Reason Writers Around Town

Writing in the L.A. Times, Matt Welch has some ideas about what to do about them thar tumbleweeds a-blowin' through Democratic Party HQ.

Comments

[joe]

I agree, the party's future is in the west. Like Colorado born John Kerry, for example. heh.

I don't think it's coincidence that a western Democrat, Harry Reid, is standing up to fight the GOP on their mishandling of intelligence in the runup to the war.

[Akira MacKenzie]

There's another road so obvious that the Democrats have barely considered it.

Yes, but the reason that the Democrats haven't considered it also pretty obvious: Just as the Christian Right owns the GOP, the Democratic party draws the largest percentage of votes from the urban left and ergo get to dictate the path of the party. As long as the more brie-and-zinfindel lefties in New York, LA, and every other major U.S. city are controlling the agenda, the "Deadwood Democrats" are going to be left out in the cold.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Edit: take out that superfulious "more."

[Native NYer]

All the big money Dems in NYC are backing for mayor a Republican who funds Bush.

Matt might be onto something.

[JD]

"After all, libertarian-leaning Republicans and independents are in play like they haven't been since at least 1996, and there's no saying they can't be won over by the Democrats."

This must be some strange definition of the meaning of "in play" of which I was not previously aware. Both parties seem to be competing to see who can be less liberty-friendly; the Democrats only look slightly better because they aren't in the driver's seat. I don't think the Democrats have any interesting ideas, and they seem to be relying purely on Bush's unpopularity to win them races, which I don't think is a winning strategy.

[joe]

No, no, New Yorker, didn't you read Akira's comment? Us urban coastal elites all hate this idea.

No brie for you.

[Daniel Montiel]

JD--I think that maybe we don't mean the libertarian-leaning votes are "in play" because the two parties are doing a good job at competing for them, but because those votes are desperate for a better option.

[ChrisO]

The problem is that the Democrats have lost the ability lie convincingly when they say they care about liberty. The GOP is about 95% there on that, as well. And saying that the Dems are the better of the two on liberty issues is about like saying that Tsar Nicholas wasn't all that bad compared to Stalin.

I think Akira is entirely correct--the powers that be in the Dems nationally aren't going to actually go for this kind of stuff. And I think the opportunity is definitely there.

[Isaac Bartram]

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a leading 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, has slashed taxes, challenged public-sector unions and championed charter schools.

I'm impressed by Bill Richardson. Probably sort of the same way I would have felt about Bill Clinton if he'd had any principles.

Montana's Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, a gun-toting farmer, has won massive popularity in a deeply red state with his pragmatic environmentalism and emphasis on energy production.

Anyone who reads Field & Stream or Outdoor Life (especially the letters to the editor) will see this guy's appeal. While gun owners and hunters tend republican (mostly because of gun control and military questions) there's some dissatisfaction among hunters and anglers with the GOP on environmental and conservation policies.

A genuine outdoor type might be able to swing enough of those votes to turn a red state blue but as long as hunters see Dems as liberals who are hostile to hunting and gun rights they don't stand a chance. John Kerry recognized this but just couldn't sound or look convincing.

Of course hunters are a shrinking group so maybe the parties think they can be dimissed as an interest group.

[deron]

The success of western "democrat" governors is that they generally live in otherwise red states where the GOP is run by the nuts of the party. They don't hear quite the same noise from the liberals of the dem party.

The big question is... How would these guys govern in DC where they would hear nothing but the liberals of the democrat party?

It doesn't really matter though, since the people who choose the candidates (GOP & Dem) in the primaries are exactly the people who should be taken out and shot for the good of the nation.

[Akira MacKenzie]

And I think the opportunity is definitely there.

If the Dems would shed their mistrust of free enterprise, stop trying to nationalize health care and give me back my SS money, tax less and spend even less, and stop casting gun owners as backwoods,inbreed, psychos who are a pink slip away from a shooting rampage, I would consider voting for them.

Of course, I could be coaxed back to the GOP if they would dump their anti-abortion/anti-gay platforms, tell the bible-beaters to go to Hell, bring tour troops back home, repeal PATRIOT, and legalize drugs.

However, either way, that isn't likely to happen.

[Big Bad Lojack]

I was wondering, why doesn't the Libertarian party make any serious attempts to win any election. They could definitely win state offices or Congressional seats if they actually practiced some basic politics, raised some money, and actually cared enough to try to win, but instead they're a bunch of infighting failure-loving gripers who consider it a huge moral victory to get 4% of the vote. My God, what they hell is wrong with them?

[Akira MacKenzie]

The big question is... How would these guys govern in DC where they would hear nothing but the liberals of the democrat party?

Good point. Remember, back in his yellow-dog days, Al Gore could have been considered "right wing" when he prowled around the TN. state house.

Then he moved to D.C..

[Akira MacKenzie]

I was wondering, why doesn't the Libertarian party make any serious attempts to win any election.

Because anyone who is serious about getting into political office knows they have to play to their audience and use the dread "C-world" (i.e. compromise), and sadly, Libertarianism is not noted for its pragmatism.

As a result, the LP doesn't get much in the realm of donations, and can only attract druid priests and blue skinned paranoids who want to blow up the UN building to run for office.

[deron]

Al Gore could have been considered "right wing" when he prowled around the TN. state house.

Then he moved to D.C..

Really? I've always had the impression that Al was a DC brat who slummed in TN from time to time. Wasn't his pop a congressman, or senator of something?

[Cedarburg]

Dean governed Vermont in a fairly pro-gun sort of way. But oops, then Dems decided Kerry was "more electable."

They've made their bed.

[Chris Monnier]

I was wondering, why doesn't the Libertarian party make any serious attempts to win any election.

Akira's right. The LP has to stop being a philosophical organization and become a political one. And to do that they have to compromise. As it stands right now for the LP, preserving principle is more important than increasing liberty.

[Gene Berkman]

ChrisO -
Czar Nicholas was not as bad as Stalin.

It is true that statists control the Democratic Party, but it is also true that the Republican Party under Bush has done more to advance statism than every Democrat administration in my lifetime.

Voting Libertarian for Congress etc sends a message of belief in less government. And yes, there is an occasional Republican worth voting for - Tom McClintock or Tom Campbell in California, for example.

But in 2008, it is important to end Republican control of the White House, to drive the prowar forces from government.

My hope is that the Dems will pick New Mexico's Governor Richardson, who not only cut taxes, but has backed bills to legalize concealed carry, and to legalize medical marijuana. In 1990, as a member of Congress, Richardson voted against the first Gulf War.

[ChrisO]

Akira:

If the Dems would shed their mistrust of free enterprise, stop trying to nationalize health care and give me back my SS money, tax less and spend even less, and stop casting gun owners as backwoods,inbreed, psychos who are a pink slip away from a shooting rampage, I would consider voting for them.

Yeah, that's about it for me, too. As much dismay as I have over where the GOP has gone, the Dems just are not a reasonable alternative.

[Ben]

"My hope is that the Dems will pick New Mexico's Governor Richardson, who not only cut taxes, but has backed bills to legalize concealed carry, and to legalize medical marijuana. In 1990, as a member of Congress, Richardson voted against the first Gulf War."

These are all great things, but I just can't for the life of me picture him on stage at a Democratic primary debate talking about how he is proud of these things. No way Hillary or John Kerry or any other DC Dem would back things like that.

[Larry A]

I have a feeling if the only issue Democrats credibly flipped on was gun control they'd increase their chance of winning about 100%.

The only problem would be the "credibly" part. They'd have to muzzle Schumer, Feinstein, et al, and introduce and see passed in both houses of Congress a couple of major bills before the primaries. Something on the order of national concealed carry reciprocity legislation.

Their apologia could be something along the lines of, "We've noticed that gun control doesn't work <Cite statistics> and it's burned our tails in the last several elections <Interview union member while he's hunting> so we've seen the light."

Yeah. <Temperature in Hades reaches 10F.>

Of course hunters are a shrinking group so maybe the parties think they can be dismissed as an interest group.

• This year's sale of hunting licenses may indicate a turnaround.
• But the major problem with Kerry's "I support guns for hunting" photo-ops is that gun rights activists see that particular message as gun control code for "but I'm against guns for self-defense so we're taking those away first and then we'll get all the scope-sighted sniper rifles and street-sweeping shotguns."

[David T]

Uh, before assuming that "the more libertarian you are, the better your chances are in the West", maybe we should look at how Colorado voters just voted on TABOR?
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20051102/NEWS/51102001

[deron]

The Aspen Times? How the hell did you pick the Aspen Times to raise Ref C?

It doesn't speak well for libertarian leanings, but it does speak well for bi-partisan screwing - no matter what Caldara thinks.

The curious thing is that the voters said, you can keep the TABOR money (Ref C), but you can't issue new debt(Ref D).

[jimmy]

deron--yep, al gore's pop was a senator from tennessee.

kerry's gun problem could have been solved by one simple move...actually carrying the duck he supposedly shot in ohio by himself, instead of having someone else carry it for him, when the cameras were around. what kind of real hunter would let someone else show off his own kill? that cemented for me right then and there that he was a phony.

[jimmy]

btw...why does a "libertarian" writer still talk about "the bungled federal response to Hurricane Katrina?" are you kidding me??? was it the feds who refused to leave NO in droves and then whined about everything? who left local buses sitting underwater? who deserted the local police force? who skimmed levee funds for years? come on...

[citizengnat]

jimmy, just because the locals screwed up, and I totaly agree with you there, doesn't let the feds off the hook. And I beleive the maintenance of levees is the responsiblility of the Army Corps of Engineers, whose warnings and requests for additional funding for the NO levees where ignored for years by the bush administration and the congress. I don't think a ""libertarian"" should cut any part of the government slack when it comes to their dumbassery.

Also, folks who didn't leave NO in time often didn't have the ability to get out or had nowhere to stay. And even if it was just stupidity that kept some there, accusing them of "whining" over their terrible losses is a dick thing to do.

[citizengnat]

RICHARDSON/NAPOLITANO 2008!

In your heart you know he's right.

[citizengnat]

RICHARDSON/NAPOLITANO 2008!

In your heart you know he's right.

[Tom Scudder]

Digby recently posted on just this topic: The Liberty Platform.

I understand that building a coalition of rural western states and big city blue states has its problems. But we have to find common ground with some red states somewhere and this seems like the most fertile ground requiring the least compromise on matters of primary importance to both. That's the only way a coalition can be successful. You can't force people into a mold, you have to mold the coalition around shared principles.

...

A few of the areas that are problematic for this coalition are guns, business regulation, unions and immigration. On the first I would adopt a states' rights position and use governor Dean's formulation that the rural areas have different concerns about guns than the cities and so there can be no national, one size fits all solution. Big city cops have different concerns than those in Montana.

And quite a bit more.

[kelvinator]

"A genuine outdoor type might be able to swing enough of those votes to turn a red state blue but as long as hunters see Dems as liberals who are hostile to hunting and gun rights they don't stand a chance. John Kerry recognized this but just couldn't sound or look convincing."

If they would give up the ban guns crap they could win back the south and with that the White House and Congresional majority. Not that I relish that thought any more than our current overlords, but......