Kerry: The Only Libertarian Choice!

This is the full story on top of Drudge right now (whatever the time code says down there):

In 1996 Senator John Kerry proposed to "get rid of the Agriculture Department," the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal. A move -- that if successful -- would have likely resulted in subsidies cuts and programs for Iowa growers. "I think we can reduce the size of Washington," Kerry said on January 6, 1996. "Get rid of the Energy Department. Get rid of the Agriculture Department, or at least render it three-quarters the size it is today; there are more agriculture bureaucrats than there are farmers in this country"…

I hate to question newsbreakers like Drudge, but, um, said to who, in what context, and according to whom? At any rate, if he somewhere said something like that to someone (I am especially amused by the precision of the date combined with the nonprecision of the source), then, he's my man! And a vote for him wouldn't be wasted like one for that sure loser Dean…

Comments

[Ice Cold]

Maybe now is a good time to plug the Libertarians for Dean web site. 🙂

[The Wama]

That's funny, a libertarian publication spreading the "wasted vote" meme!

But seriously, I guess your forgetting about Dean's fiscal conservativism, and his statements about Medicare being the "dreadfully run". So Kerry, who is now exciting all of the famers and old people in Iowa, but could not convince the independent thinkers of New Hampshire (the Free State) to back him, is not the "sure loser". Dean isn't perfect, but he has, over the past 10 years taken more libertarian positions than any of the Democratic candidates. I'll list a few here:
1. Iraq war. Kerry voted for it.
2. Slowing growth of Medicare.
3. Economic rather than Racial affirmative action.(a step in the right directions, I'd argue)
4. Gun Control. A ratings from the NRA.
5. Balanced budget.
6. Free Trade. Even his current trade position is consistent with the libertarian philosophy, I'd argue.
7. Civil Unions. Equality under the law.
8. Federalism. Derides the No Child Left Behind act as an unfunded mandate.
9. Pro-choice.
I'll argue that Dean is an intelligent, well-meaning social liberal with a conservative upbringing. Kerry is a politician who speaks out of both side of his mouth and became rich by marrying the owner of the heinz fortune.

[The Wama]

It's worth checking out one of these "candidate selector" sites, at which you fill out a survey about your ideas, and the candidates are ranked based on your preferences and their responses.

I've taken a few and Dean consistently ranks as the top candidate of the two main parties.

[The Wama]

One last thing, another libertarians-for-Dean blog

[Dan]

Wama, that's a pretty impressive spin job. I'm not buying it.

According to Dean's website, his goals are:
- Increase taxes
- Dramatically increase government spending
- Wave a magic wand and pretend this balances the budget
- Increase government regulations on businesses and political speech
- Increase American subservience to international organizations unaccountable to the American people
- Introduce a massive new program of socialized medicine.

Let me be blunt: who gives a shit what he did in Vermont? I care about what he plans to do AS PRESIDENT. Unless he's an outrageous liar, his plans as President are to confiscate a lot more of my money and use it to take away more of my rights. Fuck that idea! Bush may be a rotten President, but at least he does SOME things right.

One more thing: being against the Iraq war places him in line with the sentiment of the Libertarian Party, not with the opinions of libertarians in general; the libertarian community is deeply split on the war.

[joe]

Dan, the primary difference between the direction of Dean's term as governor and that of his possible term as president is that the legislature and judiciary he was dealing with in VT were much, much more liberal than the Congress and SCOTUS he's be dealing with in Washington.

I hear Dean's big on ethanol, too. Really. He's NOT just saying that.

[Andy D.]

The Wama... yeah, Dean won out of the major candidates. Still, I think I'd rather "waste" my vote on someone I like better, since ~my~ vote is so unlikely to mean jack squat.

[Steve Skutnik]

Excuse me, wasn't this the same Kerry that accused the Bush Administation of being engaged in "extreme libertarianism?"
Somehow the words "libertarian" and "Kerry" just don't seem to go together.

[Amdrew]

Re my note above--

I re-took the candidate-selector giving Patriot and "ACLU" issues the lower priority that I feel they deserve, and my Bush preference was shaved from 75% to 74%, and my Libertarian second choice improved from 65% to 71%...I assume because of the weighting the LP's strident opposition to Patriot receives.
The Democrats bunch a little closer together as well, but all come in at less than 50%, and only the pro-war Democrats break 40%.

The selector does not include an immigration question, which I am sure would bring LP and Bush into a nearly dead heat, and bunch Democrats closer together and further down the scale.

So, Libertarians more nearly resemble Republicans than Democrats-- Doh, whoulda thunk it!?

Is there a certain kind of editor in the Libertarian movement, approaching middle age and eyeing slots for "mature" pundits on the Atlantic or New Republic, who reflects enviously on the career of a Garry Wills or Michael Kinsley...?
Let's see-- how do you do it: you write Contrarian articles for four years to stake out some credibility, then toward election time you endorse some blow-dried statist piece-of-shit in the Democrat column to please the cultural tastes of your presumed demographic...
oh, and toss in something about Bush being stupid-- that's canonical in the Gospel of Ben-n-Jerry's!

[shane]

Andy D, a "libertarian Congress"?!

LOL.......dream on.

[thoreau]

MJ-

You're absolutely right, Clinton only signed off on an entitlement reform when the GOP Congress refused to back down.

Now, has the GOP Congress forced Bush into a corner on any issues? Has the GOP Congress refused to compromise on any issue where the goal was to downsize government?

To the best of my recollection (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the answer is no. They realize that an entitlement reform might make their boy unpopular, so they have settled instead for the Medicare bill. In 2000 Gore talked all about a prescription drug benefit, but he'd already had 8 years to do something about it. Of course, the GOP Congress wouldn't have signed off on it.

Now, some here will probably try to assure me that in his second term Bush will do all of the things we've wanted all along. Those big spending promises of the campaign will be forgotten. And with an even stronger GOP contingent in both houses of Congress after the fall elections (predicted by many factors, including DeLay's redistricting scheme, plus the number of Democratic Senators resigning in "red states"), we'll finally get the smaller government that Republicans have always talked about.

Pardon me if I'm skeptical that a bunch of politicians will suddenly develop libetarian instincts when their grip on power is even more secure. But on the off chance that re-election is the only thing driving the spending binge, what would the proponents of that theory say to a proposal that Presidents serve a single 6 year term with no chance for re-election, instead of a 4 year term with the possibility of renewal? I'm not so sure that it's a good idea, but those who believe we'll see a truly principled and disciplined second term might be willing to endorse it.

Finally, a question: Say that George Bush and Howard Dean both approached a GOP-controlled Congress with an identical list of big domestic spending programs. Which of them would have a better chance of getting his list approved? Or, suppose that Dean approached the GOP Congress with an even bigger, scarier list than Bush. Which one would get a better response from the GOP Congress? 'Nuff said!

(And of course there are some principled people among the GOP Senators and Representatives, and they deserve full credit for their principled stances. But they aren't calling the shots right now. In general, the principled ones are out-numbered by crass partisans whose fiscally conservative instaincts are subordinated to the short term political needs of a GOP White House.)

[Andy D.]

Shane, yeah, a Libertarian Congress is not going to happen... but it would be nice to see, no?

[CTD]

Andy - it's true that Democrats in charge of House, Senate, and Oval Office would be approximately as bad (maybe even worse) as what we have today. But gridlock would probably be better (I never liked Bush the Elder so much as when he stopped the government for a few days).

[CTD]

Andy - it's true that Democrats in charge of House, Senate, and Oval Office would be approximately as bad (maybe even worse) as what we have today. But gridlock would probably be better (I never liked Bush the Elder so much as when he stopped the government for a few days). Er, I'd be still happier with that great, come-from-behind LP victory of course.

[Andrew]

Well Thoreau--

I feel like I'm being chased by my own ghost-- I used to be into that 6-year/single-term idea too.

A) It might not make any difference.
B) It might be contrary to purpose...a new president would be a "lame duck" the day he took office, with neither the incentive or clout to buck congress.
C) Like all term limitations, it is inherently anti-democratic...telling YOU who you CAN'T vote for.
D) There appears to be absolutely no public taste for process changes out there (even the once-popular congressional term limits have faded)...it would make more sense just to spend your energies trying to elect the guys you prefer.

[Andrew]

and Thoreau--

This fall, why don't you give Bush a single four-year term, rather than some other guy a crack at eight?

A couple of things all wet about your analysis.

Do you think the diabolical Bush had a PREFERENCE for big-ticket spending, and puts one over on his unsuspecting caucus? As opposed to say, being reluctantly willing to shop spending programs to Democratic and Republican congressmen eager to pass them?

If the perceived preference of the American electorate was for some sort of "divided government", what makes you think the behavior of congressional caucuses wouldn't evolve to frustrate you?

Ah face it! Nothing is simpler in a democracy than straight-forwardly endorsing candidates who most nearly embody your preferences. Take the selector-test...it will take you some doing to spin a democrat above Bush (some heavy lifting to get one over 50%).

[Andy D.]

CTD, I agree that a gridlocked gov't is a good thing. Considering Bush II's diarrhea of the wallet, I'd like to see him lose. Perhaps the best thing would be a Democrat in the White House and a heavily GOP (or Libertarian, if that were possible) Congress.

A change of president would be good too, with the whole war thing... as long as it's not Bush (or Lieberman) in the White House, we'd have a chance of getting along better with the international community.

My estimate at this point is that I'll be hoping for a Democrat president, but voting for some 3rd party loser:)

[Andrew]

Well, I just took the "candidate selector" quiz, and Bush won in a walk with 75%...beating even the Libertarian candidate (65%). The Democrats trailed in the order of Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards and Gephart, with the rest falling off the page.

I assume this all has to do with War and Patriot...since otherwise my views would differ little from any other Libertarian.

Weighting may have mattered too, as I gave little weight to my pro-choice and drug legalization positions-- 95% of Americans oppose drug legalization, and 75% are basically status quo on abortion, making them essentially non-issues.(And effectively, pro-life candidates tend to nominate and confirm conservative justices.)

Weighting counted a lot on War and Patriot. I believe I gave a strong preference on Patriot, which would have been misleading...I think it doesn't really matter. (I also think the ACLU fetish common among libertarians is an inane and thoughtless aesthetic preference.)

Over all, I was astonished at how effective the tool was-- I was very leery before taking it. The guidelines on follow-up (in effect, whether to NOT VOTE or VOTE) were pretty convincing too: With 75 to Lieberman's 49, Bush clobbers every Democrat; at 65% the LP might be worth a vote in a deluge...in '84 I voted LP, because they had a chance at ballot status in Washington State and Reagan was killing Mondale.

This would make a good thread on H&R!

[Andrew]

Thoreau

I AM...speechless.

[Senescent]

Eliminate Ag or, you know, cut the staffing by 25%. One or the other. I yield that after all is said and done, you have to be willing to compromise some, but I'm not exactly getting the feeling that these are big stick-to-your-guns issues for him.

[Dan]

The SelectSmart quiz, for me, ranked my preferred candidates as: Libertarian, Bush, Lieberman (30% behind Bush), then various others -- Dean 7th, Clark last. Which actually sounds about right, except that I consider the Libertarian Party's attitude towards the war on terrorism to be childish and naive, and hence would never make the mistake of voting for their candidates again. This is grown-up time now, kids.

to me, libertarianism focuses on individual liberty (particularly bill of rights issues) and fiscal discipline in government. Additionally, I believe that ending the drug war is of absolutely critical importance. At this point, as bad as the choices are, I can't think of a single candidate worse than Bush in these areas.

Bush, Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, and Lieberman -- ie, the only people with ANY chance of being President in 2005 -- are all opposed to ending the drug war. So that's off the menu.

Of those six, Lieberman is the only one who potentially plans to exhibit greater fiscal discipline than Bush. The other four all want to spend even more money than Bush is spending. Granted, they all plan to raise taxes -- but their planned increases don't even begin to cover *their* budget increases, let alone the Bush deficit. So that leaves two possibilities: even worse deficits, or dramatically increased taxation to go along with the dramatic increase in government power and intrusion. The former obviously rules out "fiscal discipline", so let's give them the benefit of the doubt: they're "fiscally disciplined", in that they plan to take even more of our money and spend it on even more of what we don't want, without our permission.

Most libertarians count, among their rights, the right to dispose of their property as they see fit. This is a right that all governments, by their nature, violate, but it is desirable to keep the level of that violation to a minimum. Well, the Democrats plan to dramatically increase the extend to which that right is systematically violated. What rights, that Bush has taken from me, will they *return* to me to make up for the thousands of dollars of additional extortion -- very painful to me, and even moreso to the economy as a whole -- that I'll have to endure? None; because Bush has not taken away any rights I would place that high a price on.

As for the notion that a divided government will yield less spending -- a Republican Congress won't raise taxes, and a Democratic President won't sign onto spending decreases (except, of course, for military ones, which are a bad idea during war). Split government isn't going to improve our financial situation; it's just going to freeze it in "massive deficit mode" for four years. At least if Bush is re-elected there's some chance he'll stop bribing the electorate with its own money; he might even begin privatizing Social Security (hey, I can dream can't I?).

[Prully T.]

I think the angle of real importance here is that Reason is actually using Drudge as a news source.

The bottom line: Anybody who uses exclamation points on a regular basis -- as Drudge does, to excess -- is not a trustworthy messenger of facts. Futher, anybody who uses excess exclamation points AND wears a fedora -- revealing a love for acting, for make-believe -- should be viewed with a special kind of distrutsl

Anyhow, Drudge is just a leech whose site, like virtually every blog, exists only because others are out there doing the actual reporting. He's even gotten the point that he links, when possible, to the "printable version" of a news site's story -- thus denying ad hits to the legitimate outlets upon whom he relies to simply exist.

Drudge is a fake and a leech, and even those times when he gets "his" story right, it's only because he has linked to a real journalism operation.

[shane]

Andy D:
"Shane, yeah, a Libertarian Congress is not going to happen... but it would be nice to see, no?"

Well, I suppose. But who's to say they wouldn't be seduced by the same system that seduces well-intentioned "deficit-hawks" and "small-government" politicians?

Special interests might become even more entrenched if attacked.

If attacked, dig deeper.

I'm not giving up and no one should, but individual liberty is retreating while hyper-democracy is ascending.

🙁

Woohoo! Let's go party!

[Andy D.]

Dang Shane, why don't you just crawl under a rock and give up? Putting Libertarian candidates into office would be very unlikely to work against Libertarian politics. But you're right that even the best-intentioned person can become corrupted by power one way or another (well, except for *me* of course). And people who seek political power tend to be those who want power... which isn't good for the rest of us. I don't know why it's not said more often, but I like the idea that anybody who runs for president doesn't deserve to be president. Damned Catch-22s!

[Douglas Fletcher]

I just can't deal with that goddamn chin. Looks like something out of the 16th century.

[Rob R]

Interesting Candidate selector--the powers of the internet!

I filled out the form, and the issues I gave highest priority to ending the drug war, reducing corporate and social welfare, and reducing taxes, and high priority to school vouchers.

Of all the candidates, The Libertarian party was listed at 76%. Guess who followed him--George Bush at 71%.

That matches my preferences fairly accurately.

At least for my results, Howard Dean didn't even come close--he was listed at 29%.

If you are strongly opposed to the Iraq war (I'm not), that may change his ranking somewhat. But his economic policies are NOT libertarian.

The problem is that this selector is based on a candidate's publicly expressed opinions, and makes the questionable assumption that politicians actually believe what they say.

I've begun to speculate that voting for the candidate who supports your policies might not be the best way to get what you want.

Example: While I'm no Clinton supporter, he DID pass a welfare reform bill that, as far as I know, forced reductions in the welfare roles. Of course, he was helped by a strong job market. But, a more liberal candidate wouldn't have done that.

And a conservative president couldn't do it, because more opposition would rise up an make it a large political obstacle. Clinton had some political cover for doing what he did.

[MJ]

"While I'm no Clinton supporter, he DID pass a welfare reform bill..."

Yes, Clinton did, but this was not his idea or his party's. He did that because the Gingrich Republicans in Congress kept passing it despite at least two previous Clinton vetoes, and his political advisors (Dick Morris, I believe) convinced Clinton that continuing to oppose welfare reform was a losing issue for the '96 election. Without the GOP cogress pressure on this issue, Clinton would have been perfectly happy with the welfare status quo. Let's not give credit where credit is not due.

[Josh]

Dean may have been against the Iraq War, but that's no indication he's against foreign military adventures in general. He was for Kosovo, Afghanistan and intervention in Liberia. He was only against Iraq because of the man leading it. Libertarians looking for a like-minded isolationist are looking in the wrong place.

[Nick B]

Just because a politician said something to some group at some time does not mean he truly believes it, nor does it mean he will act on it if he is elected.
I took the candidate selector and I got Bush at 56 and all the demos ranging from 46 to 33 (Edwards and Kerry were at the top, Clark (how the hell did they determine his positions?) at the bottom). A bit strange considering that while I do disagree with Bush on a number of things, glancing over what the site is using I agree with Edwards and Kerry on just about nothing. Of course half the things I put "no opinion/other" because their choices were to vague (do you agree with the positions of the NAACP? Well I'm sure I agree with them on some positions and disagree on others...).

[Pete Guither]

I understand that libertarians have a wide range of issues that are of highest importance to them, but for me, libertarianism focuses on individual liberty (particularly bill of rights issues) and fiscal discipline in government. Additionally, I believe that ending the drug war is of absolutely critical importance.

At this point, as bad as the choices are, I can't think of a single candidate worse than Bush in these areas.

[Andy D.]

I agree with Pete except... if we get too progressive a person in the white house, the most worrisome political issues might shift towards overspending on social programs. I worry that distaste for Bush could be rooted in "the grass is always greener on the other side" syndrome.

[Andrew]

Thoreau and Evan--

The fact that you gag on Kuchinich and Sharpton only goes to show that Operation Iraq isn't quite the Great Issue of Our Time that the pyrotechnics of the anti-war crowd would have you believe. (In another context, I am considering authoring an article entitled "It Was a SMALL War, After All").

A true single-issue voter would have had no trouble crossing such partisan and ideological lines. I rather suspect the entire "Libertarians for X" phenomena will be a spent force by August at the latest-- indeed, the Anti-War Left among Democrats will be sucking fumes (no matter what candidate they get: Dean would have to find out whether "I am going to raise your taxes" works better for him than it did for Mondale).

Enough time, I suppose, for Republicans to get the impression Libertarians jumped ship again (though the rats will be scurrying back aboard when they discover sea-water is less appetising than bilge), and for the public in general (to whatever extent they're paying attention) to conclude that Libertarians are fundamentally unserious people.

[shane]

Andy, the very mechanisms that allow reform also give us a large bureaucracy.

It's one of the consequences of living with a democracy.

As for your presidential scenario, why not just ONE TERM and that's it? 5-6 years and they're done?

Did I mention the mohair and wool subsidy is back after a five-year absence?

😀

*crawls back under rock*

[thoreau]

Andrew-

What's your point? The fact that I'm not a single issue voter means that my opposition to the war isn't all that serious? Or that the war wasn't really all that big of a deal if I'm not a single issue voter over it?

Well, what if a candidate was perfect on guns but lousy on most other issues from your perspective? Or perfect on taxes but lousy on most other issues from your perspective? I doubt you'd vote for him on that basis alone (leaving aside, for now, the issue of how good or bad his opponent is) but that doesn't mean guns or taxes or whatever aren't important issues.

If libertarians do jump ship for Dean, I don't think the Iraq war will be the sole reason. Probably a combination of:

1) The war in Iraq (for libertarians of the dovish persuasion)
2) Some people, however rightly or wrongly, think the Democrats are "lesser evils" on civil liberties.
3) The divided government notion, namely that the Congressional Republicans will act on their better instincts and cut spending if there's a Democrat in the White House.

I suspect that issue #3 will be the biggest one.

[James Merritt]

Dan says, "being against the Iraq war [is] in line with the sentiment of the Libertarian Party, not with the opinions of libertarians in general; the libertarian community is deeply split on the war."

And also... "I consider the Libertarian Party's attitude towards the war on terrorism to be childish and naive, and hence would never make the mistake of voting for their candidates again. This is grown-up time now, kids."

I wonder, does Dan think that a libertarian can support a war that is not defensive? If so, under which circumstances? If not, how might the present war be defensive? If it is shown not to be defensive, should a libertarian then oppose the war?

How is it chilidish or naive to oppose or criticize a "War on Terror" which is a war on a concept, rather than a war on any particular, identifiable enemy? When will the "War on Terror" be over? Will we be able to tell when it is? And if not, couldn't it be more libertarian to seek to change our foreign policy so that terrorism against Americans becomes less likely, and the War on Terror therefore less "necessary"? However improbable that change (given the status quo's momentum), how is it "childish" or "naive" to seek such a change, regardless? Doesn't movement in the right direction have to start somewhere, with someone?

Putting my own cards on the table, I don't see how an aggressive war against an alleged but essentially unproven threat can be compatible with libertarianism. I don't believe that libertarianism allows for a nation's military to be used in humanitarian missions, or to sweep away dictatorships and replace them with so-called "Democracies." I'd love to see a definition of libertarianism that does. I also think that anyone who reads enough history will realize that "terrorists" and "gangsters" have been around for a long time. Indeed, the US Founding Fathers were understood to be "terrorists" and "traitors" by those who remained loyal to the British crown. Even so, the founders produced a Constitution that safeguards the rights of the people -- including alleged terrorists -- against the government, and which especially hobbles the government's war-making powers except in cases of clearest need and danger. I think that to believe that we are in a "fundamentally different, new world," because of an increased threat of terrorism, is akin to believing that the laws of economics and financial prudence were repealed for the information economy. Of course they weren't -- hence the dotcom bust and subsequent economic turmoil -- just as, of course, we don't need to completely reform our government in order to deal effectively with the problems of modern-day terrorism. The people -- many in government -- who counseled that the dotcom boom could go on forever, were like today's people who say that we must fight the War on Terrorism "as long as it takes," even if, as many have admitted, it could go on forever. Sooner or later, however, all such things (financial bubbles, waves of violence, etc.) DO come to an end. What we want is for the end to come soonest and most gently, with us being in the best position after all the dust settles to resume the enjoyment of our lives, liberties and properties. Will the War on Terror accomplish this for us? The PATRIOT Act? It seems unlikely, and I have so far not heard any libertarian arguments to the contrary.

[Andrew]

Thoreau--

Here is a version of the survey that I take to be fairly representative of how most Libertarians might answer ASSUMING AN ANTI-WAR AND ANTI-PATRIOT POSITION.

1. TAXES & SPENDING
Reduce federal spending and taxes.

Eliminate federal estate taxes.

High

(Thoreau-- It is difficult to believe that were the positions of Bush and Dean were reversed in this matter, you would consider it unimportant.)

2. Federally funded social services and poverty aid should be delivered through religious, community-based, or other non-profit organizations.

Agree

High

(A position of the LP.)

3. Federal funding of welfare and assistance to unemployed and under-employed individuals and families:

Should be decreased

High

4. Federal funding of "corporate welfare", which has been defined as "special government subsidies or benefits that are targeted to specific industries or businesses":

Should be decreased

High

5. SECURITY & TERRORISM

Terrorist suspects should be tried in civilian courts with due process protections (rather than in military tribunals).

High

6. FOREIGN AFFAIRS

It is appropriate for the US to maintain a non-interventionist foreign policy.
It is bad policy for the US to attack an enemy nation pre-emptively.

High

7. EDUCATION

Allow parents to use vouchers (equal opportunity scholarships) to send their children to any participating school: public, private or religious.

(A position of the LP.)
(Thoreau-- It is difficult to believe that were the positions of Bush and Dean were reversed in this matter, you would consider it unimportant.)

High (The amount of money is less important than the freedom of choice.)

8. HEALTH CARE

Support the concept of federally funded national healthcare coverage for all or most Americans.
(Disagree-- A position of the LP. Agree-- ALL Democrats.)

Prohibit cloning of human embryos.
(Disagree-- A position of the LP.)

(Did NOT agree with either statement) High

9. SOCIAL SECURITY

Allow workers to invest a portion of their payroll tax into private investments.

High (Again-- freedom of choice.)

10. ILLICIT DRUG LAWS

Should be reduced or eliminated.

High

11. TRADE

Less restrictive "Free Trade"

High

12. GUN POLICY Regarding the following special interest groups, my ideal candidate will generally support the positions of
The National Rifle Association

High (Again-- freedom of choice)

13. ABORTION POLICY

Planned Parenthood

High

14. ENVIRONMENTAL

Oppose the positions of the League of Conservation Voters

High (On this one you ARE weird.)

15. MINORITY ISSUES

Oppose the positions the NAACP

High (Gotta be race-preferences.)

16. CIVIL LIBERTIES

Share the positions of the ACLU

High

Next...the results!

[Andrew]

2. Libertarian Candidate (96%)

3. Bush, President George W. - Republican (53%)

4. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (41%)

5. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (41%)

6. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (39%)

7. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (32%)

8. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (31%)

9. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (29%)

10. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (23%)

11. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (23%)

12. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (22%)

13. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (20%)

Christ even "loaded for bear" on war and civil liberties-- plus a bunch of single issues like drugs and abortion-- I couldn't keep Bush out of second place...and the only mainstream candidate polling better than 50%.

[James Merritt]

I am rather astounded at some of the comments offered to me to reconcile libertarianism with the Iraq War, not to mention other aggressive wars or even wars of conquest.

I couldn't disagree more strongly with the statement that libertarianism constrains only how a government may treat its citizens, and is therefore compatible with a variety of foreign policies, some aggressive and intrusive. I think that the micro-model of libertarianism -- individual soverignty unless and until the exercise of that soverignty improperly abridges another's -- naturally scales up and extends beyond the nation's borders, at least in terms of constraining government action. Even if I were wrong about this, however, Nick B made an astute comment earlier in this thread, along these lines: the resources consumed by wars have to come from the people, and libertarianism constrains how much of those resources can go toward government projects, including wars. Said another way, it makes sense that people would put up with the conscription of people and resources to prosecute a purely defensive war -- indeed, they might rush to contribute and enlist. To the extent that a war is not defensive, however, more and more people would be less and less ready to kick down; this resistance would naturally constrain a war effort, very likely below the level necessary to support conquest or empire.

On the other hand, Nick B repeats the "technology changes everything" argument which has, for instance, been used (successfully, if unfortunately) to justify government control of electronically-disseminated speech because the founders could not possibly have foreseen broadcast media or intended such developments to be included in the category of "press."

With regard to the issue of weapons of "mass destruction," I think it is rather sad that people need the spectre of continental or global carnage, in order to be stampeded into accepting an aggressive war that created real regional carnage. In the name of a possible, yet fictional future involving the deaths of millions or billions -- as described by "our leaders" -- we readily travel elsewhere in the world to kill thousands and tens of thousands. Mass destruction happened in 2003 and is still happening now. Dare we say that the thousands that have died already are the unavoidable price of keeping all the others safe? I can understand (though not necessarily agree with) such a calculus, based on unquestionable evidence proving the imminence of the horrific alternative, but every day we read reports that reveal the complete lack of such evidence in the case of the Iraq War. The case for the War wouldn't, as far as I can see, have convicted a single defendant to death in an American court. That it was used to justify the deaths of thousands in a foreign war seems to border on the obscene.

Life wants to live. Libertarianism, at its heart, is live and let live. The point of the government is to deal with the situations when people don't "let live." A libertarian government, following a libertarian foreign policy, would emphasize ways to protect its own interests and those if its citizens, without going against this fundamental tenet, and would be judged a failure to the extent that it did go against it. I can't see any way around that conclusion, which further implies that a policy of non-interventionism and active yet intelligent engagement with the rest of the world is the natural foreign policy of a libertarian government. Which candidates are saying this?

[Andrew]

Thoreau--

What I am saying is that you can't deceive yourself about Kuchinich and Sharpton...and you ARE decieving yourself about Dean. He is no better than the other two-- even his opposition to a war EVERYONE KNEW would be a done deal by November 2004 was a very successful ploy to position himself in the Democratic primaries (he has supported every other American escapade in the last decade, and doesn't have a plan to "bring the troops home" that differs significantly from the Administration's).

And if divided government is the idea, why not root for Al Sharpton, or anyone the Democrats nominate PROVIDED HE IS A SCREW-BALL and therefore assumed to be distasteful to a Republican congressional majority (which BTW, you can't guarantee). Sorta like communists helping fascists on the reasoning that they prepare the revolutionary moment.

Any Democrat elected is going to be assumed to have a mandate for at least one big tax increase, and likely one big spending program atop what we have-- Clinton got HIS tax increase, and would have got a big spending program if he hadn't aimed too high and spooked his OWN party.

All of which is academic. NO Democrat is getting elected in November. The nomination in 2008 is open (that will be true in any case). NOW is the time to pick Bush's successor, and he's going to have to be a loyal Republican (nice too, if he doesn't have to try to unseat an incumbent President...and you don't have to explain why you tapped that incumbent last time).

[Andrew]

James Merritt--

I disagree. Libertarianism is one of an array of political models, that differs from others in the constraints it would place on how a government (in versions that assume a government) treats its own citizens-- Libertarianism does not, as I see it, differ from other political philosophies in the constraints it would place on how a government interacts with other sovreignties, or stateless territories and populations. Libertarianism can be compatible with wars of pre-emption, wars of liberation and, probably in some circumstances wars of conquest. Constraints, if any, would derive from broader moral principles common to many political philosophies.

[thoreau]

Andrew-

1) I overlooked federal estate taxes. Point well taken.
2) I disagree with the LP's stance that federally funded social services are best delivered via non-profit groups. I spent a summer working at a government lab run under a contract with the feds. This public-private partnership meant twice as many managers siphoning money away from research and toward bureaucracy.

I'm not a priori opposed to public-private partnerships, but I'm not a fan either. Now, if the question had been whether charitable services should be delivered by public or private means I'd have given a different response. But as long as the government is involved I'm rather agnostic on whether some private involvement will make things better. It can, but it can just as easily turn into a proxy bureaucracy or scheme for enriching certain contractors. So there's one discrepancy explained.

3-6) No discrepancy to explain.
7) Vouchers: I don't share the LP's enthusiasm for vouchers as an intermediate step away from government schools. As long as the government is paying the bills the government is pulling the strings. I went to a Catholic grade school, and I would never want to see that excellent (and affordable) school put under the control (be it direct or indirect) of government officials.

8-12) No discrepancies to explain
13) I honestly have no opinion on abortion. I'm all about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Operation Rescue has the life thing taken care of, NARAL has the liberty thing taken care of, and both sides are so angry that I'm concentrating on the pursuit of happiness to balance them out.
14) We can debate the environment another day, let's just accept this as one deviation that can't be as easily explained by plausible libertarian principles, except to say that what comes out of my smokestack goes into your lungs.
15) I'm not a fan of racial preferences, but I don't think that's the only stance of the NAACP. On other issues I might have more sympathy. For lack of more info I simply rated them neutral and gave it low priority..
16) No discrepancy to explain.

I think the biggest source of discrepancies, aside from the issues above, is priorities. I simply care more about some issues than others. That's normal. Some libertarians are gun activists. Others are really ardent on taxes. Others are all about drugs. I just care more about some issues than others.

[C L]

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
2. Libertarian Candidate (90%) Click here for info
3. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (52%) Click here for info
4. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (49%) Click here for info
5. Green Party Candidate (43%) Click here for info

Maybe I should start the Libertarians for Sharpton website?

[Nick B]

"I wonder, does Dan think that a libertarian can support a war that is not defensive?"
The Iraq war was a defensive war. It was over the removal of a dictator who was seen as such a serious threat to national security that he had to be removed before the threat became imminent. Now you may disagree with or question the facts surrounding Iraq being a threat, or the principle of removing Hussein before the threat became imminent, or whether or not the US has the right to act without a permission note from France and the UN, but that doesn't change the fact that the war was defensive at heart. And as such, it can be defended under libertarian principles as safeguarding national security is generally considered a valid role of the government, even among most libertarians.

?I think that to believe that we are in a "fundamentally different, new world," because of an increased threat of terrorism, is akin to believing that the laws of economics and financial prudence were repealed for the information economy.?
Its not because of an increased threat of terrorism, its an increase in the potential damage that could be done. In the 1700's, what would be the worst a terrorist could do? Burn down a building? Shoot a couple people? Today with NBC weapons a single man has the capability to destroy entire cities at a time. Therefore the government's approach to terrorism very well might have to change. Jefferson wasn't thinking about a nuclear bomb hitting Washington or a chemical weapon released in the air over LA when he said ?The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants?. Like it or not, NBC weapons and other technological advances have changed the world in a fundamental way.

[Nick B]

"Libertarianism can be compatible with wars of pre-emption, wars of liberation and, probably in some circumstances wars of conquest."
While I'll for one agree that different foreign policies can go along with libertarianism, doesn't any wary inherently affect the citizens as well in that it uses resources that belong to the people? After all, wasn't a big part of the complaint the colonies had against England was that we were forced to pay the King's war against the French?

[Andrew]

Nick--

Different versions of Libertarianism take different views on taxation, fee-for-service, or voluntary contributions as ways of financing the activities of government (including warfare)...and even differ as to whether the state should be monopolistic, or be available in competing options-- but that doesn't make any real difference to my argument. A competing Protection Agency, offering service for hire, could conduct wars of rescue and even conquest on behalf of its clients.

And I will allow that their might be moral constraints on this sort of thing...but to be compelling, they would have to be of a sort of constraints recognised by people generally.

(It would be curious too, to consider a knight in some lawless portion of early Europe-- or feudal Japan-- who chose to rescue the helpless, as doing something wrong.)

[Andy D.]

James Merritt, another method for a Libertarian to justify the war is to imagine what might happen if America were ideally Libertarian. Especially if you're of the Anarcho-Capitalist bent, you might come to the conclusion that the war in Iraq would still be fought, but they would be funded by voluntary donations to non-government institutions and fought by a volunteer army (we already have the voluntary army bit down fairly securely). If you come to this conclusion, you would then look for the closest real-world approximation to your ideal scenario... which is the current war in Iraq. If you believe that the war in Iraq is justified, you need to choose the best *possible* option, which is either a gov't funded war or no war at all... neither option is appealing or ideologically pure, but you compromise somewhere.

[b-psycho]

Odd, since aside from tax cuts Bush has done literally nothing positive. If the GOP held congress, I'd gladly accept a Dem president. The gridlock would hold off the dumber ideas.

[Evan McElravy]

Thoreau,

My top three came out to be Dean, Sharpton, and Kucinich, so take heart (all three in the low 50%s)...I don't think the technology behind these surveys is quite ready for the big time yet....

[b-psycho]

Steve: from the result it looks like the issues you put as most important were more friendly to issues the "left" speaks as if they're correct on.

[Henry David Thoreau - the Orig]

"I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto,?"That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,?"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

[Steve in CA]

Am I the hardest-to-please voter in history?

The highest score for me was Libertarian Candidate: 65%; Bush was at 61%, and no one else was above 50%. Lieberman and Edwards were the leading Dems, at 48 each.

It's no wonder I changed my registration from L to decline-to-state. I hate everybody!

[Dan]

I wonder, does Dan think that a libertarian can support a war that is not defensive?

Libertarians support government functions because they are necessary and cannot practically be dealt with by private means. A libertarian could, and should, support a non-defensive war if it was necessary and unavoidable for the continued protection of the liberty and the rights of that libertarian's fellow citizens. The Revolutionary War is an example of a reasonably famous non-defensive war that most libertarians would concede was "good".

I am uninterested in arguing over whether or not the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and possible future wars with Iran, Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, are "defensive" or not. It is sufficient for me that breaking the back of the Islamist and Arab Neo-fascist world is necessary for my continued freedom and liberty.

Yes, the government has restricted our liberty, because we live in a democracy and the people feel fear. Only a blind idiot, with which the Libertarian Party is well-supplied, could think that there is no connection between that fear and the very real fact of Islamist terrorism. The way to prevent government intrusion into our liberties is to remove the pressure driving the public's fear -- ie, to remove the threat the terrorists represent.

Finally -- I know that history is filled with examples of the government drumming up imaginary demons to scare the people with. The fact that you actually think that's what's happening this time around is just another example of why I don't take Party-affiliated libertarians seriously anymore.

[DFH]

What I personally find most amusing is the thought that anyone here seriously believes that a correlation exists between what Kerry _believes_ and what he _says_.

Is he a cowboy, no. Is he a politician, yes.

Which of the two is known for their honesty?

[The Wama]

Alright, so now that the smoke has cleared, it seems that some Libertarians are more like Republicans, others are more like Democrats in their policy positions. This can be explained by positions on the war, as well as the varying strength of conviction with which we hold our other postions(for example, abortion is not a clearly defined position, in terms of the libertarian view, and is open to consideration), as well as differences in opinion as to how to get to our vision of things as they should be(i.e. vouchers).

I still believe Howard Dean is the smart vote for libertarians(and I still think he'll get the democratic nomination, despite, and in part because of, the Iowa results, I'd explain, but I suspect we'll see it play out over the next few weeks). It's well known that the Democratic primaries are biased toward liberalism, in general. I think Dean has posed his position answers in such a way that satisfies liberals while not actually giving them the goods. For instance, once, asked if he supports a living wage, he said, sure, but he goes on to say that its not actually done through wage controls, but through programs such as his health care proposal. What's the difference? Here, the costs of the actions are visible, in the form of governmental expenditures. But the healthcare thing is still bad, right? Well not necessarily as bad as you think.

For Dean to actually balance the budget, without enraging voters, he has to cut the fat and can't AFFORD to have a big program and still balance the budget without raising taxes beyond the Clinton-era level. Dean himself say "It's not a Cadillac plan, we can't afford a Cadillac plan". Meanwhile, Bush is spending far more than he could, had he not cut taxes and just kept the budget balanced.

So I think, that while there are some risks, I think they are managable, particularly with the split-government aspect playing out.

On the other side of the fence, GW Bush is doing something similar to Dean, but in the opposite(statist) direction. He talks like a big conservative, but pushes medicare expansion bills, and others, particularly the Iraq war, BIG EXPENDITURES, all while cutting taxes. HE HASN'T VETOED A SINGLE BILL, for crissake. Running up big deficits has a very dangerous effect, which is spending money without paying for it. The taxpayer gets benefits, but doesn't pay the price, which will only lead to higher expectations from government. Meanwhile, serious economic effects are on the way, I suspect. I fear that Bush's actions will, in the next few years, hit us in the pocketbook, perhaps in seriously negative ways.

Anyway, just wanted to say, I stand by my statements before.

[Andrew]

Wama et al--

I have heard this argument in every presidential election cycle since I first began to think of myself as a Libertarian...about '74-75. At the time, the sort of people I hung out with actually voted LP, but it was common to describe the Democratic nominee as "slightly better, from a Libertarian point of view". That was even retroacted to include George McGovern(!).
Of course it was
a) a dovish foreign policy
b) some latitude on life-style issues
c) an ACLU resolve to keep your school safe from Christmas pagaents, and your sidewalks safe for pan-handlers
d) sundry crackerjack plans to "balance the budget" by reducing the military to the size of the Coast Guard, and closing "tax loopholes"

In the span of my lifetime, I have seen the Berlin Wall fall and the nation arrive at a place where the eventual privatisation of social security and school choice seem all but inevitable-- ideas and events UNTHINKABLE in my childhood...and I can think of Republicans.

On most applications for anything official, I will be asked to describe my Race (also unthinkable in my childhood)...and I can think of the Democrats.

I would prefer any Republican nominee, from 1944 to the present, to his Democratic opponent. I think they are better..."from a Libertarian point of view".

[James Merritt]

Dan says, "Libertarians support government functions because they are necessary and cannot practically be dealt with by private means." Some libertarians do. Others think that statement is painting with too broad a brush. Regardless, isn't it necessary to prove the necessity, as well as the inability of handling the problem privately? Does anyone really believe, especially in the hindsight of the latest war's aftermath, that it was truly "necessary" and that our goals could not have been achieved by other means, many of them through the private sector?

Dan says, "It is sufficient for me that breaking the back of the Islamist and Arab Neo-fascist world is necessary for my continued freedom and liberty." So Dan, suppose that there are some people out there who find your rhetoric threatening to their freedom and liberty, and that they conclude that taking you out of play (they might say, "breaking your back") is necessary for their continued freedom and liberty. What standard of due process and proof of their case would you want them to apply to you before they committed to their backbreaking work? And if they made mistakes concerning you and didn't lose sleep over it, what would you call them? I might call them mobsters. If might makes right, Dan, then we have no need for libertarianism, only power.

Dan further says, "The way to prevent government intrusion into our liberties is to remove the pressure driving the public's fear -- ie, to remove the threat the terrorists represent."

In this, we agree. But you don't have to remove the threat by blowing it away, not unless it is coming straight at you and there is no way to step aside. Our political and military engagement in the mideast region and in other Islamic areas of the world -- often propping up dictators or opponents who are seen as oppressive or in conflict with the dominant religion -- is arguably the prime reason so many terrorists can be recruited and motivated to do horrific things.

Terrorists will always be with us. People go off the deep end and snap; get used to it. But those who do don't gather huge crowds of followers and supporters, whose cooperation and resources enable truly ghastly acts of terrorism, merely on the basis of charisma or insane rhetoric alone. There has to be some external pressure that motivates the crowd to fall in with the crazy guy. A smart US would find a way to remove whatever component of that pressure it was applying.

Dan says, "Only a blind idiot, with which the Libertarian Party is well-supplied..."

...would what? Would prefer to ignore that our foreign policy has consequences, whether those consequences are just or not? Would sanction mass destruction in regions as large as American states without hard proof that, as was claimed "the islamic dagger is at the US throat"? Would use abusive language to cow and dismiss those who disagree with him? What would a "blind idiot" do, Dan?

Dan finally says, "I know that history is filled with examples of the government drumming up imaginary demons to scare the people with. The fact that you actually think that's what's happening this time around is just another example of why I don't take Party-affiliated libertarians seriously anymore."

There are degrees of "drumming up." The smart manipulators of public opinion rarely weave a bogey man out of whole cloth. Instead, they point to actual people, events, or facts, and suggest that the unseen bogey man is manifest in those things that can be seen. Nobody denies that there have been terrorist attacks, many (and more frequently) by muslim or nationalist extremists from the middle east. The question is whether you can legitimately connect the dots to implicate all Islam, and whether the massive retalliation abroad and the noteworthy curtailment of liberties at home are commensurate with the magnitude of the real threat, or whether the actual threat is small enough that subtler, smarter measures might be at least as effective and far less expensive in terms of blood and treasure.

Since Dan seems to prefer "practical politics," let me acknowledge that one of the most effective, time-honored political strategies is "divide and conquer." With trillions of our dollars in its hands, why can't our government adopt a policy that divides the terrorist extremists from the populations who support them? Why must we go in, guns blazing, on questionable and likely false justifications? Who is being divided? Who is being conquered? Asking those questions and finding your own answers will teach you a lot, even if the answers you find aren't the same as mine.

[b-psycho]

I've never really gotten the "lesser of two evils" thing myself. The problem at hand, IMO, is that candidates for both are so obsessed with polls & demographic data that they don't have the guts to take a firm stand on anything. Instead, what we hear is a wordy lotta nothin'. I'd say toss the focus groups & analysts out on their ear, make our politicians actually stick to something, and then we will decide for ourselves; the way it works now, it's more like they pick us than us picking them.

One thing I don't get about the libertarian party though is the insistance on total isolationism. I mean, I fully believe that we are involved in way too much, and would if given the chance close a lot of military bases overseas, pull out of the UN, and stop giving away our money. But at the same time, I also believe we still need to maintain the upper hand just in case.

[Berman Jesse]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 203.162.3.145
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 09:48:37
Truth is not determined by majority vote