"The consensus was that this was not a mandate for Democrats"

It's not a Mensa meeting, for sure. From David Weigel on Reason:

"The American Spectator's Philip Klein reports from a meeting of the conservative movement's old Reaganite hands in Virginia.

There's a strong feeling, [Spectator Editor R. Emmet] Tyrrell said, that social conservatives, free market conservatives, and national security conservatives will all be able to work together.

He also said that "there's a sense that the Republicans on Capitol Hill are freer of wobbly-kneed Republicans than they were before the election."

[Spectator Publisher Al] Regnery said, "The consensus was that this was not a mandate for Democrats, that this country is still center-right. The overriding fear was that the Republican Party does not represent conservatives," and there was a desire to get behind genuinely conservative candidates."

Here's my comment:

Don the libertarian Democrat | November 7, 2008, 3:48pm

"The consensus was that this was not a mandate for Democrats, that this country is still center-right"

It might be more useful if this consensus was among the citizenry, rather than a small group of biased ideologues trying to make themselves feel better.

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.

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.

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.

David Weigel, Meet A Libertarian Democrat

David Weigel in Reason asks the question "Whatever Happened To The Libertarian Democrat?". Here's his basic thesis:

"What makes up the alleged libertarianness of the allegedly libertarian Democrats? As yesterday's events suggested, it's about attitude, not ideas."

I am beginning this blog in order to flesh out this concept of the libertarian Democrat. I intend to put forth ideas, although I believe attitude to be important.

I concede Weigel's point about libertarianism not getting any mention in Denver, but I believe that this small part of the Democratic coalition can grow if some people continue to push it. Hence, I have started this blog.

Thanks to David Weigel for throwing down the gauntlet.