Are You A Libertarian Democrat?

[ruggerson]

I think this is the future of our party and our nation. I have disagreements with Markos on some issues, but on this overarching thematic and distillation of a core belief system, easily explainable to all Americans, I believe he is on the money.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/7/131550/7297

It's no secret that I look to the Mountain West for the future of the Democratic Party, people like Brian Schweitzer and Jon Tester. But I also look to candidates like Jim Webb in Virginia and Paul Hackett in Ohio.

And what is the common thread amongst these candidates?

They are all Libertarian Democrats.

Ack, the "L" word! But hear me out.

Traditional "libertarianism" holds that government is evil and thus must be minimized. Any and all government intrusion is bad. While practical libertarians (as opposed to those who waste their votes on the Libertarian Party) have traditionally aligned themselves with the Republicans, it's clear that the modern GOP has no qualms about trampling on personal liberties. Heck, it's become their raison d' etre.

[bloom]

1. no

[xchrom]

2. nope

[Placebo]

3. This was one of the dumbest KOS posts ever.

Laugh out loud ridiculous.

KOS is way overrated.

[papau]

4. no - except as to keeping gov out of religion and sex/birth n/t

n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. No

[mzteris]

6. take this quiz

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html


I find myself agreeing in some small part of what some libertarians say - but they skate a little too close to anarchy for me.

[RebelOne]

43. My score:

ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,
You fall exactly on the border
of two political philosophies...

LIBERAL
LIBERTARIAN


LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the
free market, and defend civil liberties.

[JHH]

64. I got the same score

[smokey nj]

66. I took the quiz.......

I'm a lefty all the way.

[salvorhardin]

7. One thing I disagree with off the bat

It seems he's set up a huge strawman right up front:

But unlike the liberal Democrats of old times (now all but extinct), the Libertarian Dem doesn't believe government is the solution for everything.

Umm... Very few classical liberals believe that, and honestly I can't think of a single Democratic politician that falls under that rubric. He needs to at least enumerate a few of these so-called government as panacea liberals.

[Warpy]

8. Not a chance

because libertarians reveal themselves as dreamers at best and delusional at worst when they start talking about anything besides social issues.

The Katrina disaster showed very clearly what happens when government is shrunk away from its citizens and toward the military: it's citizens die. There is an obvious need for big government to protect the powerless from the powerful, whether it's natural disasters or cartels of obscenely rich men.

Likewise their laissez faire economics have been tried before to one extent or another, always with disastrous results for ordinary human beings.

The cure for libertarianism is close reading of history.

[ruggerson]

53. The cure for misreading the OP

is to carefully read the link it provides.

This is not about espousing libertarianism or the Libertarian party. It's about refocusing what it means to be a Democrat in the context of individual freedom.

[ruggerson]

9. Try to read his entire post before responding

This is a framing of a point of view. He is not espousing traditional "libertarianism," he is articulating a coherent belief system that we can run on as a party.

Read the piece.

[salvorhardin]

10. I did

It's weak.

So in practical terms, what does a Libertarian Dem look like? A Libertarian Dem rejects government efforts to intrude in our bedrooms and churches. A Libertarian Dem rejects government "Big Brother" efforts, such as the NSA spying of tens of millions of Americans. A Libertarian Dem rejects efforts to strip away rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights -- from the First Amendment to the 10th. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.

So far, this isn't much different than what a traditional libertarian believes. Here is where it begins to differ (and it shouldn't).

That's pretty much what a traditional liberal believes as well as traditional Democrats. So I get it. He's yet another person trying to replace well-worn words like 'liberal' with something else. Bollocks. Just walk the talk and Democrats will do fine.

[ruggerson]

11. What's weak about it?

[salvorhardin]

13. I was editing my post when you replied

Check it out again.

[ruggerson]

12. What part of this do you disagree with?

So in practical terms, what does a Libertarian Dem look like? A Libertarian Dem rejects government efforts to intrude in our bedrooms and churches. A Libertarian Dem rejects government "Big Brother" efforts, such as the NSA spying of tens of millions of Americans. A Libertarian Dem rejects efforts to strip away rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights -- from the First Amendment to the 10th. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.

A Libertarian Dem believes that true liberty requires freedom of movement -- we need roads and public transportation to give people freedom to travel wherever they might want. A Libertarian Dem believes that we should have the freedom to enjoy the outdoor without getting poisoned; that corporate polluters infringe on our rights and should be checked. A Libertarian Dem believes that people should have the freedom to make a living without being unduly exploited by employers. A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives, so strong crime and poverty prevention programs can create a safe environment for the pursuit of happiness. A Libertarian Dem gets that no one is truly free if they fear for their health, so social net programs are important to allow individuals to continue to live happily into their old age. Same with health care. And so on.

The core Democratic values of fairness, opportunity, and investing in our nation and people very much speak to the concept of personal liberties -- an open society where success is predicated on the merit of our ideas and efforts, unduly burdened by the government, corporate America, or other individuals. And rather than always get in the way, government can facilitate this. Of course, this also means that government isn't always the solution to the nation's problems. There are times when business-government partnerships can be extremely effective (such as job retraining efforts for displaced workers). There are times when government really should butt out (like a great deal of small-business regulation). Our first proposed solution to a problem facing our nation shouldn't be more regulation, more government programs, more bureaucracy.

The key here isn't universal liberty from government intrusion, but policies that maximize individual freedom, and who can protect those individual freedoms best from those who would infringe.

[ruggerson]

14. Nonsense

Traditional liberal democrats believe in the relatively unfettered right to bear arms?

If that was true we would not have lost half the so called "Reagan Democrats" who left us over the gun issue.

Liberal Democrats believe in gun control, by and large.

Those who have a consistent belief system defined by the proper role of government intrusion in our lives, do not.

[salvorhardin]

16. Put gun control aside for now

Thought I don't see reasonable gun control like 3-day waiting laws on purchases as infringing on personal liberties. Provide me with some more examples of where traditional Democrats fail.

[ruggerson]

18. Gun control is a huge issue

in a number of swing states. Why do you think Kerry went tromping around in his duck suit during the elections? We need a consistent, coherent belief system that makes sense to Americans. Traditional liberalism, as it has come to be defined to the average voter, doesn't cut it. This piece and others are attempting to artfully define a common sense approach to liberalism which is progressive, responsible, fair and, very importantly, helps to begin to marginalize modern conservatism as the party wedded to out of control, big nanny, intrusive government.

[salvorhardin]

19. In other words

It's just dancing to the strings of the right again. I see Democratic complacency as complicit in allowing liberalism to be equated with negative values by the right. Like I said, the Democrats need to walk the talk.

I repeat, gun control aside (which I do agree the Dems allowed to become a big issue), can you enumerate other examples of your position?

[ruggerson]

23. Or you could argue that liberals have been so

inarticulate at elucidating what they believe in that they have handed the neocons election after election.

There was a time, in the sixties and the seventies, when the Republican party basically stood for nothing but stopping the progress of the Democrats. They wanted to stop civil rights, stop women's equality, put a halt to any government intervention on behalf of the working man - many of the same things they are interested in doing now. But, they had one thing. They had William F Buckley and a very nascent movement that was developing an intellectually coherent (or so they proclaimed) conservative belief system. Over the next decade or so, it became distilled down to a simple message: lower taxes, less government, stronger military - the ethos of the Reagan era.

Liberalism today is where the Republicans were before their well funded think tanks taught them how to rebrand and remarket themselves to the American public.

To dismiss out of hand Markos' and other's ideas for redefining traditional liberalism so that it makes sense to the average American in 2006 is pure self destructive defeatism.

Gun control, small business regulation, endless government bureaucracy - these are the weak links in the perception of traditional present day liberalism. To redefine ourselves as a party is not to compromise our tenets, it is to sharpen and focus and make ourselves relevant to modern day America.

As Markos says in this piece: "The core Democratic values of fairness, opportunity, and investing in our nation and people very much speak to the concept of personal liberties -- an open society where success is predicated on the merit of our ideas and efforts... The key here isn't universal liberty from government intrusion, but policies that maximize individual freedom, and who can protect those individual freedoms best from those who would infringe ."

Let's reclaim a consistent theory of the relationship citizens have with their government and make Americans understand why our vision of pluralism, success, hard work and fairnes makes sense for our country and for each American individually.

Maybe then we can start winning elections.

[salvorhardin]

27. And as I said before

I agree with that part. I just think kos' is being rather hamhanded here. You don't give up the 'liberal' label -- a label that up to the mid-1950s even Republicans were proud to use -- you reassociate it with possitive values. kos is letting the right define him because he's bought that Reagan era myth about liberalism.

[ruggerson]

28. I don't care what it's called frankly

call it neo-liberalism if that rocks your boat. I'm far less interested in the name than in the discussion about how to distill our issues into a simple, coherent set of core principles. NOT a litany of issues, which Democrats are very good at listing, but actual principles. Simple words and phrases which convey a completely comprehensible world view.

[salvorhardin]

32. But it's not neoliberalism

It's classical liberalism plain and simple. As far as boiling it down into simple principles, just go back and read the speeches of JFK, Roosevelt, etc., extract common themes and modernize the language. But you do not under any circumstances allow the right to take labels away from you or twist them. As soon as you do that you're playing by their game.

[ruggerson]

38. But you're not espousing classical liberalism

if you're advocating the traditional liberalism of the Democratic party of the sixties and seventies.

Classical liberalism is defined by laissez faire economics, the antithesis of governmental regulation. Classical liberalism, it can be argued, is a profoundly "libertarian" philosophy.

What I am propounding (and Kos to some degree) is a return to a variant form of classical liberalism, where the Democrats proudly stand for the primacy of the individual over the state and elucidate that construct in a way that people will understand how it relates to the issues they care about.

You seem to be arguing for status quo big government liberalism.

I'm not interested in jettisoning the word "liberal", nor am I interested in letting Republicans dictate our language. What I am interested in is winning elections by refocusing our message and making it relevant to 2006 America.

[progdonkey]

15. what the fuck is he smoking?

So in practical terms, what does a Libertarian Dem look like? A Libertarian Dem rejects government efforts to intrude in our bedrooms and churches. A Libertarian Dem rejects government "Big Brother" efforts, such as the NSA spying of tens of millions of Americans. A Libertarian Dem rejects efforts to strip away rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights -- from the First Amendment to the 10th. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.

So far, this isn't much different than what a traditional libertarian believes. Here is where it begins to differ (and it shouldn't).

A Libertarian Dem believes that true liberty requires freedom of movement -- we need roads and public transportation to give people freedom to travel wherever they might want. A Libertarian Dem believes that we should have the freedom to enjoy the outdoor without getting poisoned; that corporate polluters infringe on our rights and should be checked. A Libertarian Dem believes that people should have the freedom to make a living without being unduly exploited by employers. A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives, so strong crime and poverty prevention programs can create a safe environment for the pursuit of happiness. A Libertarian Dem gets that no one is truly free if they fear for their health, so social net programs are important to allow individuals to continue to live happily into their old age. Same with health care. And so on.

Okay, take "Libertarian" out of that entire spiel, and explain to me how the fuck that's any different from "regular" Democrats! Really, Kos, WHAT. THE. FUCK? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[salvorhardin]

17. Yes

This is my point exactly. It's a lame attempt at framing.

[beam me up scottie]

20. No.

And I distrust anyone who uses the phrase "core belief system".

[ruggerson]

21. I guess you don't believe in anything n/t

[Selatius]

22. This is nothing more than calling for Social Democracy in different terms

You don't need to shove more words into the dictionary here when you already have adequate terms to describe what you are aiming for. What is being advocated here is essentially an American answer to European Social Democracy.

As a moderate libertarian socialist, I'm more open to dealing with state socialists and Social Democrats than I am with center-right Democrats, but my advice to Social Democrats in the Democratic Party is you really shouldn't be wasting so much time with semantics as opposed to planning and acting coupled with determination and clarity of vision.

If the Democratic Party wants to win, then it must fight for "checkbook" issues that affect working-class Americans everyday. Republican or Democrat--you know you're in deep shit when you're losing your job to outsourcing, when your cost of living rises faster than your wages, when your health care premiums are getting too high, or when you're not willing to take on high tuition debt because you already have shitty credit.

[ruggerson]

24. If the Republicans had taken your advice

in the 1970's, and not rebranded themselves intellectually, Reagan would have never been elected President and they would still have been seen as the party with no vision.

[Selatius]

25. My advice doesn't work on Republicans. Also, I re-edited my post

I would never advocate universal health care to a room full of corporate Republicans. You're saying if I gave the advice that they should make health care affordable, make college education affordable, and protect middle class wages from inflation and exploitation, they'd lose if they bought it hook, line, and sinker?

[ruggerson]

26. I'm referring

to your disdain of rebranding a message so that it means something to people.

You can talk "checkbook" issues all you wish, but unless you have a clear belief system underlying your positions that can be simply articulated, they will be merely seen as just a laundry list of liberal positions that the Republicans will define as "tax and spend."

[Selatius]

30. If it's word play, then "tax and spend" just killed Republicans.

This is where we part ways.

If you had a president who went before a live audience and spoke about wanting to help the poor, the unemployed, the sick, the war weary, and the hapless, he'd get lots of support from the masses, but if he went out there and fought like hell for these people like Social Democrats have in the past and came up with a clear, concise, vetted, and reasonable plan to do this and presented this plan before his audience, then he earns not just their approval ratings but also their ballots.

You can call yourself a Libertarian Democrat or a Social Democrat, but in the end, if you remain true to your constituents, you could call yourself a "socialist" and still earn their vote because they know you got the job done and can still get the job done, and that's what counts at the end of the day.

[ruggerson]

31. People don't buy into plans

they buy into beliefs. But those beliefs have to hang together consistently in a readily understandable framework.

Over the last eight or nine presidential election cycles, the Democrat has largely run on "plans" as you suggest. The Republicans have run on belief systems.

Guess who's won most of the time?

[Selatius]

33. Social Democracy is a belief system that hangs together just fine

All you've done is take the same damn philosophy and gave it a new name.

Maybe the reason Democratic leaders have lost power is precisely because they stopped paying attention to the ethos that gave rise to the "New Deal" and the "Great Society." No, it's about free-trade now where if your job is outsourced, the message is "tough shit."

If Democrats continue to run on this plan they've been running for the last several election cycles, then they will continue to lose as you say, but I'll tell you that things like free-trade with no protections for workers and no protections for the environment sound completely alien to me.

Besides, since you brought up the "tax and spend" meme, might I suggest you point that at Republicans? "We tax your children's future to pay for our wars and greed today."

[salvorhardin]

34. Damn right!

All you've done is take the same damn philosophy and gave it a new name.

Maybe the reason Democratic leaders have lost power is precisely because they stopped paying attention to the ethos that gave rise to the "New Deal" and the "Great Society."

Exactly right.

[ruggerson]

37. I don't think reviving the Great Society

would win an election for dogcatcher.

Although Lyndon Johnson actually believed in something and had the balls to try and implement it.

And no, this is not about recycling old policies with a new name, it is about defining and conveying a set of beliefs that explain how Democrats view the individual as he/she relates to his/her government.

You keep focusing on individual issues, like free trade, where you have an issue with libertarians, I would guess. This isn't about addressing individual issues on a piecemeal basis. This is about addressing the lack of a broad vision.

[Selatius]

39. But social democracy is a set of beliefs

That explains how Social Democrats view the individual as he/shee relates to his/her government. Again, all you're doing is repackaging the same philosophy and calling it something else.

Free-trade is just one issue Americans have to deal with, and I didn't mean to overemphasize it over any other issue out there. I see the lack of broad vision as the result of trying to have it several ways at once, of having a contradictory record that doesn't match up with the beautiful words politicians try to put out.

[ruggerson]

40. So explain "social democracy" to me as you understand it

as a simple set of principles. Something the average person can relate to. Small government? Big government? In favor of more or less regulation? What is the role of government in your vision of society?

[Selatius]

41. The role of government

A person who doesn't have to worry about obtaining high quality education, paying for health care, being paid wages that don't cover the bills just so his employer can exploit him further, spying by the government against its citizens, or being crippled due to meaningless wars is a person who has more freedom to pursue his goals, his interests, his dreams, and his desires than somebody who is held down by those chains and weights.

The role of government, according to Social Democrats, in that light, is clear: The government should ensure that people are free from exploitation; free from fear; free from war; free from persecution; free from hate and intolerance; and free from poverty, sickness, and hunger. Furthermore, the government should ensure and, indeed, encourage that people are free to push boundaries, free to learn, free to grow, free to pursue the truth, free to express oneself, and free to fulfill the potential and promise that all should be allowed to attain.

I don't see our government as meeting the spirit behind these words on any fucking level.

[salvorhardin]

35. Right again!

Unless the Democrats walk the talk, the ultimately no matter what they call themselves they will still be losers.

[rman]

46. How can you have Social Democracy without elected government?

(as RW libertarians would have it - "Traditional "libertarianism" holds that government is evil and thus must be minimized. Any and all government intrusion is bad.")

What safeguards for 'being free to do whatever you wish with your person or property, as long as you do not infringe on the same liberty of others' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian) are there, if there is no representative (elected) governing body?

[Zorra]

29. Bingo, that's me. A Libertarian Democrat in the Jeffersonian

tradition.

[Radical Activist]

36. The word is radical, not libertarian.

He's describing the old radicals like Saul Alinksy and Howard Zinn. Call it what it is. Libertarianism is the ultimate, self centered "me" philosophy. Its the ultimate conservatism. I will have nothing to do with that.

[Lefergus70]

42. Dems don't need libertarian contradictions

Warpy echoed my thoughts: "There is an obvious need for big government to protect the powerless from the powerful, whether it's natural disasters or cartels of obscenely rich men." I wouldn't depend on self-proclaimed libertarians, with their vague language and curious double standards, for those protections.

"Our first proposed solution to a problem facing our nation shouldn't be more regulation, more government programs, more bureaucracy". That is pure Republican pro-business talk. Although the Kos post confines its criticism of government regulations to small businesses, I can't recall them actually warming to regulations for the big companies either. Example: the country desperately needs more inspectors and tighter regulations to police our food industry, the protect the people. Can you imagine libertarians pushing for that?

If I encourage my party to absorb libertarian beliefs I can forget about universal health care, which I firmly believe is a natural right. On this issue, old-time liberals are closer to the public's needs and desires, while libertarians -with their rhetoric about individual choices- are closer to privatizing, anti-S.S.Republilcans and their friends in the health industry..

"A Libertarian Dem rejects government efforts to intrude in our bedrooms and churches." Fine, but I' m left wondering what libertarians think of keeping churches out of the schools too; if they are not for separation of church and state - a vital principle that can only be guaranteed by government intervention- then we should steer as far away from them as possible.

[alvarezadams]

44. -I- am

but not in the sense of the posted story. I consider myself a SOCIAL LIBERTARIAN, and I'd wager that I am far from being alone in this respect.

Take the political compass test and see just how far removed most progressives are from their leadership: http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/

[rman]

45. traditional libertarianism is more or less equivalent to anarchism,

which contrary to popular belief is not about lawlessness and violence and doing away with government and regulations all together, but rather is about having less concentration of power.

In practice, just doing away with the presidential administration while keeping congress and senate, would be a form of anarchism. It would still be a representative democracy - even more so than it is now (or rather, is supposed to be...).


"The first known use of a term that has been translated as "libertarian," in a political sense, was by anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque who used the French term "libertaire" in a letter to Proudhon in 1857.<3>While many left-anarchists still use the term (e.g., terms translatable as "libertarian" are used as a synonym for anarchism in some non-English languages, like French, Italian and so on), its most common usage in the United States has nothing to do with socialism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian#History


"Anarchism is the name for both a political philosophy and manner of organizing society, derived from the Greek ἀναρχία ("without archons" or "without chiefs"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

[saltpoint]

47. Defnitely not. We ARE the government. The Bush administration

is certainly betraying the public trust in virtually every single arena, but that doesn't mean we burn the house down.

I don't believe Jon Tester considers himself a Libertarian. I believe he considers himself a Democrat.

The Libertarian and Green Parties are both sending a nominee to battle Richard Lugar (R-IN) for his senate seat. Lugar's seat is safe in a red state like Indiana. But the Libertarian candidate is not appreciably more appealing to me. Many Democrats will write-in the name of a prominent Democrat they would prefer instead of all other choices.

I'll grant that meaningful reform is necessary, and that it's USUALLY necessary anytime you get 3 or more people together. But I don't want the word "Libertarian" notched into my forehead.

[ruggerson]

55. You're missing the point

Markos is redefining libertarianism here. He is not espousing chaos or no government, nor is he advocating for the Libertarian party.

He is just naming a set of beliefs which bring many core Democratic values together, along with a few not-so-traditional ones (like supporting the rights of gun owners) into one consistent belief system.

He believes, quite rightly, that our message has been muddled and our words and symbols have been bastardized by the Republicans. His "rebranding", so to speak, is a means by which to recapture and revitalize what it means to be a progressive. And to make it relevant and comprehensible to the average American voter.

[saltpoint]

56. ruggerson, I am not missing the point. I am disagreeing with kos.

I don't especially agree with his take on a lot of things, by the way, so this is just one more in the bucket of things I feel differently about.

In Las Vegas this weekend, kos touted the pragmatic beauty of liberal blogs and lumped "new Democrats" like Tester into a "new" group. I find that to be a baseless claim. Kos is leading a very exciting charge right now of people who want meaningful reform in Democratic Party politics, but they are also doing an end-run around the establishmentarian, day-to-day, here-for-30-years workers who've seen a LOT more election campaigns come and go, and who frankly, know a hell of a lot more about it than kos.

The celebrity he enjoys gives him the platform and medium to rebrand anything he wishes, but I don't have to agree with it.

As for the average American voter, in this day and age, any Democrat who lacks the wherewithal to communicate with his or her constituents, is going to face difficulties at the polls. Barbara Boxer is on the ballot in Bakersfield as well as Berkeley. But those voters aren't necessarily the same kind of voters, nor do they have the same degrees of concern over the issues. In some cases they may violently disagree, and Boxer has to ask for ALL of their votes.

Progressive bloggers sense that they don't have to do that sleeves-rolled-up hard work of appealing to a mass constituency, because they're preaching to kindred spirits in cyberspace. Rebranding the problem isn't going to help if the medium is a liberal blog.

I'm not against what kos has accomplished -- I'm a part of it -- but I don't like the breezy "we're it now" attitude that it sometimes fosters, and I think proceeding apace with that attitude is not likely to gain us much ground.

Speaking strictly for myself, I'm really repelled by the term "Libertarian Democrat." Yuck.

[saltpoint]

57. An aside in support of my concern: on firedoglake, a progressive blog

I generally admire, one of their people attended the Las Vegas blogorama and reported that Senator Boxer, one of the very most progressive senators in U.S. history, was asked by a reporter about her support for her colleague, Sen. Lieberman.

Traditionally -- and those 30-years-at-hard-work people can vouch for me here -- senators don't trash the colleagues they must work with especially in an election context. Bill Frist broke that tradition and showed up for Thune against Daschle, but with only very rare exceptions, it is NOT done. It's considered bad form and it's terrible for your constituents if in the next week that opponent WINS and you still have to work with him or her to get something for your state. Terrible, terrible politics.

The post on firedoglake calld Boxer "clueless" -- that was the title of the post -- and references were made to her being unplugged, out-of-touch, "an idiot," and so forth.

It was disgusting.

[ruggerson]

58. I've disagreed with him as well many times

but I think he's written a very smart big picture piece. I guess I'm not as hung up on the word "libertarian" as some folks are, as I don't see it as a pejorative, but rather a set of beliefs which convey a faith in individuals rather than a faith in institutions. And yes I know, we ARE the institutions, but the problem with that is that bureaucracy often perverts and destroys both institutional intent and effectiveness. As I said upthread, I am not wedded to his term "libertarian democrat", but I think the set of ideas he propounds as a prescription to appeal thematically to "Reagan democrats" (another term I cast a wary eye on) makes sense. Both in terms of reframing and in terms of intellectual coherency.

[saltpoint]

59. It's certainly possible, if not in my book preferable, that "libertarian

Democrat" will become common currency. It may even prompt a self-identified movement for all I know. And for all I know some good may come of it. You know I'm fond of you and respect your posts, so I'm not aiming this at you, but at kos. I'm just not persuaded by him to date. I'm not in total disagreement either, and I'll give him his due: his project has been genuinely successful.

In the context of election reform, or heightened grassroots volunteerism, canvassing, and so forth -- I'm for whatever brings more of us together in service of the greater good. But I'm wary of any trend toward labeling or litmus-testing that will divide the party. From many DU posts, I'm not known for my love for Senator Clinton, but if she is the party's nominee, I will vote for her, in part because she will have won the match over my candidates, but more importantly, a majority of my colleagues in the Democratic Party voted for her, and I respect their votes.

I frankly find your own posts, ruggerson, to eclipse the range of markos' over at dailykos.com. That's no contest, IMO. But kos' shadow and the litmus-test/label goblin is making a lot of noise in the background over the weekend news cycle, and I'm just not big enough a kos fan to prefer him to you.

[jonnyblitz]

48. HELL no. nt

[lojasmo]

49. Stupidest definition of Libertairan Ev4R!

I am a left libertarian, and I sit on the county DfL central dommittee.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

50. Yep

I always have been. Some things that set me apart from most Democrats is that I'm against seat belt and helmet laws as well as anti-smoking laws. I'm also very pro-gun.

[w4rma]

51. No, I'm a (small-"L") libertarian Democrat. (nt)

[hollowdweller]

52. I'm for max individual freedom, but w/a social safety net

I'm for rights of gun owners, gay folks to get married, whistleblowers not to get fired, speech, freedom from unlawful search (strenghten 4th amendment), internet privacy, credit info privacy, but I'm for pension protection, environmental legislation, worker rights, universal health care. Does that make me a libertarian or a populist?

[ruggerson]

54. In the context of this discussion

you are aligned almost exactly with the message he is conveying.

People here are reacting in a knee jerk fashion to the word "libertarian" unfortunately without reading Markos' piece. He is not espouding libertarianism. He is coming up with a label for a set of beliefs which closely mirror the ones you have expressed.

[hollowdweller]

60. I know.

If the Dems would adopt this strategy we'd win. I know a lot of republicans that are upset with the unfairness of people being unable to work their way up because the corporate influence has robbed the American worker of his ability to be upwardly mobile and many are upset that the party of "getting the Govt' out of peoples lives" wants to be on our phone lines in in our bedrooms.

[alfredo]

61. bush's police state has pushed me into the left libertarian camp.

I'm Libertarian when it comes to personal habits, sexual orientation, privacy, and religious beliefs. The government should stay out of it. I do believe that businesses should be regulated because they will sell us out in a heart beat because their loyalty is to the ledger, not the nation.

[gulliver]

62. He misses one of the key forces affecting liberty. Religion.

Apart from that, I strongly agree with the idea that Libertarians are ripe for conversion. IMO, their Achilles heal is a tendency to be juvenile and simplistic. But the Bush Incompetency has burned Libertarians badly. The drug war has been stoked, not abandoned. Corporations are running amok, sucking jobs out of he country, forcing down wages, polluting, and forming new and better ways to achieve (effectively) trusts. The "ordained" of various religions are putting their greasy fingers on the Constitution. It's enough to make a Libertarian grow up and see that everyone is part of a system. Freedom is a minimal, well functioning system, not anarchy.

What drives Libertarians away from the Dems is taxes, welfare, political correctness, bureaucracy, etc. They are somewhat juvenile, so they are easily baited by Republicans, even though, as kos says, the Republicans are really Public Enemy Number One of liberty in this country. You have only to look at the Bush years to see that clearly.

The Libertarian type of Republican is a natural pick-up for the Dems. The traditional Conservative is also achievable as a Dem pick-up in my opinion.

[saltpoint]

63. From the National Journal site, a look at Kos' argument:

http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/


Too long to copy in full here, but a good glimpse at Kos' stance.

[wisteria]

65. What the F*ck is this sh*t? NO, hell No! I am not , nor do I ever want to

be a "libertarian Dem. Markos, is crazy. What an ego, to assume he and he alone knows where we have to go as a party. I would fight his idea tooth and nail.
This is absolutely stupid. And, it is not easily explained to the public as it has been explained.

[anewdeal]

67. wrong reply

**