United Liberty
Democrats and libertarians
Wed, 03/09/2011 - 12:40pm | posted by Tom Knighton
In 2006, the Daily Kos’ Markos Moulitsas claimed he was a “libertarian democrat” and argued in favor of the concept not just at his site, but also at Cato Unbound. I don’t agree with a fair amount of what Moulitsas said, as he spends a good deal of time talking about how government is need to protect us from corporations while missing that corporations are only a threat because they’re empowered by government. From his 2006 post at The Daily Kos:
The problem with this form of libertarianism is that it assumes that only two forces can infringe on liberty — the government and other individuals.
The Libertarian Democrat understands that there is a third danger to personal liberty — the corporation. The Libertarian Dem understands that corporations, left unchecked, can be huge dangers to our personal liberties.
Libertarian Dems are not hostile to government like traditional libertarians. But unlike the liberal Democrats of old times (now all but extinct), the Libertarian Dem doesn’t believe government is the solution for everything. But it sure as heck is effective in checking the power of corporations.
In other words, government can protect our liberties from those who would infringe upon them — corporations and other individuals.
Kos was wrong then in that corporations primarily derive their abilities from government, but the concept of libertarian democrats was intriguing to say the least. Granted, he’s abandoned the title and now fully embraces progressivism, but that doesn’t surprise me. His ideas on government versus corporations is based on a faulty premise that will invariably lead someone to think of government as a more benign force than it really is.
Some argue that the concept is ludicrous, that the two are almost mutually exclusive. In today’s climate, that argument seems pretty valid. However, imagine the old days when Democrats fought for civil liberties. Once upon a time, they didn’t target the Second Amendment for deconstruction and vigorously defended all the other parts of the Bill of Rights. There are a few Democrats still floating around with a similar bent to them, but they’re rare.
I’ve often felt that you don’t need libertarians in the majority to effect real pro-liberty change. Just a handful would do wonders. However, it wasn’t until recently that I pondered the idea of them coming in as both Republicans and Democrats rather than through the Libertarian Party. Don’t get me wrong, I want to see the LP do well and finally become the viable third party this nation is and has been clamoring for, but principle matters far more than party to me.
But, if I disagree with Moulitsas’ assessment of what a libertarian democrat would look like, then how do I see them?
In truth, the difference between a libertarian democrat and a libertarian republican is one of priorities. What hill do they prefer to die on. For a libertarian republican, that hill is most likely economics. For a libertarian democrat, that hill is civil liberties. It’s not that either group doesn’t share similar opinions to the other, it’s simply where the priorities lie. Libertarian republicans will still support free speech, freedom of religion, 4th Amendment rights, and all the other civil liberties that libertarian democrats fight for, just as the libertarian democrats will support the end of the welfare state, ending corporate welfare, low taxes, and all that jazz.
A handful of libertarians, under the two parties, could easily control both chambers of Congress. In a 49-49 split, a mere two senators can essentially run that chamber. In the House, a 215-215 split with five libertarians, and that chamber is in the same predicament. Partisan politics with a few principled libertarians, and you’ve got something interesting to say the least.
A libertarian democrat can also do something that no regular democrat can do: deliver conservative districts. Let’s be honest here, there are a lot of progressive republicans running around. Conservative voters would like to see them hit the road, but their choice is often a liberal democrat or a liberal republican. They tend to deal with the republican. However, a democrat who was genuinely a deficit hawk, pro-gun, pro-small business, and anti-wealth redistribution might have a shot at winning these voters over where even a moderate democrat would struggle.
The idea isn’t perfect by any means. The Democratic Party machine seems to have a way of twisting people into embracing a progressive agenda. However, a few do escape to maintain some semblance of their principles. It damn sure isn’t Ralph Nader’s belief in a potential libertarian/progressive alliance. No, this is something different.
What matters more to me right now isn’t party, but principles. If someone stands for what I believe, does it matter what letter falls after his name?
The fact is there are no libertarian democrats. There are very few liberal democrats. Most have gone over to progressive or authoritarian ideology. The only way of getting libertarians elected to any position above dog catcher or NH legislator is the Republican party. And getting libertarians elected in the GOP is hard enough. Forget the Democratic party.
I am a liberal “left-libertarian,” and I’ve considered going back to being a democrat (I left the democratic party to vote republican in the primaries when Ron Paul ran). I don’t think that for me civil liberties is my main issue. The primary reason I am sooooooo anti-republican is that I’m A). anti-war, B). anti-religion (well really areligious, but I do see the church as a huge problem with our society), C). anti-authoritarian (which republicans don’t seem to be), and D). anti-“family values” (basically I think no victim, no crime). Like you, I’d love to see the libertarian party become a legitimate 3rd party, but I’m not willing to waste my vote on a long shot. I think we need to fight the war on ballot access on the federal level before we start throwing our chips down on the libertarian party.
Ways I think I differ from modern libertarians.
A). I’m a miniarchist.
B). I support taxation.
C). I don’t think businesses can always do it better, we need non-profits too.
D). I think the answer that libertarians try to work around fumbling with it to “whose going to fix the roads and educate our children.” should most appropriately be non-profits, aka charities which were once a great source of power in this country.
E). I believe in protective laws that incubate our positive liberties (like the civil rights act).
F). I believe in some government regulation (although it should only be for safety and quality reasons and should place no undue cost upon a business).
G). I believe in a government’s ability to issue currency, borrow, print, and lend money (although I think competing currencies should also be allowed).
H). I believe the government should own some property (like the national park system), although I don’t think it should be to the level it currently is.
Libertarians need to stop focusing on the liberal-conservative paradigm. We have our own paradigm to worry about with Nationalism. Nationalism is where we need to put our counterweight.
I’ve always found this idea that their are libertarian democrats wholly illusory. If I may be so bold, there really isn’t any such thing. At the heart of modern liberalism and at the heart of nearly anyone who would cast a ballot for a democrat is the idea that the State will use force to protect the “little guy.” Whether that protection come by way of legislation that forces private companies to keep unionized employees on staff or that legislation uses force to extract wealth from one group and give it to another to help form a social safety. In each case the usurpation of liberty is implicit in the legislator’s actions.
Arguing that libertarian dems and their opposites die on different “hills” is pointless because their aren’t libertarian dems. That’s an oxymoron. A democrat or leftist is a leftist and that means that the use of force is a requirement to achieve their ends. And inevitably, part of any libertarian democrat is that he be, well, a democrat.
Let me see if I can explain this a little better. The philosophical underpinnings of the non-existent oxymoronic libertarian leftist are primarily leftist underpinnings. Let’s take for example the gay “rights” issue. The libertarian simpliciter (that means neither right or left) position is that gays have the same rights to marry, love, serve or whatever else by virtue of being humans. They have those rights ontologically. This is the idea of natural rights. The idea that without society or State governance, this would be the ideal state of man—one where he is free of social and government constraints to be as he sees fit. However, with leftist “libertarianism” this is not even close to the case. Man does not derive his rights from his ontology or from some metaphysical notion of natural rights but rather those rights are the result of a social order that confers those rights upon individuals. Hence the reason leftists are always dreaming up new rights that different victim classes should have conferred upon them. Rights are not natural, they are societal or political constructs. This is also the reason why left-leaning “libertarians” always go “progressive.” The philosophy that underpins their “libertarianism” is fundamentally un-libertarian. When a leftist says they are libertarian, all that means really is that they believe that gays or whoever should have the rights that libertarianism simpliciter says belongs to that group already. The only difference is, the leftist comes at it with an alternate underpinning philosophy and that makes all the ideological difference.
This issue of right-leaning libertarianism is another case though and it seems to me does not suffer from the same issues that its opposite does. At least not to the same extent.
I find the organic co-operation of Libertarians and Liberals highlighted at LIO useful at: http://www.Libertarian-International.org
You are making two horrible assumptions with this article:
1. That all libertarians are anti-war and leftist on foreign policy. We are not! Pro-Defense libertarians staunchly support the War on Islamo-Fascism, precisely because we see Islamic Sharia Law as a direct threat to our civil liberties.
2. That Democrats are decent on civil liberties issues. Nothing could be further from the truth. They suck on gambling, seat belt laws, transfats bans, smoking bans, and a whole host of nanny-state measures. It was Harry Reid recently that called for outlawing prostitution in Nevada, and Republicans in NV calling to keep it legal. It’s Republicans in the New Hampshire legislature that are pushing bills to legalize marijuana.
Today:
Democrat Party = Fascism/Communism
Republican Party = Libertarians
Eric,
Where did I say Democrats were good on civil liberties? I said libertarian democrats were, but nothing of your run-of-the-mill democrats. I also said libertarian republicans were good on economics, but that can’t be applied to all Republicans, can it?
And Republican = Libertarians? What are you smoking? Have you LOOKED at the PATRIOT Act?
BTW, I don’t recall mentioning warfare in this particular piece. Question: Did Ron Paul fire you because of poor reading comprehension, or was it something else? Especially since you really haven’t shown us much else going on.
Tom,
Eric has made it clear that he doesn’t care about civil liberties. After all, the only people who need civil liberties are those dirty Moooslems.
Nah, I don’t support civil liberties. I just want to legalize drugs, prostitution, gambling, repeal seat belt laws, end nanny-state regulations, support swinger’s rights, want to lower the drinking age to 18, ect…
Strangely, these don’t seem to be the civil liberties that left-libertarians like Mataconis care about. Ya see, these conflict with the agenda of Sharia Law supporting Muslim appeasors. So, it’s politically incorrect to even mention them.
Mataconis, it was those Mooooslims who murdered three thousand of your fellow countrymen on 9/11. And just last week two US soldiers in Germany. Last year 14 at Ft. Hood in Texas.
Or, have you forgotten?
The fact that you have no understanding about the real threat posed to American liberty by the PATRIOT Act, warrentless wiretappign, and a government who tortures people in secret prisons shows just how phony your libertarianism is.
Face it Eric, you’re a conservative
The fact that you have no understanding about the real threat posed to American liberty by the PATRIOT Act, warrentless wiretappign, and a government who tortures people in secret prisons shows just how phony your libertarianism is.
Face it Eric, you’re a conservative
You’re an opponent of the Patriot Act, ‘eh? You say on “libertarian” principle??
Wonder if you can explain to me what’s “libertarian” about some Muslim dude, Saudi student here in the U.S. on an expired Visa, looking up plans to make a dirty bomb at a taxpayer-subsidized public library, with the intention of killing the maximum number of Americans?
I mean, illegal aliens have civil liberties too, right? Isn’t that what you leftists say??
Eric you silly, silly man.
Let’s take a look at your little scenario that was oh-so-subtly ripped from the headlines.
First, taxpayer subsidized anything is a problem for me. However, I don’t really give a flip what someone looks up or where they look it up, so long as no one was harmed in the production of whatever they’re looking up (ie child porn, etc).
But yeah, “illegal aliens” have rights. Or do you argue that only Americans have rights? If so, then how do you figure that people of all nationalities don’t have rights, if our rights are derived from simply existing? Or do you believe that rights are derived from the government? If so, then you and I disagree on a lot more than just whether the PATRIOT Act is valid.
Tom,
Interesting comments. As a long time “libertarian Democrat” I wanted to offer my perspective.
And hello Eric. It’s always good to have you around making even the most ideologically extreme of anarchists look sane and reasonable by comparison.
I’ll say this on the corporation vs. government issue. Most right-leaning/conservative libertarians dislike the impact of unions, both on the economy and on the political process. Their solutions range from right to work laws to active steps to ban collective bargaining among public employees—not to mention Taft-Hartley and its restrictions on what unions can actually do. They essentially try to go after the unions themselves and weaken them. Libertarians are also traditionally worried about government and corporations mixing and forming alliances. In this sphere the solution is to go after the government and weaken it to the point that corporations are no longer advantaged through the manipulation of government. Ask yourself if there is something fundamental to libertarianism that seems to offer a different set of solutions to the problem of unions and government vs. corporations and government. Or is this just one way of trying to solve the problem. Just a thought.
Addressing your more specific point about individual Democrats standing up for civil liberties I fear that the party as a whole gets a bad reputation due to the failure of leadership at the top from President Obama. The majority of House Democrats in the 111th backed plans to close down Guantanamo Bay. Obama backs away from his pledge and his whole party looks bad. A large minority of House Democrats in the 111th opposed the extension of provisions of the Patriot Act and a majority opposed the extension in the 112th. But Obama’s pushing for the extensions so he makes the rest of the party look bad. At least in the House the Democratic support for civil liberties (outside of the 2nd Amendment, I’ll give you, but support is still there among many members) is far stronger than what you’d see just looking at Obama.
A related problem is that libertarian Republicans, to the degree there are any, are given the benefit of the doubt as long as they hold the line on economic conservatism and throw a bone from time to time on social issues and foreign policy. So Ron Paul is a libertarian even though he has some regressive views on immigration. Jason Chaffetz gets praised for his crusade against body scanners and fiscal conservatism, but his opposition to ending DADT and his recent flip-flop on the Patriot Act is overlooked. Flake is admired for his tireless opposition to earmarks and support for balanced budgets, but his conservative views on almost everything else aren’t given much emphasis.
If a libertarian Republican can be a libertarian Republican and still hold regressive positions on gay rights, immigration, the Patriot Act, the War in Afghanistan, and the like, what can a libertarian Democrat get away with on economic issues? I think the problem is that too many libertarian activists expect a libertarian Democrat to look like a libertarian Republican, especially on economic issues, and they don’t realize that they’ve been cutting the Republican some slack on social issues. Cut Democrats some slack on economic issues and you might realize there are some libertarian Democrats out there. The problem is that they won’t be ideal on the economic side so you might not feel like you’d ever consider them libertarian Democrats to begin with.
Post new comment