Friday, September 19, 2008

Can Libertarians Address Values? Why Not?

There seems to be an aversion to discussing values among libertarians. If someone mentions patriotism, service to country, greed, abortion, etc., it seems libertarians assume that any such discourse leads to government intervention.

I don't agree with this. On the contrary, in order to engage traditionalists and libertarian conservatives, I believe that we libertarian Democrats need to address cultural and values issues.
Will we agree with government action? Probably not, but we might be able to alleviate some concerns on these issues by addressing them forthrightly.

Take abortion. We should be squarely for reducing abortions if that's what we believe, irregardless about how we come down on the legal status of abortion.

Here's a post from Progressive Revival on beliefnet.com arguing for reducing unwanted pregnancies. Here's a quote:

"Americans are extremely receptive to a practical argument about how to reduce the need for and number of abortions (Stan Greenberg did a great poll on this). And Democrats have some really great legislation that recognizes that abortion is merely an end result of a long string of social ills. So it tackles the root of the problem by vastly improving services to prevent unwanted pregnancies and targeting the underlying factors that lead pregnant women to choose abortion by improving adoption services, expanding pre and post natal healthcare, creating programs to allow pregnant women to go back to school, etc. If fully implemented, these programs could cut abortions in half in the next decade. Catholics in Alliance has a great study that builds on some powerful reports by Third Way that provide ample data for those interested. "


Here's a post from the Daily Kos called "How To Reach Pro-Life Voters. A quote:

"So, ultimately, we all need to think and pray about the following:

If you still feel that outlawing abortions is the best option, consider the fact that it has not been able to be accomplished in 35 years and abortions keep increasing in the meantime. Also, that countries that outlaw abortions, still have enormous problems with abortions.

The main question is: How can we actually get something done? The only way is by working together. And the one thing that 90 percent of us can agree on is that abortions should be reduced – so let us work on this together! Then, after abortions become drastically decreased we can have a less heated and more productive conversation about how to deal with this issue.

Update: Please Digg if you would like to spread the word!

Mostly, ask yourself: Is my family better off than it was eight years ago? Is the country better off than eight years ago? Is it worth risking the empty promises of Republicans for another eight years?"


Here's another Daily Kos post called "Pro-lifer For Obama". A quote:

I'm also a pro-life voter who's voting Obama. It pains me that abortion exists on the massive scale that it does and that Obama won't do much to curtail it. Although how much McCain will do, we can agree is also in question.

I think the act of normalizing torture and the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare should be anathema to those who support a culture of life. I also want to live in a nation where health care is not a privilege but a right and children are protected after they leave the womb. I don't see the GOP as the party that shares these values with me.

I think the Bush White House has been destructive for this nation and horrible for civil liberties. Financial deregulation has allowed for even greater predatory lending and is creating a worldwide financial crisis. (Granted, there are lots of factors at play in the current financial crisis, but the irresponsible lending practiced by banks is at the heart of it.) I think the unitary executive is insane and given my belief in original sin, the idea of consolidating that much power in the hands of one person is terrifying.

I think Obama is necessary if for no other reason than as a corrective to the dangerous policies of the Bush White House which McCain seems ready to continue.

The Palin selection pains me because it seems to be a very cynical means to collect the pro-life vote. I think she is painfully under qualified and is clearly an attempt to shore up and pacify Conservative voters. I don't think praying and being against abortion qualify one to be president."

I don't mind if a libertarian is pro-life. I'm on the fence myself, although I remain pro-choice. But there is nothing wrong about addressing this issue even if you're pro-choice.

Here's a post by Steve Waldman about greed on beliefnet.com. Once again, it seems like an interesting post, and does not lead me to inevitably demand total regulation. A quote:

"The one thing everyone from Jim Wallis to John McCain seem to agree on is that rampant greed is a main cause of the financial collapse.

I don't buy it. I'm not saying greed is good, just that greed is. It's a constant. It's part of human character and I find no evidence that the intensity of this basic human instinct suddenly increased in the last ten years.

What's changed is that the checks on greed have dissipated."

Read on. He does mention regulation, but not only regulation.

My only point is that as libertarian Democrats, we need not fear discussing questions of morals and values.

What we ask the government to do is another question.


No comments: