Inquirer: What do you hope to accomplish?

Barr: I want to move the agenda of smaller government and increased individual liberty forward . . . raise the level of debate; bring the issues of smaller government back to the table, and cut government spending - that's at the root of all the issues facing the American people. I want to end the artificial control of the economy and end burdensome taxation . . . reduce the cost of the occupation of Iraq by beginning the process of removing the security blanket from the Iraqi regime . . . return respect for habeas corpus; reinstate the rule of law; stop the warrantless surveillance of American citizens, and remedy the abuses of the Patriot Act. . . .

Inquirer: What caused you to suddenly switch parties two years ago? Did you have a Paul-on-the-road-to-Damascus conversion?

Barr: What laid the groundwork for my epiphany was the result of six years of the Bush administration. They claimed to be Republicans and for a smaller government. Instead, with a complicit Republican Congress, they moved to dramatically expand the size, power and scope of the federal government. I concluded that the party I had been associated with for decades was no longer the party I had joined and no longer had an interest in smaller government. They no longer had an interest in increasing individual liberty and showed no signs of changing in my lifetime. . . . The only party out there that advocates and practices moving to smaller government and increased civil liberties was the Libertarian Party. . . .

Inquirer: You've made some radical turnabouts from many of your previous positions. . . .

Barr: Since 9/11, there has been unprecedented growth in government power and the ascendancy of this notion that, because they are fighting terrorism, the government can do whatever it wants regardless of law. That has forced me to go back and take a look. . . . We have to be much more zealous in protecting ourselves against government power. Once it may have made sense, been even acceptable to allow the government more leeway . . .

Inquirer: What is wrong with the two-party system?

Barr: The two-party system has become stale and a state-controlled monopoly. I think it has removed an important element of choice for the American voter and led to a dumbing-down of political discourse in America. . . .

Inquirer: How do you feel about John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate?

Barr: He's a candidate. But I don't think he espouses anything resembling the philosophy of smaller government that I support. Anyone whose signature piece of legislation is destructive of the First Amendment can hardly call themselves a conservative. His view of civil liberties is very much in the Bush administration mold. I have major disagreements with him. His position of a lengthy occupation of Iraq is well known. I would disagree with him there also.

Inquirer: A Zogby poll this week has you outpolling [declared third-party candidate] Ralph Nader. What do you think that signifies?

Barr: I think it indicates that there is legitimate support for a third-party candidate. . . . I'm no more a spoiler for John McCain than John McCain could be a spoiler for me. The notion that Republicans see a third-party candidate as spoiling their chances simply illustrates the arrogance of the two-party system. . . . If my platform polls well, it will be because the voters contrast it with McCain and whatever Democrat senator wins the nomination. . . . It's something the other candidates should embrace rather than whine about.

The complete Inquirer interview with Bob Barr appears at http://go.philly.com/bobbarr