Bad Liberal Day: Lieberman Not Punished To Their Satisfaction

Liberal apoplexy via AmericaBlog:

"Today, Senate Democrats showed us that disloyalty and trashing the Democratic agenda have no consequences. Joe Lieberman was rewarded for his bad behavior.

Next up, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

Using the coded language of the right wing, Hoyer said today that Democrats in Congress aren't really going to be Democrats:

As the House prepares to elect its leaders, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is challenging the idea that the expanded Democratic majority and its leaders will make a hard left turn.

“For the first time in decades, we are a true national majority party—and if we want to stay that way, we must govern like one,” Hoyer (D-Md.) is to say in a speech today at the National Press Club, according to excerpts of his remarks obtained by The Hill...

The Sen. Lieberman decision is causing conniption fits among liberals:

"So, the biggest obstacles to change will be Democrats like Hoyer who will undermine the agenda that the American people think they're getting from President Obama. The corporate-backed Democrats prefer pablum and inaction. And, we've already seen that Senate Democrats are spineless. The Democrats on Capitol Hill are going to be their own worst enemies."

Now Kos, as well, is bothered:

"Mandate for reconciliation

by kos

Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 07:15:05 PM PST

Dean:

So if you run and get a mandate for reconciliation is your first act to kick this guy out of the party?

The question wasn't kicking Lieberman out of the party. Democrats in Connecticut already did that in 2006.

And once again, given this "mandate for reconciliation", I suspect that Reid won't reduce committee staff and seats for Republicans? Since that would be punitive. And we all want reconciliation, right? And maybe we can give Inhofe his committee chairmanship back, because apparently, the American people didn't vote for change.

And while we're at it, it just wouldn't be right for Obama to rid the executive branch of its thousands of political appointees, right? Because the first act once you have a "mandate for reconciliation" shouldn't be booting people out of their jobs for the pesky little reason that they supported the other party.

Right?"

Dear me. Not a good day for liberals and progressives. I hope they're prepared to be disappointed. So far, I'm feeling pretty good.

Why Do I Focus So Much On Economics?

I tend not to comment on the following things:

1) Polls : They're imprecise, and, if you like the results, they're meaningful, but if you don't, they're crap.

2) Gaffes: Everybody makes them.

3) Changes Of Opinion : Quite often it makes sense, and, if you agree with the change, it's enlightenment, but if you don't, it's hypocrisy or putting your wet finger in the air.

There are probably others.

Also, Andrew Sullivan, Ron Chusid, Kos, a number of people, focus on everything the candidates say or their shortcomings, and that gets the lion's share of the press anyway, and, well, I don't enjoy it.

Some issues, like Gay Rights and Drug Policy, I've left to others like Andrew Sullivan and Reason, although I'll probably mention them more in the future.

However, my main point in focusing on economics and economic policy is that it is where libertarians most blow a gasket about the Democratic Party, and I endeavor to zero in on the crux of the problem. I don't guarantee to do it well, but, you get the point.

How Do We Make The State's Power To Do Things Less ?

I've said that I want to respond to interesting responses to the original Kos article on being a libertarian Democrat. Here's one from samizdata.net by Perry de Havilland:

"And there you have one of the classical error of the left: the idea that corporations have great power to coerce in and of themselves. Now it is true that corporations often behave disgracefully (no one has ever accused Samizdata of being soft of corporate wickedness or being reflexively well disposed towards Big Biz) but the overwhelming way they do this is by using their vast wealth to manipulate the power of the state in their favour. When the state uses the power of eminent domain to take land from people so a wealthy corporation can profit from it, that is an example of state power. When corporations get subsidies and regulations which make it harder for new market entrants to compete with them, that is an example of state power. When corporations use laws to bust unions and restrict reasonable rights of workers to organise, that is an example of state power.

Large corporations can coerce people because they can manipulate excessively mighty state power. The problem is the amount and scope of coersive power that the state has been allowed to accumulate. Make the state's power to do things less and you make large corporations less able to coerce people as an inevitable consequence. It is just a variant of the notion that the only way to stop corruption in high places is to get rid of high places. Kos does not have to agree with that (and he surely does not) but then that is one the main notions underpinning what makes a libertarian a libertarian."

What does it mean to say that you want to make the state's power to do things less? The whole point is that corporations have the power to influence the government because they have so much money, power, and influence, and you need countervailing power to oppose it. For example, laws to limit this power. Perhaps it simply takes a magic spell to declare corporations inert. There is no magic bullet to oppose this ability of corporations to influence government. It takes an organized opposition. There is no such thing in the real world as simply declaring the state have less power.

There is also the problem of monopolies, which I accept, but many libertarians don't.

But the real difference is now clear. The libertarian Democrat lives in the real world. In that world, large corporations will try and influence the government. There is no such thing as declaring small government. There is concerted opposition to the accumulation and use of that power to influence government. Such an opposition will need to use laws to oppose such influence on the government. That opposition will involve government action, action that is effective. What is determined to be effective is what works in the real world. The Democratic responses to that ability to influence government have arisen in the real world to oppose that power and influence.

The only way to make the state's power to do things less is to have countervailing powers to balance and confront such accumulations of power. In this world, there is no such thing as in and of itself.

W. Lane Startin For Governor Of Idaho 2010

Check out the web page for W. Lane Startin for Governor of Idaho in 2010. He's a libertarian Western Democrat who posts on the Daily Kos. I featured one of his posts earlier.

Let's get behind him now. It's not too early.

Schweitzer For President

Kos and David Sirota talk about Schweitzer for president. I consider Schweitzer a libertarian Democrat, and will start working for him or someone like him the day after the election if Sen. Obama loses. I pray that he doesn't, but I want to get someone like Schweitzer elected if Sen. Obama doesn't win. No point in waiting around.

So much for the idea that this blog disappears after the election. No such luck.

Freedom Democrats On Libertarian Democrats

Freedom Democrats has a post by Kaligula entitled "Wither The Libertarian Democrat?", calling the whole concept into question. Fair points are made, but I want to answer a few.

Here's one point:

"Firstly, the notion of "libertarian democrat" infecting the bloodstream of the National Democratic Party was a stillborn one at best. Kos himself, after the 2006 midterms, quickly abandoned the libertarian dem project. At Daily Kos the only ideology is winning and the primary means to such an end is to attack Republicans. Thus, the selection of Biden, which should have been viewed as an anathema by Kos, is instead praised primarily because the echo chamber reassures him that Biden will be a rabid Republican attack dog(of course, I take the contrarian position that McCain would welcome a daily news cycle attack-counterattack dialog with Joe Biden over issues like National Security)."

I don't believe that Kos has abandoned the idea, and, while I agree the idea is stillborn, perhaps it needs new parents. This blog will attempt that.

As for Biden, I agree with Kos, even though I agree that Biden is no libertarian Democrat. It is essential for Democrats to win for libertarian Democrats to have any efficacy. Surely we want our party to win, given the alternative. I don't see that being a libertarian Democrat obviates the need for pragmatic and strategic thinking. Quite the opposite.

Here's the second point:

"...the second point that needs to be made, articulated here rather dramatically by Chuck Todd, is that while the national Democratic party remains largely indifferent or even hostile in some instances to libertarian ideas, Western Democrats have succeeded in no small part due to the shift of the western "libertarian vote" from the GOP to the Dems. So while Schweitzer's convention speech was perhaps disappointing from a libertarian point of view, I would nevertheless posit that to the extent the likes of Schweitzer wish to remain popular governors in Western states, you should regard that speech for exactly what it is: just a speech. I don't see it portending any significant change in the actual governing philosophy--which is distinct from that of the National Party--of Western democratic Governors. However, the speech does highlight everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party."

Give us a chance! I do see signs of such movement among people I actually know in the Democratic party. I will document these shifts as I go along, but one I can mention now is rent control, which many Democrats have now begun to question if not jettison.

In any case, these are good points, but I find that there is enough hope for this position for me to begin this blog, whatever might come of it. A movement can begin with "just a speech".

Kos On Being A Democratic Libertarian

I don't want to produce a manifesto, but produce a more or less coherent view over time by commenting on issues of the day. However, I generally agree with Kos:

"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."

There were many comments on this piece, and I'll refer to them as I go on. But this is where I first found the idea of being a Democratic Libertarian. For many years, I had called myself a Pragmatic Libertarian, and voted strategically. My problem with the Democratic Party was that it seemed inimical to libertarianism, while the Republican Party at least claimed to welcome libertarians. I now believe the reverse to be the case, but would not have considered it possible until the piece by Kos. So I will take his position as basic to this blog.