Given the political divide, in many elections the choice is between a marriage-equality opponent or a regulation-and-tax hiker, both being bad options. So it’s not surprising that an annual ranking of state business climates shows liberal-governed states that recognize same-sex marriage tend to have worse economic outlooks. No state with marriage equality made the American Legislative Exchange Council’s ranking of the top 10 states with the best economic outlooks. And seven states that do recognize same-sex marriages are among the bottom 10 states with the worst economic outlooks: Maryland (35th), Maine (41st), Connecticut (43rd), Rhode Island (45th), Minnesota (46th), New York (49th) and Vermont (50th).
One example: Maryland has marriage equality while its neighbor, Virginia (5th in terms of economic outlook), has a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Last year, libertarian website Reason.com looked at how Maryland’s tax rates are driving jobs to Virginia.
Many moderate and center-right gay voters give their support to the party of big government because the party of lower taxes/higher growth doesn’t want our votes.
More. Facebook friend James Peron says: “I think I would say that they support the party of big government because the other party of big government doesn’t want our votes. The real difference is what they want big government ‘big’ over.”
Also, Rick Sincere (he’s on our blogroll) suggests that a better measure than ALEC’s rankings may be the Mercatus Center’s “Freedom in the 50 States,” which looks at both economic and personal liberty, including same-sex marriage and domestic partnership recognition (Virginia ranks 8th overall, Maryland 44th despite marriage equality as it’s bad on personal freedom in a number of other areas).
Furthermore, from the comments:
Houndentenor: “As I recall the economy grew quite nicely during Clinton’s presidency.”
Jared: ” Yes, having a Democratic president and a GOP-controlled Congress has often proved the sweet spot in limiting government over-reach. Not so good for advancing gay equality, but often has led to much more sensible economic policy.”
64 Comments for “Social or Economic Freedom: Pick One”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Adopting ALEC as an objective source for information concerning economic conditions is akin to adopting NOM as an objective source for information concerning marriage equality.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Many moderate and center-right gay voters give their support to the party of big government because the party of lower taxes/higher growth doesn’t want our votes.
You know, Stephen, this does not address the real question.
The Republican Party has abandoned conservative principles on “social issues”, and needs to change. And yet it doesn’t. It seems to just get worse rather than better — witness the disconnect between Republican voters in Virginia and the party’s ticket for Governor and Lieutenant Governor.
Bemoaning the fact that the Republican Party’s continued extremism on social issues is driving voters away identifies the problem, perhaps, but doesn’t point to a solution.
The real question is how pro-equality conservatives are going to take back the Republican Party from the religious maniacs.
posted by Walker on
I guess another question is whether there are any pro-growth liberals and independents who could take the Democratic Party back from the unions and Krugmanites. Why should we put all our hopes in changing the GOP instead of in getting sensible economic policy from the Democrats?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Why should we put all our hopes in changing the GOP instead of in getting sensible economic policy from the Democrats?
The question of changing the Democratic Party in the direction of less onerous regulation and smaller, more-efficient government is legitimate, and, despite all the right-wing hype about raging big-government, big-tax “socialism” over the last few years, I would argue that we’ve made progress in that direction in 1992. President Obama is center-left, not far left, as was President Clinton.
In fact, one of the problems that Republicans currently face is that the Democratic Party has adopted many formerly conservative ideas about government, picking up voters who used to vote Republican before the Republican Party went over the cliff.
Democrats will never become Libertarians, and will never be on the dance card of large corporations, getting in bed with corporations through organizations like ALEC. But Democrats increasingly occupy the center ground in American politics.
Be that as it may, in terms of why we need to change the Republican Party, the answer is that we don’t have a choice.
The marriage equality battle is moving from the blue states to the purple and red states as we speak. Without at least some Republican support, we will remain stalemated in the purple (e.g. New Jersey and Wisconsin) and red (e.g. Texas) states.
We don’t have any options other than to turn the Republican Party. I just wish that pro-equality conservatives agreed, and would join the fight.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Correction: “I would argue that we’ve made progress in that direction in 1992.” should read “I would argue that we’ve made progress in that direction since 1992.”
posted by Mike in Houston on
False equivalency choice, again.
This knee-jerk response of calling anything practical or pragmatic that comes from the Democratic side of the aisle (and concurrent Obama-derangement syndrome) leftist, socialist, etc. – especially when many have been mainstay GOP ideas has gotten beyond tired.
You want to see the future of the Democratic centrist coalition? Read this WSJ interview with Mayor Annise Parker of Houston – an openly lesbian Democrat running the 4th largest city in the country: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323744604578472873183655916.html
posted by Houndentenor on
As I recall the economy grew quite nicely during Clinton’s presidency. I don’t think I have to choose between job growth and civil rights. Perhaps if the GOP today was for something instead of just against gays, women, minorities, the poor, immigrants, etc etc, they might get my vote sometimes. But I’m not voting for someone who runs on a platform of exclusion and hate. That’s all the Republicans seem to have left these days. And that’s not the fault of gays or any gay organization.
posted by Doug on
” But I’m not voting for someone who runs on a platform of exclusion and hate.” That’s not fair, Houndentenor, the GOP does LOVE guns. In fact they want every felon and mentally ill person to have one.
posted by jared on
As I recall the economy grew quite nicely during Clinton’s presidency.
Yes, having a Democratic president and a GOP-controlled Congress has often proved the sweet spot in limiting government over-reach. Not so good for advancing gay equality, but often has led to much more sensible economic policy.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. Libertarianism is a extremist ‘survival of the fittest’ philosophy that is not, despite what some may say, especially relevant within the Republican Party or the Democratic Party.
1a. Yes, you find some quasi-libertarian-minded folk in both parties and sometimes Republicans and Democrats may make quasi-libertarian arguments, when it suits them. Both neither party is going to become a libertarian party. Major parties do not promote this sort of package deal, if they want to remain major parties.
1b. Why? Well, libertarianism is a package deal. If you understand the basics of libertarianism then you know what the libertarian policy on just about any issue has to be (assuming that its a libertarian government or candidate). Just like communism is a package deal. Picking and choosing what libertarian ideas to support or oppose is not libertarianism. It may be center-left or center-right, but call it libertarian is simply dishonest.
2a. When people blindly suggest that everything that labor or business or government does must be bad (or good), I tend think that they are more likely shoveling you-know-what. That is one of my {many} problems with libertarianism and Marxism.
2b. Yes, fiscal conservatives tend to be ‘pro-growth’ and ‘pro-business’. Not quite the same thing as ‘economic liberty’ — if we are going by libertarian theory. Likewise, being progressive about economics or believing that maybe Ayn Rand was a bit nutty, does not mean that you are a Marxist.
posted by Houndentenor on
The insanity of our age is the desire for many to place everyone in a black and white position. To hear many people talk these days you’re either an Objectivist or a Marxist. I refuse to believe that my choices for society are between Animal Farm and The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny. Government is good at some things and not so good at others. The same is true of the private sector. It should not be that hard to strike a balance. Moreover, If find that when politicians say they want to “privatize” something what they really mean is handing over taxpayer dollars to private businesses. That’s nothing more than crony capitalism and certainly not free enterprise in any sense. But the worst of the modern American politics is watching politicians defend positions they know to be wrong or harmful because failure to do so will cost them their primary. This has been going on for a long time. I remember Bob Dole on the Today show pretending that he didn’t know for certain that there is a link between smoking cigarettes and cancer. I was embarrassed for him. He’s a smart man. I disagree with him on a lot of issues, but honestly he’s better than that. I’m sure others can think of equally ridiculous examples involving Democrats. This has to stop. It’s not good for either party and it’s certainly not good for the country. We have serious problems that need to be addressed. I expect our elected officials, all of them, to sit down at a table and work out solutions. Yes, that dirty word compromise comes into play. That used to be thought of as a good thing. No longer. And we all suffer for it. So no, I don’t feel any guilt for voting against politicians who are against human rights for all Americans. That shouldn’t even be on the table. But we have religious extremists in charge of one party. That in exchange for a modest tax cut? Not a bargain. I’m not interested in their 30 pieces of silver, thank you very much.
posted by Shelter Somerset on
I’ve always wondered why we have to barter for our liberties when they are supposed to be inalienable, perhaps beyond even what the Constitution provides.
posted by Sandhorse on
I think when it comes to voting on social or economic issues, the majority of voters (regardless of stance) will primarily address the social issue. The economic issue will always be secondary. Social issues are more often seen through an emotional lens rather then that of logic; emotions are almost always sure to win out.
From my perspective, this is because voting on a social issue is the one that offers ‘instant gratification’.
The marriage equality bill will either pass or it won’t.
The antidiscrimination policy will either pass or it won’t.
Regardless of what camp you’re in, this is the one where you will quickly and unmistakably see the impact; where you can feel like you have some control in the powers that be. This is also the one that will have the fastest impact personally; more for GLBTs then straights, but straights see it as somehow impacting them. (or at least are being convinced as much)
On the other hand, decisional votes on economic issues are far more nebulous. Unless you have a degree in economics, or are naturally gifted in economic theory, you must take what you’re being told for granted.
This is where the average (and majority) of the voting block lies; stuck in a state of having to take the word of politicians, pundits and bloggers. Even when they vote for a leader or economic idea that has or will have a positive impact, the quantification of the decision may take years to be realized. It may also be impacted by other present and future decisions. If and when the positive impact is seen, there are politicians, pundits and bloggers eager to take the credit that it was THEIR leadership or idea that made it possible.
Confronted with this monstrosity they don’t understand, the need for some control, however miniscule, is desperately found by voting on something they CAN control. And in this case, as our opponents last tendril of ‘control’ is being pulled from their grasp, the cry of panic is at a fever pitch.
posted by Don on
It’s a false choice. Although libertarians feel more at home among republicans than democrats because money seems to trump social issues for them, I would say democrats are actually quite good on fiscal issues. Clinton is the ultimate example of refusing to adhere to only the ideas of “my team.” And let’s not forget Carter was the one that deregulated the airlines. Reagan gets the credit because the benefits happened while he was in office. But the law was signed in 1978.
What I abhor, and have since I came of age politically in the late 80s is the monicker that dems are the party of big government. W. should have put an end to that lie after tripling down on Big Government Reaganism. Ed Meese? Rampant military spending? Moral regulations? So who is all regulations, taxes and spending? Neither. And who is the party of Big Government? After a certain recent president’s 8-year run, I think the record is clear.
This is why I insist it is a false choice. True libertarians wouldn’t oppose unions. They are a free-forming counter to corporations. Corporations aren’t evil. They amass capital to make what was previously impossible for individuals possible. Same for unions. They coalesce a resource for the betterment of labor. And the free market would correct any imbalances should one side become too greedy and powerful. Creative destruction is a part of capitalism and enables an orderly (well, as orderly as possible) shift of resources from a dying industry to a new one.
And no, government isn’t evil either. if not for the military expenditures and the conceptualizing of the internet by the Rand Corporation in the 1950s, we would not have the framework for the global trade we have today. it was designed as a cold war communications system. and yet its unexpected uses have far exceeded the original purpose. I’m thinking that’s worth a few misspent tax dollars given what we got in return.
Same with NASA. Going to the moon didn’t get us much other than bragging rights and gee whiz. But the investment gave us inventions and inspiration that has changed our world a thousand fold. But to do so would force us to give up on the idea of competing “teams” whose outcomes are solely elections and power and begin to address realities. Not too terribly different than what both Reagan and Clinton did. (although both fell short of the ideal)
posted by Houndentenor on
What kind of metrics hold up Mississippi as an economic model? Have the people doing the study actually been there recently? If that’s what the Republicans have planned for America then I’ll take the blue state model. Yikes!
posted by Anonymous on
It’s based on a how absent government is. That’s what this is about. Either a big intrusive government, or one that has enough sense to know when to sit things out. Usually in times of peace is a good idea. Yet, Obama’s government has become larger although he himself has declared “al Qaeda no longer a threat.”
posted by Houndentenor on
No Republican president in my lifetime has reduced the size of government. Not one. Not even close. If you’re voting Republican to get smaller government, that’s really really stupid, because Republicans aren’t for smaller government. They’re for saying they’re for smaller government go get elected and then expanding government once they get in office.
posted by Doug on
Yep, good ole Mississippi is a great economic model. Ranks near the bottom nationally in healthy care(49th), near the bottom in education, very high divorce rate, very high rate of teenage pregnancy(2nd), very low in per capita income(50th). Gee can’t wait to move to such a progressive state.
posted by JohnInCA on
There isn’t a state on their top-ten list that I’d like to live. The only one I’d be willing to accept is Virginia, and that’s just ’cause the rent in DC is terrible.
posted by Houndentenor on
Virginia? The state whose Constitution bans not only gay marriage but any partnership benefits public or private? That Virginia? I wouldn’t live in DC either. Paying federal income taxes with no voting representative in Congress? No to that too.
posted by JohnInCA on
What can I say? I’m a sucker for a cute young sailor in uniform. Especially if he’s involved in operational testing for my latest mad science project for the Navy.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It comes as no surprise that Wisconsin has dropped two points on the Freedom in the 50 States rankings since 2009. Republicans took control of the state’s executive and both houses of the legislature in the 2010 elections. Job creation has plummeted, education has suffered, the social safety net has been devastated, sex education is out of the schools and our environment plundered. Mississippi is going to have to work hard to hold on to the distinction of being the worst state in the union in terms of quality of life.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Speaking of the Republican Party’s destruction of Wisconsin’s social safety net, this delicious bit of irony appeared in this week’s Rice Lake Weekly Shopper:
I hope that all you tax-cut uber alles Republicans will buy a raffle ticket.
And maybe think about what your party’s policies will do to states like mine — raffles to try to keep Meals on Wheels alive while the wealthy enjoy even more tax cuts.
What’s next — bake sales to fund school lunches for hungry kids?
I’m not bitter. I’m just pissed off.
posted by Jorge on
Given the political divide, in many elections the choice is between a marriage-equality opponent or a regulation-and-tax hiker
Fortunately, this is not a problem in New York City, where they’re ALL regulation-hikers.
And we’re still alive. Somehow. The nation’s richest may be threatening to leave every year, and the nation’s poorest may be out of work every year, but, heeeeey, we’re alive! Well, most of us are, thanks to the NYPD police state. There’s a stubborn hate crime problem that may never go away in a city this large. It’s not for lack of the right people in office.
By the way, what is economic outlook? Why not look at the economy now?
Many moderate and center-right gay voters give their support to the party of big government because the party of lower taxes/higher growth doesn’t want our votes.
How about because “the party of big government” sometimes does things that are positive on their own merits? And yes, I am talking about gay rights. But there’s also homeless rights and racial civil rights and stuff like that. Aside from the George W. Bush faction (and I don’t know how prevelant it is anymore), Republicans do not pay a lot of attention to those things anymore. You will have better results if you have a Democrat once in a while so long as you find a deliberate one and not one who’s fanatic–that’s the problem.
After 20 years of moderate and center-right mayors, I think it is time for someone center-left, or at least rational left.
posted by Jorge on
It is true, though. No less than the Republican National Committee addressed a letter to me as “we need conservatives like you!”
Nothing pisses me off more than being called a conservative, and it’s not something I’ll tolerate from my own party establishment. I am quite done with the party. It’s not like any of the people I ever voted for President ever won the nomination anyway.
posted by Lori Heine on
How charming to find, on this thread, yet more pre-programmed nonsense about those dastardly, Darwinist libertarians.
Logic and independent thinking, of course, tells us that some of this rhetoric can’t be true because it makes no sense.
The Republican Party AND the Democratic Party are both the parties of big corporations and the rich. That’s, um, why they’re the two major parties in the first place.
The kabuki show aside, they are only superficially rivals. In a deeper sense, they are partners.
The Libertarians? Well, let’s actually think about it.
Can, or cannot, big corporations and the rich usually be expected to know their friends and recognize their own interests?
Very likely they can. Were they not adept at this, they would be neither big nor rich.
The Libertarian Party must struggle to make it onto the ballot in nearly every election year, and in nearly every state. That’s how much we can be seen to love big corporations and the rich. We want to take their faces out of Uncle Sugar’s trough and make them sink or swim on their own merits.
To the degree that we favor “survival of the fittest,” that is more in line with the sense in which that is actually true.
As the saying goes, “Follow the money.”
But of course the “all libertarians are selfish lie” has powerful legs. It is, after all, bankrolled and promoted by the very big corporations and rich who find the lie useful.
Libertarians think many “progressives” are little more than trained poodles. Some, however, are quite capable of reason. With those, we can only hope that reason eventually prevails.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
–The Libertarian Party must struggle to make it onto the ballot in nearly every election year, and in nearly every state.
The government has a legit interest in ballot access rules and regulations. To suggest otherwise would be foolish. However, the burden imposed on non-major party candidates seeking to be listed on the election ballot or included in public debates is often higher then is necessary.
However, that [ballot access law struggles] does not really disprove the friendly relati0nship between the Libertarian Party and big business/corporate interests. It is a two-party system, so naturally not too much big business money is going to be wasted on minor party candidates.
The Libertarian Party (the right-wing version of the philosophy) advocates many things that big business/corporate interests would love and generally push both major parties to deliver.
If you want to get a pretty good idea of what their policies would be like — in terms of economics and labor — do a little bit of history on the 19th century America.
posted by Jorge on
No thanks. I just ate and I don’t want to lose my lunch.
posted by Doug on
“The Libertarian Party must struggle to make it onto the ballot in nearly every election year” I’m not being snarky but if you are having trouble getting on the ballot doesn’t that tell you that voters aren’t buying your philosophy? Clearly most folks are not buying Rand Paul’s version of libertarianism.
posted by Lori Heine on
Doug, two points here.
First of all, the question of whether voters are “buying” our philosophy is an entirely different matter than whether that philosophy is accurately represented by some of the commenters here. My point was that it is not.
You need to begin by dealing with the reality of what our philosophy is, if you are to address it at all. Usually, you don’t.
Secondly, Rand Paul’s version of libertarianism is hotly disputed by many libertarians. I think he’s a social conservative. I’m not sure he’s really a libertarian of ANY sort. Thus your attempt to conflate my views with Rand Paul’s is a total fail.
As the liberty movement grows — and cover your ears and shout “la, la, la” all you want to, but available polling data suggests that it is growing — it will inevitably split into two branches: Right and Left. This is, in fact, already happening.
If you have any political savvy whatsoever, you will make at least some attempt to understand what libertarians believe. The Left-leaning camp, you will need to deal with. They will poach from your ranks, and as public distrust of government grows, this will happen increasingly.
Ignorance is not bliss. Nor will it bring you political success. We haven’t even gotten, yet, to whether you agree or disagree with my philosophy — as it exists in my mind, rather than in yours. Until you’re willing to deal with what that philosophy really is, you can’t even get that far.
posted by JohnInCA on
Wait, so if I want to “understand what libertarians believe” I need to be more concerned with how it is in *your* mind then in the mind of any elected politicians?
Why would I bother with that? You can play “No True Scotsman” all you like, but the actual elected libertarians are far more relevant then the libertarians who sit in the corner and make snide comments about how the elected ones aren’t “real”.
And frankly, if “real” libertarians are incapable of holding onto their own brand, then they don’t have enough political force for me to overly concern myself with anyway.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If you have any political savvy whatsoever, you will make at least some attempt to understand what libertarians believe.
It isn’t rocket science.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yanno, looking through there, I find some issues that would be incredibly popular for Libertarians to push, like privacy issues (people buy, sell and trade information that you yourself would have to pay in order to see to make sure it was even accurate. How is that legal? Oh yeah because the people who want to trade that information make huge contributions to candidates in order to legally bribe them to pass whatever laws they want.) You could get real traction on things like this. What hurts you is thinking about 90-something grandma no longer getting her social security or medicare when that’s all she has left at this point. I’d focus on the issues that resonate. Otherwise the platform has a lot of nice sounding rhetoric but is short on details. Party platforms usually are because details invariably include things that people wouldn’t like too much if they thought about them.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… the platform has a lot of nice sounding rhetoric but is short on details. Party platforms usually are …
Yes, of course. The Democratic Party platform and the Republican Party platform have a lot of nice sounding rhetoric, too. The rhetoric is often imprecise to paper over divisions in the party as much as anything else.
But party platforms are the best indication of the direction and political philosophy of a party (particularly if platforms are read over, say, a decade, to see the party’s evolution on issues) because the words and formulas in the platform are hammered out by the various internal factions that create the party’s coalition.
Platforms are a grounding point, a point of reference against which the positions of individual party members, spokesmen and politicians can be evaluated. Looking to the party’s platform as the reference point reduces the need to play “No True Scotsman”.
posted by Lori Heine on
WHAT “actual elected libertarians?”
I assume you mean people like Rand Paul, who kiss up to social conservatives so the big money GOP will permit him access up the ladder.
Libertarians are opposed by big money. They advocate ending corporate welfare and crony capitalism. This is why the Libertarian Party fails to enjoy the corporate support received by both the GOP and the Democrats.
To claim libertarians believe poor people should starve is a slander. When done in cyberspace, by someone hiding behind a first name only or an alias, it is cowardly. And were you to bother exerting yourself enough to…say…click the mouse over to the LP website (sorry, Tom, but for most it will be too much like work), you will find out the difference between the BS often spouted here and what libertarians believe.
“No true Scotsman,” my ass.
posted by Houndentenor on
I realize that it’s frustrating when you feel your views and opinions are being misrepresented, but rather than chastise people for not understanding, it might be more worth your time to correct those misunderstandings. Also, my understanding is that libertarians would not have any government programs that help poor people. Is that wrong? The things I read and not very specific. That’s my understanding. I will apologize if I am wrong but I need something specific besides being accused of slander.
posted by JohnInCA on
If you (and presumably other “real” libertarians) don’t wish to be associated with those “fake” libertarians and have your views conflated, I offer you the same advice I give “not like that” Christians tired of being associated with “totally like that” Christians.
You don’t have control of the brand. So either take back control or make a new one. But expecting everyone else to associate the brand the way you want it to be, in direct contradiction to the way it’s normally and actively used? That’s an elitist entitlement mentality that doesn’t want to work on controlling it’s own brand.
Or, to put it another way… there’s a reason you have to defend your trademarks or risk losing them.
posted by Lori Heine on
Well, I still basically hold the same values I did when I was a progressive Democrat who voted for Barack Obama. I simply do not believe in using aggression to achieve my objectives. Not only because to do so flies in the face of the very principles in which I believe, but because it just doesn’t work.
At least not more than half the time. The other half, it’s actually reversed because those actively hostile to my values are in charge of those levers of aggression.
I believe there are so many poor people in the first place because government programs have done nothing but make more of them. As a split occurs in the libertarian movement, I will probably find myself increasingly siding with left-libertarians over right-leaning ones — meaning that I will advocate policies that help the poor (by government, when necessary) as they help them to become more prosperous.
No libertarian who’s elected to high office will come equipped with a magic wand. Libertarians themselves are often at fault with speaking as if they think they could magically accomplish everything they want to do at once. This scares people, and gives ammo to those who slander us.
The electoral process in this country will NEVER work that way. Things will be done one at a time. Left-libertarians would prefer continuing to protect the poor, even while finding ways to help lift them out of poverty.
I suspect that right-leaning libertarianism will eventually be taken over by the Rand Paul types and coopted into yet another form of social conservatism.
I lack not only a magic wand, but also a crystal ball. I don’t know that for certain. It is just my guess.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I suspect that right-leaning libertarianism will eventually be taken over by the Rand Paul types and coopted into yet another form of social conservatism. I lack not only a magic wand, but also a crystal ball. I don’t know that for certain. It is just my guess.
It’s my guess, too, Lorie. I don’t like it, but it is my guess, based on nothing more than listening to the folks who vote Libertarian where I live, in rural Wisconsin. We have quite a few.
I think that there has been a shift on the right in the last forty years, and I think that the shift has been poisonous to libertarian ideals.
Libertarians should, logically, hold positions similar to those of Barry Goldwater, who was concerned about poverty and espoused government policies designed to build paths out of poverty to economic independence rather than economic dependence. Instead, in the last couple of decades, it seems to me that the libertarian movement has lost concern about poverty more or less entirely, and has been consumed by ideas like those espoused by the Koch brothers, ideas which favor policies designed to clear the way for predatory capitalism, an economic model that keeps people locked in poverty as surely as the dependency model. In fact, predatory capitalism requires an economic underclass.
I don’t know if right about the direction the libertarian movement has taken, but that’s what I’ve been seeing and what I think is happening. It is a shame.
I’ve said a few times on this list that my political heroes are Barry Goldwater and Booby Kennedy. I know that sounds like the odd couple, but I don’t think so. Barry Goldwater advocated individual liberty (he hated the religious right and wouldn’t put up with the modern Republican Party for one minute) and limited government (limited by not nonexistent), and economic policies designed to open paths out of poverty. Bobby Kennedy had a burning thirst for economic and social justice — think Caesar Chavez and the migrant farm worker movement, for example — but did not (as Lyndon Johnson did) see the solution as yet another massive government anti-poverty program.
Neither Barry nor Bobby was perfect, but I wish I could find something of the mix those two advocated in modern politics. I can’t.
posted by Houndentenor on
Again, short on details. Yes, we could probably create better programs that would do more to help poor people. For one, we should be investing in education (including job training for displaced workers). Yes, expensive now, but like many investments it would continue to pay off for our economy and of course people not being dependent on the government. That would be a win-win.
Here’s the reason I am skeptical when I read these things, though. I am the keeper of my family’s history. I’m well aware of the kinds of lives that my grandparents and great grandparents and much further back actually lived. Even more recently my half brother (this was in the 1950s) was born with spina biffida (at home, my dad as his then-wife had no idea he had a medical condition before the birth as they had had no money to see a doctor) and they had to go from one hospital to the next to try to get admitted since they obviously didn’t have any money to pay the bill, at least not soon. When I hear Rand Paul talk about being coerced into seeing patients who couldn’t pay, that’s what I think about.
It all sounds lovely to think that our better natures will prevail and that people will act in ways that are responsible and humane, showing empathy and compassion to others if given the chance. History shows us that while that would exist, there wouldn’t be nearly enough of that to meet the needs of people who get screwed over by the ones who don’t. So in order to convince me that this coercion is such a bad thing (and I realize as well as you do that there are abuses), I need to be convinced that people won’t die while they try to get a hospital to admit them. Or that their children won’t wind up with health issues from malnutrition while their parents try to find new jobs when there are none. I need to be convinced that those sorts of things won’t become the norm again because not really all that long ago that’s how things were. People today are nostalgic for an America that never existed, at least not for over 90% of the people living at any given time. Chances are that if we were living in the gilded age, we’d have been share-croppers, not wealthy Bostonians worried about what to wear to the next soiree. I don’t think most people see things that way because we are so removed from that world. And when I hear people with a very idealistic and not very practical view of how things really work (which is across the board from anarchists to libertarians to all kinds of liberals and conservatives) I just want to scream because it’s just not based in reality. Show me a plan if you want me on board. A lot of vague general principles that sound nice are not convincing. At least not to me.
posted by Lori Heine on
Not sure I understand, Houndentenor, what “show me a program” means for you.
Does it mean show you ways the people can take back the power they’ve given to the rich, to big corporations and other elites to use for themselves in the betterment of their own lives?
Or does it mean show you ways more of Those Who Know Better (who inevitably turn out to be wealthy, connected to wealth or backed by big corporations) can formulate their “program” for us?
If people aren’t smart or virtuous enough to accomplish what they want to do without pushing other people around and threatening them, they certainly aren’t smart enough to do it using aggression, either.
I will indeed explore what plans actually exists for doing this. As I’m not a politician (and have no intention of becoming one), these plans will not be my own. But you — and other leftists who ask good questions — have issued a challenge. I think that challenge needs to be taken seriously.
When the Bush II Administration came along, I’d never seen those in power behave with such stunning arrogance. They were almost completely out of touch with the people. Their only interest seemed to be in manipulating them.
Then came Obama, and things got even worse.
At Gay Patriot, and some other LGBT conservative sites, they play the “Obama’s worse” game, however, while showing a dogged unwillingness to admit that BUSH OPENED THE DOOR TO THIS.
Which means they’ve learned nothing, and will let it happen again.
How can government stop persecuting small businesses (always the employers of the majority of workers) instead of turning them into what they’re becoming — boutiques for 21st Century Babbitts? I’d like to explore that, too.
Our Outright Libertarians chapter in Phoenix is uncovering something I was unaware existed: leftists who are fed up with big government and tired of being played for suckers. This discovery has only come within the past few weeks, and I’m still trying to absorb what it means.
Political conservatives are still peddling the lie that gays cannot be Bible-believing Christians. They won’t acknowledge that those they define as “true” Christians only differ with gay-affirming ones, in many cases, in the interpretation of a handful of scriptural snippets.
What do these apparently-disjointed observations mean? I’m still trying to figure it out. Other than that there are duplicitous hucksters and groveling toadies on both Right and Left, I’m not sure I yet understand.
The libertarian movement is splitting into Right and Left factions, Tom. It is not simply becoming more conservative. One wing of it is, and another is moving farther away from conservatism — at least of the social type. I work with it, I write for it, I read extensively about it, so I know.
Looking at the LP website is a good start for people who want to know what libertarians think. It is, however, only a start.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
—I believe there are so many poor people in the first place because government programs have done nothing but make more of them.
Wow…Really? {sigh} You might just want to take a look at what life was like for folks before the ‘government programs’ existed, like, say, child labor laws, health and safety standards in the workplace, equal opportunity, food stamps, public education.
Anyways, the ‘split’ within the libertarian philosophy has already occurred. Historically, libertarians were basically left-wing anarchists (some violent and others not) with some social democratic leanings. The ‘libertarian right’ came along later, largely thanks to people such as Ayn Rand.
Most ‘libertarian’ groups and parties tend to follow the libertarian right. Most of the elected libertarians tend to be State’s rights-theocratic-paleo-conservatives.
posted by Lori Heine on
Mr. Jefferson III, I know what life was like for poor people before government programs were enacted to help them. The notion that we can do no better seems, to me, a bizarre one.
They are, for the most part, locked into poverty. This is because their dependency is useful to those in power. I believe we can do better.
The fact that most “libertarian” groups lean right may well be changing. I intend to do all I can to help that to change. If libertarianism is not to be turned into a Trojan Horse permitting social conservatives to sneak their agenda in by stealth, then it must be.
I don’t understand the resistance — even the hostility — many on the left exhibit toward a more-libertarian wing developing on the left. It will make real progressivism more resilient, more creative — better able to counter and overcome the forces that advocate only for big corporations, the rich, and white, male heterosexuals.
That attitude definitely does ensure that the Democratic Party machine will remain in power. And it’s absolutely all it can do.
posted by Houndentenor on
I can’t speak for anyone else but you may be the first left-leaning libertarian I’ve ever met. I’m probably as libertarian as any liberal I know (which causes me no ends of grief). What I encounter here in Texas are people who are openly hostile to poor people and love to rail against big government. (Of course most of them are on disability or work for a major government contractor. they remind me of the queen of hypocrites Ayn Rand who railed against social welfare programs her whole life and then slinked off to sign up for social security and medicare under her married name.) I don’t know anyone hostile to left-leaning libertarianism because I’m pretty sure I don’t know anyone who even knows such a thing exists.
posted by Lori Heine on
Houndentenor, you live in Texas? I’m sorry. And I mean that.
Arizona is the Land of Goldwater. Things are different here. If you ever decide you want to sample the waters (so to speak — I know we’re in the desert), there are a lot of great churches at which you could perform.
Many of them are very inclusive. I know mine — All Saints’ Episcopal — would love to hear you. Look us up…we’ve got a music program that’s quite renowned.
Seriously, hang onto hope. Things may be changing slowly, but they are changing. And not as slowly as they were.
posted by Houndentenor on
There’s a lot of crazy in Arizona too. One of my best friends is from Phoenix, but yes, you do have some rather same libertarians who are socially as well as economically libertarian. I tend to get along with those types just fine.
Yes, I’m in Texas. It’s not permanent. I’ll be hopefully heading back to the mid-Atlantic area as soon as I can. or the midwest. almost anywhere but another red state. I can’t take these Teavangelicals much longer.
posted by Lori Heine on
Yes, there are still many crazies in Arizona, mainly in the rural areas. Phoenix and Tucson sometimes seem like islands of sanity in a wilderness of nuts.
The saving grace for the state is the steady infusion of newcomers moving here. The nuts are gradually dying off, and they’re not being replaced with new nuts.
Several of our governors have been card-carrying loons. Most memorable is probably Evan “there are only thirteen gay people in Arizona” Mecham. Jan Brewer, who thinks she’s tough because she screamed at President Obama at the airport, is our state’s current kook-in-chief.
I’m encouraged that our young people seem to have better sense. That is, to me, a hopeful sign.
posted by Houndentenor on
I was going to make a comment about your governor, but then I remember who my governor was and well…glass houses. LOL
posted by kosh iii on
IMHO Libertarians are little more than laizzez-faire warmed over. I don’t trust the good intentions of Monsanto to not poison us or for a fertilizer plant in Texas to be operated safely without government forcing them to do so.
I dabbled with it in the 70s but found the local members were too wrapped up in ideology to concern themselves with practicalities like elections. It doesn’t seem to have changed much except to have become a fad seized on by fakes like the Pauls as a means to more power. The 2008 presidential candidate was Bob Barr who made Jerry Falwell seem positively gay-friendly? Really? Really?
How would Libertarianism have ended Jim Crow?
IMHO it would not.
posted by Houndentenor on
About Jim Crow. I once had this argument with an Anarchist. He believed that eventually segregationists would have come to see the error of their ways without coercion from the federal government. I wish I had that much faith in human nature but I’m from the south and most of the south would still be segregated today if the feds hadn’t forced them to do it. Most of the terrorist acts against African Americans would never have been prosecuted had the federal government not intervened. I share the fear of too much government power. Too much power in anyone’s hands is dangerous. But I also don’t think that powerful individuals are always going to do the right thing, especially when there is money involved. The fertilizer plant is a very good example. Or BP. Horrible safety records when they were actually inspected and then people get killed. Things like that were common before the era of big government and labor unions (the shit waist factory fire, workers dying from the bends while constructing the Brooklyn Bridge). People who think business won’t risk employees lives to save a buck without the threat of fines and lawsuits need to read some history. There’s a reason we wound up with big government…because those abuses existed in the first place. And it was the horrors of unregulated capitalism steamrolling over the individual that led to the backlash of Marx and Engels. Do people think they can do the same things with different results? Are they that ignorant or that arrogant?
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
—Mr. Jefferson III, I know what life was like for poor people before government programs were enacted to help them.
Really? Because you seem to be woefully ignorant of the realities that faced large numbers of Americans during the days when the government had MUCH less to say about the economy and did not really concern itself much with the rights and dignity of the plight poor, disadvantaged or downtrodden.
–The notion that we can do no better seems, to me, a bizarre one.
Better? Yes, we can certainly do better in terms of rights and dignity of poor people, disabled people, minorities, gay/lesbian people. However, going back to the ‘good old days’ is not going to make things better.
The sketch comedy group — blanking on the name but it starred Stephen Fry — did a great little bit about what happens when you privatize say, the roads and police.
Noam Chomsky is probably the only notable member of the Libertarian Left (at least in the United States). He is certainly a controversial figure (for better or for the worse) and I am not sure he said much publicly on gay rights issues.
Beyond that, much of the libertarian movement has long since been taken over by the corporatist-theocratic-right-wing. Ayn Rand was probably a major player in redefining ‘libertarianism’ (some what odd, given that was a devout atheist).
Not too long ago, I decided to attend a campus libertarian club. They showed a laughably bad ‘documentary’ about the federal income tax and sang the praises of Ron Paul and his son.
When I asked then about the libertarian-right versus the libertarian-left, they insisted that their was no ‘left-wing’ branch of the movement and that Norm was not a libertarian.
This is not too different from what happens — from what I hear about libertarian meetings. It is mostly for the cult of Ayn Rand and paleo-conservative-State’s-rights-corporatist-theocratic-birthers, who apparently find the ‘libertarian’ label appealing.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
—About Jim Crow. I once had this argument with an Anarchist.
I had a similar argument. Ayn Rand and the Libertarian Right believe that all private sector civil rights/labor laws need to be repealed. The Libertarian Party use to say as much in its old platform.
Some anarchists and members of the libertarian left seem to believe this, but not Norm. C. (for the record I am not a really big fan of Norm, but at least he does seem to advocate a pretty consistent libertarian-left viewpoint)
While the Libertarian party does support — on paper — efforts to combat government (‘public’) discrimination (be it race, color, creed, ethnicity, sex, sexuality, politics), it remains to be seen how such an effort could be effective. Beyond the fact that they want to privatize just about everything the government does or owns now..
posted by Lori Heine on
Kosh, there are Outright Libertarians who took part in the March Against Monsanto.
Not that your handlers will tell you that. They may be too ignorant to know it themselves. More likely, they’re too indifferent to the truth to care.
Jefferson III, the notion that libertarians will take office and flip a switch, or wiggle their noses like Samantha on “Bewitched,” and automatically privatize all roads is funny — at least to those who understand how politics work on Planet Earth.
If you honestly believe that is the most important thing they can think of doing — in a day and age of a rapidly-encroaching police state — then I want some of whatever you’re smoking.
I have difficulty believing you truly believe the nonsense you’re spouting.
But then again, you believe what you’re supposed to believe. That doesn’t suffice for people who prefer to think for themselves.
posted by Houndentenor on
But Lori, without explanations of what Libertarians would actually do if they were in the majority, people leap to conclusions. It seems to me that every conversation with a Libertarian only makes me more confused about what they are actually FOR. I know what they are against, but I don’t see how society would be structured if they had their way. I fully admit that’s probably just ignorance on our part but the ignorant stay that way until someone educates them. Chastising people for not knowing what so far as I can tell hasn’t been explained is not useful if you want to appeal to more voters.
posted by Doug on
Lori, let me remind you that just because someone does not agree with you does not mean that they do not think for themselves. You are and your beliefs are not God almighty.
posted by Lori Heine on
No, Doug, and the people who say bizarre things about what libertarians supposedly believe are not God Almighty, either.
If I want to know something about a philosophy with which I’m unfamiliar, I wouldn’t ask someone I knew, in advance, disagreed with it. I would expect they’d tell me something pejorative. And if what they said sounded really ridiculous (as many of the things I hear said about libertarians definitely do), I’d wonder how reliable their opinions were.
We’re not responsible for what people tell us. We are responsible for what we accept as truth.
Even the people with whom I most vehemently disagree don’t want to hurt people. It isn’t fair to say that they don’t care about people. They may have beliefs I don’t think will work, and they may want to do things I think would be harmful. That might make the results I believe would come about because of their beliefs evil — but it doesn’t make them evil.
It’s popular, right now, for people on the far right to say they’re libertarians. Having a grounding in libertarian philosophy and its important literature, I can tell, by what they say, that they don’t understand what libertarianism is. But people will say, “libertarians believe this or that,” simply because someone spouting foolishness claims to be a libertarian.
Ayn Rand is always cited as THE authority on all matters libertarian. Actually, a lot of libertarians don’t like her. She was an atheist, she thought gays were inferior beings, and she was even hostile to other women. She was a very strange character, and though she articulated some libertarian ideas very well, she is a long way from being the most-respected libertarian thinker — according to most libertarians themselves. When you claim ALL libertarians look up to her, you just sound ignorant.
Ron Paul (who I respect more than his son) is another name those who know little about libertarianism always reflexively reach for. Ron Paul and I disagree — strongly — on a number of important issues. He would, for example, probably kick me out of his church. For another, he permitted things to be published in his name that were racist, or otherwise quite objectionable to me. He’s hardly my guide to libertarian thought, either.
That old saying about what making assumptions makes us is probably offering wise advice.
posted by Houndentenor on
Someone should point out that Rand didn’t think much of Libertarians either. There’s a quote somewhere along the lines of her quipping the Libertarians were just conservatives who wanted to smoke marijuana. Considering what a horrid person Rand was, I would wear her disdain as a badge of honor.
posted by Lori Heine on
As a footnote, I’d like to recommend one of my favorite left-libertarian authors: Anthony Gregory. Among the many places his work can be found is the Huffington Post, where he is a blogger.
Someone will now tell me that HuffPo is a bastion of right-wing extremism. I will be greatly amused to see who does.
If my veracity is in doubt, go to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthonygregory/
There are a lot of others where he came from. PLEASE find out what’s really going on out there before — again — claiming that “all” libertarians believe in social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, or everything Ayn Rand ever wrote.
posted by Lori Heine on
Just tried my link. I get HuffPo, all right, but it’s a picture of a guy making a funny face and an altogether different article.
What the hell? Well, Google “Anthony Gregory,” or go to HuffPo and find his blog there.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Oh, for goodness’ sake, Lori.
For those interested, here’ the HP archive.
He’s also written a book on the history of Habeas Corpus in time of war, which I’ve read. It got mixed reviews from legal analysts, but it is an interesting and readable take on the subject.
posted by Houndentenor on
Huffpo is a right wing site? Since when? My beef with Huffington and her website is its fondness for “woo”. (Woo is unproven pseudo-science. The anti-vaccination hysteria from Jenny McCarthy and others would be but one example.)
posted by Houndentenor on
Of all the bizarre currents in modern politics, none is as baffling as hearing Evangelical Christians quote from Ayn Rand (without knowing the source usually) even though Rand was not only an atheist but openly hostile to Christianity. The people saying these things have never read Rand but have been fed the quotes by various right wing think-tanks. When I try to discuss Rand with such folks, they claim never to have heard of her. Probably not.
posted by Kosh III on
Lori
“Not that your handlers will tell you that.”
My handlers? What do mean by that? It’s somewhat insulting and condescending to say the least.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. I am vaguely aware of the Outright Libertarians — my ex was a young gay Republican and that is how I wadded into the ‘libertarian’ philosophy as it is largely preached. The one or two Outright Libertarians I actually talked with, at a gay pride booth, seemed like fairly sane people.
I would say a similar think about the gay Greens and gay Socialists that also had their own respective booth. They seemed sincere and nice, but I am not sure I trust them to actually have any real power (or with sharp objects, but thats another story).
2. I do realize — given the fact that political science is one of my majors — how American politics works. My point in this particular case was not so much how long it would take for the libertarians (upon winning a majority), but what sort of policies that they would like pursue.
“Bewitched” is also WAYYY before my time, so I had to do a search for her online. Again, I am not suggesting that the Libertarian Party has any magical wands (despite what what guy at Outright once told me)…
Remember that the core argument of libertarianism — at least the right-wing variety — is that public land, services and institutions should be privatized and allowed to exist in a ‘invisible hand’ free market.
This was a popular idea with UK Conservatives — hence the funny Stephen Fry sketch. The ideas that everything should be held in private hands (unregulated) or the idea that everything should be owned by the state both seem silly/unreasonable to me.
Now, the paleo-conservatives (i.e. Ron Paul and co) do tend to make libertarian arguments with regards taxes, finance and economy. At least, what the libertarian right would say.
The major difference between right-libertarians and paleo-conservatives in America is (a) ‘social issues’ (the former believes — at least on paper — in a secular government, no ‘victimless crime’ laws and equal government treatment for gays) and maybe conflicts over foreign policy.