Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Rise of the 'Unholy Alliance' of Libertarians and Leftists [View all]
Last edited Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:38 PM - Edit history (1)
Rise of the 'Unholy Alliance' of Libertarians and Leftists
(starting quote at the fifth paragraph of the article)
Eight months after Naders "Freedom Watch" pronouncement, Ron Paul supporters along with socialists, anti-market anarchists, and other lefties of various stripes were the first to set up camp in Zuccotti Park and launch the Occupy Wall Street movement. There were arguments over whether advocates of free markets belonged in the movement, whether the economic crisis was caused by deregulation or by government encouragement of high-risk financial speculation, and whether the solution to the crisis was greater or less government control of business, but the libertarians stayed. As Occupy spread to other cities, libertarians were almost always a visiblethough minoritypresence at the encampments. "One would more reliably come across vocal Ron Paul supporters at Occupy events than vocal Obama supporters," reported Michael Tracey in the American Conservative. "It was not lost on the Zuccotti Park crowd, for instance, that Ron Paul personally expressed a measure of support for the movement earlier than most any other national U.S. politicianaside from Sen. Bernie Sanders or Rep. Dennis Kucinich."
(snip)
In the summer of 2013 the "unholy alliance" wreaked havoc on the national-security and foreign-policy establishments. Edward Snowden, a Ron Paul supporter, received passionate support from both libertarians and a broad array of leftists for revealing, at the risk of imprisonment, the NSAs dragnet surveillance of American citizens. Snowdens disclosures were publicized by the journalist Glenn Greenwald, who is a regular speaker at the International Socialist Organizations annual Socialism Conference, a recipient of the Nation Institutes I.F. Stone Award, and according to Rachel Maddow "the American lefts most fearless political commentator." But Greenwald is also, like Scahill, an eager collaborator with libertarians. He authored a study for the Cato Institute on Portugals decriminalization of drugs and frequently praised Ron Paul for being "far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party."
(snip)
One might think all this would be cause for celebration among those who share Nader's objectives, but many find it more a cause for grave concern. Since last summer, liberal media outlets have streamed out warnings to their readers to "Beware of Libertarians Bearing Gifts," as the Center for American Progress put it. Any alliance with libertarians, even for a cause as worthy as reining in the NSA, "could kill the New Deal." Salon has frequently trafficked in hysteria over the libertarian "threat" to progressivism. "Dont Ally With Libertarians," admonished one of many headlines about the "fatally compromised" coalition that produced "The Day We Fight Back." At The New Republic, Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz explained to the "liberal establishment" that had fallen in with Snowden, Greenwald, and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange that these purveyors of "paranoid libertarianism" were outside the bounds of respectable politics. They occupy "a peculiar corner of the political forest, where the far left meets the far right, often but not always under the rubric of libertarianism." Where unwitting liberals have "portrayed the leakers as truth-telling comrades intent on protecting the state and the Constitution from authoritarian malefactors, thats hardly their goal," Wilentz warned. "In fact, the leakers despise the modern liberal state, and they want to wound it."
Some left-wing observers have offered more constructive evaluations of the alliance. Ralph Nader continues to lead the way, with a new book on the "Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State" and a lengthy interview promoting it on Reason TV. Perhaps the most notable among the left-wing sympathizers to Naders cause is Peter Frase, an editor at the socialist Jacobin, who questioned "this obsession with people like Greenwald and Snowden as vectors for noxious libertarianism rather than people who are doing courageous and useful work even if their politics arent socialist." Frase identified "an instinct among some on the Left to suppose that defending the possibility of government requires rejecting any alliance with libertarians who might criticize particularly noxious aspects of the existing state." For those on the left who share Naders optimism about libertarians, Frases conclusion should serve as a manifesto:
One should not have any illusions that critics of the national security state all share socialist politics. But we should judge these critics by what they say and do and what their political impact is. An endless inquisition into hidden beliefs and motives, and the attempt to unmask a devious libertarian hidden agenda, makes for a satisfying purity politics for those who want to justify their own inaction. But it does nothing to contest the predatory fusion of state and capital that confronts us today, which must be confronted in the government, the workplace, and many other places besides.
Hear, hear. So let us say to leftists and libertarians: Unite! You have nothing to lose but your ideological chains.
Source: http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/16/rise-of-the-unholy-alliance
Ron Paul, Edward Snowden, & Ralph Nader together?!? This should be fun at DU...
The author, Thaddeus Russell, also covers the Snowden leaks, the aversion of US military action in Syria, Greenwald's reporting on such issues, etc. The whole article is worth a read, though I feel like I posted the four best paragraphs above.
I think that Russell enjoys being a gadfly to both establishment Republicans and Democrats. In so doing, he certainly glosses-over the very real threats to New Deal Programs (especially Social Security and SNAP) and other important government regulations (environmental laws, etc.) posed by Koch-funded wolves in libertarian clothing. Nonetheless, until mainstream Democrats return to the democratic progressivism that made the Party great in the past, there is a very real vacuum that libertarians can and will fill. I would prefer that Democrats stand-up for core principles of freedom and justice, but will still cheer the principles whether the actions are led by people wearing the "L" jersey or the "D" (or "S," etc.).
-app
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
65 replies, 6186 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
our small family business is a corporation as most small family businesses.
KittyWampus
Aug 2014
#13
Yea I should have made it more clear since some tend to strive to take shit how they want to.
L0oniX
Aug 2014
#42
"Democrats who approve of torture, panopticon-levels of warrantless surveillance, rendition...
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#18
How would opposing corporate bailouts NOT be liberal or Progressive? nt
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2014
#53
As bad as libertarians are, a true libertarian would not support the corporate oligarchy
AZ Progressive
Aug 2014
#3
K&R The oligarchs and fascists succeed by keeping the people divided.
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#8
Some have been trying for a while to forge that "unholy alliance" right here on DU
Number23
Aug 2014
#44
Well, the 'idological' chain-cutters were on-sale last month. Too bad you missed-out.
appal_jack
Aug 2014
#50
I agree that corporate power is the gigantic blindspot of most libertarians.
appal_jack
Aug 2014
#58
I get it. But agreeing on some issues doesn't mean needing to swallow the whole agenda.
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#15
The interesting thing here is that the ones crying the loudest are ideologically locked on
TheKentuckian
Aug 2014
#23
Well Trotsky said you should be prepared to make a United Front..........
socialist_n_TN
Aug 2014
#26
I'm not a "Trotskyite" either since that's what Stalinists called us.....
socialist_n_TN
Aug 2014
#41
Once again, I don't CARE what they mean by a particular type of "opposition".......
socialist_n_TN
Aug 2014
#64
"I also dislike the extreme radical Left". Me, too, even though I used to be.....
AverageJoe90
Aug 2014
#56
Most of those now claiming to be Libertarians are embarassed former Republicans.
JoePhilly
Aug 2014
#47
Unfortunately, it seems we've been making a fair number of mistakes lately.
AverageJoe90
Aug 2014
#54