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.
[...] Here’s the lead essay by “KOS” saying at this time it makes sense for libertarians to vote for Democrats. [...]
There Is No Such Thing As A “Libertarian Democrat”
Over at Cato, Kos is making one of the most ridiculous arguments ever: “The Case for the Libertarian Democrat.” “(T)heres…
[...] This is part of why all that’s needed now is a prevent defense — Kos on the CATO website (link via) making the case for why libertarians should vote Democratic (!). It’s over for the Republicans! And Kos was probably working on this piece even before the ruler came out (yuck!). [...]
Stuff You Should Read
The Case for the Libertarian Democrat
Should Libertarians Look Left
Markos “Kos” Moulitsas is once again pitching the theory that libertarian minded voters should support Democrats over Republicans.
[...] Over at Cato Unbound, Markos Moulitsas is making the case for libertarians to vote Democratic. I’ll weigh in a bit later. [...]
Kos to libertarians: “Come hither.”
It is, of course, gospel truth in the right-leaning and neo-libertarian blogosphere that Markos Moulitsas — Daily Kos — is a raving lefty moonbat, a near if not complete Marxist and practitioner of dhimmitude” , who should be shunned by all who love…
[...] Cato Unbound » Blog Archive » The Case for the Libertarian Democrat [...]
“Libertarian Democrat” Quote of the Day
“[Moulitsas'] post/essay basically says: Look, ‘new’ Democrats and libertarians have a lot in common, except that you need government instead of the market to do this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, th…
[...] Markos Moulitsas thinks such a thing exists, and apparently so does CATO. [...]
Kos Unbound
Markos Moulitsas has an essay up at Cato Unbound, in which he tries to explains the beliefs held by “libertarian Democrats”. It’s a very interesting read. Kos makes some good points. Really, he does. But he never adequately disproves or reconciles t…
[...] Moulitsas, in his lead essay, The Case for the Libertarian Democrat, proves that he still isn’t a libertarian, and fails to show any substantive difference between a so-called Libertarian Democrat and the garden-variety socialist authoritarian Democrat with which we’re all familiar. [...]
[...] Kos got some space on Cato.org to make the argument that the Democratic party should be the new home for libertarian minded folks. I’ll grant him that the Republican party has failed miserably at governing the country. What he fails to convince me of is that the Democratic party would be any better at it. A few renegades out West does not constitute a change in the Democratic party. A split government is the safest option. I want to see the legislative and executive branches split between the two parties. It doesn’t really matter who runs what, as long as the built in tension forces either inaction, or reasonable compromises. [...]
[...] Markos Moulitsas* has a really interesting piece on why ‘libertarian Democrat’ is not a contradiction in terms. Definitely recommended reading for anyone interested in politics. He makes one interesting point, one obvious point, and one totally broken assumption: [...]
THE LIBERTY FRANCHISE
I was all set to trash Kos for deviationism, but all he’s doing, not too convincingly, is trying to coopt libertarian themes for some hundrum Democratic nostrums. Part of this package is some loose talk about excessive Federal spending and…
Libertarian Democrats
I liked Kos\’ essay on \” The Case for the Libertarian Democrat\” over at Cato. The responses are interesting as well. To me, there are major components of the libertarian philosophy: personal freedom and economic freedom.
Libertarian Democrat News
Following up on the article at Cato Unbound by DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas, check out the following links:
Hammer of Truth still says that Markos is not a libertarian. Of course, they tend to exclude anyone who isn’t in the Libertarian Party.
Z…
The left and the libertarians.
The Cato Institute today runs a piece by Markos Moulitsas on the rise of the “libertarian Democrat.” It is a real phenomenon, which is not to say it’s an intellectually coherent one: but then, Moulitsas and intellectual coherency have never been in…
The wages of Sullivanism.
Andrew Sullivan notes that he concurs with the logic of Markos Moulitsas’ leftward appeal to libertarians (discussed at The Remedy here).
[...] Monday, October 2nd, 2006 in politics by Daniel Larison 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. ~Markos Moulitsas, Cato Unbound [...]
[...] Kos gets it – and understands how the wingnut overreach with the Republican’t dominated government turns people off. 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. [...]
[...] Markos Moulitsas, raging Commie, makes a case for the Libertarian Democrat? You bet. Far left, shmar left…he’s never been that, and it’s made sense for a long time. [...]
[...] Kos, Markos Moulitsas Zúniga himself, the blogosphere’s favorite bolshie, is celebrating Halloween a little early this year, donning his “libertarian” costume, and penning the October lead essay on Cato Unbound. [...]
[...] Markos Moulitsas has brought his discussion of libertarian Democrats to Cato Unbound. In doing so, Kos is transforming from a blogger purely interested in strategy while ignoring ideology to one who has some points to make on political principles, even if the arguments do become awkward at times. Kos’s version of libertarianism does vary from conventional libertarian beliefs (as sites such as QandO, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of, Homeland Stupidity, and Zen Politics discuss). However it must also not be forgotten that Republican policies differ widely from their rhetoric favoring freedom, limited government, and the free market. [...]
[...] Markos Moulitas has an essay up at Cato, The Case for the Libertarian Democrat. As is almost always the case Democrats and liberal leaning libertarians will squabble over some details, but I agree with the general thrust of what he says. Conservatives on the other hand who still want to pull the old right-wing paper tiger bit about Democrats being socialists feel threatened by a liberal-libertarian alliance. The there are going to be those libertarians that don’t think Markos goes far enough, the ones that want to do away with the very thin social safety net of Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, etc. Those are the things that government has done well and for reasons of economy can continue to do better then private enterprise. This excerpt is from a comment that Markos uses, but stakes out some good common ground for liberals and libertarians, 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 Nonsensical Case for the ‘Libertarian Democrat’
Markos Moulitsas, of Daily Kos fame, has a piece at Cato Unbound making the patently absurd ‘case’ for libertarian Democrats.
I thought this response from ZenPolitics was spot-on:
[Moulitsas'] post/essay basically says Look, new Democrats …
[...] Over at Cato Unbound, Markos Moulitsas (aka “Kos”) makes his best argument that libertarians should vote Democratic: 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. [...]
[...] Cato Unbound donates prime midterm election season real estate to Markos Moulitsas this month for an essay meant to convince libertarians to vote Democrat. Here it turns out the Daily Kos frontman learned to be a Democrat by believing deeply in libertarian principles. In fairness, I can imagine the Cato people casting about for someone to write a persuasive essay on why libertarians should vote Republican and coming up empty. [...]
[...] Towards that end, the infamous Markos Moulitsas, authored an essay for CATO Unbound titled “The Case For The Libertarian Democrat.” (the first and last paragraphs follow): 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. [...]
[...] Yesterday, Markos Moulitsas was allowed some space in the heady journals of libertarian thought with a piece in Cato Unbound titled The Case for the Libertarian Democrat. [...]
Libertarian Democrats and Bigfoot
I see that Markos Moulitsas is busy selling his libertarian Democrat trope again, this time at Cato. I suppose, as a nominal libertarian (I’m really more of a small-r republican, actually), I ought to be flattered that the Democrats are…
A Challenge For a Libertarian Democrat
So I issue a challenge. Someone, preferably of the left-leaning variety (but does not have to be), address this libertarian argument, explaining why it is either wrong or unpersuasive.
Hey Kos! Tell the Taxman and the Grocery Store To Fark Off. Measure Which One Inflicts the Most Damage to Your Individual Liberty Afterwards!
Kos has decided he’s a libertarian Democrat, or something. He thinks that’s better than a libertarian Republican because libertarian Democrats know that the real threat to freedom comes from Evul Kapitalist Korporations.Let me know when the Evul Kapi…
Headlines and Hyperlinks
Limbaugh waxes philosophical Hotline anticipates the play Foley chat Bryson immigration plan Summing up the bushies Sue all the bloggers Partisan feelgood letter-writing Blogs for context Grading Pedro href=”http://www.wonkette.com/politics/dennis-has…
[...] The Cato Institute today runs a piece by Markos Moulitsas on the rise of the “libertarian Democrat.” It is a real phenomenon, which is not to say it’s an intellectually coherent one: but then, Moulitsas and intellectual coherency have never been intimate companions. He used to advance himself as a non-ideological man of the party, dedicated to Democratic victory in the absence of any demand for Democratic principle. In this, he was an apt representative of the party at large: a seeker of power for its own sake, yet prone, to paraphrase Trilling, to irritable mental gestures of vicious and cruel hard-left bluster. (Two of his most infamous are here and here.) He was not sane in his public undertaking — see my prior essay on his movement’s historical parallels — but neither did he have any pretense to being more than he was. There is some honor in that honesty, and it should be acknowledged. [...]
[...] I haven’t read Markos Moulitsas’ latest “libertarian democrats” essay yet and I won’t tonight. I’m so tired I’ll be lucky if I get a single Woodward post up. However, Trent McBride has and he accuses Moulitsas of ignoring the libertarian critique of left/liberal “corporate power” complaints. As Trent summarizes: Persuade me that corporate (coercive) power, to the extent that it exists, does not rest on governmental power at its foundation. I’ve never really seen anyone try, though that certainly could be my own fault for not having seen it. The most promising candidate in the comments (or in email) will be awarded a guest post to expound on this issue, along with a used (old but good condition) copy of The Machinery of Freedom. [...]
E-mail is for old people
Apparently teens prefer IM and texting. When RSS was new, some people predicted it would be the…
Marxists at Cato-Unbound
For the past several years I have been a strong supporter of the Cato Institute, with my contribution last year being heavier than ever before. And at a time when I was contemplating making the same level of contribution, Cato…
[...] Someone popped this to me in an email, Trevino’s take at Red State on the Kos/whackian Libertarian Democrat thang (have no idea how to refer to such idiocy)… Read a certain way, it is an absolute scream! And he is right on with his graphic of the little Napoleon…. The Cato Institute today runs a piece by Markos Moulitsas on the rise of the “libertarian Democrat.” It is a real phenomenon, which is not to say it’s an intellectually coherent one: but then, Moulitsas and intellectual coherency have never been intimate companions. He used to advance himself as a non-ideological man of the party, dedicated to Democratic victory in the absence of any demand for Democratic principle. In this, he was an apt representative of the party at large: a seeker of power for its own sake, yet prone, to paraphrase Trilling, to irritable mental gestures of vicious and cruel hard-left bluster. (Two of his most infamous are here and here.) He was not sane in his public undertaking — see my prior essay on his movement’s historical parallels — but neither did he have any pretense to being more than he was. There is some honor in that honesty, and it should be acknowledged. [...]
[...] (I’ve just written in two short paragraphs what the “great” Markos Moulitsas couldn’t effectively communicate in this giant essay. Not that I’m being cocky or anything.) [...]
[...] The blogfather Markos Moulitsas writes for the Cato Unbound blog under the tagline The Case for the Libertarian Democrat 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. [...]
A Proposal for ‘Libertarian Democrats’
Arnold Kling:
Dear Libertarian Democrats,
Thank you for your recent overture. Libertarians are not very good at accepting overtures. We tend to be purists, and there is much in your essay that violates my ideas of libertarianism. Nonetheless, I would
[...] Read a certain way… as with Kos’ original mangled mess, The Case for the Libertarian Democrat, and the Trevino observations… here is a response to Kos from a Libertarian. I am so enjoying it. Just what the original author deserves. ;) [...]
[...] There’s been much talk about whether libertarians should ally themselves with Democrats—talk that predates, but seems to have climaxed in, Kos’ recent article at Cato Unbound. As a libertarian who has almost always voted Republican, I thought I’d offer some reflections. [...]
[...] Cato Unbound » Blog Archive » The Case for the Libertarian Democrat (tags: economics politics democrats government) [...]
Corporate Centralization
One of the common objections to the presentation of libertarian Democrats by Markos Moulitsas is his assumption that business becomes big and powerful independent of government intervention and the government is the only way to check the power of big corp
Libertarian Democrats?
The internet is abuzz with controversy over Mark Moulitsos’ (A.K.A. – DailyKos) argument for “libertarian De…
[...] Markos Mousilitas, whose tactics I do not always agree with, discusses his personal political philosophy on Cato Unbound: [T]here’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. [...]
We’re All FDR Liberals
(Guest Post from Big Tent Democrat) All of us, Democrats and Independents, and Republicans for that matter, we’re all FDR liberals. I have written it here before, liberals won the battle of ideas during the New Deal. Some extremist Republicans…
[...] Recently, Markos posted a lengthy essay at CATO Unbound on the rise of the Libertarian Democrat. He describes supporters of this idea thusly: …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. [...]