The Case for the Libertarian Democrat
by Markos Moulitsas
Lead Essay
October 2nd, 2006
It was my fealty to the notion of personal liberty that made me a Republican when I came of age in the 1980s. It is my continued fealty to personal liberty that makes me a Democrat today.
The case against the libertarian Republican is so easy to make that I almost feel compelled to stipulate it and move on. It is the case for the libertarian Democrat that has created much discussion and not a small amount of controversy when I first introduced the notion in what was, in reality, a throwaway blog post on Daily Kos on a slow news day in early June 2006.
But that post—as coarse, raw, and incomplete as it was—touched a surprising nerve. It generated the predictable criticism from libertarian circles (Reason and several Cato scholars piled on) as well as from conservatives who perhaps recognized their own slipping grasp of libertarian principles but were unwilling to cede any ground to a liberal. But more surprising (and unexpected) to me was the positive reaction: there’s a whole swath of Americans who are uncomfortable with Republican/conservative efforts to erode our civil liberties while intruding into our bedrooms and churches; they don’t like unaccountable corporations invading their privacy, holding undue control over their economic fortunes, and despoiling our natural surroundings; yet they also don’t appreciate the nanny state, the over-regulation of small businesses, the knee-jerk distrust of the free market, or the meddlesome intrusions into mundane personal matters.
Like me, these were people who didn’t instinctively reject the ability of government to protect our personal liberties, who saw government as a good, not an evil, but didn’t necessarily see the government as the source of first resort when seeking solutions to problems facing our country. They also saw the markets as a good, not an evil, but didn’t necessarily see an unregulated market run amok as a positive thing. Some of these were reluctant Republicans, seeking an excuse to abandon a party that has failed them. Others were reluctant Democrats, looking for a reason to fully embrace their party. And still others were stuck in the middle, despairing at their options—despondent at a two-party system in which both parties were committed to Big Government principles.
That blog post on libertarian Democrats, imperfect as it was, struck a chord. But it wasn’t written in a vacuum. It stemmed not from theory or philosophy (I’m neither a theorist, political scientist, nor a philosopher), but from personal experience and from my excitement at the growing ranks of Western Democrats who aren’t just transforming the politics of the Mountain states, but will hopefully lead to the reformation of the Democratic Party and a new embrace of the politics of personal liberty.
Not Your Libertarian’s Libertarianism
The modern libertarian (and conservative) view has been that government is an evil, perhaps necessary, but still a grave threat to personal liberties requiring the utmost vigilance against its instincts for perpetual expansion. The larger government grows, the more it infringes on our personal space, inevitably placing limits on our freedoms. And given government’s police powers, that threat is grave indeed. There’s a reason libertarians view the Second Amendment as an absolute right—its abolition would limit one of the most effective ages-old tools against governmental tyranny.
Hence, there was (and is) a natural tension between liberals who see government as a benign force for good, and those who can point to plenty of history showing otherwise. And as long as government remained the greatest threat to our personal liberties, this tension was fated to remain. Republicans, out-of-power for much of the 20th century, and livid at the Democrats’ expansion of government, spoke of shrinking government and limiting its power. Libertarians, while not exactly perfect allies of the GOP, were likely to get more of what they sought by making common cause with conservatives than liberals.
But that began to change as the power of corporations grew. As the pseudonymous user “hekebolos” wrote in a Daily Kos diary:
Up until even very recently, it was still definitely possible to construe government as [the] largest threat to individual liberty. It wasn't very long ago that "what was good for GM was good for the USA." Government regulation of corporations was seen as interfering with the prosperity of the average American. You see, the libertarian/conservative idea behind the primacy of the free market was that there would always be an intersection between what was good for business and what was good for the consumer. But that correlation was far greater in years past than it is today.
The fundamental reason that "libertarian" has become "libertarian democrat" is that corporations are becoming more powerful than governments. This fundamental fact has created a union between those with libertarian tendencies and those who believed all along that government can be a force for good.
As hekebolos further noted, defense contractors now have greater say in what weapons systems get built (via their lobbyists, blackmailing elected officials by claiming that jobs will be lost in their states and districts if weapons system X gets axed). The energy industry dominates the executive branch and has reaped record windfall profits. Our public debt is now held increasingly by private hedge funds. Corporations foul our air and water. They plunder our treasury.
This list, I'm sure, could be added to. Oil and oil services companies can even dictate when and how the most powerful nation on earth decides to go to war. A cabal of major corporate industry is, in fact, more powerful than the government of the most powerful nation on earth–and government is the only thing that can stop them from recklessly exploiting the people and destroying their freedom.
That, in essence, is why I am a Democrat, and why my original blog post on libertarian Democrats struck a chord with so many. We cherish freedom, and will embrace any who would protect it. But that necessarily includes, in this day and age, the government.
The Conservative War on Freedom
We can fondly look back to a time when Republicans spoke a good game on libertarian issues. They professed fealty to state rights, spoke of shrinking the government, preserving individual liberty, and embracing fiscal responsibility.
A report by Cato’s director of budget studies Stephen Slivinski highlights the truth about GOP efforts .
President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.
The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.
This spending is all the more remarkable given that Republicans control all three branches of government. We are seeing Republican conservative governance exactly how it is supposed to work.
On social issues, we are seeing a government aggressively seeking to meddle in people’s bedrooms, doctor’s offices, and churches. They want to dictate when life begins, when life ends, and which consenting adults can marry. They want to pass a new Amendment eliminating the non-existent threat posed by flag burning—a serious effort to limit the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. And the long-time Republican dodge on such issues—that it merely wanted to let the states decide such issues—was exposed as hogwash by the Schiavo fiasco. While the Washington Post had no on-the-record source for the following assertion, they didn’t need one. Actions spoke louder than words:
Republicans acknowledged that the intervention was a departure from their usual support for states' rights. But they said their views about the sanctity of life trumped their views about federalism.
The nation’s current wars have given conservatives yet more excuses to make a mockery of the protections we supposedly enjoy under the Bill of Rights, from the PATRIOT Act, to the NSA spying on American citizens, to violations of habeas corpus. Republicans seem to have even abandoned even more fundamental Constitutional principles, such as “separation of powers.” As chief Bush legal theorist John Yoo wrote in his book, War by Other Means:
We are used to a peacetime system in which Congress enacts the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. In wartime, the gravity shifts to the executive branch.
This isn’t a party committed to anyone’s personal freedoms.
Embracing the market
In the waning years of the Clinton Administration, the Justice Department waged a massive anti-trust battle against Microsoft. At the time, Microsoft seemed unstoppable, a monopolistic behemoth who would either swallow or crush anyone that posed even the most minute threat to its business. I cheered the Justice Department on, thinking its efforts would be the only thing to dent the prospects of a Microsoft-dominated world. I was despondent when Microsoft emerged victorious. Innovation seemed dead. But I was dead wrong.
What a difference a few years made. As the Internet came on the scene, first Yahoo then Google transformed the technological landscape leaving Microsoft in their wake. The market shifted, and Microsoft wasn’t able to make the transition. Despite being a dominant player in PCs and office software, no one fears Microsoft anymore. It is a remnant of a different era, reduced to providing commodity products as other companies blaze new trails. The market worked on its own.
My libertarian tendencies have always found a welcome home in the Silicon Valley culture (and in all of the nation’s great technology centers). It is a place where hard work and good ideas trump pedigree, money, the color of one’s skin, nationality, sex, or any of the artificial barriers to entry in most of the rest of the world. It is a techno-utopia that, while oft-criticized for a streak of self-important narcissism, still today produces the greatest innovations in technology in the world. Where else could such a motley collection of school dropouts, nerds, brown people (mostly Indian), and non-Native English speakers (mostly Chinese), not just rise to the top of their game, but dominate it? This is free market activity seemingly at its best, and it works precisely because these individuals are able to take risks and be judged by the results of their work, rather than be judged by who they are, where they’ve been, or who they know.
But there are other reasons why this outpost of libertarianism works. The government has put in an infrastructure to support the region including, among many other things, roads, the Internet, government research grants, and the most important ingredient of all: education, from the lowliest kindergarten to the highest post-doc program. Such spending, while requiring a government bureaucracy that makes a traditional libertarian shudder, actually provides the tools that individuals need to succeed in today’s world. If our goal is to promote and champion individual liberty and the free market, we need government to help provide those tools to all Americans, not just a privileged few. This isn’t a question of equality, it’s one of opportunity. Some people will take advantage of those opportunities, and others will not. That will be up to each individual. But without opportunity, there is no freedom.
There is also no individual freedom if corporations aren’t forced to provide the kind of accountability necessary to ensure we make proper purchasing or investment decisions. For example, public corporations are regulated to ensure that investors have accurate data upon which to base their trading decisions. If investors can’t trust the information given by corporations, the stock markets couldn’t function. If the stock markets couldn’t function, our current market system would collapse. Matters such as deceptive advertising, labeling, and some safety regulations are also important. Does anyone doubt that requiring food companies to label ingredients and nutritional data doesn’t enhance our liberties by giving us the information we need to make informed decisions?
On the flip side, much of what’s known as “corporate welfare” is not designed to protect personal liberties. Rather it rewards inefficiencies in the market and the politically connected. Intellectual property law protections, constantly extended at the behest of Walt Disney in service to its perpetual Mickey copyright, have created a corporate stranglehold over information in an era where information is currency. Patent law allows companies like Amazon to patent simple and obvious “business processes” like “one-click shopping,” which they protect with armies of lawyers and deep pockets. In the non-virtual sphere, cities use eminent domain to strip property owners of their rights on behalf of private developers.
So a “free” market needs rules (“regulation”) in order to function. And such rules should be welcome so long as they are designed to enhance and protect our personal liberties.
The Rise of the Libertarian Democrat
In the fierce battle in this year’s Montana Senate race, an attack ad by incumbent Republican Senator Conrad Burns against his Democratic challenger Jon Tester reminded me why I’m excited about the rise of the libertarian Democrat.
The ad accuses Jon Tester of voting against a bill limiting pornography at public libraries. Turns out that Tester voted against the bill because 1) public libraries already had solved the problem, and 2) the state law would have merely duplicated already-existing federal standards. So Tester did what any sensible person should do: vote against an unnecessary and duplicative law.
While we can discuss what the ad says about Burns—that he is politically cynical and has betrayed small-government principles—I’d prefer to focus on what it said about Tester. Casting a “yes” vote was as easy as pressing the “yes” button at his desk, but Tester wasn’t going to grow state government without a compelling reason, even if it could have scored him cheap political points. A Tester spokesperson responded to the charges, “Jon Tester believes in less government regulation, not more, and he believes in local control.” At a debate, Burns charged that Tester would “weaken the Patriot Act”. Tester fired back, ”I don't want to weaken the Patriot Act. I want to repeal it." This is the future face of the Democratic Party.
Mountain West Democrats are leading the charge. At the vanguard is Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, who won his governorship the same day George Bush was winning Montana 58 to 38 percent. While the theme of Republican corruption played a big role in Schweitzer's victory, he also ran on a decidedly libertarian Democrat message and is now the second most popular governor in the country according to Survey USA’s September 50 State poll. In Wyoming, Democratic Governor Dave Freudenthal won in 2002 in this ridiculously conservative state by decrying policies allowing energy companies to violate landowner rights by setting up smelly, noisy, dirty machinery in their property to extract sub-surface minerals. Republicans were content to let their energy industry benefactors discard even the most basic property rights. This year, tech-industry Democrat Gary Trauner is making Republicans sweat the state’s lone House seat (once held by Dick Cheney) that should be, by all rights, a cakewalk. In eastern Washington, which has more in common with Idaho than with western Washington, Democrat Peter Goldmark is a serious threat. Not to be outdone, just across the state line in Idaho’s 1st Congressional District, Democrat Larry Grant is seriously contesting a seat in which Bush won with 70 percent of the vote.
And it’s not just the Mountain West, either. In Ohio, Paul Hackett narrowly lost a 2005 special election in the Ohio 2nd Congressional District, which Bush won with 63 percent of the vote in 2004, after standing against government meddling in people’s private lives. In Virginia, impressive Democratic Senate candidate Jim Webb, a “Reagan Democrat” in the literal sense—he served as Ronald Reagan’s Navy Secretary—is similarly pushing a message of personal liberties. Incumbent Virginia Senator George Allen thought he’d be campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. Instead, he’s in a fight for his life.
It is no coincidence that most of these transformative candidates are emerging in conservative areas. The Mountain West, in particular, has a individualistic libertarian streak that has been utterly betrayed by the governing Republicans. State legislatures in Alaska and Montana proudly voted to defy the PATRIOT Act. But even in places like Ohio and Virginia, many traditionally Republican voters simply want to live their lives in peace, without undue meddling from unaccountable multinationals or the government.
For too long, Republicans promised smaller government and less intrusion in people’s lives. Yet with a government dominated top to bottom by Republicans, we’ve seen the exact opposite. No one will ever mistake a Democrat of just about any stripe for a doctrinaire libertarian. But we’ve seen that one party is now committed to subverting individual freedoms, while the other is growing increasingly comfortable with moving in a new direction, one in which restrained government, fiscal responsibility, and—most important of all—individual freedoms are paramount.
Somebody get Orwell on the phone
Moulitsas:
The government has put in an infrastructure to support the region including, among many other things, ro…
[...] I ran across an interesting piece published by Cato last week. Andrew Sullivan linked to a post by Markos Moulitsas, the writer for the Daily KOS (a flagship blog of the left-wing, if you’re not a follower of political blogdom). [...]
Libertarianism again
Since the mere mention of Libertarianism induces so much commenting and traffic, I am assuming people are interested in the topic. That post has a bunch of good old links. Here are three brand new ones – what do you…
[...] What finally turned my impulsive instincts into my compulsive behavior was a couple of follow-up articles to Markos’ (sophomoric) attempt to make a case that such an animal as a libertarian Democrat exists. Inasmuch as the urge to assign ideological purity to labels tends to throw off real discussions by inflicting dogmatic perceptions of the viewers own making, I will say there are certain things of which most Democrats are more libertarian than most Republicans. But it’s just as easy to assign the label “social libertarian” as it is “social conservative” wherein the reality is that the former is not really libertarian and the later is not really conservative – using broader definitions. It seems, then, rather shallow to say that one party over the other – due to the duopoly caused by big tent politics – can lay claim to the notion that either party is a natural home for libertarians. That was less true a while ago when Republicans at least said they were the party of limited government. As many of us came to realize, however, history doesn’t support that notion and we were suckered by the rhetoric of conservative fusionism that Bill Buckley so laboriously developed. [...]
[...] Logan Ferree of Freedom Democrats deserves a medal and a lifetime’s supply of Legend Brown Ale for doggedly engaging Democrats in a discussion about corporate power. He posted a challenge issued by Catallarchy blogger Trent McBride with regard to Kos’s recent suggestion of a libertarian-democrat alliance. McBride’s challenge had a special significance to me: he challenged liberals at Daily Kos to “Persuade [him] that corporate (coercive) power, to the extent that it exists, does not rest on governmental power at its foundation.” Ever since Ferree brought the challenge to the attention of the Democrats and liberals at Daily Kos, he’s been awash in responses – some more coherent or historically accurate than others. [...]
The Libertarian Vote
An issue getting some attention in the blogosophere is the party affiliation of libertarians, thanks in part to Kos’s effort to associate Democrats with what he calls “Libertarian Democrats”. Here’s a new study from that libertarian bastion, The Ca…
[...] please visit http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/10/02/markos-moulitsas/the-case-for-the-libertarian-democrat/ [...]
Libertarians and Liberals
LIBERTARIANS AND LIBERALS….Should Democrats court the libertarian vote? Over at Cato Unbound, Markos Moulitsas is making the case for something he calls “Libertarian Democrats,” and the Cato folks themselves have released a paper claiming that “so…
Libertarians Shrugged
LIBERTARIANS SHRUGGED … Are “Libertarian Democrats” a rare breed, an invasive species, or a political myth? Kos, Kevin, and Yglesias have each weighed in, with varying degrees of skepticism. It’s worth pointing out, however, that the Cato study re…
[...] Probably the best indication you have that Markos Moulitsas is onto something big with this idea is found in the trackbacks/comments section–when you see all the whining, moaning, groaning, and outright hair pulling griping from the various righty loonies and libertarian axe swingers flipping out and peeing their pants over the idea, you know he’s touched a nerve. [...]
[...] Now (via Pro Gun Progressive), Kos is at it again: The case against the libertarian Republican is so easy to make that I almost feel compelled to stipulate it and move on. It is the case for the libertarian Democrat that has created much discussion and not a small amount of controversy when I first introduced the notion in what was, in reality, a throwaway blog post on Daily Kos on a slow news day in early June 2006. [...]
[...] Most of the people I grew up with might consider themselves libertarians, but they also don’t know who Hayek was so I am a little more optimistic about the argument made by Markos “Kos” Moulitsas in Cato Unbound: The Case for the Libertarian Democrat. Most of my childhood friends wouldn’t call themselves liberal, but they surely are. They vote Republican–if they vote at all–because they’ve been convinced that the Republican Party is about keeping taxes low. Sure, you can say these guys don’t sound like real libertarians, but my point is that these guys are Democrats in every way except one. If they really knew what they were supporting by voting for the Republican Party, they would stay home–or vote Democratic. [...]
[...] Over at Cato-Unbound, your favorite libertarian think tank is hosting an interesting debate about “Libertarian Democrats” instigated by Kos on his blog in the early summer. Read the essays by Kos, Bruce Reed, Harold Meyerson, and Nick Gillespie. Then, listen to today’s Cato Daily Podcast, part one of a two-part series where Kos and I discuss what the heck he’s talking about. [...]
[...] The Case for the Libertarian Democrat [...]
[...] There’s been a lot of discussion in the blogosphere recently about Kos’s article about “libertarian Democrats”, much of it rubbishing the idea. The Republicans have traditionally been seen as the natural home of libertarians because of their emphasis on economic freedom. But with the fiscal recklessness and foreign policy adventurism of the Bush administration (not to mention the PATRIOT act), plus authoritarian posturing by the Republicans on issues like Terry Schiavo, gay marriage and online gambling, it seems reasonable to ask whether the Democrats might now be the “least worst” option for fans of a smaller state. [...]
[...] Markos Moulitsas, founder of Daily Kos has a new article up discussing his view of Libertarianism within the Democratic Party. It’s a followup to this essay and this blog article. [...]
[...] It’s a fantastic essay and if you haven’t read it, you should. [...]
[...] Cato Unbound ” Blog Archive ” The Case for the Libertarian Democrat Libertarian Democrats or Liberalism Reborn – Liberal Values – Defending Liberty … Once again, Democrats try to sell out the party to an audience that isn’t … [...]
[...] A popular costume for liberals this year is “the True Libertarian.” Some, however, don’t find the costumes very convincing. [...]
[...] Another thing I noticed was that there are many people in Texas looking for alternatives to the Republican Party candidates. This is evidenced by the 3-6% that Libertarians were getting in most three-way races. One area that Democratic candidates must work on in the future and I will be exploring more is making The Case for the Libertarian Democrat(s). [...]
No Feingold, Now What?
I had in the back of my mind a diary discussing my thoughts for the next two years, but the news that Feingold has decided not to run for the Presidency is putting this into a new frame. What follows is still the same general message, but it’s got a …
Corruption At the Speed of Light
Ned Lamont is probably still snuggled under the duvet, Brookstone universal remote in hand, and his victorious netrooted peers haven’t even been sworn in yet. And here’s Daily Kos, ready to take money from Chevron. Remember how the government has…
[...] become Democrats (with “Libertarian” as an inert qualifier). Posted by Jim Henley @ 10:11 pm, Filed under: Main « « Every Knee Shall Bow II | Main| [...]
[...] In the U.S., people have been observing a shift in the binary Democratic-Republican axis. Markos at left-wing blog Daily Kos argued the Case for the Libertarian Democrat and caused quite a buzz, mostly reactions from the right that thought he was crazy. But I think he may be onto something. As seen in the political compass above, our major political leaders all appear to have strong tendencies toward control (or fascism), which is leaving an untapped potential political pool of social freedom-lovers, whether of the Left or the Right. [...]
[...] Cato Unbound ” Blog Archive ” The Case for the Libertarian Democrat Libertarian Democrats or Liberalism Reborn – Liberal Values – Defending Liberty … Once again, Democrats try to sell out the party to an audience that isn’t … [...]
[...] "I am taking this step because we have to repair the damage that’s been done to our country over the last six years," said Mr. Richardson in a statement. "Our reputation in the world is diminished, our economy has languished, and civility and common decency in government has perished." This is probably not the end of the list of candidates, and we are expected to see more of them joining the race in coming weeks. I love watching the debates , mostly the early ones with all candidates still in the race, and the next 22 months going to be very interesting to follow. I didn’t check the statistics, but it seems to me that this election season, and the major players campaign announcements, starts early than usual. And as last remark: I’m still waiting for the Democratic candidate that will try to appeal to the independent and Libertarian leaning votes and I didn’t see one yet. It is an historical chance for the Democrats to break the historical alliance between the Libertarian and the conservatives, which seems right now as something the democrats insist to miss. Technorati Tags: Bill Richardson – 2008 Campaign – Democratic Candidates – Libertarian Votes [...]
[...] Then there is the angry left of Markos Moulitsas. In “The Case for the Libertarian Democrat.” Kos sees real danger ahead as corporations become more powerful than governments. [...]
[...] I’ve been mulling over where or if libertarians could forge an alliance with one of the two political parties, especially given that the Republican Party is no longer an automatic option. That said, Wulf over at Atlas Blogged reminds us that the Democrats are not pro-liberty. John Murtha, as shown below is a stark reminder of it: As unlibertarian as Republicans can be, the case for the libertarian Democrat is far from well-made, despite what Markos Moulitsas says. [...]
[...] Cato Unbound ” Blog Archive ” The Case for the Libertarian Democrat Others were reluctant Democrats, looking for a reason to fully embrace … Libertarian Democrats or Liberalism Reborn – Liberal Values – Defending Liberty … [...]
[...] Cato Unbound ” Blog Archive ” The Case for the Libertarian Democrat Others were reluctant Democrats, looking for a reason to fully embrace … Libertarian Democrats or Liberalism Reborn – Liberal Values – Defending Liberty … [...]
[...] Cato Unbound ” Blog Archive ” The Case for the Libertarian Democrat Others were reluctant Democrats, looking for a reason to fully embrace … Libertarian Democrats or Liberalism Reborn – Liberal Values – Defending Liberty … [...]
[...] Cato Unbound ” Blog Archive ” The Case for the Libertarian Democrat Others were reluctant Democrats, looking for a reason to fully embrace … Libertarian Democrats or Liberalism Reborn – Liberal Values – Defending Liberty … [...]
[...] Cato Unbound ” Blog Archive ” The Case for the Libertarian Democrat Others were reluctant Democrats, looking for a reason to fully embrace … Libertarian Democrats or Liberalism Reborn – Liberal Values – Defending Liberty … [...]
[...] Cato Unbound ” Blog Archive ” The Case for the Libertarian Democrat Others were reluctant Democrats, looking for a reason to fully embrace … Libertarian Democrats or Liberalism Reborn – Liberal Values – Defending Liberty … [...]
[...] Cato Unbound ” Blog Archive ” The Case for the Libertarian Democrat Others were reluctant Democrats, looking for a reason to fully embrace … Libertarian Democrats or Liberalism Reborn – Liberal Values – Defending Liberty … [...]
[...] Cato Institute asked this spring if there might be a coalition with the left that could attract libertarian minded voters. It makes interesting reading. But for now, the GOP [...]
Liberaltarianism Revisited:…
Libertarian blogger Will Wilkinson has kicked off a renewed debate over the potential of “liberaltarianism,” the potential all……
[...] According to their analysis libertarians in a broad sense make up something like 13 percent of the electorate. And yet, the parties neglect them. If the democrats win a majority of the libertarians this year despite an agenda that seems focused on attacking cheap goods for the poor, how much could they get if they at least tried to speak the language of freedom once in a while (perhaps in this way)? [...]
[...] get the votes, then change to the libertarian party. I’ve lately fancied myself in the mold of a Libertarian Democrat, but even if I can make peace with the idea I may be a Democrat of sorts, the bottom line is that [...]
[...] was in this context that on October 2 of that year, Markos Moulitsas e-penned an editorial in an unlikely place: the electronic version of the libertarian publication CATO, appropriately [...]
[...] October edition of Cato Unbound is now underway with a new essay making “The Case for the Libertarian Democrat” by Markos Moulitsas, proprietor of the web’s most popular political blog, Daily Kos. [...]
[...] crave more and more. Markos has insightfully argued before — in an essay for Cato Institute — that there is a potentially valuable political opportunity for Democrats [...]
[...] democrat” and argued in favor of the concept not just at his site, but also at Cato Unbound. I don’t agree with a fair amount of what Moulitsas said, as he spends a good deal of time [...]
[...] crave more and more. Markos has insightfully argued before — in an essay for Cato Institute — that there is a potentially valuable political opportunity for Democrats [...]
[...] low regard. It is particularly noteworthy that in this area, despite the supposed dedication of Markos Moulitas, et al, to a liberal libertarian fusion, the tea partiers and evangelical conservatives are much [...]
[...] from just a few days ago deals directly with the Kos issue, and he actually dissects the entire Kos essay.Of course it’s quite easy to call corporations “unaccountable” despoilers of nature and [...]