I Vote Democrat

I'm about to vote. I'm a Democrat. Unlike most Americans, I enjoy being in a party. I didn't always, but I do now. I like being in with a heterogenous group of people and principles and interests. It seems to make sense to me.

I'm more of a Tester, Schweitzer, Richardson, type of Democrat, but I like this ticket well enough, and I hope my party does very well this week.

In any case, I intend to keep developing the ideas and principles associated with being a libertarian Democrat. As I say, like the griffin, were not that hard to understand, only hard to find. I enjoy being a mythical creature.

I'm voting absentee. So here goes. I'll fill it out as the night goes on. I hope you vote as well, but you'd be wise to follow my example, just for the hell of it. Happy voting!

Will We Criticize Our Own?

One thing that has been apparent about the Gov. Palin nomination is that some conservative and Republican blogs and writers will defend her no matter what, although not all. I have, in fact, read a few that have expressed reservations about her.

Now, the other day I came across a negative story about Gov. Schweitzer, probably one of the few identifiable libertarian Democrat figures in politics today. It wasn't much of a story, so I don't have anything to say about it. However, if Gov. Schweitzer does engage in practices or advances policies I don't approve of, I won't hesitate to criticize him.

I want this blog to be based on ideas and policies. I understand the personal will intrude, but when it does, I want it to be about something important.

If there's a future for libertarian Democrats, it will have to be based on solid ideas and policies, not simply particular politicians.

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".

Guns And The Libertarian Democrat

Weigel also mentions in his column the fact that "Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer is a loud-mouthed gun owner. Wayne La Pierre himself once flew to Montana to hand Schweitzer a National Rifle Association endorsement."

On the second amendment, a libertarian Democrat position would certainly hold that there is an individual right in the constitution to own a gun. However, it is also a perfectly reasonable position to hold that restrictions can be placed on that right, as long as the right is not restricted so much that it is no longer meaningful.

In this sense, a libertarian Democrat can sound very much like a moderate, being for the ownership of guns but with restrictions. But there is a difference between the two positions. A moderate may well believe that guns can and should be outlawed, but agree on a moderate position as a political compromise. A libertarian Democrat, on the other hand, will be against outlawing guns both for constitutional and libertarian reasons, no matter what he might believe about guns and gun ownership himself. The idea of personal liberty is key to understanding the libertarian Democrat position, while the moderate can certainly avoid any such commitment to personal liberty.

That is why the agenda of the libertarian Democrat is so important, because it introduces the notion of liberty into all policy debates, even those on the Democratic side. Such principled reasoning, even if not adhering completely to libertarian ideas, can be very important in framing the debate and implementing policy.

Consider the following two quotes from liberal writers:

"As I said before, I don't have very strong feelings on gun control, largely because I've not dug deeply enough into the evidence on efficacy. But insofar as the political conversation is around gun control and regulation rather than actual gun bans, this seems to leave a lot of room to maneuver."

Ezra Klein June 26, 2008

"I'd like to be able to thunder about the injustice committed by an activist, archconservative Supreme Court that seeks to return our jurisprudence to the 18th century. I will, almost certainly, about some future outrage. But this time, I can't.

The big problem, for me, is the clarity of the Second Amendment's guarantee of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." The traditional argument in favor of gun control has been that this is a collective right, accorded to state militias. This has always struck me as a real stretch, if not a total dodge.

I've never been able to understand why the Founders would stick a collective right into the middle of the greatest charter of individual rights and freedoms ever written -- and give it such pride of place -- the No. 2 position, right behind such bedrock freedoms as speech and religion. Even Barack Obama, a longtime advocate of gun control -- but also a one-time professor of constitutional law -- has said he believes the amendment confers an individual right to gun ownership.

And even if the Second Amendment was meant to refer to state militias, where did the Founders intend for the militias' weapons to be stored? In the homes of the volunteers is my guess.

More broadly, I've always had trouble believing that a bunch of radicals who had just overthrown their British oppressors would tolerate any arrangement in which government had a monopoly on the instruments of deadly force. I don't mean to sound like some kind of backwoods survivalist, but I think the revolutionaries who founded this nation believed in guns."

Eugene Robinson June 27, 2008

This is a case where liberals are advancing a moderate position, and where libertarian thought, brought forward in a principled way in the Democratic party, could help frame and decide an issue in a more libertarian manner.

Of course, the libertarian Democrat might also disagree with the classic libertarian position advanced so well by Cato and Reason, but it is surely still a movement guided by the concerns of personal liberty.

Was Gov. Schweitzer's Convention Speech Libertarian?

Here's the text of Gov. Schweitzer's speech last night, and here you can watch the video. I want to call attention to the following lines:

"...we have cut more taxes for more Montanans than any time in history...and we created the largest budget surplus in the history of Montana.... We need them all to create a strong American energy system, a system built on American innovation... Now he wants to give the oil companies another 4 billion dollars in tax breaks. Four billion in tax breaks for big oil?...It will give you a tax credit if you buy a fuel-efficient car or truck, increase fuel-efficiency standards and put a million plug-in hybrids on the road."

Now, I want to suggest, contra David Weigel, that all of these ideas are compatible with being a libertarian Democrat, if not a libertarian.

Cutting taxes, a budget surplus, innovation, taking away tax breaks from large corporations and giving them to individuals, these are libertarian ideas within our current system. From the point of view of a libertarian Democrat, for example, there is no reason to have the government run a deficit. If we are going to have a program, then we should fund it. The assets of the American people are vastly larger than government budgets, and so there is no good reason for the government to borrow money. So let me add a balanced budget to the ideas put forward by libertarian Democrats. Adding a tax burden to later generations could well have a definite adverse effect on future liberty, and should not be accepted.

I would also add giving tax breaks to individuals, as opposed to a business or corporation, to be a position of the libertarian Democrat. Surely it is better to focus on individuals than on groups if possible.

So Weigel is incorrect that Schweitzer did not advance the ideas of the libertarian Democrat, although he is correct that he did not make a point of advancing libertarianism. However, since the idea of the libertarian Democrat seems to be on a level below ridicule, I accept the fact that Schweitzer was scheduled to speak in a featured position as a sign that the libertarian Democrat agenda is being slowly advanced.

So Weigel is incorrect when he says, "In short, the libertarian Democrat Schweitzer became an overnight party celebrity without sounding a single libertarian note." Libertarianism is about advancing the cause of individual liberty, not about a simple set of policy positions which someone defines as the pure position.

Weigel should be applauding any libertarian idea being advanced by anyone, not judging every politician or person by his own ideals which might or might not be achievable, or even desirable.
The libertarian Democrat is devoted to advancing individual liberty in the real world, and by that standard Gov. Schweitzer is clearly a step forward.