Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Former Democratic Party Press Secretary Supports Gary Johnson for President

The former New Mexico governor is the only choice for those who favor liberty at home and abroad.

For almost all my life, I have been a “professional Democrat,” as well as a strong believer in our dual-party system, with a range of philosophies under “two big tents.” As a 9-year-old, I wore an Adlai Stevenson for president button to the fourth grade. I wanted to “complete the New Deal” as a 1960's left-liberal teenager. At 36, I became press spokesman for the oldest continuing party committee in the world, the Democratic National Committee (1983-87.) And since then, I have run a program to teach college journalists about “practical politics,” preaching that having just two parties helps simplify electoral and governing choices.

With that partisan pedigree, I am about to become an apostate. I am going to do what I think the founder of the Democratic Party, the classical liberal Thomas Jefferson, might consider doing this year. I am going to vote for former Republican New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, now the Libertarian Party candidate for president.

I don’t intend to change my registration. I’m still a Democrat. But I’m a small “l” libertarian Democrat, who wants to teach fellow Democrats that 21st century libertarians are not a bunch of selfish, Ayn Rand-style, greedy capitalists. Among the three issue frames of politics—economy, social, and foreign—most rank-and-file Democrats share much in common with modern libertarians. Most libertarians want to keep government out of our bedrooms, away from our bodies, and out of the backyards of the rest of the world. On the economy, while we are for limited spending, taxes, and regulation, we favor free markets—not oligarchic capitalism that uses government to re-distribute tax revenue to the military-industrial-congressional-media complex, the behemoth pharmaceutical companies, or other lobbyists along Washington’s K Street who seek benefits from government and regulations that put competitors at disadvantage.

Why would I abandon the candidate for whom I had great hopes for change in 2008, a president from my own home state of Illinois, Barack Obama? In fact, I even made a libertarian case for Obama in 2008 at Reason.com—which turned out to be hoping against nothing but hope.

For me, that hope turned to despair when President Obama ramped up another hideous elective war, putting tens of thousands of young men and women in harm’s way in Afghanistan; rammed through a taxpayer and deficit-funded corporate welfare program for drug and insurance companies, in the guise of health care reform; and reneged on promises to slow prosecutions in the assault on personal freedom, the violence-creating neo-Prohibition known as the war on drugs.

While some Democrats may avert their eyes from that record, this libertarian Democrat is going to vote on principle. Gov. Gary Johnson balanced New Mexico’s budget all 8 years he served; he pledges to end the insanity in Afghanistan immediately; he is committed to legalizing drugs, to ending the government-induced black market that drives up profits and causes Mexican cartels to murder thousands, like the Al Capone murder and mayhem created by alcohol Prohibition. And he wants to end handouts to corporations that see the U.S. Treasury as a giant ATM, stocked with cash by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

I have been a slave to political pragmatism during my four decades in these 10 square miles surrounded by reality known as Washington, D.C. But this year, I encourage my Jeffersonian, classical liberal friends, in each party and neither, to send a simple message to both my party and the Republicans, in the form of votes for Gary Johnson.

Just one word, that message fits easily on a bumper sticker. Liberty.

Director of the Washington Center for Politics & Journalism, Terry Michael is a former press secretary for the Democratic National Committee. He writes at his libertarian Democrat web site, www.terrymichael.net.

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.

  • jacob the barbarian||

    First!

  • Mo' $parky||

    21st century libertarians are not a bunch of selfish, Ayn Rand-style, greedy capitalists

    Uh, I think you came to the wrong place.

  • WWNGD?||

    Really, the author needs to speak for himself, besides he forgot to call us racist, sexist homophobes.

  • Pi Guy||

    I guess I won't send him ann invite to my 4th of July Baby BBQ then.

  • CEC||

    Totally with you. Anyone who can't see the Objectivist definition of 'greed' or of 'selfish', is not my spokesman. And if this candidate thinks like the author, then he is not Jeffersonian, either, nor even Ron-Paulish.

  • ||

  • niobiumstudio||

    Establishment TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE can come together on anything involving teh Gays, Muslims, and spending money (though they argue over how to spend the latter)...

  • The Hammer||

    Young Dick Cheney marries Young Elton John. I have no problem with this.

  • BakedPenguin||

    But the Democrats and Republicans are so different!

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's like they read your mind, BP.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Quote convenient, I must say.

  • R C Dean||

    I'm gonna say that's an awesome RC'z Law, BP.

  • CEC||

    They are the same; Democrats create bigger government, and the Republicans only try to limit the power of the Dems to do that. They have no idea, outside of the Tea Party, of how to be different.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Sure, I agree, everyone should vote for Johnson. But Democrats largely won't, because they've become almost completely statist and opposed to most limits on government power. That's why left-libertarian alliances are largely impossible.

    Republicans largely won't, either, but they at least have some slight aversion to the state. Sometimes.

  • niobiumstudio||

    They only have a slight aversion to the state when it benefits them and shits on Team Blue...

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's most of it, yes.

  • WWNGD?||

    They wont vote for Johnson because team red believes you need to vote for the arrogant, gun grabbing, supporter of government health care liberal that you don't like to get rid of the arrogant, gun grabbing, supporter of government health care liberal that you don't like. If you don't vote for the big government candidate you are responsible for all the big government problems that happen.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's truly a dizzying kind of logic.

  • grylliade||

    Wait till they got going!

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    I remember during the Bush years when the progs started kicking around the idea of federalism. That went down the memory hole sometime about 2008.

  • SIV||

    Who can ever forget this blast from Reason past?

    Terry Michael's The Libertarian Case For Obama

    NEVER FORGET!!!

  • SIV||

  • BakedPenguin||

    Wouldn't it be better to kick people who refuse to acknowledge mistakes than ones that do?

  • SIV||

    RTFA?

    I linked it upon seeing the byline.

  • SIV||

    Hell,Terry linked it himself. You owe it to yourself to read it.

  • SIV||

    If Reason is looking for someone to write "The Libertarian Case To Re-Elect Obama" I think Jennifer Abel might be up for it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Surely Jennifer isn't planning to vote for Obama. That's the least libertarian possibility of them all. If we had a Nazi candidate, he'd probably be more libertarian than Obama.

  • ||

    If we had a Nazi candidate, he'd probably be more libertarian than Obama.

    Hyperbole much?

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, be quiet. Or I'll point out your error-filled thread from yesterday.

  • ||

    I did you a service with that thread, making your statement above seem much less 'tarded by comparison. :D

  • Pro Libertate||

    You Nazi.

  • Mensan||

    "Hyperbole much?"

    Barely.

  • SIV||

  • Pro Libertate||

    You know, worrying about ghafla like gay marriage while our economy is heading off a cliff seems foolish to me. We're in major trouble, and the godawful Republicans at least might not hit the accelerator so hard as we drive towards the cliff.

    The only real issue in front of us is limiting government spending and meddling in the economy. Everything else is secondary. Unfortunately, Romney and his party are only marginally better than their idiotic opponents.

  • Kroneborge||

    I think the people rotting in prison on drug charges might disagree.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm not saying there aren't other issues of importance; I'm just saying we've got an immediate issue to address. And that's just as between the two major parties. I'm voting for Johnson.

  • John||

    Bring back Kerry Howley and Dave Weigel to do a special all stupid edition.

  • ||

    Hey, I miss Kerry.

  • John||

    I don't. She was attractive sure. So put a picture of her on every post and call it a day. I don't miss her writing at all.

  • fish||

    She was a cutie!

  • John||

    She was and is very cute right up until the point you remember she slept with Will Wilkerson. Then the bloom comes off the rose.

  • ||

    Actually John that's a pretty good point right there.

  • emerson||

    At least it wasn't Will Wilkinson.

  • shamalam||

    But Kerry was cute, John. That counts.

  • John||

    As I said. Put up her picture and spare us her writing.

  • John||

    As I said. Put up her picture and spare us her writing.

  • Rick O'Shay||

    Yeah I wanna see it now. Link please.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    It's interesting how disillusioned Democrats and Republicans find a home in libertarianism. I wonder how many libertarians have found a home with team red/blue. I'd be surprised if there were any.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    I wonder how many libertarians have found a home with team red/blue. I'd be surprised if there were any.

    Larry Elder. The only I know of, and he calls himself a republitarian.

  • SIV||

    Dana Rohrabacher

    The earliest libertarian to gain standing within the Republican Party was Dana Rohrabacher. Historian Sam Konkin III says Dana was “the most successful and most beloved libertarian activist,” critical to the development of YAF, the Libertarian Alliance, and the Society for Individual Liberty [SIL] in the late 60s and early 70’s.

    “There would not have been a libertarian movement without him,” says Konkin. With the financial support of David Koch (later an LP Vice Presidential candidate), Dana twice ran unsuccessfully for the GOP con­gressional nomination in Southern California. Later, he worked as a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and was subsequently nominated by the GOP and elected to the 42nd Congressional District of California. His early years earned him ‘libertarian’ ratings in the RLC Liberty Index, but he has recently tended toward a more conservative philosophy.

  • Robert||

    Don Feder would be another example, but unlike Dana Rohrabacher, Don Feder actually changed his mind away from libertarianism.

  • Raven Nation||

    Walter E. Williams?

  • SIV||

    The 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for President Dr Ron Paul found a home in the GOP.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    True, but he didn't join because he realized the libertarian platform was bullshit and agreed with the republican platform.

  • SIV||

    I'm not so sure Dana did either. I think he just sold out for the cushy job.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    For almost all my life, I have been a “professional Democrat,” as well as a strong believer in our dual-party system, with a range of philosophies under “two big tents.” As a 9-year-old, I wore an Adlai Stevenson for president button to the fourth grade. I wanted to “complete the New Deal” as a 1960's left-liberal teenager. At 36, I became press spokesman for the oldest continuing party committee in the world, the Democratic National Committee (1983-87.) And since then, I have run a program to teach college journalists about “practical politics,” preaching that having just two parties helps simplify electoral and governing choices.

    Thanks for your vote, but you're still vile scum.

  • niobiumstudio||

    What? Vile Scum? What is wrong with splitting every single issue into two distorted opposite ideas and randomly switch sides when it suits you? You mean, you think you can have your own ideas? Fuck you and your ideas...conform you selfish, ayn-rand type greedy capitalist!

  • R C Dean||

    preaching that having just two parties helps simplify electoral and governing choices.

    Doesn't "simplify" = "limit"?

    Why is that a good thing?

  • Pro Libertate||

    TOO MANY CHOICES!

  • John||

    Well. I guess you don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.

  • wareagle||

    the conspiracy theorist in me cannot help but wonder if this is not a politically convenient conversion -- if I, a lifelong Dem, announce support for Johnson, perhaps I can pick off enough hesitant and/or like-minded Repubs to till the final scale in Obama's favor.

    Sorry, but I cannot take anything that career partisans say at face value.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Nonsense. Only a selfish, Ayn Rand-style, greedy capitalist could be so devious and cynical.

  • niobiumstudio||

    "Selfish, Ayn Rand-Style, Greedy Capitalist" (or SARSGC) is going to be around for a while.

  • ||

    No it's the Selfish Ayn Rand Libertarian Anarchist Capitalist (SARLAC)

  • ||

    "Randian Egocentric Anarchist Syncophant of Nozick"

  • T||

    Are they kept in a special enclosure below ground-level?

  • ||

    Not really buying this theory. Some Democrats are actually fed up with what Obama has done.

  • R C Dean||

    Sure, but how many are mad at him because he just hasn't it us hard enough?

  • dinkster||

    Hopefully those guys vote green party. The the vote stealing accusations can fly from all sides.

  • wareagle||

    and they will respond to being fed up with what? Voting for him again?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, but this time they'll vote angry.

  • Raven Nation||

    Many will. They want more government control over the economy, health care, etc. etc. Obama may not give them all the control they want but he will give them some. And more than Romney or Johnson will.

  • ||

    I will not!

  • John||

    What a rube. In Obama's defense he did in office exactly what he said he was going to do. Obama was never an anti-war candidate. He always said he was going to ramp up the war in Afghanistan. Why people like Micheal thought he was lying or didn't listen is beyond me.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I don't get why anyone could possibly think he would be smarter on the War on Drugs, either. In his (2008) Berlin speech, he compared them to terrorists. So I guess he thought his old pal Ray back in Hawaii turned Al-Qaeda.

  • R C Dean||

    In Obama's defense he did in office exactly what he said he was going to do.

    I thought he hadn't done much of what he said he was going to do?

    President Executive Privilege, head of the most transparent administration in history?

    President No Mo Gitmo?

    President Civilian Trials for Terrorists?

    And, of course, one can go on.

    That President?

    I think you may have found the one thing he said he was going to do that he actually did.

  • John||

    Context RC Context. Terry is whining about the war like it was some kind of surprise.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    I for one, welcome anyone who's willing to vote for GJ.

  • ||

    I'd prefer Jesus T. F. Christ's endorsement.

  • John||

    No. Jesus Maria Joseph is the endorsement that matters.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Jesus Maria Joseph

    He's that White Hispanic guy, right?

  • John||

    Yes.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I'll just leave this here.

  • John||

    That is nothing compared to roid rage Jesus.

    http://www.google.com/imgres?s.....,s:27,i:40

  • John||

  • BakedPenguin||

    "Wow! Jesus is ripped!"

  • John||

    And really pissed off.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Whaddya expect? I was a carpenter. We didn't have air compressors and nail guns. I had to swing a frickin' hammer.

  • Scarcity||

    At the end of 12 days in Rome and Florence and getting a bit loopy after viewing 10,000 religious artworks, I realized there are only three representations of Jesus of which all others are derivative. There is "Baby Jesus," "Dead Jesus," and, as is the case here, "Pimpin' Jesus."

  • ||

    As a 9-year-old, I wore an Adlai Stevenson for president button to the fourth grade. I wanted to “complete the New Deal” as a 1960's left-liberal teenager. At 36, I became press spokesman for the oldest continuing party committee in the world, the Democratic National Committee (1983-87.) And since then, I have run a program to teach college journalists about “practical politics,” preaching that having just two parties helps simplify electoral and governing choices.

    Oh, for fuck's sake, Terry.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I have a thought. Since the Republicans and Democrats have proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they are venal, totally unconcerned with the well-being of the citizens of this country, and absolutely untrustworthy with even the slightest power over us, perhaps we should stop voting for them altogether.

  • NoVAHockey||

    No no no, do not listen to that man. Remain calm. You will all have a chance to be gouged

  • ||

    That's a neat idea. Do you have a newsletter or other periodical of some form that I could subscribe to?

  • John||

    One of the parties needs to die in order for there to be any change. I thinking when the union money dries up and the blue states go belly up, the Democrats might just offer themselves up as martyrs.

  • dinkster||

    The Republicans appear to be fracturing at a faster rate, not that I care either way.

  • ||

    Oh, grow up. What are you trying to do, throw your vote away?

  • Pro Libertate||

    I think we should changed our electoral system so that we can have an anti-vote for each candidate and issue on the ballot. So if there are three candidates for president, I can take my three anti-votes and use them as I see fit. For instance, I might give Obama two anti-votes, Romney one, and Johnson zero.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Changed = change.

  • ||

    What happens when a vote and an anti-vote collide? An explosion, I hope.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, my plan would eliminate votes altogether, but in the event that a vote and anti-vote did meet. . . total annihilation, Warty. Total, complete, absolute annihilation.

  • ||

    In which case we would expect black holes to radiate both votes and anti-votes in order to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium, thus explaining Chicago.

  • db||

    Give each candidate an equal share of positive votes times the total number of registered voters in each district to start with. Then begin subtracting antivotes from those totals. Highest total wins.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Lowest total means exile, five years.

  • Raven Nation||

    To Gitmo

  • John||

    What happens to the Democratic Party when the public sector employee unions die, the government goes bankrupt, and the higher ed bubble bursts?

  • NoVAHockey||

    they lose because of racism?

  • Pro Libertate||

    They attempt a coup?

  • John||

    Seriously, all of their money and support comes from institutions that are going to die in the next 10 to 15 years.

  • JeremyR||

    That's wishful thinking.

    As long as the government can print money, it will.

    And let's not forget the VAT. It's coming eventually

  • SIV||

    Mittens won't rule out a VAT. He stands a much greater chance of getting it passed than Obama does too.

  • shamalam||

    Capital idea!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Write your own name in. For EVERYTHING.

  • The Hammer||

    The ultimate Self Government!

  • ||

    Also, on the memo line of all the checks you write, put "For sexual favors".

  • The Hammer||

    I just write "Quid pro quo." It confuses people.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I did that (the space was blank)and almost won as tax assessor. Another guy did the same thing. We drew straws and he won. If only I had campaigned.

  • John||

    most rank-and-file Democrats share much in common with modern libertarians. Most libertarians want to keep government out of our bedrooms, away from our bodies,

    Terry. Mayor Bloomburg is on the phone and he would like to speak with you about the last clause in that sentence.

  • John||

    most rank-and-file Democrats share much in common with modern libertarians. Most libertarians want to keep government out of our bedrooms, away from our bodies,

    Terry. Mayor Bloomburg is on the phone and he would like to speak with you about the last clause in that sentence.

  • ||

    BTW Nick, I'd like to note that this would be one of those articles that it'd be a real hoot to mention tonight on Maher.

  • shamalam||

    Excellent! Nick, take note.

  • R C Dean||

    most rank-and-file Democrats share much in common with modern libertarians.

    Christ on a crutch. Seriously? Is he arguing that rank-and-file Democrats vote, without fail, for politicians who are diametrically opposed to what they want?

    Or is he arguing that rank-and-file Democrats want the entitlement state ended, the regulatory state cut way back, taxes cut drastically on the rich and everyone else, etc.? And you can tell they want all this because they vote, without fail, for politicians who are diametrically opposed to what they want?

  • ||

    Let the guy work through his cognitive dissonance about what the Democratic Party has morphed into.

    Some Democrats are pretty good on non-economic civil liberties, even if the politicians they elect aren't.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Let the guy work through his cognitive dissonance about what the Democratic Party has morphed into.

    The Democrat Party hasn't morphed into anything. Aside from a few brief spurts of sanity, TEAM Blue has, throughout its storied history, been the party of slavery, secession, segregation and socialism.

    This is not to say the Republicans are saints, or even adequate for that matter, but they comprehend the idea of liberty just enough to campaign on it and then not follow through.

  • Robert||

    That's what I think is basically the story. Libertarians have an undeservedly good regard for Democrats (and even more so, "liberals") because of certain alignments that took place mostly in the 1960s.

  • R C Dean||

    Some Democrats are pretty good on a fewnon-economic civil liberties, even if the politicians they elect aren't.

  • T||

    Stated vs. revealed preference RC. They know that's what democrats want because that's what they say. But their votes reveal their true preferences.

  • ||

    But Terry at least is taking that step and voting for Johnson. Or so he says.

  • ||

    It's a nice thought that some Dems may vote for Gary Johnson, but as I've pointed out many times, most Democrats (possibly without even realizing it), weight wealth redistribution (or "economic justice" in their words) heavier than all the other Democrat issues combined.

  • ||

    For the most part, democrats who vote libertarian do so because they've been bitten by the iron law. Some bullshit they voted for yesterday has "gone too far" and been applied to them today. The nerve! Their only desire is to shorten the dog's chain just enough so that its teeth can't reach them anymore. Once they're personally out of harm's way, the rest of our petty concerns about liberty will once again be oh so gauche.

  • T o n y||

    True, even when the thing that bit them was completely imaginary, like all big government hysteria. I don't think people vote on circumstance so much as on what people tell them about how to change their circumstance.

    Everywhere it's been remotely tried and put up to an actual vote, laissez-faire economics has turned quickly into near-radical socialism. There's a reason you can have this quixotic mystique. Nobody really wants what you're selling.

    The same will happen in the US if Republicans try their final push toward eliminating the welfare state and giving the loot to millionaires, which libertarians support inch for inch.

  • T o n y||

    Assuming there's a democratic system left in place. Its destruction is well under way thanks to such freedom lovers as Antonin Scalia.

  • mgd||

    Everywhere it's been remotely tried and put up to an actual vote
    One single example?

  • Adamson||

    Ironic that a Democrat occasional-libertarian will vote for a Republican conveniently-transplanted Libertarian. Give it six or seven months, and they'll both be back in their original parties.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    So, what's your favorite prepper podcast?

  • Trespassers W||

    I don't know... This fucktard's advice was pretty good last election.

  • Brian from Texas||

    I'm sure there are plenty of left-leaning voters disillusioned by Obama's picking up where Bush left off where it comes to waging unconstitutional wars and trampling civil liberties. Some will either stay home on election day or vote for the Green Party candidate. But most will still vote for Obama like a bunch of castrated sheep. I think few will vote for Johnson given the Libertarian Party's pro-Capitalist priciples.

  • shamalam||

    From Terry Michael's 2008 article for Reason on libertarians should vote for Obama in 2008:

    "2. The election of an African-American will end liberal racism as we know it. If an overwhelmingly white nation chooses a black leader, the Jesse Jacksons and other Mau Mauers for identity-based group preferences will be put out of business, as I explained here."

    It does not seem to have panned out that way.

  • ||

    Thank You,I feel the same way,and have been struggeling with alot of things that our president has done.My mouth just drops open everytime,he just overrides congress.His and his wife's outright disrespect for the American Flag started it all for me.I am a conservative(on issues) and liberal on other issues,I have been a democrat voting american since 18 yrs. of age.Now at 53 yrs.,being a late babyboomer,I really feel ashamed of my political party's president.I have become through my family heritage a Daughter of the American Revolution.I do not want to just give my country away to everyone who does not want to go to a class to learn how to be an American.

  • Emperor Wears No Clothes||

    A flag is a colorful piece of cloth.
    Much like a swastika patch. Or hammer and sickle banner.
    Get over your proto-fascist tendencies.

  • Watrfrnt||

    “Imagine a libertarian president challenging Congress to bring about marriage equality.”

    “Imagine a libertarian president ending impediments to free markets.”

    “Imagine a libertarian president challenging Congress to repeal the PATRIOT Act.”

    “Imagine a libertarian president challenging Congress for meaningful immigration reform.”

    “The libertarian candidate for president is the only candidate talking about gun rights and gay rights in the same sentence.”

    “The libertarian candidate for president is the only candidate that’s going to be talking about slashing welfare spending and warfare spending in the same sentence.”

    We all talk about minor and third-party candidates… What's we truly have are two OLD parties that have failed us, we need to look to NEW parties to help guide us towards the future… this year I'm voting LIBERTARIAN!

  • johnd2||

    It is mostly fear that keeps Libertarians out of power. Left wingers are afraid of the Republicans. Right wingers are afraid of Democrats. They both understand the other side well. If we could all vote for more than one candidate, GJ could win. It is called approval voting. It is the path to a sane future. Check it out.

  • tee shirt pas cher||

    I wanted to “complete the New Deal” as a 1960's left-liberal teenager. At 36, I became press spokesman for the oldest continuing party committee in the world, the Democratic National Committee (1983-87.) And since then, I have run a program to teach college journalists about “practical politics,” preaching that having just two parties helps simplify electoral and governing choices.

  • ||

    On the economy, while we are for limited spending, taxes, and regulation, we favor free markets—not oligarchic capitalism that uses government to re-distribute tax revenue to the military-industrial-congressional-media complex, the http://www.maillotfr.com/maill.....c-3_5.html behemoth pharmaceutical companies, or other lobbyists along Washington’s K Street who seek benefits from government and regulations that put competitors at disadvantage.

  • sabengry||

    You have a sever misunderstanding of capitalism. Capitalism is free-markets. Capitalism is everything you claim to want in your article and everything that Ayn Rand was advocating.

    What our political system is today is fascism, or as Mussolini preferred to call it, corporatism. Which is what socialism becomes in an industrialized nation. Communism is what socialism becomes in an agrarian nation.

    Socialism and the unbalanced budgets it creates is what the Democratic Party and modern "liberals" have stood for for as long as anyone living has been on this earth.

    Just because you are BEGINNING to wake up, do not expect others in the Socialized Religion, that is the progressive movement, to see the light of the Enlightenment Era.

    Oh, and read some Ayn Rand before you associate her message with fascism.

  • Libertarius||

    "The Democrat Party is descended from classical liberal Thomas Jefferson"

    WOW. NO, it's the libertarians whose intellectual lineage stems from Jefferson. And what exactly is a "left-libertarian", besides a symantic construct of Noam Chomsky? How can you claim to be a libertarian and a collectivist at the same time? A is A

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    "libertarians are not a bunch of selfish, Ayn Rand-style, greedy capitalists"

    ...he typed on his Macintosh.

    At least he goes on to reject the aristocracy of pull.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    who wants to teach fellow Democrats that 21st century libertarians are not a bunch of selfish, Ayn Rand-style, greedy capitalists

    Goddamn Beltway talking-points newspeak bullshit.

    On the economy, while we are for limited spending, taxes, and regulation, we favor free markets

    Who the fuck are you to sit there and pass judgement on capitalism? Newsflash, jackass, socialism has repeatedly proven itself to be the method by which societies implode. The Free Market (what little of it is left) had done more to lift humans out of poverty in the 20th and 21st Centuries than any of your Keynesian gibberish. FFS, it was the deregulated German economy (which went from nothing in a country that was a shell of itself) that was the engine of Europre's success until the goddamn Frenchies got their meathooks into it with the EU. You don't like our economics? Piss off!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online