New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | June 16, 2006

At the Take Back America conference, David Weigel goes in search of the Libertarian Democrats, and finds no evidence that that mythical beast exists.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Evo Morales, Privatizer? | Main | If Everybody Gets Footloose, the Terrorists… →

See all 40 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

Warren|6.16.06 @ 1:48PM|#

I posted this last year. It's right on topic and I think it merits a reprint.

Re: Mythological status of the Libertarian Democrat.
[David Attenborough Voice] Finding themselves so utterly out of power, some Democrats are beginning to spew libertarian rhetoric out of desperation. Thus the Libertarian Democrat is less of a myth than the Libertarian Republican which has been extinct, save a handful of infertile specimens, since 1996. What is curious, is how many continue to speak of the Libertarian Republican as though it yet thrived and might be encountered outside the laboratory.

Forensic science has now revealed is that the Libertarian traits once found in Republicans, were not genetic markings, but merely affectations applied for display proposes when attempting to woo power. Once successfully mated with power, the Libertarian rhetoric having served its purpose, has been discarded.

Returning our attention to the appearance of a seemingly novel breed, the Libertarian Democrat, we may reasonably conclude that this too is not a true breed. More likely, the Democrats have picked up the discarded Libertarian decoration which served their rivals when the situation was reversed. In the event that the Democrats can woo power back away from the Republicans we can expect that they will be equally eager to rid themselves of the uncomfortable and restricting Libertarian cloth.

Never the less, there is a small but thriving population of pure Libertarians which makes their home deep in the foliage of the Lunatic Fringe. It is not uncommon for members of this tribe to leave the safety of the Fringe and seek out mates from amongst the sheeple. Thus, genuine half-breed Libertarian-Democrats, and Libertarian-Republicans do exist and are regularly replenished. However, they are continually swallowed up by faux-Libertarians and therefore unable to establish themselves as a true and viable breed within the species poloticius.

|6.16.06 @ 2:00PM|#

Note to Democrats:

Do your own pointless rebranding - don't try to co-op other brands.

|6.16.06 @ 2:04PM|#

Why do we have to as libertarians monolithically support dems or repubs? Support 1/2 way decent dems and repubs when they surface and support local LP candidates when they got a chance at school board or whatever? Get involved in single issue libertarian leaning campaings like medical mj, anti-gun control, anti eminent domain, etc. and continue to bash the elite in both parties with reason and commonsense every chance we get.

|6.16.06 @ 2:04PM|#

I still say, if you're a libertarian and you want to communicate what you think with your vote, go crazy and vote for the Libertarians.

|6.16.06 @ 2:07PM|#

Now that that's debunked, can you show me where to find the legendary libertarian Republican?

|6.16.06 @ 2:10PM|#

" Lamont's first response was a look of wide-eyed, Marty McFly bewilderment. But after a moment of noodling, Lamont said "Terri Schiavo.""

Of all of the issues out there that the Republicans have turned into a total and utter pooch-screw, the only thing this guy can come up with is Terri Schiavo?

Well then. Bollocks to that.

|6.16.06 @ 2:16PM|#

Now that that's debunked, can you show me where to find the legendary libertarian Republican?

I'd say Ron Paul, but that's it in the federal arena.

James Anderson Merritt|6.16.06 @ 2:46PM|#

Now that that's debunked, can you show me where to find the legendary libertarian Republican?

I'd say Ron Paul, but that's it in the federal arena.

In terms of Warren's analysis, Paul appears to be the genuine libertarian who has affected GOP coloration in order to mate to power. This strategy seems to work only in his apparently unique Texas environment. Others who have tried it elsewhere have not found the approach to be conducive to either survival or perpetuation of the species.

|6.16.06 @ 2:50PM|#

Libertarian Republican? About the only 'libertarian' view on the Republican side is the desire to keep all of their money away from the federal government. It's darn hard to find any Republicans that support libertarian social policies.

|6.16.06 @ 2:56PM|#

There are some libertarian Republicans. Sign up for one of the Republican Liberty Caucus' discussion groups, and the rhetoric you'll hear will be the same (95% of the time, anyway) as what you'd hear from LP members. Of course, they're encountering that same feeling of futility that people in the LP do. The RLC may win a few battles (they played a big role in stopping the attempt to overthrow the term limits law in Florida, for example), but changing the GOP into anything resembling a classically liberal party is a Sisyphean task.

For now, the two major parties are a reality. Unless the LP or some other party can make a real play, we need libertarians in the major parties to provide at least some minuscule support for libertarian principles. Every third leap year. If the moon is full.

|6.16.06 @ 2:56PM|#

"Now that that's debunked, can you show me where to find the legendary libertarian Republican?"

I'm an increasingly disaffected one.... I gave money to them though so they must be doing something right with their propaganda.

|6.16.06 @ 3:14PM|#

I voted LP in 2000, and for Kerry in 2004. I figured, hell if both houses were Rep at least the president could be a Dem. It wouldn't get us out of Iraq but at least a veto may occur. Sigh.

|6.16.06 @ 3:17PM|#

If you'll permit me to repost this.. rambling and long-winded, but I do mean it. Heh.

I still say we should stick with the GOP, which, an unmitigated disaster and a big government monstrosity that it is, is at least paying lip service to libertarian philosophy.

Western and northern Republicans, whose values are often more libertarian than conservative, should start a grass roots campaign to shake off that poisonous affiliation with the South that keeps the GOP captive by the evangelicals.

Barry Goldwater initiated a seismic shift in American "geopolitics" back in 1964: his campaign marked the first time Southern whites voted in significant numbers for a Republican. The change didn't occur overnight (Carter won the South in 1976), but today, it seems unimaginable the South may vote for a Democrat again.

Well, we need a new Barry Goldwater, who, on a staunchly libertarian campaign, will probably bomb in the national elections, like Goldwater, but will mark the start of the movement of the Republican party away from the poor, backwater South and into prosperous northern states, like Washington and Connecticut.

Who we need, in short, is someone like Giuliani. If he, on his libertarian, pro-abortion and pro-gay rights platform manages to win the presidential nomination.. he will most certainly alienate the evangelical base of the Republican party, yet his message will attract the masses of solidly middle class voters, those at least who believe the government takes away more from them than it gives back. They perhaps will not vote for him right away, but the message will stick.. and a dozen years down the road we may see a solidly Republican (read: libertarian) West and much of the North.

I'm talking about national elections, of course. Locally, many of these states are already Republican (and more libertarian rather than populist conservative). Massachusetts, for heaven's sake, has a Republican governor, Romney (who, however, for all the stereotypes about Massachusetts, is pro-life and is opposed to gay marriage and civil unions). New York City has had a Republican mayor since 1993. California has a Republican governor.

Middle class voters CRAVE libertarian Republican candidates. What they don't want is scary Bible thumpers. So here's my advice to all Republicans: dump the South and take back what is rightfully yours: the bourgeois, prosperous, tolerant North. Don't believe the nonsense about "bleeding heart liberals". They elect libertarian Republicans any time they're offered one.

|6.16.06 @ 3:22PM|#

There is no version of a nationally appealing party that is ideologically commited to libertarianism, or ever could be. If there were, we'd be at the very threshold of libertopia.

Pick the issue you think is most important and adopt the party that owns that issue until circumstances make another issue more pressing.

|6.16.06 @ 3:40PM|#

Giuliani.

Hyeh; that's a good one.

|6.16.06 @ 5:08PM|#

If Guliani is a libertarian, then I'm a Chinese jet pilot.

|6.16.06 @ 5:09PM|#

There is no version of a nationally appealing party that is ideologically commited to libertarianism, or ever could be.

A Presidential candidate once adopted a third party platform and then remade American government over four terms, seemingly using that platform as a blue print.

...It's possible.

|6.16.06 @ 5:13PM|#

mediageek, don't be a fool. Giuliani most certainly promotes and believes in liberty. . .his liberty to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, to whomever he wants.

|6.16.06 @ 5:18PM|#

Use your vote to CRIPPLE THE BEAST. That means Democrat this time around.

|6.16.06 @ 5:59PM|#

Now that that's debunked, can you show me where to find the legendary libertarian Republican?

There's still a few die hards hangin' on. Secretly, I think they're all hoping things 'll change once Bush is out of office--fat chance. Have you noticed that there seems to be a direct relationship between the old school budget "conservatives" and the Republican appeal to libertarians? ...I don't know why old school "conservatives" would stay on the good ship Republican either.

It seems to me that the the Democrats and the Republicans have become so much alike. There's no reason to support the Dems on fiscal discipline, and there's no reason to support the Republicans either--the two major parties represent spending priorities as far as the budget is concerned, and that's pretty much it.

I used to work with an old hippy--she always voted for the Democrats. I used to press her on it and press her on it. When it came down to it, she said she always supported the Democrats because she still hated Nixon.

...at that point, Nixon had been dead for years.

I recall Gillespie once suggesting on C-Span that people pick their parties (or maybe it was their news outlets) like they pick which football team to cheer for. I'll always love the Redskins. I've got generations of Redskins' fans in my family. There's the Redskins, God, my family and my dog--my loyalty to everyone and everything else is purely conditional.

...and I can't think of one good libertarian reason to support the Republicans with my vote. ...and when I read why other libertarians think we should support them, it usually sounds to me like they just hate their own, personal, Democrat version of Nixon.

What more would Republicans have to do to permanently alienate you libertarian-Republican hangers on? ...please, give me an example.

Honestly, when I'm talkin' to libertarians about why they're hangin' on to the Republican Party, it feels like I'm talkin' to some poor, abused soul about why she keeps goin' back to a boyfriend that beats her.

Larry A|6.16.06 @ 6:26PM|#

and I can't think of one good libertarian reason to support the Republicans with my vote.

Gun control.

b-psycho|6.16.06 @ 6:42PM|#

Larry A: sure...if by that you're advocating we start aiming those guns at every single anti-liberty politician we have (read: any not named "Ron Paul") & threatening to fire.

|6.16.06 @ 6:54PM|#

Why kid yourselves? Libertarian/anypary will never work. The Libertarian party will never work. A philosophy that advocates limiting government will never succeed in a modern political race. Voters (unfortunately) seem to want their vote purchased with School Lunches, Wars on Drugs/Terror, Border Fences, Museum and Library Funding, or any one of a number of governmental deliverables.

|6.16.06 @ 6:58PM|#

Gun control.

You've got a point there. I hadn't thought of that.

...Do you have any other good libertarian reasons?

|6.16.06 @ 7:14PM|#

Ken:
The important thing is that we have guns in our hands when they come to arrest us for "declaring sympathies to the enemy." That way we can commit suicide.

Paul|6.16.06 @ 7:59PM|#

Was listening to a regular program on the NPR channel, and they had a fellow who has written a kind of political 'advice' book for the Democrats called "The Good Fight". the book strives to tell Democrats how to regain the political high ground.

The beginning all sounded routine enough- some squabbling over details, and then the author dropped this bomb:

"I don't theink the Republicans are fully articulating their real motive, you know, to reduce and dramatically shrink the size and scope of government."

I nearly drove off the road. That sound you hear is the palm of my hand hitting my forehead. So we are again smacked in the face by the persistent and completely bizarre notion of:

Well, yeah, that George Bush is a real meanie, and we don't like what he's doing, but what scares us Democrats... no what REALLY scares us Democrats is that someone might actually try to reduce the size, power and scope of government- and we just can't abide by that. That sneaky GWB, in the 7th year and 11th month of his presidency, we know... we just knowwww he's going
to spring a massive government reducing array of executive orders. We just know it! You wait and see.

Yeah, Democrats, you just keep on worryin' about that.

Sadly, my biggest fear is that GWB WON'T issue these executive orders in the 11th hour, and as such, we're all doomed. Actually, it's not a fear, it's a fact.

Eventually the truth of this guys position became clear. He was only interested in historical liberalism starting from "FDR on through JFK".
Hmm, that's telling. so it all comes down to this:

It's not George W. Bush's methodology they have trouble with, it's his principles. Change the principles, and we've got no problem. More power
for the executive? No problem. Ever increasing bureaucracies and government agencies? No problem. Runaway deficits and spending? No
problem. Military incursions into other countries and indfinite foreign entanglements? No problem. They just gotta happen for our reasons, not for theirs.

The rest of the show was just details. Details baby, details. Vote for our guys and we'll do the same shit, but it'll be in the name of "social justice", or "The Environment" or "the fight against Global Warming(tm)" or "Public health".

It's no accident that these people idolize FDR, the unseated KING of Imperial Presidents. It's probably why there's such free-flowing hatred of
GWB. I mean, don't get me wrong, there's plenty to hate. But so often, I find Democrats hating GWB for all the wrong reasons.

We're doomed genetlemen. So I guess the current 'hip' advice for the Democrats is: keep government big, intrusive, centralized and all powerful because those wiley Republicans are just ITCHING to make it small, unobtrusive, decentralized and weak. Any minute now. Aaaaany minute. Just you wait. Aaaaany minute.

Let me offer my honest advice to Democrats:

Big, obtrusive and all powerful government is here to stay, you won the debate a long time ago. Well, as much as it pains me to say this, there was a brief moment of 'leaner' government with Bill Clinton. But we only realized it in retrospect because he paid tons of lip service to his FDR base. In the end, he just didn't act on it. There it is. I'm on record as saying that Bill Clinton kept government in check, and it's his complete and utter hypocrisy that allowed it to happen. He kept his base from complaining by making empty promises- he was just a realist, not an idealist.

So what you need to do is quit reflecting on the size and scope of government and move to action. The gas price thing is a great place to start. Americans hate capitalism when it doesn't go their way. There's lots of emotion over gas prices, and Democrats are historically good at tapping emotion. Use your strengths. You can get a ten gallon hat wearing Texan with a 'from my cold, dead hands' bumper sticker on his car to vote for you if you promise him relief at the pump. Also, promising programs and money for your constituents is a guaranteed winner. And do what you always have done, promise big payouts- but don't worry about the details like, where the money's going to come from. This isn't about fiscal responsibility, this is about getting elected. You're confusing your core constituency by grumbling about deficits under GWB. Remember, Democrats, you've got brand identity, and you're abandoning it. Your own voters don't know what to make of you. You've been out-Clinton'd by GWB- he just promised bigger, longer and uncut than the Dems did while paying a kind of lip service to free markets and so-called small-government conservatives (whoever they are). GWB isn't caught up in the details-- any observer can see that. He caught you off guard. Don't worry, it happens. You can still get back up.

Quit waffling on the Iraq war. Get behind it just like you were when you voted for it, but criticize the handling. Promise to handle the war better, don't promise a pullout. Democrats got us into and escalated Vietnam, Nixon pulled us out, look where that got him. Offer a new government agency. Nothing fixes government in a Democrat's eyes than a new agency. Who cares
what it's for. Hire more government workers, make 'em dues paying union members. You're practically guaranteed one vote per new government employee. The more you hire, the more votes you'll get. Going back to gas prices, start an agency which creates a spot market for gas prices-- you know, like what California did with energy prices and still got the media to
reflexively call it 'deregulation'. You can create an entire Soviet style controlled market for gas that Americans would actually vote for, and with the right public relations spin- get NPR to refer to it as 'privatization'. Call it the Office Of Retail Gas and Energy Management, or ORGEM. I'm gettin' tingly just thinkin' about it. Hell I might even vote for it just
for a lark.

And lastly, quit trying to catch GWB in a scandal. Clinton was caught in scandals and in the end, it did little to nothing for Republicans. The whole endeavor was probably cost neutral, if not slightly negative for the
GOP. Beat GWB on policy. If the man's such an idiot, you ought to be able to do that even with Nancy Pelosi at the helm of the Democratic party.
Remember: bigger, longer, uncut. That should be THE rallying cry about government. It's about size, reach and budget but just reworded into a more pop phrase that the young people will love. Trust me. This will work

Bigger, longer, uncut-- size, reach, budget. Get it out there. It worked in the past, it'll work again.

|6.16.06 @ 9:02PM|#

After reading Jim Webbs issues page, the only way I can see him being a libertarian is if he is using it in the Chomsky sence of the word.

|6.17.06 @ 3:14AM|#

This is disappointing. Too many Democrats seem unwilling to think outside the box on a number of issues (and this is a particularly irritating example above, of not realizing that at least in some areas, it's within everyone's, Democrats included, interest to shrink governmental power - military, privacy invasions, basic civil liberty issues, etc.). One of my friends often cites the widening income gap as the main social problem that needs tackling and cites some recent reports on the better health status of Canadians and the British as evidence for the problems in the income gap. My guess is that these are correlates and the health problems in America run deeper than just the income gap problem. And I think our focus as Democrats should be to focus on improving opportunities for the poor, so they won't always be poor, not on old class warfare rhetoric. Yet, this seems to be standard issue Democrat stuff.

So, it's unlikely Libertarians will be able to convince Democrats on most of their points (and there are points I wouldn't agree on - like say, the Libertarian Party's opposition to Eminent Domain, regardless of whether or not the case in question follows the Constitution). However, I do remain hopeful that eventually, with continued dialog, that at some point 35 to 40 percent can come around to not automatically view the free market as the enemy - that the rank and file Democrats can come to see that the free market is also a powerful tool for approaching social problems (not the only one, but an important one to add to the box).

Another problem is that there just aren't good alternatives out there. The Libertarian Party will unlikely attract more than 1 percent of any Democrats, and hardly more Republicans, while it remains staunchly dogmatic. The "no initiation of force" rule prohibts Eminent Domain for any reason, even constitutionally supported ones, for any environmental regulations, for any health and safety regulations for workers, for any public parks, for bankruptcy laws, and leads to ridiculous conclusions that one would be within one's right to shoot someone who inadvertantly stepped on your lawn or picked a blade of grass from said lawn. So, while there only exists one political party that is officially Libertarian, and that only represents the most dogmatic strain of that Party, there are few options for Democrats or Republicans to turn to who have some Libertarian leanings.

|6.17.06 @ 5:05AM|#

And I think our focus as Democrats should be to focus on improving opportunities for the poor, so they won't always be poor, not on old class warfare rhetoric.

Too late.

If you think the "solution" to the "problem" is for government to "provide opportunities" for the poor, then you already bought the old class warfare rhetoric.

It's hard to think outside the box if your thinking doesn't, actually, ever get OUTSIDE the box.

|6.17.06 @ 5:09AM|#

I'm on record as saying that Bill Clinton kept government in check

You can't be serious. Mr Socialized Medicine Him and Her Selves, i.e. Billary, are the personage which you think kept government in check? WTF?

What is curious is the fact that the party system managed to shrink government at all. Why can't it happen again?

Probably, because we don't have any F'ing clue as to why it happened during Billary's reign.

|6.17.06 @ 5:20AM|#

I'm on record as saying that the in the long run, it is inevitable that the Dems and Reps become evil Siamese twins.

What almost nobody remembers for very long (except possibly Karl Rove) is that ideology is not what matters in party politics. What matters is winning.

Making things better, fixing problems, doing what's right -- these are not really what matters in party politics. Politicians must do just enough of this to prevent total voter apathy.

But the two parties have, in essence, no real motivation to offer We the People quality candidates. The only thing the parties are motivated to do is offer candidates who will win.

In a two party system, you don't have to give anybody very much of what they really want in order to win. You almost don't have to give anybody anything they want, so long as your sole competitor isn't offering anything better.

clarityiniowa|6.17.06 @ 10:42AM|#

Paleolib - Well said. If Libs would put on their mud boots for a moment and actually wade into the political fray instead of just carping from the outside, they'd realize there are some issues on the table that may provide inroads for Libertarian thought in the Democratic platform.

Democratic party caucuses here in Iowa, for example, for the past few years have focused on two things: immigration and gay rights. Not the war, not subsidized health insurance, but issues of individual liberties. The hot topic in the Des Moines Register now - Governor Vilsack vetoed a bill limiting eminent domain landgrabs for economic development. His mainstays here are holding their noses and supporting him, but this issue could ruin any slim chance he has of any national office.

Despite our grab-ass Iowa LP, Lib-leaning Dems, or Dem-leaning Libs who choose and articulate the right issues in the right way could do well here in the heartland - provided Libs don't bog them down arguing over philosophic purity. May not mean much on the coasts, but as long as we still have first in the nation presidential caucuses, it could mean something.

|6.17.06 @ 3:35PM|#

Given enough time in the wilderness, I think the Democrats could deceive Americans into thinking that they're the party of smaller government. Just like the Republicans did.

Hell, given enough time spent fasting in the wilderness, while the GOP grows fat and happy in a position of unchecked power, the Dems could even attract a small caucus that sincerely wants smaller government.

But we all know what will happen to that caucus and those beliefs once the Dems regain power. Just like with the Republicans. Reagan cut taxes without actually rolling back the scope and cost of the welfare-warfare state. The Gingrich revolution made a lot of noise about transforming government, but several years later Tom DeLay twisted arms to pass the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit, the largest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ. DeLay also declared that there is no fat to trim in the federal budget.

And we don't even need to get into Bush's addiction to spending, his inability to veto, his otherwise imperial view of his own powers, and his stances on civil liberties.

Give the Dems some time in the wilderness and they'll grow lean and start singing the same siren song that the GOP sings to this day. Just don't expect them to act out those lyrics in real life.

Divided government is our only hope of at least slowing the worst excesses, even if we don't actually get progress. Even then, I think the 1990's had two factors that went beyond divided government: The President was a moderate Democrat who was willing to ignore his base, and the Congress was taken over by revolutionaries who needed a little time before becoming totally corrupted. Corrupted they did indeed become, but it took a little time to become fully apparent.

And Warren, as I said before, that was fucking brilliant.

Terry Michael|6.17.06 @ 4:09PM|#

I humbly suggest there ARE a few real libertarian Democrats, and this former Democratic National Committee press secretary (1985-87) is one of them -- self-proclaimed when I launched my "thoughts from a libertarian Democrat" blog in December of 2005. And, still with some humility but not all that much modesty, I would recommend my evolving attempt to write a "A libertarian Democrat manifesto," from an op-ed I published in February 2005, which can be accessed at http://www.terrymichael.net. In a note preceding the piece, I explain that we get new political parties in America not by addition, but in a way Shirley McCalin would recognize: reincarnation. I believe we could be near a tipping point, at which Democrats could embrace a new "l" word, libertarian, to replace the old "liberal" l-word that was cast aside in the 1970's for the mushy poll tested "progressive" label. Thirty years without an ideology. It's about time we got one. And I am sanguine about the liberatarian possibilities, since we're at the end of the conservative era and Republicans are headed for the ideological wilderness in which Democrats have been so long lingering.

|6.17.06 @ 6:00PM|#

...but it'll be in the name of "social justice", or "The Environment" or "the fight against Global Warming(tm)" or "Public health".

You forget "for the children"(TM).

Larry A|6.17.06 @ 7:00PM|#

Larry A: sure...if by that you're advocating we start aiming those guns at every single anti-liberty politician we have (read: any not named "Ron Paul") & threatening to fire.

Actually, no. I'm saying that if the Democrats, as a political party, could truthfully change their policy on the single issue of gun control, and convince gun owners that they, moreso than the Republicans, would support the Second Amendment, the Democrats could easily have complete control of Congress and the White House by 2010.

But even given the demonstrated popularity of the pro-gun position (48/50 states have concealed carry, and 40/50 states have shall issue concealed carry, mostly passed in the last 20 years, including Kansas and Nebraska and almost Wisconsin in 2006, and states are passing "castle doctrine" laws) the Democrats persist in calling for widespread restrictions on legal ownership of firearms. And they tell us we just don't understand their position or we'd agree with it.

They don't take tens of millions of gunowners seriously. Why should gunowners take them seriously?

|6.17.06 @ 11:45PM|#

I don't mean to sound too pessimistic but the problem in trying to make this mixed marriage work is that so many Democrats have bought the 'progressive' religion. Those regressives might agree with us, or some of us, on issues like privacy, or abuses inherent in the Patriot Act, or opposition to the Iraq war, but for the most part they buy into the religious view that the only thing to fear is money. The bigger, the badder (and of course, some of us are critical of corporate welfare or any sort of collusive arrangement between government and business, but the regressives fear money itself...other people's money anyway). So while criticizing Republican political abuses of power, they lack the gene that signals to the rest of us that government power in general is to be feared. It's only when the guys wearing the wrong colored hats are in power do we need to worry.

Ironically, many of those same regressives, such as David Sirota or Molly Ivins also agree with our right wing friends in the Republican Party and in the Libertarian Movement as well that immigration needs to be more tightly controlled (actually, I'm not completely certain of Ivin's view, her image just comes to mind as one of the leading loudmouth progressive voices out there). And they're the ones with omniscient wisdom to do it. Sirota's plan is to bolster Mexican wages and benefits on the *Mexican* side of the border (don't ask me how) so that all them Mexicans won't want to come here. The rationale is that corporate interests are using illegal immigrants as pawns and/or that we need to protect our own workers - i.e. regressive tribalism.

Sirota's latest spiel is an indictment of "Big Money" and its corrupting influence on everything. While there is mention of how money colludes with the government there is no mention that people in positions of power act like human beings when tempted by power or money. So, all we need is a completely politicized system of decision making and all problems of humanity are going to magically disappear. Now, maybe there *are* some Democrats who don't buy into this naive nonsense but how many? My guess is that more sympathize with the regressives, even if they don't believe everything they say. So, it's a valiant effort I suppose, but I'm a little skeptical.

|6.18.06 @ 1:21AM|#

What do you get when you cross breed a Democrat, a Libertarian, and a Republican? Beats me, a Demotarican?

So lessee, the choices are:

1) Join up with the Democrats. Our economy will stagnate, we'll all be equally free to equally poor (except the choosen few like Striesand, Clintons, Kennedys, Kerrys, etc). But by god we'll have our privacy while we're being equally poor.

2) Join up with the Republicans. Our economy may not stagnate quite so bad*, but we won't dare show our real faces in public unless we're WASPS, and half of us will be in jail as casualties of one War On or another.

3) We invade & conquer Mexico (or maybe a large island like Australia) and turn it into Libertopia.

Me, I'm up for the invade and conquer route. But I'm afraid I'll never have enough volunteers to be militarily successful. The problem with libertarians is that they are unwilling to impose. They've got this insane idea that people are supposed to agree with them.

* Believe it or not, here in the Arizona state legislature the Republicans actually, really have tried to roll back taxes and at least limit government growth. Of course at the governor level and on the national stage, somehow Republicans self destruct.

|6.18.06 @ 1:26AM|#

And don't forget that Arizona has that particular disease known as McCain Brain.

|6.18.06 @ 8:40AM|#

I think that the gay marriage national debate offers some insight into a Democratic plan that could be attractive to Libertarians, namely let the states individually decide. The state level does offer a much better arena for health care, education, gay marriage, narcotics, gun control, regulation, etc. issues, as there can be competition between the states to come up with the best solutions to solve these problems. And since moving between states is not that uncommon or unbearably difficult an event, people can choose between the 50 different competing entities. Liberal states can have liberal policies, conservative states can have conservative policies, and we might even get a few leaning libertarian in the mix. Everybody just might be able to end up pretty happy.

Of course issues like Iraq, War on Terror privacy intrusions, and immigration require the Federal government, but I think that many Democrats who see the bullshit that the GOP can do when at the helms of the Federal government would be willing to let more and more decisions be made on the state level, where the diversity of the nation can be taken account of.