Reply To Jesse Walker On Being A Libertarian Democrat

Before dealing with current issues, I want to address an article David Boaz recommended. It's called "How To Be A Half-Decent Democrat" by Jesse Walker. It's a terrific piece, and it was written in direct response to the article by Moulitsas. However, it does not really address the issue of being a libertarian Democrat. The piece suggests that the Democratic party follow through on various libertarian friendly themes, such as being against the Patriot Act, etc.

I take the point, but that is the basic idea of being a libertarian Democrat. In other words, the libertarian Democrat is a Democrat who would like to see more libertarian friendly ideas advanced in the Democratic party. The agenda Walker sets out does include many ideas that we would do well to incorporate into the Democratic policy discussion. The lack of success in being a half-decent Democrat is what the libertarian Democrat is devoted to changing.

So, again, there will be fundamental disagreements between libertarians and libertarian Democrats, as well the divide between people who support a political party and those who don't and those who support another party. Nevertheless, it would be a good idea for libertarians to encourage the libertarian Democrat agenda, which is in a party that might actually be able to put some of these ideas into action.

Gillespie On The Libertarian Democrat

There are a number of past responses to the idea of the libertarian Democrat that I want to consider as I go along. One very important response was by Nick Gillespie entitled "Libertarian Democrats: The Titillating Myth", posted on Cato Unbound on October 11th, 2006. It is a fair and reasonable critique of the libertarian Democrat conundrum, i.e., being in a party where a large number of people favor larger government. Of course, this applies to the Republican party as well.

But consider this quote from Gillespie:

"But maybe Moulitsas and Reed haven’t made particularly compelling cases for libertarians to vote for Democrats because they don’t have to. As each of them notes, it’s President Bush and his GOP Congress who have made the best arguments for pulling the lever for any candidate that doesn’t have an “R” by his or her name. The Republicans have done this through massive spending increases, abandonment of even the slightest pretense of limited government, neo-Wilsonian adventurism abroad, and much, much more. Libertarians know these arguments well because they are the ones who have advanced them most consistently and systematically — at Cato, in the pages of Reason, and in books such as The Elephant in the Room to Impostor."

One point that I would make is that given this shift, this movement to at least considering to vote Democratic by libertarian minded people, should we not take this opportunity to see if a longer lasting political bond can be forged between these positions, one that will advance the concept of liberty. I began this blog precisely because no one else seems to have accepted this challenge.

Another quote:

"What speaks far louder than Moulitsas and Reed’s ritualistic, feel-good invocations of “civil liberties,” “smaller government,” “restrained government,” “ending corporate welfare,” and the like are the things they don’t even mention. Are they in favor of, say, ending the drug war? Vouchers for public schools? Social Security reform (Meyerson is clearly against this)? Where do they stand on issues related to free expression — do they support Howard Dean’s “reregulation” of the media? Hillary Clinton’s censorious aims toward the dread menace of video games or the FCC’s desire to regulate cable and satellite TV and radio; are these markets that need to be tempered by regulation? Do they agree that McCain-Feingold-style campaign-finance “reform” is nothing more than an abridgement of the First Amendment? Where are the libertarian Democrats on such things? And apart from a handful of governors and losing congressional candidates, who exactly are they?"

I take the point, but the only way to advance this agenda is to accept the challenge. It will be up to libertarian Democrats to advance some of these ideas in a way that Democrats can find acceptable. That's the point of this blog. I believe that many of Gillespie's chosen issues might well be persuasively argued in the Democratic party, if not all. Isn't that better than nothing?

Gillespie ends:

"Until Democratic partisans such as Moulitsas and Reed make a convincing — or maybe even a half-hearted — case for laying in with the party of Robert Byrd and Henry Waxman, they’re just peddling the political equivalent of couples porn."

Once again, I accept the challenge. Wish me luck, or, better yet, give some space in Reason.

Weigel On Moulitsas

David Weigel also mentions the following in his post:

"Tuesday afternoon, I saw Markos "Daily Kos" Moulitsas, author of the "Left-Libertarian Manifesto" from 2006, share a stage with “market Democrat” Bill Richardson and avowed libertarian Tucker Carlson to talk about race and gender politics. After Carlson suggested, plausibly, that Obama would win in a landslide if he declaimed race-based affirmative action and replaced it with preferences based on class, Moulitsas rolled his eyes and told the Kostastic audience to never listen to the advice of "a Republican." Carlson spent the rest of the hour fending off accusations of misogyny and suggestions that he be kicked off the panel."

I take Weigel's point, but feel that Moulitsas is also allowed to believe that Carlson's point is preposterous, and so would be silly to follow. I am not sure about Carlson's point, and so can see both sides of this question. In any case, it says nothing about the ideas of the liberterian Democrat, since it could be seen as a strategic point, and not a point about principle.

If you ask why I am spending so much time on Weigel's post, it is because he is the only person that I can find who takes this idea of being a libertarian Democrat seriously enough to write about it. From my point of view, it makes Weigel a writer worth reading.