I have argued for the past year that libertarians (with a small "L") have a more natural home in the modern Democratic Party than with the GOP.
At their core, libertarians distrust government and exult individual freedoms above all. Small government in both the social and economic realms....Democrats are social libertarians -- distrusting the heavy hand of the government in our private lives.
[...]
...things have changed [from the traditionally poor free market record of Democracts]. The Clinton Democratic Party balanced budgets and restrained spending -- both policies abandoned by the Borrow and Spend Bush Administration.
[...]
It's also obvious to me that Republicans have surrendered their claim to the monicker "Party of fiscal responsibility" or to notions of "smaller government".
But I don't agree with his idea. I think that honest libertarians (those that minimalize contradictions in their philosophy) should remain outside both parties and only side with one or the other when it comes down to specific issues. Aligning with another party shouldn't be done for political or pragmatic purposes. It should be the natural result of similiarities in philosophy. And when it comes to the personal liberties aspects of Democrats and the left, he needs to think deeper.
Economic liberty (ostensibly proposed by the GOP) and social liberty (ostensibly proposed by the Democrats) are merely offshoots of the same concept: individual liberty. Neither party supports individual liberty without contradiction. Conservatives wish to preserve tradition and a kind of social morality, often at the expense of liberty. Liberals wish to improve socio-economic conditions for the lower rungs of society and for the overlooked/disadvantaged/etc., regularly at the expense of personal liberty.
For the Democratic Party to be more palatable to libertarians, it would have to actually embrace capitalism as the correct economic system. This is the crucial "canary in the coal mine" for individual liberty; you can't have one without the other. Currently, the GOP is the only major party which attempts to do this, though more often than not they just give it lip service.
The left would have to accept privatized education, transportation, and health systems. They'd have understand, respect, and enforce the general libertarian anti-regulation philosophy, which makes the Republicans' pale in comparison. The Dems would also have to purge themselves of the victimization and class politics they so regularly employ. Basically, they'd have to drop the socialism inherent in their philosophy and show up the rightwing in economics issues. Otherwise, libertarians won't change sides en masse.
I very much doubt those things will happen. There are too many collectivists and statists in their side of the political spectrum. They'd end up shedding too much of their core and driving them to places like the Green Party. Though I'd openly and loudly applaud such moves, they are pipe dreams as things stand now and the forseeable future.
I do think Kos has a significant point to make about gun rights.
That leaves guns, and it's a deal-breaker with many libertarians. Which is why I say, fine. You win. The NRA wins. We'll work hard to enforce existing gun laws (which in all honesty would go a long way toward reducing the effect of guns on our society). The feds will stay out of the debate, and leave it up to the states (and cities) to set their own gun laws.That's why I like Dean and Clark -- both are avowed supporters of the 2nd Amendment, and both can go far in helping capture the significant libertarian bloc from the grasp of the GOP.
However, back to the central issue...
Democrats believe government has a strong role to play in improving the lives of people. Hence, Democrats have been strong proponents of social programs and the use of the tax code to help redistribute income from the haves to the have nots.[...]
Government can and should lend a helping hand.
[government] should also protect our individual freedoms from those (like Santorum) who would tear them away.
UPDATE(6/18/2004 5:13pm)
Whom to Vote For?
UPDATE 9/24/2004 5:45pm
The Austin American-Statesman, Voting, Free Speech, and Information
UPDATE 1/18/2005 9:40am
Kos continues to amaze me.
UPDATE 2/24/2005 3:05pm
This is just hilarious. Terry Michael thinks Democrats ought to "return to liberalism's Jeffersonian roots." I'm curious to see how he thinks the love of massive welfare spending, subsidy, and business regulation squares with the (often contradictory) Thomas Jefferson libertarian philosophy.
UPDATED 4/19/2005 10:30am
The Democratic Party: The Party of Personal Liberty?, Daily Kos Wants It All, Fiscal Responsibility?, Meteor Blades Needs Economics, The Hypocrisy of Daily Kos, Economic Ignorance, For the Privatization of Freedom, Sacred Cows and Kossack Hypocrisy, and Kos Strikes Again
UPDATED 6/7/2006 6:05pm
The Myth of the Libertarian Democrat
ATTENTION: Comments are closed. You are viewing my old blog, archived for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To find the current version of this entry, search here.
I appreciate this essay very much. You've hit several of the nails squarely on the head. I've been writing on this subject as well. The thing about Republicans that bothers me is their natural prejudice for big. They seem to prefer big business to small, big government spending for favored industries such as defense, the use of government against individuals in favor of the wealthy (individual and corporate), e.g., the city of Arlington using the power of imminent domaine to force out small homeowners to acquire land to build a stadium for the Texas Rangers, the limiting by federal mandate areas traditionally belonging to the states, such as limitation on punitives in damage awards, attempting to limit non-economic damages in medical malpractice (both admirable goals, but strong-arming by the federal court again triumps big over all else). You catch my drift?
Besides that, I'm just afraid I'm going to be one of the bones the Republicans will toss to the Religious Right to keep those lions at bay.
I don't like Democrats, but I'm afraid of Republicans.
Cheers.
Posted by: rlbtzero on April 24, 2003 10:46 PMThe absurdity struck me as I read his post; just how far from libertarian the Democrats are. In a sense, I'm trying to say Republicans are closer to libertarians than Democrats. The quote from Arthur Silber in Kos's post does make the very important point that Republicans often dance in the uniforms of capitalists, but often enough just do it in order to pass anti-liberty legislation.
But even given that, I believe (and with a heavy heart) the GOP occupies a closer portion of the political spectrum to libertarians than Democrats. I still stand by my statement that regardless, people should ally themselves with other political parties only when they are fighting for the same thing.
Perhaps Kos is coming from a European coalition-government viewpoint? Wield together parties in order to form a "majority" ruling team? I dunno.
Posted by: Drizz on April 24, 2003 11:26 PMI was raised a yellow dog democrat, voted for McGovern, the whole 9 yards. I've gotten a lot of funny looks over the last few years when, in response to a question as to my political leanings, I usually say "Well, I figure there's room under Jesse's Umbrella for a few libertarians."
My dad was an example of the true yellow dog democrat. He'd vote for a dead yellow dog before he'd vote republican, but when I talked to him about the issues, he was a libertarian.
And while I can't say I know that many politicians personally, the ones I do know that call themselves democrats are much like Dad.
We're only democrats here in Texas because of reconstruction.
Maybe it's time for all of us to come out of the closet.