Crashing the Libertarian Gate
MichaelW on Oct 03 2006 at 4:26 pm | Filed under: Domestic Politics, MichaelW's Page
“And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends stol’n out of holy writ,
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.”
–From King Richard III (I, iii, 336-338)
October skies, lengthening shadows, chill north winds, and ignomious political scandal all around; the election season must be fully upon us. The date (November 7th) comes quickly now, and thus the time has drawn nigh for strange bedfellows to consummate their lurid trysts of convenience. By now the political party teams have coalesced and, much like the flurry of activity we’ve come to expect in sports as trade deadlines approach, independent players are being sought to help the teams victoriously cross the finish line.
Towards that end, the infamous Markos Moulitsas, authored an essay for CATO Unbound titled “The Case For The Libertarian Democrat.” (the first and last paragraphs follow):
It was my fealty to the notion of personal liberty that made me a Republican when I came of age in the 1980s. It is my continued fealty to personal liberty that makes me a Democrat today.
[…]
For too long, Republicans promised smaller government and less intrusion in people’s lives. Yet with a government dominated top to bottom by Republicans, we’ve seen the exact opposite. No one will ever mistake a Democrat of just about any stripe for a doctrinaire libertarian. But we’ve seen that one party is now committed to subverting individual freedoms, while the other is growing increasingly comfortable with moving in a new direction, one in which restrained government, fiscal responsibility and—most important of all—individual freedoms are paramount.
That’s right libertarians! You are being courted to vote Democrat this election season, by none other than the leader of the Netroots ouster of Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party ticket in Connecticut, and the co-author of the Progessive’s plan to seize the reins of power in this country. Nevermind the fact that so far Kos-backed candidates have only succeded in defeating other Democrats, nor the fact that his “progressive values” are diametrically opposed to those of libertarians.
No, instead give Kos kredit for taking the advice of yours truly:
What would happen, for example, if the Democratic Party decided to reject the anti-war left, and instead began to embrace the small-government libertarian types? This would be a radical step for the party of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, but they would be entering ground vacated quite some time ago by the Republicans. This lack of competition for such votes, combined with a barely concealed revulsion for the way that the Republican Party has treated small-government voters recently, could result in big electoral gains for the Democrats.
Now, I would no sooner follow Kos into a political battle than I would lead Iago into a physical one (”I follow him to serve my turn upon him.” –From Othello (I, i, 42)), I still think he is full of –it (note how often the guy has travelled the road to Damascus), but I will give Kos his due for at least trying to approach libertarians on common ground. In the end, however, as a libertarian I will no more vote monolithically for Republicans than I will be lured into doing so for Democrats. Frankly, my plan for the upcoming election is to vote against the incumbent regardless of political affiliation.
Much contemplation of the Kos offer fills the internets (McQ offers an excellent analysis; Josh Trevino provides an eloquent dismissal; expected fawning here), and I encourage you all to read as many of them as you can. I will end my ruminations on this topic with an Observation and a Question:
Observation — Libertarian candidates have lost more than their fair share of elections, and yet after the 2002 elections “more than 300 Libertarians held elected state and local offices” and today they can reasonably count such federally elected representatives as Ron Paul (in a de facto sense) among their numbers. Since bursting onto the scene in 2004, Kos-backed candidates have won exactly zero general elections.
Question — Since libertarians already know quite well how to lose elections, what do we need you for, Markos?
***UPDATE***
ChrisB, commenting on the QandO post linked above echos my sentiments, and gets it exactly right (scroll down through comments):
I think all this talk of collective punishment is wrongheaded, and somewhat oxymoronic coming from individualists such as ourselves. Vote for the individual. If the republican candidate is not pro liberty, vote libertarian. If the LP and liberty caucus republicans get higher than normal vote totals, then that will send a message to congress, a message that the people demand smaller govt and more liberty. If you just vote democrat, the message will be that people demand more govt intrusion and taxes.
Technorati Tags: Libertarian, Markos Moulitsas, Daily Kos, CATO, elections, politics, 2006 congressional races, courting votes, Democrats, Republicans, King Richard III, Iago
Sphere: Related Content39 Responses to “Crashing the Libertarian Gate”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
Heh, I almost lost it.
Why? Shouldn’t the incumbant in question be measured vs. his rivals? With electorial viability thrown in?
My governer and congressman are rinos with leftist challengers. Its mediocre vs disaster, but mediocre has the advantage this Nov.
My Senators are leftists with little chance for defeat.
Michael,
As for Chris B’s statement I have been beating that drum at QandO for some time. The vote has to send the right message. Voting Democrat doesn’t send that message at all.
Yup. And each candidate will be. Wherever feasible, I will choose someone other than the incumbent.
Agreed. Any blanket vote loses its validity if the recipient of that vote misperceives the message.
Thanks for the quote michael. The point and reasoning seem self evident to me, especially given how we all seemed to have come to the same conclusion independently.
Those that disagree seem to be more concerned about hurting the republicans than helping liberty. More anti-bush than pro-freedom.
Exactly!
I will make some allowance for those attempting to achieve gridlock (I am sure McQ and the QandO guys are now exhaling with relief at being spared my scorn;^} but even then given the difficulty of engineering such a thing, voting for libertarians or other such message candidates makes more sense as the way to attempt even that, but I do understand the logic.
Full of what?
MichaelW doth protests too much, methinks.
You think Kos deceives? You reckon a hidden agenda in his appeal? You think Kos unprincipled? You believe his CATO proclamation disingenuous?
Though you admire his approach to libertarians, you dismiss bent ears as “fawning�
Now I’m no fan of Kos, but shouldn’t we view his requests as a push me/pull you opportunity? And instead of casting Kos aside as unapproachable, shouldn’t we as Libertarians embrace pleas from the Left as convenient?
Agreed. Any blanket vote loses its validity if the recipient of that vote misperceives the message.
How is an elected Democrat supposed to know what message anyone sends?
If Kos and his pleas are discarded in hand, as McQ and others gleefully call, elected Dems will merely hold their ascendance as the product of the so-called “nutrootsâ€.
If, on the
Secondhandother hand, those who seek to depose incumbents and/or seek gridlock put forth invitations to a Democrat Party willing to behold ideas of smaller, less intrusive government, such invitations would at least be seen, if not accepted.It would seem that scoffs and rejections would be met with desired effect. And McQ’s, and others, eloquent disdain will produce nothing but sour fruit.
Cheers
Pogue, I understand your position, however, I question the possibility of fruitful interaction with mainstream or leftist Democrat candidates. While I suspect some common ground and possible shifting of positions could be achieved with southern or western, “conservative” Democrats, they represent a relatively small population.
The essence of what you are proposing is to ask the leopard to change his spots. Let’s keep in mind that the single largest organization of Democrats in Congress is the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The leaders of said Caucus (according to their website, http://cpc.lee.house.gov/) are Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey. Let’s look at their policy platform (which we know Democrats are very intent on enforcing [see Lieberman, Joe]). Item 1 : To uphold the right to universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare for all. Hmm.. sounds like Britain’s NHS or Canada’s socialized medicine. Not very libertarian. Item 2 : To preserve guaranteed Social Security benefits for all Americans, protect private pensions, and require corporate accountability. Sounds like private investments are out the window. Again, not too libertarian. Item 3 : To invest in America and create new jobs in the U.S. by building more affordable housing, re-building America’s schools and physical infrastructure, cleaning up our environment, and improving homeland security. Why does this sound like The New Deal or The Great Society? Remind me how this is in accord with the principles of smaller, less intrusive government?
I just don’t see the positions of CPC’ers or those who are allied with them like Barbara Boxer, John Conyers, and (retiring Senator) Mark Dayton, being at all compatible with libertarian positions. Yes, we have some common ground on civil rights and maybe foreign policy, but that’s really about all. They are socialists in theory and practice. For libertarians to ally themselves with such people simply out of frustration with our current electoral system (which hasn’t produced much in the way of libertarian candidates) is beyond fool-hardy.
I knew I could count on you to stay on theme, Pogue.
As for Kos, it amuses me that he has the cohones to pretend to be someone he obviously is not, and I did give him credit for trying to speak the libertarian tongue (he did take my advice after all). My problem is not with his overtures, nor even, really, with those who pretend to be swayed by his argments for the sake of expediency. Although, viscerally speaking, I do find the arrogance off-putting, to say the least.
What it comes down to, for me at least, is that I have great difficulty casting my lot with those whom I know are lying to me, just to forsake those who may have done so thanks to a terrible addiction to money/power that constantly defeats their good intentions. I’m screwed either way.
And so shall we laugh at the leopard from high atop our righteous perch. Reassuring ourselves that while the leopard paces with anticipation of our demise, we were indefatigably convinced that the leopard’s spots were uncompromising.
That’s the place for us?
No worries. However, unfortunately, I think my Shakespeare is spent… At least for now. I’ll sleep it off and get back to you tomorrow. ;)
(I think I have a copy of MacBeth somewhere around here…)
Pogue, we may not agree on everything, but like the fellows here, I’ve come to appreciate you as they do. Thank you for challenging our ideas, and doing so better than, and more eloquently than any of us could have hoped for. If you ever come into the city, let me know if you ever want to grab a shiner, or a better beer (cause there surely are so many).
Oh wait… I’ve got it…
Oh wait… that’s The Last Action Hero. Oh well… same difference.
Cheers.
♥♥♥
First round is on me.
Cheers.
Wanting and hoping for gridlock doesn’t mean (and I admit this guiltily) that I’m going to do anything to enable it.
I couldn’t any way since no Democrat is running against John Linder in my district.
However I will vote for a libertarian if one is running simply to make a statement (otherwise I’ll likely stay home). And I’ll still hope that the Dems get the majority in the House so we can have a lovely case of gridlock.
Oh please … don’t encourage him.
Oh, c,mon! We’ve gotta do something for entertainment around here. Otherwise all we have is Poet who never rhymes, a Lance that’s never killed anybody, and a MichaelW … well, he’s pretty cool … but, still.
Too late! Encouragement already deposited. No takesies backsies.
‘Sides, I’m already ginned up for later.
;)
ChrisB says:
Pogue replies:
Awww! You guys!
Eh. That’s as close I could get. Have a Stella on me.
Ok, you know what … I really don’t want to know what you mean by that.
Too much information.
Michael, as regards the love-hate fest between Chris and Pogue (since they obviously love each other, but are from opposite sides of the political fence):
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.”
–From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
I step away for a few hours and look at what all the kids have done. Crap everywhere and I know you won’t pick any of it up.
Pogue,
I’ll just let you know, as of today my wife and I can say our life is a little bit sweeter thanks to you. I’ll let everybody else ponder that.
Damn, Pogue. “I didn’t think you were in the tent tha’ long.”
[Yeah, yeah. I know it was honey.]
Omar,
Pogue and Chris are pretty much on the same side of the fence, Pogue is just being difficult and contrary.
As for the substance of Pogue’s challenge, I have to agree. We probably should listen and give them some idea of what a real overture would look like. I don’t believe we will get any takers, but I have been thinking of posting on just that. My own belief is the gap is too wide, but I’ll take up the gauntlet. As of now though what Kos is proposing is that we endorse the same old stuff, but realize that we are wrong and if we just look at things the right way there is no difference. I want an actual change in the party, not just a new vocabulary to dress it up. Of course the same goes for the Republicans, but there is already a tradition to build on for now.
McQ,
I understand, and that is pretty much my approach as well. I am less enamored with gridlock, but that is because I think that requires a Republican party willing to lock the grid. The Democrats want to grease the wheels that are turning even more so they won’t be throwing a spanner in the works. If losing the house wakes up the Republicans to become obstructionist, then we have a shot at accomplishing things. I am just not sure they will. It is worth a shot however, I have no better options.
Omar:
Excellent!
Michael:
“Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”
Oh, are we not playing the name that quote game anymore? ;)
I wonder–why transfer our votes to those who are even less likely to enact libertarian policy? I’m with Omar on this one.
We can punish ‘bad’ Republicans by voting Libertarian, and reward ‘good’ ones by voting Republican. We can do the same with Democrats, although, as a CA voter, I don’t expect to see any ‘good’ ones.
The leopard’s spots, and his appetite for the destruction of individual liberty and the imposition of collectivist, totalitarian government are never going to change. You propose that instead of fighting an admittedly difficult, uphill battle for our principals, we give in and compromise with the devil. No thanks. Custer didn’t give up his slouch hat and arrow shirt and trade them in for a feather headress and moccasins. Neither will I.
“A ‘No’ uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a ‘Yes’ merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.”
Mohandas Gandhi
Oh, I don’t know about that, Omar.
I see spotsI’ve seen spots change right before my very eyes.I’ve seen a Republican Party go from Goldwater/Reagan fiscal conservatism and smaller government to the slaphappy deficit spending/Terry Schiavo intrusive belligerence. I’ve seen a Contract with America violating Republican Party riddled with corruption and cronyism. I’ve seen a Republican Party mired in scandal and p*ss on principle just to hold onto power.
These spots have changed, yes?
Oh, sure, they talk a good game. But you know just as well as I do, that the Republican Party is more than happy to use government to their own satisfaction.
Apparently, when Republicans talk the talk but not walk the walk, it is somehow forgiven as merely the good and noble wandering astray.
But when committed Democrats make their case, it is dismissed out of hand and entertained solely as deception.
I understand your skepticism, Omar. I understand skepticism from many. The Democratic Party has the debt of history. But before LBJ and FDR, the leopard looked quite different, and I see no reason not to at least entertain the thought of a new direction.
I will hear their pleas and withhold ridicule.
And I will cup my ear with one hand,
And keep the other grasping firmly to my wallet.
Cheers.
And, oh yeah… go Bears.
Pogue, I’m very glad that you are open-minded on this issue. In general, I think that we would be better served on many issues both political and otherwise were more people open-minded. I’m afraid that on the issue of Democrats becoming the new champions of federalism, free-market capitalism, small-government, and individual liberty, my own mind is quite closed.
If you (or Kos or CATO or Howard Dean, etc.) could present some solid evidence of the ascendancy of the above mentioned issues or even a real move toward reformation by (probably) the Blue Dog Democrats or the DLC, then I would certainly reconsider my position. As it is, Dems are just playing to the civil liberties libertarians and trying to build their momentum to take down the Republicans. Let’s not forget that when discussing government, Democrats are saying that we need to find a way to make government “perfect.” Republicans are saying that we need to find a way to make government “good.” Libertarians (and libertarians) are saying, “Why do we need government?”
It is easy to slide towards big government and heavy spending. It’s like drinking whisky and running up a credit card: the drift tends to be in one direction, more drinking and more debt. And the D’s start off on the wrong end.
The fact that the R’s have drifted towards the D’s doesn’t make the D’s more responsable.
Yeah, see, I’ve already been through my “why do we need government” phase, Omar, so permit me to disagree sightly.
Instead I’d say, “why does it have to be so big and do all of this?”
I’m a big fan of the “nightwatchman” form of government which essntially says “watch over and protect our individual rights”. Instead we have a “Santa Claus” government hip deep in redistribution and areas it has no business. I’m a libertarian which wants to see government returned to the “nightwatchman” mode.
I’m essentially a minarchist as well, McQ. Although I’ve certainly read some anarcho-capitalist theories, I haven’t yet bought into them 100%. I was just pointing out the general tone of the conversation between D’s, R’s, and L’s (or l’s).
Don, good analogy with the whiskey and credit cards! P.J. O’Rourke would be proud. ;)
The fundamental failing of anarcho-capitialism, IMHO, is that it creates the incentive for the formation of a state to steal (or tax) people. Which we already have, but I’d rather have the constituional republic I know than some undefined government I don’t know.
In other words, I want a government so I don’t have some other government I don’t want imposed on me. Lessor of evils sorta thing.
That’s actually a really good point. Better to restrain the beast than to let it run free across the countryside.
Don and Michael, agreed. If for no other reason than the fact that the military and police in an anarcho-capitalist state would be corporate mercenaries, in essence.
[…] A popular costume for liberals this year is “the True Libertarian.” Some, however, don’t find the costumes very convincing. […]
[…] For those who regularly traverse the blogosphere, and especially those well-informed readers who visit ASHC (Toot! Toot!), that libertarians are a deciding factor in most elections over the past decade is not news. That such illumination is gracing the pages of The National Journal, however, is highly significant. The National Journal is widely considered the political insider’s magazine. One that keeps people like Karl Rove, Joe Trippi, Dick Morris and James Carville abreast of the latest happenings in the world of politics. One can rest assured that the first inklings that “Soccer Moms” and “NASCAR Dads” would be the defining demographics of the 1996 and 2004 elections, respectively, appeared in the magazines pages. […]