Pete Buttigieg

Pete Buttigieg, Democratic Capitalist

The good news: Capitalism is working its way back to the Democratic mainstream. The bad news: This capitalism comes with a whole lot of government.

|

South Bend, Indiana, mayor and presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg calls himself a "democratic capitalist." In a Democratic field where several popular candidates are either fully or partially embracing "democratic socialism," it's worth taking a closer look at a candidate who isn't shying away from the capitalist label.

Indeed, Buttigieg is fond of his economic identity, evidenced by the repeated use of the term. He is currently enjoying media attention reserved for big-name candidates and has already raised $7 million within the first campaign fundraising quarter, suggesting there may be an appetite for a defender of capitalism in the mix.  

Sitting at a CNN desk in April, Buttigieg was asked to address the vocal factions in the Democratic Party that vilify big business and capitalism. 

"Well, I think the reason we're having this argument over socialism and capitalism is that capitalism has let a lot of people down," he said on CNN. "I guess what I'm out there to say is that it doesn't have to be so."

Buttigieg told CNN it's generally assumed that those who support capitalism also support democracy. In his view, though, democracy and capitalism are "coming into contention" with one another.

"It was very alarming to hear recently one of the president's economic advisers said that between capitalism and democracy, he would choose capitalism," said the South Bend mayor. "I would say the reverse ought to be true, that at the end of the day we prioritize democracy. And, you know, having that framework of a rule of law, fairness, is actually what takes markets to work."

Buttigieg acknowledges a line between good government intervention and too much government intervention. Tariffs, for example, cross Buttigieg's line. Buttigieg decried President Trump's tariffs on China at an event as both a tax on Americans and a "counterproductive" tactic to try to force China to change its economic model.

Free college, a campaign promise that has been adopted by democratic socialists and mainstream candidates alike, also crosses his line. Buttigieg told a New Hampshire audience that as a progressive, he could not justify requiring the majority of taxpayers to subsidize a minority that will eventually outearn them because of a degree.

He's bucked one-size-fits-all policies like zoning restrictions that do not take regional differences into account. He personally favors religion as an important source of community and morality.

While Buttigieg occasionally takes a stand against what he believes is too much government intervention, it's more difficult to gauge just how much intervention he believes is acceptable.

Buttigieg has suggested using the government to enforce mandatory national service. A veteran himself, Buttigieg told Rachel Maddow that he believes that his own interactions with people of all socioeconomic backgrounds in the armed forces could be used as a model throughout the country. He added that national service would not necessarily mean military service; a variety of public-sector jobs could fit the bill as well.

Confusing matters more, Buttigieg proposed making service a social norm, "if not legally obligatory." It remains unclear whether he's legitimately interested in government mandating service, and for whom, and in which sectors, but the notion is troubling.

And he acknowledges the idea itself is a long shot: "It's one of these ideas that everybody kind of likes, but it was always important and never urgent," he muses. "How would that ever kind of hold on its own in a policy debate where we deal with kids in cages and we have to deal with climate change and there are all these pressing, burning issues?"

This is the heart of the Buttigieg campaign so far: Big ideas—good and bad—but very little clarity about what they would mean in practice.

"We give him points for even saying he's a capitalist of any kind in a Democratic field," says Cato Institute Senior Fellow Michael Tanner. "That's hard to come by."

Tanner observes "two branches" currently in the Democratic Party: one that accepts the existence of capitalism while pushing for a larger welfare state and one that rejects capitalism entirely. While he gives Buttigieg credit for calling himself a capitalist, he warns that libertarian and free market voters should be mindful of his understanding of the term.

"We should praise the concept while rejecting the specifics," says Tanner.

Still, in a world where less than half of young Americans view capitalism more favorably than socialism, it is heartening to see a popular candidate calling himself a capitalist. Defenders of capitalism should take heart while remaining vigilant against the dangerous, vague ideas that Buttigieg is bringing along with his embrace of the term.

NEXT: Reformation All Over Again?

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

  1. South Bend, Indiana, mayor and presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg calls himself a “democratic capitalist.”

    Except that he apparently supports the Green New Deal.

    A rose by any other name would smell as sweet (or as rotten as the case may be).

    1. What’s more democratic than people voting with their wallets in the marketplace? That’s capitalism.

      1. You mean as long as they don’t “vote” for something that generates CO2.

      2. Exactly. Free markets are about as democratic and individualized and decentralized as you can get. These clowns smother markets in regulation and central planning, then take the concomitant “market failure” as an excuse for more regulation and smotheration.

    2. [Buttigieg] personally favors religion as an important source of community and morality.

      Except when Vice President Mike Pence favors religion as an important source of community and morality.

    3. Butt-gag is in no way a capitalist.

  2. please nominate this guy.

    1. Kamala Harris is still my first choice, but I tend to agree — Mayor Pete would be a strong candidate for the Democrats to nominate.

  3. Government-controlled capitalism is otherwise known as fascism. And saying that capitalism has let a lot of people down is like saying Santa Claus let a lot of people down – you ain’t getting no free lunches out of capitalism if that’s what you were hoping for, but capitalism is the best method by far we’ve ever found to supply more affordable lunches to more people than ever before.

    Buttigieg decried President Trump’s tariffs on China at an event as both a tax on Americans and a “counterproductive” tactic to try to force China to change its economic model.

    And I’m pretty damn sure Buttigieg isn’t fundamentally opposed to taxing Americans so what he’s really objecting to is the second part – the proper way for Top Men to manage trade and production and the economy for all the sheep.

    1. Not to mention that, as a rule, “democratic” anything means “not democratic”. How many Democratic People’s Republics do you know of that are in the least little bit democratic or republican? “Democratic Capitalist”, I suspect, has at least some of Bernie’s advisors slapping their foreheads and wondering why the hell they didn’t think of that label.

    2. And, just to close the loop, in a democratic republic, “democratic control” means government control.

    3. There is nothing wrong with free lunches if they are voluntarily given out. Like Bezos’ ex-wife giving half her salary to charity. That scenario would never play out under socialism. Capitalism enables these giant acts of charity.

      1. Socialism rapidly creates scarcity.

  4. When evaluating Mayor Pete’s economic policy, it’s important to note he has given indications he supports reparations for slavery. This is fantastic news for anyone who cares about racial justice, which we Koch / Reason libertarians clearly do.

    Furthermore, it illustrates how rapidly the Democratic Party is changing for the better. Recall that in 2016, Bernie Sanders went on record opposing reparations. But today, even capitalist Democrats are embracing a proposal that was too radical for the “far left socialist” of yesteryear. Exciting times!

    #LibertariansForReparations

  5. May I be blunt?

    Fuck him and his fucking rules and laws and taxes and regulations.

    1. You are entitled to be as blunt as you wish and to believe as you wish. You also are welcome to try to persuade others to agree with your views.

      So long as you continue to comply with the rules our liberal-libertarian alliance has established in effecting American progress against your wishes throughout your lifetime, that is.

      Carry on, clingers.

      1. You can call yourself liberal all you want. You aren’t convincing anyone.

      2. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
        May.28.2019 at 2:01 pm
        “So long as you continue to comply with the rules our liberal-libertarian alliance has established in effecting American progress against your wishes throughout your lifetime, that is.”

        Our bigoted asshole loser somehow thinks he and that hag won!
        Was it the popular vote you fantasize about?

      3. Oh Arty, things won’t end well for you and your fellow travelers.

  6. The badder news: Capitalism that comes with a whole lot of government isn’t capitalism.

    1. But the most oppressive aspect of government is so-called “border enforcement.” And I’m sure Mayor Pete is better on that issue than Orange Hitler is.

      #AbolishICE
      #NoBanNoWall
      #OpenBorders

      1. OK, we all get the joke now. Try something else.

        1. I will continue to #Resist Putin’s Puppet as long as he is in office. If you can’t handle my left-libertarian commentary, try Breitbart or something.

          1. Not since turd was banned.

          2. I must have missed it.

    2. Bullshit. MOST examples of capitalism come with a ton of government. It’s just that its geared to entrench/protect a different group of people.

      Free markets don’t do well with a lot of government beyond minarchy/nightwatchman. But conflating free markets and capitalism seems to be a hobby with the cronyist/plutocratic wing of ‘libertarians’.

      1. Free markets don’t do well with a lot of government beyond minarchy/nightwatchman.

        If only that were the options this thread were talking about.

        1. Well you seem to be massively missing the point. ‘Capitalism’ does VERY well in all sorts of heavy govt involvement – from Bismarckian welfare to XianDemocrat/Catholic welfare to fascism to plutocracy to technocracy to a permawar MIC etc.

          And like it or not, those sorts of things are exactly the sorts of govt that pretty much ALL (ex the Sanders/AOC) the DeRps advocate. And those DeRps who seem to sometimes advocate less (but never do anything about it) – always prefer to use capitalism rather than free market. In large part I suspect because they aren’t ever actually serious about the distinction and so prefer lots of govt despite what they advocate.

          1. JFree
            May.28.2019 at 3:13 pm
            “Well you seem to be massively missing the point.”

            You are massively stupid.
            Fuck off, slaver, and leave the adults alone.

            1. One might quibble with his definition of capitalism. But I don’t see where he’s wrong in that comment. Unless you define capitalism as limited to just pure free-market capitalism, the distinction seems to be worth making.

              1. Well, fascism (total state control of private ownership) does better than communism (total state control and ownership). So its got that going for it.

                Seriously though – its amazing how much power the ‘private’ has. Even the little bit of private control that is still allowed under fascism outperforms total state control.

      2. Free markets don’t do well with a lot of government beyond minarchy/nightwatchman.

        Well, that’s kind of by definition.

    3. So you’re saying the problem with capitalism is that it’s never really been tried before?

      Interesting claim. Sounds kind of familiar though. Not sure why. I’m sure I’ll think of it soon.

  7. What! Next he’ll be trying to revive Studebaker.
    Buttigieg is one of those “sell us the rope” type of capitalists.

  8. he could not justify requiring the majority of taxpayers to subsidize a minority that will eventually outearn them because of a degree.

    Two things on this.

    One: Good on him for framing it that way.
    B: It presumes people who spend four years in college get an education that pays off.

    So what’s worse, the janitor subsidizing the law degree, or the janitor subsidizing a French Literature degree that cost $100,000 and netted zero in future earnings because the holder of said degree eventually gave up and went to nursing school.

  9. …Buttigieg proposed making service a social norm, “if not legally obligatory.”

    This is not someone who defaults to personal liberty. I can see a President Buttigieg going hard for what he feels is democracy at the expense of many free market ideals.

    1. What if I just really want to perform public services but never actually achieve the goal? Failing to count my desire as achievement would not be very inclusive.

    2. He specifically says “not legally obligatory”.

      1. He says “if not legally obligatory”. It sounds to me like he would prefer it be obligatory but would accept a version where service was ‘only’ strongly encouraged by social norms (and, one suspects, a few government nudges — e.g. “you don’t *have* to serve, but about those government guaranteed student loans you were hoping for…”)

        1. Agreed. I suspect he sees it as a clone/alternative to military service.

          1. No doubt to be directed towards boosting progressive friendly endeavors.

            1. Seems fair considering the size of the MIC.

    3. Why shouldn’t people be allowed to make payments in kind (labor) rather than only in cash?

      Yeah – it ain’t anarchy but anarchy ain’t a real thing anyway and even if it was real it would probably be destructive to personal liberty.

      1. JFree
        May.28.2019 at 3:18 pm
        “Why shouldn’t people be allowed to make payments in kind (labor) rather than only in cash?”

        ‘Make payments’? WIH does that mean?

      2. “in-kind” contributions are frowned upon.

        1. And that is one reason govt is so expensive. We have defined it all (the services govt does and the way those services are paid for) in and reduced it all to monetary/cash terms.

          Gone with that is even the concept of volunteer fire departments, individual school boards run by part-time volunteers who most care about them, universities/hospitals that were all created/run by fraternal/charity organizations – and all the reasons why people used to be involved in their local community. The stuff classical liberals from deToqueville to AJ Nock talked about. Once it’s all just money, there is no need for personal involvement – and ‘personal involvement’ will become unwelcome to those full-timers who are getting paid to do that stuff. The role of citizens is merely to vote for someone else to do stuff.

          Buttig’s notion is really rather conventional and useless. Just feel-good crap. Rather than a fundamental rethink of how govt gets done – with that teenage service being merely the way kids are introduced to the sorts of things citizens USED TO DO.

          1. Make no mistake, Buttgag is a socialist piece of shot that will sell this country down the river to please his progtard pals.

      3. Payments to the government?

  10. “Still, in a world where less than half of young Americans view capitalism more favorably than socialism…”

    Of course, those young Americans think Sweden is a Socialist country.

    1. Two things about that.

      (1) Until sometime in the last year, that’s what y’all were claiming. You only started backing off that and saying “well, they’re not really socialist” when folks this side of the pond started embracing the label.

      (2) Seeing as it’s specifically Scandanavian-style “socialism” that folks are currently interested in, if that’s not “really” socialism, then the Democrats aren’t “really” interested in socialism either.

      You can’t have it both ways. Either Sweden is socialist and that’s bad, or it’s not and you can’t rag on Democrats for going socialist.

      1. No, actually we all have been debating whether its appropriate to call Sweden, etc. socialist for years. You may have noticed by now that libertarians disagree about a lot. Especially stupid crap about definitions of words.
        Whether it is properly called “socialism” or not, Democrats are going for more government involvement in more of people’s lives and business and that’s a fine thing to rag on them for.

      2. Democrats don’t claim they’re going for socialism. They’re going for Democratic Socialism. Because that’s the kind of socialism that works.

  11. “The good news: Capitalism is working its way back to the Democratic mainstream. The bad news: This capitalism comes with a whole lot of government.”

    That’s called product differentiation.

    The good news: Our new burger now comes with bacon!

    The bad news: It’s made of rotten meat.

    Fuck that noise.

    The problem with voting for any Democrat president right now is that none of them are likely to have the backbone to veto key Democrat legislation–if and when something like the Green New Deal gets to their desk.

    If you add up both Biden and Buttkrieg supporters, you get–at most–35% of Democrats who aren’t fundamentally opposed to capitalism (and that’s giving Biden’s union supporters the benefit of the doubt). That means 65% are dominating Democrat elections?

    I will vote for Republican cronyists over socialists for the White House every time. It is irrational to protest socialism with a vote for a Libertarian when we can use our votes to prevent a socialist from getting into the White House. If a socialist (or an enabler like Buttkrieg) gets into the White House because of our protest vote, it’ll be the stupidest thing we libertarians have ever done.

    1. White House because of our protest vote, it’ll be the stupidest thing we libertarians have ever done.

      That’s a pretty high bar.

      1. Taking out the guy that would veto the Green New Deal would surpass wherever that bar is set.

        I’d need to be at least as sure that the Democrat candidate is at least as likely as Trump to veto the Green New Deal before I vote for a Libertarian.

        There certainly isn’t anything that we can achieve with our votes by protesting socialists that can’t be better done by preventing a socialist from taking the White House, and there is probably no dumber tendency among my fellow libertarians than to imagine that because something is imperfect, that means it’s just as bad everything else.

        That’s what I’m getting at here.

        Anyone who opposes ending the drug war if it means that local government also doesn’t stop zoning dispensaries like liquor stores is an idiot. Yeah, when we stop locking people in cages it’s better than what we had–even if it isn’t perfect. Likewise, I oppose Donald Trump on both free trade and immigration, but he’s nowhere near as awful as the Democrats are–especially on the Green New Deal but also on things like Medicare for All, etc.

        Gavin Newsom, who is the fucking progressive/socialist retard Governor of California, is now fighting the Democrats in Sacramento over their proposal to give all illegal immigrants Medicaid. (Newsom wanted to restrict the program to illegal immigrants under the age of 26).

        We’ll see what he does. If Newsom can’t stop his fellow Democrats from doing shit like this, why should we believe that any Democrat candidates won’t do the same thing for the same reasons in Washington?

        In the past, we might have thought that reality would act as a break on these people, but I don’t see any reason to stick with that now. The only reason we don’t have the Green New Deal and Medicare for All right now is because the Democrats don’t have control of the Senate and a Democrat isn’t in the White House. If they get a Democrat in the White House, I wouldn’t expect McConnell to stand on principle any more than he ever has before, and if the Democrats somehow take both the White House and the Senate–say in another midterm or two–there will be nothing to stop them but reality.

        And I don’t believe they care about reality anymore.

        1. Just for the record:

          “Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to spend about $98 million a year to cover low-income immigrants between the ages of 19 and 25 who are living in the country illegally.

          The state Assembly has a bill that would cover all immigrants in California living in the country illegally over the age of 19. But Newsom has balked at that plan because of its estimated $3.4 billion price.”

          https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/california-considers-health-care-undocumented-immigrants-n1008201

          If Donald Trump were the Governor of California, this retarded negotiation wouldn’t even be happening. If we want to see this kind of retarded thing happening in Washington, put a Democrat in charge of the White House.

        2. Depends what state you live in. For me, in Illinois, a vote for a Libertarian is the same as a vote for a Republican: The Democrat will win the state regardless

          1. Lines are blurring. American unions are even being slow and reluctant to endorse candidates. What’s their complaint? Do they think Trump should be doing more to China?

            In the UK, Labour’s voice on Brexit has been muted because there’s a sizable portion of their voters and MPs who are pro-Brexit. The yellow-jackets in France aren’t all right wing. It’s the same way here in the U.S.

            The voters who made the pollsters look like idiots last time did so because it wasn’t clear that places like Wisconsin and Michigan would break for Trump. Illinois went 55% for Hillary to around 40% for Trump in 2016. If one in ten Hillary voters breaks for Trump come 2020, Illinois becomes a tight race.

            If there’s a recession between now and November 2020, all bets are off, but other than that, Trump is more likely to be reelected than he was to get elected the first time. And if any deep red states flip for him, it’ll be Illinois before it’s California or Massachusetts.

    2. >>>The problem with voting for any Democrat president right now

      *The* problem?

  12. Why do you keep highlighting this tool?

    1. Because the anti-Trump stuff can’t be all anti-Trump all the time. They have to give reasons to vote for the other side, too. That way it doesn’t seem like it’s so anti-Trump all the time. Being anti-Trump all the time might seem irrational.

    2. Because he is a smart young person who could probably do well as president. We are going to have to decide on candidates for 2020 and Mayor Pete deserves a chance.

      1. Mayor Pete deserves a chance

        He deserves a chance to change his platform.

    3. this.

  13. The good news: Capitalism is working its way back to the Democratic mainstream. The bad news: This capitalism comes with a whole lot of government.

    Ah, so its the same fascism politicians have been pushing for . . . well, forever.

    1. Not really.

      This time they’ve got real authoritarian socialism to back it up. This time they’ve got a Ten Year Plan:

      “Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

      “Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”

      “Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States.”

      “Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

      “Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible.”

      “Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity.”

      “Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”

      “Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail.”

      “Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible.”

      “Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_Resolution

      Until that’s been completely repudiated by the larger Democratic Party, there’s no good reason 1) not to take their proposal seriously and 2) to seriously consider voting for any of them.

      1. (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;

        That’s called a zero vehicle infrastructure, by the way.

        1. “Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.”

          Cows and pigs are a big source of methane. It’s technologically feasible to get rid of them entirely.

          I might have given them somewhat of a pass if they’d talked about eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from ranchers, etc. if the qualification were, “as much as is [economically] feasible”, but it’s been “technologically feasible” to hit a cow over the head with a sledge hammer for a really long time.

  14. Young people favor socialism because they see capitalism failing them. Capitalism as we have today must change or it will be replaced. Like the market it is do for a correction. Pete Buttigieg has embraced capitalism, but expects to see changes. So do you want to stay with President Trump, the poster child for many of capitalism problems or look to someone looking to move capitalism to a better more stable place. I think Mayor Pete will make changes necessary and I will support him.

    1. Moderation4ever
      May.28.2019 at 3:48 pm
      “Young people favor socialism because they see capitalism failing them. Capitalism as we have today must change or it will be replaced.”

      Lies.
      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. Sevo should run as the Libertarian party’s communications director. That way, at least the terrible vote count would be earned.

        1. I personally like Sevo’s style of communication. Sure beats the fuck out of admini-speak.

          1. For blog comments, sure. If you want to change anyone’s mind or get people to vote for your candidate, calling everyone who you don’t agree with a liar and a slaver probably isn’t a great approach.

          2. agreed.

    2. They’ll embrace socialism… until they try to sell something without getting a permit, or find out they have to pay for two years of training before getting a license that allows them to legally work their trade, or find out that the reason they have to shell out $200 for lifesaving medicine is not because of a “free market” but Big Pharma bribed politicians to put marketing restrictions in place that benefit them over their potential competition.

  15. Ah, Democratic Capitalism. It’s the new Compassionate Conservatism!

  16. Butt-gag. Eww.

    1. Even worse, he probably takes it up the ass like he takes it up the ass.

  17. So not in favor of a free market then?

  18. “Capitalism” is the Marxists’ term. If you want free enterprise, say “free enterprise”. Don’t use a word that implies rule by capital.

  19. Wow, a declared candidate for the nomination and he is not exactly anti capitalism…let’s see where he stands on some issues:

    Buttigieg has said the Democratic party needs to be in conversation with labor unions and supports the economic opportunities presented in the Green New Deal.

    Buttigieg joined Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which supports comprehensive background checks and opposes guns in schools and permitless carrying.

    “Just expressing one war vet’s hurt at seeing weapons of war used on peaceful Americans here at home.”

    “We can quibble over marginal tax rate levels, but we know that a lot of people in this country are not paying their fair share. There’s this talk about this being some crazy left-wing position, but I think the idea that some people aren’t paying their fair share, and we’ve got to change that, that’s something most Americans get.”

    Buttigieg supports increasing the minimum wage…He also told the podcast Pod Save America that he thinks it’s worth taking universal basic income seriously, saying, “It’s the right moment to have the conversation.”

    “we need to depoliticize the Supreme Court, with one option being expanding the Supreme Court to 15 justices with 10 appointed “in the political fashion” and five appointed by a unanimous agreement of the other 10 justices.

    Buttigieg has made it clear that he believes climate change deserves crisis-level attention from the United States government

    He also spoke about voting reform, including creating automatic voter registration, giving people the day off on Election Day, and allowing Puerto Rico to have a voice in the electoral process for presidency. He is also on record as saying “the electoral college has got to go.”

    1. Sounds like Reason’s kind of homo

      1. I was gonna say guy, but didn’t want to offend OBL.
        Sapien will have to do

  20. I would love to see a Buttigieg / Gabbard ticket. That would shake up the political world. They are both far more progressive than I would ever advocate, but at least they are intellectually honest and reasonable people who are not simply fanning the culture wars as are most Democrats (and, of course, the Republicans).

    And if the GOP gives us Trump as expected, and if the Libertarians fail to give us a viable candidate, I would probably vote for the Buttigieg / Gabbard ticket and hope for a GOP controlled Senate to slow the rush to the Far Left.

    As far as “democratic capitalism” with a lot of regulation, I have evolved to think what is needed is better anti-trust enforcement. Government that is focused on checking the worst excesses of giant conglomerates with quasi-monopoly power? That is ok, we need that. Government that gets in the way of small business formation? That is not ok.

    Libertarians should be “pro-free markets”, not “pro-big business”.

    1. >>>That would shake up the political world.

      in 1987

    2. “And if the GOP gives us Trump as expected, and if the Libertarians fail to give us a viable candidate, I would probably vote for the Buttigieg / Gabbard ticket and hope for a GOP controlled Senate to slow the rush to the Far Left.”

      So you’re a little picture dude
      Who needs glasses
      And a seeing eye dog

    3. That you OBL, or just another imitator?

    4. OK, let’s parse IT’s bullshit, and bullshit it is:

      IndependentTexan
      May.28.2019 at 4:37 pm
      “I would love to see a Buttigieg / Gabbard ticket. That would shake up the political world. They are both far more progressive than I would ever advocate, but at least they are intellectually honest and reasonable people who are not simply fanning the culture wars as are most Democrats (and, of course, the Republicans).”
      Really? What sort of brain damage suggests that idiocy?

      “And if the GOP gives us Trump as expected, and if the Libertarians fail to give us a viable candidate, I would probably vote for the Buttigieg / Gabbard ticket and hope for a GOP controlled Senate to slow the rush to the Far Left.”
      Care to tell us why those who lean toward libertarian should oppose Trump? I thought not.

      “As far as “democratic capitalism” with a lot of regulation, I have evolved to think what is needed is better anti-trust enforcement. Government that is focused on checking the worst excesses of giant conglomerates with quasi-monopoly power? That is ok, we need that. Government that gets in the way of small business formation? That is not ok.”
      So your idiocy is such that the market is OK so long as you agree with it?
      Fuck off, slaver.

      “Libertarians should be “pro-free markets”, not “pro-big business”.”
      Uh, yeah, I guess only small businesses are OK with brain-damaged idiots like you?
      How small is a ‘small business’?
      Aw forget it; you’ve posted enough stupidity.

  21. If Pete is the ‘rational’ Democrat, I think we’ve forgotten what rationality is. He’s only ‘rational’ when compared to the Chairman Mao’s in his party, which isn’t saying much.

  22. Democracy too often degenerates into mob rule, or big man rule. We have a Constitutional republic, where theoretically it’s more difficult to concentrate power. Buttigieg is like most Democrat politicians in pushing to turn us more into a democracy. For instance by abolishing the electoral college. This also fits in with the climate change “crisis”, which the Democrats turn to to concentrate power with them.

    1. IMO the problem we’re having is: 1) The checks and balances aren’t being utilized… the Republicans probably know Trump and his Cabinet are breaking rules left and right, but since they’re in power they simply refuse to call them out on it; and 2) there’s really not much in the Constitution that lays out penalties for violating its tenets. The Supreme Court can order someone to follow the law and jail them for contempt if they resist, but that’s about it. If the people’s only recourse for scofflaw politicians/judges is to vote them out, then justice will almost always be suppressed by TEAM!!! voters.

      1. So it is possible to have de facto “big man rule” if the lawmakers are just letting the President get away with making up the rules, and the voters are letting the lawmakers get away with slacking off on the checks and balances.

        1. So were you really angry when the hag lost?

  23. “…it is heartening to see a popular candidate calling himself a capitalist.”

    Only if you’re a thick shit.

    Buttigieg only equates himself with the term capitalist because it’s a kind of edgy reverse wokeness.

    The kids love their toys and their Uber Eats but the damage resulting from nearly two decades of public education has fucked them up to the point where they need to chew on the hand that feeds them, or fuck their mothers, or burn their dog, or whatever psycho-trick they have to employ, to assuage the cognitive dissonance of enjoying the products of a system they know is killing their souls and the Earth, and their mothers and their dog. So they give it a name, and because words are like talismans to them, the problem is nicely contained.

    Democratic capitalism === democratic socialism.

  24. It’s almost like all the candidates are soulless automatons repeating whatever they think will make them stand out and win them the nomination.

    1. almost?

  25. Yep. Politicians can call themselves whatever they want to gain power. Jared Polis, our new Colorado governor, calls himself a democratic libertarian. Now we have an Equal Pay law that makes the federal law look like a libertarian write and a gun seizure law, all in his first four months.

    I’d rather vote for the Trump protectionism, that I despise, over voting for a statist, no matter what the democrats call themselves.

    1. I should’ve said ‘redistribution statist’.

      1. the general term drove the point as was.

    2. My favourite term: Communist-libertarian.

      /Side Show Bob shudder.

    3. Also.

      Trump is FAR less dangerous, than say, Harris. Have you seen what that psycho has been proposing?

  26. Democrats at the federal level are universally anti-freedom. I will not vote Democrat at that level. That doesn’t mean I’ll vote Republican, but I definitely won’t vote Democrat.

    1. I always warn. For now, do NOT vote Democrat, or Liberal.

      Not until they clean their rooms.

      And definitely never the NDP. Particularly if you’re Alberta. Still shake my head they voted in the NDP who then proceeded – surprise! – to rape and pillage whatever good thing Alberta had going.

  27. Democracy is not an inherently good thing… A constitutionally limited republic like we have with democratic elements is probably the best way to govern… But only if the democracy part is kept in check. Which of course the founders were wise enough to do… And their wise actions were later undone by far less intelligent men.

    The truth is that MANY systems of government in the past that relied on various types of bodies of wise old men that voted for how shit was done were perfectly functional. Frankly, every bit as functional, or more so than what we have now. They were often fair, reasonable, and generally had rules and limitations much the same as we do today. They were different rules on the limits of their power, but they had them. Limited monarchies with deliberative bodies go back A LONG TIME, and seeing what a mess our government has degenerated into, I don’t know that they would be appreciably worse if one is being honest. I’d still take our original system over anything else, but it’s not like democracy is some magic cure all people think it is.

    I have said it before, and I will say it again: Universal suffrage is what has destroyed the USA.

    The truth is the founders were smart enough to realize not everybody deserved to have the vote. Letting the rabble vote is what destroyed our great system. People who can’t name what year we declared independence, who that was declared from, what the 3 branches of government are, etc etc etc SHOULD NOT be able to vote.

    The founders rules for voting, white male landowners, was really a proxy for a couple things. One, they paid most of the taxes, hence had skin in the game. Two, being male and slightly more wealthy they were also more likely to be educated and intelligent given the way the world was at the time.

    If we want to have a non discriminatory system for doing the same thing it could be net taxpayers + passing a history/civics test. BAM. It wouldn’t be perfect, but every moron you cut out that doesn’t know the importance of the year 1776 is a step in the right direction.

    And as a PS, this would be MASSIVELY discriminatory in terms of WHO would/wouldn’t pass the above test. It would mostly end up being white and Asian males, because women and other races tend to never score as well on either being economically productive or knowing shit about shit. But you know who would actually make intelligent decisions for how to run a nation? White and Asian males, that’s who.

    PPS Women getting the vote was in fact the real death knell for freedom and liberty. Their brains aren’t wired like ours, and they vote for safety AKA big government. Maybe it’s “mean” to not let women vote… But you can’t have a society with limited government while allowing women the right to vote. It’s tough enough to convince dumb men, but once you throw women into the mix you’re DONE. Sad, but true. The caveat to this may be if you had a system like the above that limited everybody based on objective criteria. Such a system may be slanted enough in favor of the right types that women voting might not be enough to skew things.

    1. Reeeeeee!

    2. “…PPS Women getting the vote was in fact the real death knell for freedom and liberty. Their brains aren’t wired like ours, and they vote for safety AKA big government…”

      Sevo wife-unit would laugh you off the page.

      1. *Sigh*

        It’s called STATISTICS dude. Everybody knows there are exceptions to the rule… But the rule is still the rule.

        You’re using the same BS logic that dictates that women are just as strong and tough as men, therefore should be serving on the front line in the military. Yeah, there is like 2% of women (or some absurdly small number) that may be up to snuff, but the vast majority are not.

        The vast majority of women are feelz oriented, not logically minded, and will take safety of risk any day of the week. It shows up in every poll ever done about preferences on any number of topics. Women always go for feelz/safety, and men always go with logic/best outcomes even if it involves risk.

        I wish it wasn’t this way… But it is. All social science and everything we know about human psychology backs it up.

  28. In the long list of meaningless left-wing, illiberal terms, ‘democratic capitalist’ is among the most vapid.

  29. Leave it to this purportedly pro-capitalism website to publish an article that not only conflates capitalism and a system “with a whole lot of government,” but practically gets down on its knees to thank a Democrat for using the term politely. Capitalism and regulation are mutually exclusive, and anyone who claims otherwise – as Buttigieg does – looks pretty ignorant. Just because Buttigieg is the flavor of the month and just because he happened to mention the word capitalism does not in any way make him a capitalist, nor worthy of friendly mention on this website. But gee, isn’t it great he doesn’t reject capitalism? That a Democrat would call himself a capitalist? That he might want to keep some good capitalism in with his brand of socialism. They call that a mixed economy – what we already have and have too much of. We don’t need more, nor do we need to prop up idiot politicians who want to give it to us.

  30. “…”It was very alarming to hear recently one of the president’s economic advisers said that between capitalism and democracy, he would choose capitalism,” said the South Bend mayor. “I would say the reverse ought to be true, that at the end of the day we prioritize democracy…”
    Lefties tend to ‘prioritize’ mob rule; handing out free shit is the way they get power. Once they have it, the story changes.

    “And, you know, having that framework of a rule of law, fairness, is actually what takes markets to work.”…”
    We have false equivalence and a non-sequitur.

    While the son is not guilty of the sins of the father, you have to wonder what the son absorbed: Turns out his daddy was a professor at Notre Dame, and pitched Marxism whenever he could. This was in the ’80s, when it was obvious to anyone but brain-dead lefties that Marxism was a failed theory, leading to the deaths of a hundred million or so.
    Brain-dead lefties are not about to let facts get in the way of ideology.
    The son’s comments suggest he thinks capitalism is OK, so long as it’s leavened with a good bit of Marx for maximum pain to the population.

  31. The good news: Capitalism is working its way back to the Democratic mainstream. The bad news: This capitalism comes with a whole lot of government.

    Democrats have always been about capitalism: state capitalism and crony capitalism.

    What they reject is free market capitalism.

    Buttigieg is no exception.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.