Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Who Should Libertarian Democrats Vote For?
"Libertarian Democrat," Joe Biden-basher, and reason contributor Terry Michael lays into the GOP ticket as the second coming of...Teddy Roosevelt-style Progressives:
Career Military Heroes and Unborn Life Lovers were certainly pumped for John McCain and his Brangelina bride, Cindy—who apparently wants to adopt the world. Witnessing her ethereal glow while cradling the Palin baby, those of us not awaiting the Rapture could only wonder, "Which of the 12 steps was that?" Indeed, VFW hats and evangelical bonnets bobbed in delight at the war-and-life-at-any-cost blather from speakers dwarfed before the JumboTronic-by-Sony American flag waving in the pixelated breeze.
But the third wing on the elephant, Goldwater libertarians, have got to be scared outa' their friggin' minds. They were pushed aside by the self-indulgent, authoritarian, Greater Purpose Than Thou Senator John Sidney McCain and his band of prime-enablers: the "compassionate conservatives," who comprise the fourth twig of the Republican Party. These Neo-Cons are the 21st Century version of the 19th Century "we'll run your life for you" Progressives, who came out of the Republican Party and later joined the Democrats—clueless that party founders Jefferson and Madison prized individual liberty and responsibility, not "social justice" distributed by elite experts.
Ms. Palin may have given libertarian Repubs some hope they can believe in, with her pistol-packin' homage to the Second Amendment and anti-tax bromides. But could they really warm to the no abortion, even with rape or incest, mantra? To her proud card-carrying United Steel Workers husband? Or populist attacks on Big Oil that could be voiced by Michael Moore? And what were non-interventionist libertarians to make of the infatuation of 1984's Miss Wasilla with The Bush-McCain War, to which she said she'd proudly send her son Track on September 11 (incredible timing there, Track.)
Michael had sworn off Obama in the wake of the Biden pick, but now goes back to the Dem fold. Is that happening elsewhere? Whole thing here.
Marlin|9.10.08 @ 9:03AM|#
Pretty hard to believe that a libertarian could possibly ignore
the trillions in entitlement spending that will be the hallmark of
an Obama/Biden administration.
It doesn't make the McCain option any better, but it shows a lack
of prescience.
|9.10.08 @ 9:07AM|#
Terry Michael is a "libertarian" the same way Palin is. While he makes some good points, he's still a douche for trying to co-opt our good name.
The Extispicator|9.10.08 @ 9:10AM|#
Wait. You mean we have TWO choices this year, and neither of
them is any good? I thought this was America, the land where we get
two candidates each election who represent opposing viewpoints
about government, who will debate those viewpoints with reason and
logic before a national audience ... multiple times, even.
And now you're saying they really don't differ much on how they
will govern? And that their stated positions and applause lines may
be designed to garner support and not necessarily indicate what
policy choices they will make if elected? Yeah right, I think
you're thinking of a different country, Buddy. This is the USA,
USA, USA!
Anonymoose.|9.10.08 @ 9:11AM|#
How can one be a Libertarian and a Democrat? They're at odds with one another. Libertarians value freedom above all else and want the government to stop infringing on it, whereas Democrats want to infringe on it in the name of equality.
|9.10.08 @ 9:17AM|#
I'm all for expanding horizons and changing my understanding of things, etc... but... a Libertarian democrat?
JMR|9.10.08 @ 9:19AM|#
Democrats, for all their many faults, at least had the balls to let Kucinich yak. The "big tent" wasn't that big when it came to libertarians of the Republican persuasion, but now "conservatives" who are likely to vastly increase the size of an already obese government seem to think they should own my vote. Uh, no.
|9.10.08 @ 9:20AM|#
Both candidates leave ALOT to be desired. If i could pick, I
would pick Paul. But i don't get a pick, i get a choice.
Given the choice I am going to vote for the person that will at
lest restore Habeas and end the Torture regime. The person who at
least understands the importance of the "rule of law", even if i
disagree with them on what the law actually says. at least one side
recognizes that laws do exist for a reason, and don't view them as
an 'impediment to greatness'.
The other side makes jokes about a 800 year old bed rock of
Freedom.
Taxes, Iraq, abortion, Trade. Small ball compared to the the Rule
of Law.
|9.10.08 @ 9:21AM|#
Wait, is a libertarian democrat like a libertarian socialist or
anarcho-syndicalism?
Is Noam Chompsky somehow involved here?
Citizen Nothing|9.10.08 @ 9:23AM|#
"How can one be a Libertarian and a Democrat?" A good question, Anonymoose. But "How can one be a libertarian and a Republican" is just as valid.
Elemenope|9.10.08 @ 9:24AM|#
How can one be a Libertarian and a Democrat? They're at odds
with one another. Libertarians value freedom above all else and
want the government to stop infringing on it, whereas Democrats
want to infringe on it in the name of equality.
I thought Libertarians were for individuality and against crass
group identifications and/or stereotypes.
Oops.
|9.10.08 @ 9:24AM|#
Who Should Libertarian Democrats Vote For?
I didn't know figments of imagination would be allowed to vote this
year.
I wonder if McCain has the "under the bed monster" vote locked in?
I would imagine that the wood elves, unicorns and prehistoric lake
creatures will all throw their support behind Obama.
|9.10.08 @ 9:27AM|#
Witness the power of the libertarian Democrats, bringing us Barack Obama! Nice job, guys!
robc|9.10.08 @ 9:33AM|#
Given the choice I am going to vote for the person that will
at lest restore Habeas and end the Torture regime.
Yeah, Im voting for Barr too.
|9.10.08 @ 9:34AM|#
Speaking as a non-libertarian Democrat, I think libertarians
need to ask three questions:
1. Is there one party that needs to be restrained and/or punished
for its behavior more than the other at this particular point in
history? For example, in 1994, it was probably more important from
a libertarian point of view to punish the Democrats for gun control
and universal health care than to punish Republicans.
2. What is the relative importance of the issues Obama would be
better on from a libertarian point of view compared to those McCain
would be better on, at this particular moment? For example, is it
more important to push the country right on gun control, or to push
it left on detention without trial?
3. How good is Obama on the issues Democrats are better on,
compared to how good McCain is on the issues Republicans are better
on? And vice versa - how bad is Obama on issues Democrats are bad
on, compard to how bad McCain is on issues Republicans are bad
on?
Anonymoose.|9.10.08 @ 9:34AM|#
Citizen Nothing | September 10, 2008, 9:23am | #
"How can one be a Libertarian and a Democrat?" A good question, Anonymoose. But "How can one be a libertarian and a Republican" is just as valid.
Yup. I don't know of many Libertarian Republicans, though. The only one I can think of is Milton Friedman, and he was only one because he thought he could enact more change from within the party.
Anti-Globalism|9.10.08 @ 9:34AM|#
Wait. You mean we have TWO choices this year, and neither of
them is any good? I thought this was America, the land where we get
two candidates each election who represent opposing viewpoints
about government, who will debate those viewpoints with reason and
logic before a national audience ... multiple times, even.
And now you're saying they really don't differ much on how they
will govern? And that their stated positions and applause lines may
be designed to garner support and not necessarily indicate what
policy choices they will make if elected?
I guess Plato was right about Democracy.
robc|9.10.08 @ 9:34AM|#
lmnop.
I thought Libertarians were for individuality and against crass
group identifications and/or stereotypes.
No, you didnt.
shecky|9.10.08 @ 9:35AM|#
The way I see it, from the long term libertarian POV, Obama doesn't have to win. But McCain sure as hell needs to lose. A McCain win not only continues the Bush legacy, it validates his whole approach, from big govt to cultural conservatism.
robc|9.10.08 @ 9:35AM|#
joe,
As a non-libertarian-democrat, I think you need to answer 1
question first:
1. Why did your 3 questions only consider 2 choices?
|9.10.08 @ 9:35AM|#
Every election I start out feeling a desire to vote for one of the "two". Same this year, and like whoever Gillespie is talking about I just can't swallow Obama if it tastes like Biden. Mc could have picked Romney and Guiliani for co-vice presidents and I still couldn't take Biden. Palin, eh. I hated Barr in GA, and find it hard to accept his about-face. Sigh... now the choice is down to deciding who to write in, Donald Duck or Ron Paul.
T|9.10.08 @ 9:36AM|#
But the third wing on the elephant, Goldwater libertarians,
have got to be scared outa' their friggin' minds. They were pushed
aside by the self-indulgent, authoritarian, Greater Purpose Than
Thou Senator John Sidney McCain and his band of
prime-enablers
Yeah, that's it! John McCain pushed aside the Goldwater
republicans! It was Johnny Mac!
Hasn't being paying much attention over the last 8 years, has
he?
Anonymoose.|9.10.08 @ 9:39AM|#
robc | September 10, 2008, 9:36am | #
Anonymoose,
How tight is your standard? Not even including Ron Paul?
When I said "Libertarian Republicans," I was talking about those who self-identify. Ron Paul would probably qualify as one, even though he calls himself a conservative.
|9.10.08 @ 9:40AM|#
Speaking as a non-libertarian Democrat, I think libertarians
need to ask three questions
No, we don't. If you vote, you vote Barr. There is no confusion
here. You can put as much lipstick as you want on Obama but it
still makes him no better than McCain. Being better on "certain
things" misses the forest for the trees.
|9.10.08 @ 9:42AM|#
robc,
Because there are 2, not 3 or 5, candidates who might be the next
president, and the first question anyone voting in the election
needs to ask is whether one of them is substantially better than
the other.
If, after answering those three questions, neither of the 2
possible successors to George W. Bush comes out substantially
ahead, then voting third party is probably the best move.
If Barr is a 90, Obama is a 47 and McCain is a 48, vote Barr.
If Barr is a 90, Obama is a 50, and McCain is a 20, vote Obama.
BakedPenguin|9.10.08 @ 9:43AM|#
Is there one party that needs to be restrained and/or
punished for its behavior more than the other at this particular
point in history?
Probably. But in 2000, I thought that after the anti-1st amendment,
drug warrior, lying sack of shit Clinton, a change was needed. Had
I followed the above logic, I would have voted for GW Bush.
Instead, I followed my ideas and conscience and voted for
Browne.
To this day, I am very glad I did that.
|9.10.08 @ 9:46AM|#
Being better on "certain things" misses the forest for the
trees.
Wouldn't that be a question of degree? Isn't there some point where
even a bad candidate from a libertarian pov is meaningfully better
than a terrible candidate?
I can also respect the position that the sole concern of
libertarians is to boost the LP, even if it means accepting a much
worse president than we could otherwise have, out of a concern for
long-term thinking. I just disagree with that view - I think the
question of who will be president for the next 8 years is an
important concern, even if either option is sub-optimal.
|9.10.08 @ 9:48AM|#
joe | September 10, 2008, 9:42am | #
Because there are 2, not 3 or 5, candidates who might be the next
president, and the first question anyone voting in the election
needs to ask is whether one of them is substantially better than
the other.
Agreed! I ask myself that every four years... No luck yet but maybe
it'll happen for me one day.
BakedPenguin|9.10.08 @ 9:49AM|#
...the first question anyone voting in the election needs to
ask is whether one of them is substantially better than the
other.
Exactly the point, joe. And the answer for the vast majority of
people posting here is that there is no substantial difference
between the two major candidates. Especially since neither can be
trusted to do what they say.
I had a couple liberal friends try to convince me to vote for Obama
for just the reasons you mentioned. when I brought up the betrayal
on FISA, one of them said "oh, he just did that to get elected".
But if you can't trust his word on something as important as that,
why the f*ck should we trust him on Iraq, Iran, or anything
else?
robc|9.10.08 @ 9:50AM|#
joe,
If Barr is a 90, Obama is a 47 and McCain is a 48, vote
Barr.
If Barr is a 90, Obama is a 50, and McCain is a 20, vote
Obama.
Nope. I will vote a 90 over a 50 everytime.
I agree with your standard though, just not the exact numbers. Lets
put it this way, using a different set of people (because I cant
type the numbers I want with the people involved, my hand wont let
me):
Super LP candidate - 99
GOP nominee Ron Paul - 95
Obama - 20
In that case, I would vote for Paul over the super, near-perfect LP
guy. But 90 v 50? Yeah, Im voting 90 every time.
If Obama (or McCain) were an 88, they would get my vote. BTW, your
argument is an encouragment for me to vote McCain - I figure it is
about 90/50/20 with McCain as the 50 and Obama as the 20.
That said, there arent 2 candidates who have a chance to win. Right
now, everyone on the ballots has a chance to win, no one has cast a
vote. I dont no what it would take for Barr to get people to vote
for him, but there is nothing preventing whatever that thing is
from happening. In primaries, where we go state by state, at a
certain point candidates dont have a chance to win anymore. In the
general, where everyone votes at once, that isnt the case.
If you dont buy that standard, then I say there is only 1 candidate
with a chance to win. It turns out that either McCain or Obama has
no chance either, I just dont know which one it is.
spaghetti cat|9.10.08 @ 9:51AM|#
joe,
I think you are missing the point that in our Republic, individual
votes have no effect on the outcome (unless you live in one of the
few states with significant electoral votes that is actually in
play). The size of the "mandate" assumed by the next president will
be based on the electoral college not the popular vote.
On the other hand, individual votes for fringe candidates are very
important. Getting more than 1 million votes is enough for people
to take notice. Anything under that and you remain a joke.
The best thing for a libertarian is to vote for a libertarian
candidate. Too bad there isn't one running.
|9.10.08 @ 9:51AM|#
Is there a choice? Clearly Obama is the lesser of the two evils.
Surely no one is taking that idiot McSame seriously.
JIffy Rappa
www.anonymize.us.tc
|9.10.08 @ 9:53AM|#
I wish the Libertarians would have put forth a good choice, but they selected Bob Barr. He's just as statist as the others. While he may be a Strom Thurmond Dixiecrat, he's no Libertarian. Just one example of many from his website: it's bad for the feds to ban gay marriage, but it's perfectly OK for states to do it. Last time I checked, the libertarian philosophy called for government to get out of our lives, *period* - not that it was still OK for certain levels of government to ban things just because they're states and not the feds.
robc|9.10.08 @ 9:54AM|#
joe,
To add to my point, consider 2000. You will sometimes hear people
call Nader a spoiler and say something like "If all the Nader
voters had voted for Gore, Gore would have been president". This is
true. What is also true is that if all the Gore voters had voted
for Nader, Nader would have won the election. Stupid Gore voters,
wasting their votes when they could have instead helped Nader win.
:)
robc|9.10.08 @ 9:56AM|#
spaghetti cat,
Even if you are in a at play state, 1 vote doesnt matter. The error
rate is so high than if your 1 vote matters, the election will be
decided in the courts. 2000 was the final proof of "1 vote doesnt
matter".
|9.10.08 @ 9:56AM|#
Rappa Jones | September 10, 2008, 9:51am | #
Is there a choice? Clearly Obama is the lesser of the two evils.
Surely no one is taking that idiot McSame
seriously.
I dunno, I kind of feel like
Mc = bigger war
Obama = big war + big healthcare
Is the basic equation. Plus the load of other bullshit that both
sides will load up their respective administrations with.
|9.10.08 @ 9:56AM|#
I can respect this point:
On the other hand, individual votes for fringe candidates are
very important. Getting more than 1 million votes is enough for
people to take notice. Anything under that and you remain a
joke.
Once again, I think it's question of weighting. First, is either of
the plausible (sorry, robc, but you're just blowing smoke. The next
president is going to be McCain or Obama.) candidates significantly
better than the other? Second, does that difference outweigh the
interest in promoting the third party, even if it has no chance to
win?
robc|9.10.08 @ 9:59AM|#
rah62,
Its up to the local libertarian candidates to fight state law
battles. I have no problem with FEDERAL LP candidates pushing
federalism. The laws at the state level might violate the same
principles, but that fight should be fought at the state level, not
the national level. I dont want national libertarians violating
federalist principles just because they happen to be right about an
issue.
But thats just me, I think federalism is an important check on the
national government.
Wince|9.10.08 @ 10:07AM|#
While he makes some good points, he's still a douche for
trying to co-opt our good name.
If you're reading Reason, you're not in any position to be
complaining about co-opting libertarianism's good name.
Demo-Republicans for Change Co|9.10.08 @ 10:12AM|#
It matters little which 3rd Party candidate you vote for, just
be sure to vote for one. It's the only way to show that you don't
like the direction either party is going.
Honestly though obsessing over the president- the one candidate out
of all from mayor, state house rep, state sen. on up that our one
vote matters least- is pointless. We had our chance in the
primaries and let's face it Liertarian ideas got their asses handed
to them.
T|9.10.08 @ 10:14AM|#
First, is either of the plausible (sorry, robc, but you're
just blowing smoke. The next president is going to be McCain or
Obama.) candidates significantly better than the other? Second,
does that difference outweigh the interest in promoting the third
party, even if it has no chance to win?
While I agree with you on this, the problem Obama (and you) faces
is convincing anyone around here he's significantly better than
McCain. Given that he's not, I'll be voting LP.
|9.10.08 @ 10:15AM|#
The only justifiable reason to go to the Obama-Biden ticket is to punish Republicans for nurturing big government. Good luck with that. The parties are moving to bigger government, and nothing will ever be done about it. Divided government is the prudent response. Unfortunately for Obama-Biden, the Democrats control Congress.
economist|9.10.08 @ 10:27AM|#
I'm voting for myself this November.
And Terry Micheal can go fuck himself.
Decision 2008|9.10.08 @ 10:27AM|#
Voting for Obama will be interpreted as enthusiastic love for everything he does and stands for. Otherwise I would be a Libertarian for Obama. At least the message will be sent by voting third party. I don't think it matters which one, because it's not about winning. I think if third parties collectively won 10 or 20 percent that would be great.
|9.10.08 @ 10:28AM|#
Did Palin actually "send" her son off to War? I'm not a parent
or a Veteran, but I'm pretty signing up for the Army is something
you do on your own. I tried to look through any references Palin
made to the Iraq War prior to getting tapped by McCain, and though
it wasn't as impressive as the near complete silence of a Mark
Sanford, she clearly wasn't some kind of war booster. The prospect
of a mother with a son over in Iraq becoming President of the
United States is actually one of the few redeeming qualities of the
McCain ticket. It's reading tea leaves, and since modern convention
dictates VP candidates never share their own views once they accept
the nomination tea leaves are all we are going to get, but I
actually think Palin would be the best of the 4 in terms of
non-interventionist foreign policy. Her motherly concern for her
son, her limited and muted Iraq War comments, her husband's
involvement with AIP, her support of Buchanan, and her kind words
about Dr. Paul all argue towards somebody who might secretly harbor
sound foreign policy thoughts.
In terms of a Libertarian Democrat, there is no such thing, and I'd
question the Libertarian bona fides of anybody willing to vote for
either one of the authoritarian clowns on the top of both major
tickets.
Dave W.|9.10.08 @ 10:29AM|#
speaking as a Republican (registered to vote Paul) with deep librtarian sympathies, joe nails it again with his three questions. In your heart, you know he's right.
Chloe|9.10.08 @ 10:29AM|#
Libertarian democrat???
Wtf is that shit? That's an oxymoron as libertarians are for
freedom from government and democrats are for the government being
all up your business.
At the very least it's a moron.
economist|9.10.08 @ 10:30AM|#
Actually, if this were a race between Biden and McCain, Palin
and Biden (for president), or Palin and Obama, I might bring myself
to vote Republican. And if it were a race between McCain and
Richardson I might even consider voting Democrat.
Otherwise, fuck it all. I know I agree with myself perfectly, so I
will vote for myself.
economist|9.10.08 @ 10:36AM|#
"divided government is the prudent response"
or armed revolt. Okay, so it's not prudent.
Mark|9.10.08 @ 10:39AM|#
My 78-year-old friend believes this is the most important
election of his life. You may think otherwise, but remember that
the only reason Obama had a chance of being nominated is that it's
2008. People really are fed up.
You and I know there will be a trillion-dollar hole in the budget
under a McCain presidency, not to mention future trillion-dollar
wars, that will ruin our shaky economic standing and eventually
shake the foundations of society.
"We are all Georgians now" ??? Are we going to war with Russia,
John?
You may think Social Security and Medicare were bad ideas from the
start. Sorry, but McCain will not end those programs, and Barr will
not be elected. Obama will be a pretty boy on TV and make everyone
happy while balancing the budget and keeping us out of WWIII. Just
give him one term, for the love of God.
Mark|9.10.08 @ 10:46AM|#
"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from
God..."
You'd rather have Palin's foreign policy over Obama's?
economist|9.10.08 @ 10:51AM|#
Mark,
Why does your 78-year-old friend care that much about this
election. Not to be cold but unless he comes from a long line of
centenarians, this election will mean fuck-all to him in a few
years.
Me, I might have as much as forty years to put up with this shit,
so I'm just bitter about it.
|9.10.08 @ 10:53AM|#
I don't know of many Libertarian Republicans,
though.
You clearly have never watched a young Republican trying to get
laid.
economist|9.10.08 @ 10:53AM|#
"Obama will...balance the budget"
Here, let me get high. I know I can predict the future if I just
get high.
However, I do not harbor any illusions that McCain will balance the
budget either.
A POX ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES!
|9.10.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Honestly, as a libertarian, Obama still scares me slightly less than McCain. I think it's the hawkishness of McCain, combined with just as much big government, if not more, than Obama. Obama is worse on spending for sure, but a war would balance that out. I really don't know. Either way, I live in New Jersey, so my state is going Obama. Since this is the case, I'm throwing my support in Barr's camp just to get more votes into a third party so hopefully, one day, more and more people will do the same and the third party will be viable. And yes, this is despite the fact that WAR is an asshole. They are all assholes, really, except WAR isn't very eloquent about it.
economist|9.10.08 @ 10:55AM|#
"McCain will never get rid of SS and Medicare"
all the more reason to make sure Obama doesn't get the chance to
start something similar.
economist|9.10.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Goddammit, I'm already drunk by 11:00 am.
I think I might have a problem.
Mad Max|9.10.08 @ 11:02AM|#
"First, is either of the plausible . . . candidates
significantly better than the other? Second, does that difference
outweigh the interest in promoting the third party, even if it has
no chance to win?"
The purpose of third parties under the two-party system is to come
up with ideas worth stealing by the Dems and Reps.
Even after Reconstruction, the Republicans maintained their
vialibilty in North Carolina until the very end of the nineteenth
century by making a coalition with populist third-party types -
Fusionism.
The Socialists and Progressives got respectable amounts of votes in
1920 and 1924, and coincidentally, portions of the Socialist
platform started appearing in public policy.
Richard Nixon pursued George Wallace voters - though of course it
ended up being largely symbolic. This is perhaps because Wallace
himself shot his was in 1968 and didn't create a lasting
third-party movement.
Ross Perot picked up a lot of votes in 1992. His platform (in
addition to protecting his daughter against the Republico-gay
conspiracy) involved denouncing the federal deficit. Lower deficits
were, by coincidence, very much the flavor of the month during the
1990s. Would the Republicans have been so enthusiastic about
deficit spending in the 00s if they still had the fear of a Perot
candidacy?
And so forth. Political strategists for the duopolists pay lots of
attention to voters they see as being in play - "how can we attract
the Wallace voters?" "how can we attract the white housewives in
Spokane?" If the target voters have a tendency to go for certain
third-party candidates, the strategists look at the things which
appealed about the third-party candidates and try to imitate those
things.
(The reason they don't worry about Libertarian Party voters is that
there don't seem to be all that many of them.)
If I may modify a joke by (I believe) H.L. Mencken: If the Cannibal
Party started getting significant votes, the Dems and Reps would
start filing competing bills to include missionaries in the federal
school lunch program. Democratic and Republican candidates would
each claim that their opponent's missionary bill didn't go far
enough, etc.
|9.10.08 @ 11:07AM|#
The Republicans are very much a spent force when it comes to
wars. Democrats on the other hand have had eight years to dream up
new American adventures. Bill Clinton deployed troops all over the
world, neraly invaded Iraq and nearly got into a war in Korea. This
in addition to actually getting into a war with Serbia.
People who think Obama is a vote for peace are pissing in the wind.
Further, wars have a life of their own. They tend happen even when
leaders or especially when leaders are going out of their way to
avoid them. I would say the chances of the US getting in another
war are the same regardless of who wins the election.
Nash|9.10.08 @ 11:24AM|#
If Obama would actually vote what he claims his conscience is I
might overlook his economic policies. Those aside he still can't
get the votes right. Patriot Act? FISA? The guy can't even pledge
to get troops out of Iraq in his first term and even if he
accomplishes that we're just going to put them into Afghanistan or
Africa.
He's wrong on economic policy. This much we know. He's also wrong
on civil liberties and foreign policy.
Sadly McCain is also dead wrong on all of the above. His health
care plan is better, his tax plan hardly so. McCain is no economic
conservative and because of that I won't be voting for him
either.
Gilbert Martin|9.10.08 @ 11:27AM|#
"Libertarian Democrat," Joe Biden-basher, and reason contributor
Terry Michael..."
There is no such thing as a libertarian Democrat.
And that's that.
Terry Michael|9.10.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Just a suggestion to those who think there's no such thing as a
libertarian Democrat: read my "libertarian Democrat manifesto"
(reported here on Hit&Run in July 2006) and at my libertarian
Democrat blog...
http://www.terrymichael.net/Htm_SiteArticles/LibDemManifestoJuly4_2006.htm
Too many who believe they are libertarian seem to see only economic
issues and ignore social cultural and national security questions.
If you'll read what I have written over the past several years, I
think you'll find I'm consistently libertarian on everything. I
just happen to be a pragmatic voter who wants to move the
Democratic Party in a more libertarian direction, where it already
is on a lot of social and foreign policy things--though most
Democrats remain hopelessly reactionary on fiscal and tax
policy.
mw|9.10.08 @ 11:47AM|#
Framing this as a choice between 2,3 or 5 candidates is a false
choice. There are two possible federal government configurations we
will be living under in january 2009:
CHOICE A:
McCain/Palin (R) + Pelosi leading a 100 vote D majority in the House + Clinton/Reid leading a potential 60/40 filibuster proof D majority in the Senate.
Two Republican reformers with a reputation for bucking their own party and launching bi-partisan initiatives working with a Democratic Party holding the largest single party congressional majorities in modern history.
- or -
CHOICE B:
Obama/Biden (D) + Pelosi leading a 100 vote D majority in the House + Clinton/Reid leading a potential 60/40 filibuster proof D majority in the Senate.
A toe-the-party-line Democratic President and a consummate Washington insider working with a Democratic Party holding the largest single party congressional majorities in modern history.
Choose wisely.
Libertarians faced with this choice should vote for the
configuration that that has been documented historically to limit
the growth of the state. Divided Government.That is my choice. In
2006 I voted straight Dem. On Nov 4, I will be voting for divided
government and will vote for Republican John McCain for President.
I will also for Democratic representative Nancy Pelosi in the House
of Representatives.
Mark|9.10.08 @ 11:49AM|#
Why does your 78-year-old friend care that much about this
election.
Because he has a long line of progeny to worry about.
If you're in a swing state I suggest you think carefully about your
vote and not throw it away on a 3rd party. Maybe it made sense in
2000, but the stakes are higher this year.
Mark|9.10.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Maybe I would make more headway with you people by pointing to
something that would actually affect your life:
Obama
Answers Your Science Questions
T|9.10.08 @ 12:01PM|#
I just happen to be a pragmatic voter who wants to move the
Democratic Party in a more libertarian direction
Good luck with that one, Terry. Maybe you and the guys from the
Republican Liberty Caucus can get together over beers and discuss
how well it's going.
Franklin Harris|9.10.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Who Should Libertarian Democrats Vote For?
Trick question: imaginary friends can't vote.
Gilbert Martin|9.10.08 @ 12:11PM|#
"Too many who believe they are libertarian seem to see only
economic issues and ignore social cultural and national security
questions."
Well I consider myself coservative rather than libertarian but it
is quite proper to focus on economic issues over any social or
cultural ones. The economic issues have a far greater real world
effect on the lives of a lot more people than do the social
issues.
Everyone is forced to participate in and pay for social security
and medicare whether they want to or not. Bans on gay marriage
and/or abortion aren't going to affect the vast majority of people
because most people aren't gay and most aren't going to want to get
an abortion.
|9.10.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Fuck it! After reading that quote from Goldwater in a previous
thread a few days ago, I'm going to dig him up, dust him off, and
write him in.
If ANY candidate had the balls to say anything resembling that,
even knowing that the statists in congress would stifle such a
thing in reality, I'd vote for him/her in a heartbeat.
|9.10.08 @ 12:32PM|#
To wit:
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it
more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake
to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not
to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new
programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the
Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on
the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to
discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first
determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I
should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents
"interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main
interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best
I can."
Eric Dondero|9.10.08 @ 12:49PM|#
The leadership of the Libertarian Party of Alaska endorsed Palin
for Governor in 2006. She spoke to two LP meetings that year at
their invite. Even her Libertarian opponent in the race Billy Toien
endorsed her the last 3 days, telling his supporters to "vote for
Sarah."
I wonder if the Libertarian Party of Illinois has ever supported
Obama? Somehow, I think not.
Eric Dondero|9.10.08 @ 12:51PM|#
There was such a thing as a "Libertarian Democrat" once in
history.
In 2000, in a fluke election a crazy Democrat named Steve
Vallaincourt, lost the Dem primary, and ran on the Libertarian
ticket. He won. But his days as a "Libertarian-Democrat" were
brief. He promptly joined the Republican Party.
Eric Dondero|9.10.08 @ 12:51PM|#
Oh, the State was New Hampshire. Vallaincourt is still an elected State Rep. But interestingly, the Libertarian Party of NH doesn't claim him cause he's "too controversial."
|9.10.08 @ 1:07PM|#
Maybe I would make more headway with you people by pointing
to something that would actually affect your life:
Obama
Answers Your Science Questions
ScienceDebate2008: What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?
Barack Obama: My administration will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade.
That means spend money.
SD2008: What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate change -- a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel-economy standards or research?
Obama: The U.S. must get off the sidelines and take long-overdue action here at home to reduce our own greenhouse gas emissions. We must also take a leadership role in designing technologies that allow us to enjoy a growing, prosperous economy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
That means raise taxes. See cap and trade.
SD2008: What policies would you support to meet demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?
Obama: First, I have proposed programs that, taken together, will increase federal investment in the clean energy research, development and deployment to $150 billion over ten years.... Second, it is essential that we create a strong, predictable market for energy innovations with concrete goals that speed introduction of innovative products and provide a strong incentive for private R&D investment in energy technologies.
That means spend money, raise taxes and muck with the tax
code.
Change we can believe in?
hotsauce|9.10.08 @ 1:09PM|#
Holy balls, DonderoOOOOOOO and Terry "Will Claim Anything to Appear Cool" Michael on the same thread. Two whipping boys.
Rhywun|9.10.08 @ 1:55PM|#
Everyone is forced to participate in and pay for social security and medicare whether they want to or not. Bans on gay marriage and/or abortion aren't going to affect the vast majority of people because most people aren't gay and most aren't going to want to get an abortion.
Which is precisely why I value social issues over economic ones.
Tyranny of the majority kind of sucks if you're not part of "most
people".
|9.10.08 @ 2:22PM|#
I don't know why I seem to be the only one here who sees a clear
and strong affinity between libertarians and republicans, but I
think it's worth mentioning. I recognize that the war in Iraq isn't
working out so well and everything, but come on. Barack Obama? "I
am my brother's keeper"? This is stuff Hayek and von Mises and Ayn
Rand would be shouting about in the street. At least with Fred
Thompson you hear something about 'limited government' - you know,
the central libertarian principle.
Well, I guess that's just my perspective, though. I'm also a person
who doesn't see 911 as a job our government could handle. Maybe you
libertarian democrats could let me in on how they did? I mean, I'd
be less hesitant to let them handle my health care if they could
pull that job off.
|9.10.08 @ 2:25PM|#
I might add that, with the exception of Rothbard and Justin
Raimondo, many libertarians agree that military and defense stuff
is something are government probably should be handling.
I have two suggestions for further reading:
one is:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/09/iraq.secret/index.html
the other is:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31077
Rhywun|9.10.08 @ 2:35PM|#
I recognize that the war in Iraq isn't working out so well and everything, but come on.
A libertarian might wonder what the fuck we're doing in Iraq in the
first place.
This is stuff Hayek and von Mises and Ayn Rand would be shouting about in the street.
Yep--all economics types, who had little or nothing to say about
social freedoms. In case you haven't noticed, Republicans are big
on "morality". Which is fine if their morals happen to match
yours.
JMR|9.10.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Maybe Shelley Sekula-Gibbs is what they mean by the elusive "libertarian Democrat," since that was the effect when Republicans threw a hysterical tantrum instead of facing reality...
|9.10.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Its up to the local libertarian candidates to fight state
law battles. I have no problem with FEDERAL LP candidates pushing
federalism. The laws at the state level might violate the same
principles, but that fight should be fought at the state level, not
the national level.
Ah, so being a pricipled libertarian is beyond Bob Barr's pay
grade. I prefer my Presidential candidate to have more principles
than that, since he (or she) reflects on the party as a whole.
|9.10.08 @ 3:48PM|#
Nick what is wrong with you? Seriously.
There is no such thing as a "libertarian democrat" ye you persist
in pushing it on Reason.com.
Why?
Does Terry Michaels have pictures of you in a compromising
positions? What?
Terry Michaels, you need to get some therapy.
There is no such thing as a libertarian democrat. Just because you
close your eyes and say it over and over, doesn't make it so.
|9.10.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Everyone is forced to participate in and pay for social security and medicare whether they want to or not. Bans on gay marriage and/or abortion aren't going to affect the vast majority of people because most people aren't gay and most aren't going to want to get an abortion.
Which is precisely why I value social issues over economic ones. Tyranny of the majority kind of sucks if you're not part of "most people".
I thought the central, and arguably only, issue of libertarianism
was coercion, particularly coercion by the state.
So now it's libertarian to call for state coercion to force people
to accommodate a relationship a vast majority of people in this
country have made clear they don't want to accommodate?
Ooookaaay.
|9.10.08 @ 4:27PM|#
Agreed. This libertarian democrat stuff is bogus. This guy responds to my posts by poo-pooing "economist types" in libertarianism. Like, say no more - I get where you're coming from.
Eric Dondero|9.10.08 @ 4:41PM|#
Hey wasn't Obama a State Senator in Illinois for a few years?
Illinois is one of the toughest states in the Nation for third
parties to get on the ballot.
Did Obama introduce any legislation to lower signature requirements
for 3rd parties while a State Senator?
Oops, I plum forgot, he was too busy trying to get his political
opponents kicked off the ballot.
Rhywun|9.10.08 @ 5:54PM|#
So now it's libertarian to call for state coercion to force people to accommodate a relationship a vast majority of people in this country have made clear they don't want to accommodate?
As a step on the way to the orthodox position of getting the state
out of the marriage business, yes, I think it's acceptable to bring
this freedom (sorry, "coercion") to a greater number of people.
Old School Travis|9.10.08 @ 7:14PM|#
Travis,
I've been commenting on here for about a year under the name
Travis. So please call yourself something like The Other Travis or
Travis2 to avoid confusion. Otherwise you might sense some
hostility from commentors who don't like me very much.
Travis|9.10.08 @ 7:20PM|#
I have no problem with people self identifying themselves as libertarian democrats or libertarian republicans. I helps people understand were they stand in terms of political opinion. Shouldn't we be encouraging Terry Michael to form a libertarian bloc within the democratic party.
J|9.10.08 @ 7:24PM|#
I mostly vote democratic (not that there are alot of choices
locally) because I value social issues higher than economic ones.
They are all linked and similarly important, but when I weight each
independent thing, the social issues just seem more pressing,
overall.
I think democrats are the future for libertarians, since they at
least realize that freedom is important, and just have to learn
that economic freedom increases overall freedom and that they can
just help others themselves, instead of forcing other people
to.
However, it's always an issue of weighting, as was discussed
earlier. I understand completely those who loath Obama: he's pretty
damn bad. I get those that think Obama and McCain are similarly
bad, although I disagree. What confuses me are those that think
McCain is better than Obama, overall.
I am not sure who I am going to vote for, although I used to be
planning on Obama. He's fallen far enough that it will probably be
Barr.
Ideal Libertarian: 98
Ron Paul: 90
Bob Barr: 80
Obama: 35
McCain: 20
Since Obama sucks more than I had hoped, I think Bob Barr is the
choice for me.
Also, LOL LIBERTARIANS CANT BE DEMOCRATS. Just to, you know, fit
in.
J|9.10.08 @ 10:07PM|#
I thought the central, and arguably only, issue of
libertarianism was coercion, particularly coercion by the
state.
So now it's libertarian to call for state coercion to force people
to accommodate a relationship a vast majority of people in this
country have made clear they don't want to accommodate?
I realize this is probably just trolling for fun, but in the
future, leave "a vast majority" out when discussing whether an idea
is libertarian or not. It'll help you to understand the underlying
philosophies better. The rest is too long to be worth bothering
with, if that doesn't clear it up for you.
B|9.10.08 @ 10:32PM|#
"Is there a choice? Clearly Obama is the lesser of the two
evils. Surely no one is taking that idiot McSame seriously."
Clearly, because anyone who disagrees with you must be a total
moron.
B|9.10.08 @ 10:38PM|#
"I think democrats are the future for libertarians, since they
at least realize that freedom is important..."
Yeah, and the other party is just a bunch of Nazis. Seriously, does
anyone actually believe this shit.
B|9.10.08 @ 10:56PM|#
"What confuses me are those that think McCain is better than
Obama, overall."
If this bullshit quote doesn't remind you of the famous quote from
Pauline Kael concerning Nixon's election victory, than nothing
will.
This quote and the quote I reference above from the moron who says
anyone not supporting Obama over McCain is an idiot point to the
reason why Obama is having such a hard time now. Liberals and the
Democratic Party have such contempt for huge swaths of the
electorate. Whether it be charges of racism for not supporting
Obama, threats of race wars, accusations that only an idiot can
support McCain, implications that only bitter gun clinging bigots
vote Republican, women who vote Republican are not real women, etc.
etc.
Some, such as Jacob Weisberg, have even gone so far as to claim the
United States will be an international pariah on the road to
irreversible decline if Obama is not elected.
Believe it or not, this kind of condescending and insulting
bullshit turns people off.
|9.10.08 @ 10:57PM|#
I don't even know. I hate dealing with Bush-bashers of any
variety. Okay, he was a dick about civil liberties and spending -
very unlibertarian president, everyone knows that. You will see
many shitty presidents in your lifetime. I, at least, didn't have
to live through Obama's hero Jimmy Carter. Does anyone over the age
of 40 regard that guy as anything other than a frivolous
dork?
That's my prediction for if Obama becomes pres, by the way. He'll
focus on social reform and be remembered primarily because he
happens to be the meddling democrat whose father was from Kenya.
Best of luck to the man, but I'd really rather him rethink some of
his policy.
jim|9.10.08 @ 11:08PM|#
Libertarian Democrat? You gotta be joking me. How is it possible to reconcile libertarian beliefs and membership in a party that believes it is ok to raise taxes to such a level that some individuals will be paying more to the state than what they keep themselves? I guess economic liberty is not high on the list of liberties for "Libertarian Democrats". How is taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who didn't even remotely libertarian? When did out of control entitlement spending become a hallmark of libertarianism. When did the appointment of judges who will substitute their own personal views of justice in place of the law when deciding cases become a hallmark of libertarianism? When did utter contempt for the second amendment become a lynchpin of libertarian philosophy?
B|9.10.08 @ 11:26PM|#
"And what were non-interventionist libertarians to make of the
infatuation of 1984's Miss Wasilla with The Bush-McCain
War..."
The Bush McCain war? This is such utter bullshit. The United States
is at war, not just the president and a senator from Arizona.
Calling it the Bush-McCain war is infantile and is a tactic best
suited for hacks like Keith Olbermann. And if you are going to be
like that, why not call it the "Bush McCain and a majority of
congressional Democrats because they voted their approval for it"
War.
Why does Reason host such idiots? The first paragraph of this
bullshit looks like it was taken straight from a diary at the Daily
Kos. I haven't seen a piece this juvenile since I read a college
newspaper editorial.
J|9.11.08 @ 9:36AM|#
"I think democrats are the future for libertarians, since
they at least realize that freedom is important..."
Yeah, and the other party is just a bunch of Nazis. Seriously, does
anyone actually believe this shit.
Yes, that is exactly what I said.
But really, what I mean is that most democrats at least pay
lip-service to civil and social liberties (even if they utterly
fail). When the majority of the republicans are for big government
(if slightly smaller) and are too willing to pander to social
conservatives on other liberties, there just isn't much
there.
This is, of course, the same thing as calling them nazis. Thank you
for summarizing so accurately.
Mark|9.11.08 @ 10:53AM|#
J and B, you need to hash this out over some JB. I'm on J's side for now. B is living in some fantasy world where Republicans deserve respect.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245