Who Deserves the Libertarian Vote?

Reason asks Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians why supporters of "Free Minds and Free Markets" should vote for their candidates.

Katherine Mangu-Ward & David Weigel from the December 2006 issue

(Page 3 of 5)

To add injury to injury, these Republicans have grown the size of government larger than any president since FDR’s New Deal. Not just defense spending, but non-defense discretionary spending as well. There is nothing stopping these guys from bloating government even further.

Reason: Democrats weren’t all that great on civil liberties during the Clinton presidency. Clinton wanted to expand FBI wiretap powers, but was shut down by Senate Republicans. Would an empowered Democratic Party defend civil liberties? Won’t they reverse tack when Republicans lose power?

Moulitsas: We, as people, can’t sit around and expect government to fully police itself. We need to keep a close eye on it and demand accountability, transparency, and responsiveness. Perhaps the solution is perpetual divided government. But I’m hoping that technology clues people in to what their government is doing, so the proper amount of external oversight and pressure can be brought to bear.

When was the last time the Bush administration reversed course on a policy issue because of public pressure? Clinton, like most presidents before him, would reverse course in the face of public opposition. The modern Republican Party is a slave to its ideology. And when ideology trumps reality, all of us, regardless of our degree of libertarianism, are in serious trouble.

Reason: The way you’ve defined the term, a “libertarian Democrat” isn’t all that libertarian when it comes to economic issues. Why should a pro-trade, anti-spending votersupport the Dems?

Moulitsas: Democrats aren’t libertarians. Just like Republicans aren’t libertarians. True libertarians, since they live in a two-party system, will have to decide which party is friendliest to their principles.

Anyone who is “anti-spending” has to look at the record. Clinton balanced several budgets and was on his way to retiring the national debt. The GOP, holding both the White House and Congress, has spent like drunken soldiers. On trade, Clinton passed NAFTA and there’s a general realization that free trade is here to stay. Democrats will tinker around the edges—environmental protections, workers’ rights, making sure displaced American workers are retrained, and so on—but those are more side questions than substantive assaults on the notion of international free trade. (And on guns, the national Democratic Party is now steering clear of infringements on the Second Amendment.)

Where I’ll differ markedly from traditional libertarians is that I don’t believe corporations are inherently benign to our liberty interests. They invade our privacy by collecting data about us. They pollute our air, foul our water. They can invade our property interests. In Wyoming, for example, energy companies can set up smelly, noisy machinery to drill underneath your property without redress. And unlike government, these corporations aren’t accountable to us. So sometimes government is necessary to ensure that corporations don’t invade our liberty interests.

Reason: Your readers have occasionally used the “libertarian Democrat” idea as a piñata—they think, correctly, that we fundamentally disagree with liberals on substantive economic issues. If libertarians joined the Democratic coalition, would we be welcome?

Moulitsas: There will always be critics. This is a big enough party to accommodate a healthy debate about the proper role of government in our society. And unlike the GOP, where dissension is squashed—ask Rep. Ron Paul—the Dems are, to a fault, permissive enough to allow that debate to flourish.

Rep. Jeff Flake

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) was elected to Congress in 2000. A member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, which pushes for libertarian ideas within the GOP, he has broken with his party to vote against No Child Left Behind, the Homeland Security Act, and Medicare Part D (which added pricey prescription drug coverage to the program), while voting for comprehensive earmark reform. He was one of the first House Republicans to demand the resignation of former Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Reason: Give us your pitch: Why should libertarians vote for your party’s candidates this year?

Jeff Flake: Well, if they grade on a curve, we’re still a better choice. (Laughs) If you believe in limited government, the Democrats don’t offer you very much. I’ve yet to see a Democrat actually bring a proposal to the floor that spends less or is less intrusive. But having said that, there’s nothing we’ve done as Republicans that ought to make libertarians excited about our record.

Reason: Whatever happened to the class of ’94?

Flake: I think Republicans have by and large gone native. I don’t know how you can conclude otherwise. You look at any measure of spending—overall spending, mandatory, discretionary, non-defense discretionary, non-homeland security spending—whichever way you slice it, the record looks pretty bad. When you look at where we’re heading, with Medicare Part D, it just means that these programs run out of money a lot sooner than they were going to already.