harm McCain among conservatives, he could actually help McCain among the more numerous moderate voters.  McCain has a popular, although entirely false, image as a moderate, a maverick, and so on.  This image could be significantly strengthened by introducing into the race a full example of what a right-wing conservative looks like.  By taking on Barr, McCain could position himself as a moderate, a more liberal Republican, and thus win centrist votes.  So, there is little convincing reason to think that Barr would be certain to harm McCain and help Obama; he might just as well do the opposite.