Of all the critiques that might be leveled against the Libertarian Party (and, by extension, libertarians in general, although the two are most certainly not the same), a recent posting at left-leaning Slate denigrating the LP’s support for gay equality is one of the weakest. As Brian Doherty points out in his response over at Reason.com:
Slate‘s piece combines confused thinking with near utter ignorance on its topic. However, it will, if read quickly and carelessly by equally ignorant readers, help make certain people think less of libertarianism, and that’s all that matters.
More. There is a wide range of opinion that could be called libertarian, and as commenter acer123 points out, some prominent libertarians are supportive of judicial action to ensure marriage equality. For instance, Walter Olson summarizes the libertarian Cato Institute’s brief before the Supreme Court in the Prop.8/DOMA case here:
In its active amicus program Cato has long taken a broad view of Equal Protection Clause protections, and in this case joined with the Constitutional Accountability Center to file briefs in Perry and Windsor urging that marriage be made available without distinction of sex on Equal Protection grounds.
Other prominent libertarians, however, hold a “it should just be privatized” approach to marriage that many find unrealistic, at least for the near term.
Glenn Beck, a bête noire of the progressive left, has what could be termed a conservative-libertarian bent. Take, for instance, his live/let live perspective on same-sex marriage. When previously asked by Fox’s Bill O’Reilly whether gay marriage would harm the country, Beck replied: “I believe that Thomas Jefferson said: ‘If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?’”
Also, as commenter Lori Heine takes note of, Beck recently said he would stand with GLAAD against Russia’s anti-gay laws:
Do you know what happened last week in Russia? One of their biggest stars on television said that homosexuals should be put into the ovens alive. … I said on the air this week, I will stand with GLAAD. I will stand with anybody who will stand up and say that’s crazy. That’s dangerous. That’s hetero-fascism. That’s what that is. And we’re talking about Duck Dynasty. Really? Really?
Really.
Furthermore. Stephen Richer posts a response to the Slate piece at The Daily Caller.
97 Comments for “Of Libertarians and Gays”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Doherty/Lopez “exchange”, if that it be, has the flavor of an inside-the-beltway flap. But as I read the two articles, it seems to me that the two articles are not so much at odds with each other as it might seem at first glance.
The Libertarian Party, consistent with libertarian principles, as long stood for eliminating laws creating special discrimination against gays and lesbians, as Doherty points out. And yet, the Libertarian Party, also consistent with libertarian principles, has never pushed for (or been particularly interested in) using law to promote “equal means equal”, as Lopez points out. I think that it is fair to point out, consistent with both articles, that the Libertarian Party has not served as a change agent in struggle for equal treatment under the law.
In part, the reason for that is, I suppose, that the Libertarian Party has never been in a position to become a change agent. It elects few officials at any level of government, and is largely ignored by the American public.
But I think that the main reason that the Libertarian Party has had little, if any, influence on our struggle for equality is that the Libertarian Party, although supportive of “equal means equal”, has not been a champion of “equal means equal”.
As Lopez pointed out (and I took the time to verify), the Libertarian Party’s website has no explicit statements about “equal means equal at all”, and support for “equal means equal” seems to be limited to this statements like the statement quoted by Doherty in the party’s platform, in which “equal means equal” (vis a vis civil law marriage equality, for example) is supported indirectly, but subsumed into the principle that the government should not regulate personal relationships:
That is a statement of support for “equal means equal”. It is not a statement of support for empowering the government to use law to effectuate “equal means equal”. The platform frames the problem almost perfectly.
The reason, I think, that the Libertarian Party has supported “equal means equal” but not emerged as a champion of “equal means equal” goes to the heart of the Libertarian Party’s political philosophy – the conviction that the government should not be involved in personal relationships at any level. As a result, the party is ambivalent about entering into the battle over the way in which existing laws (again using civil law marriage equality as an example), which involve the government in regulating personal relationships.
Doherty captured the libertarian ambivalence toward marriage in a May 2012 article about Ron Paul’s position on marriage:
It is that underlying ambivalence that is at the heart of Lopez’s critique of the Libertarian Party, it seems to me:
Doherty counters this by pointing out that the Libertarian Party was far ahead of either of the major political parties in embracing the idea that gays and lesbians should be treated equally under the law. He’s right about that, of course, as any of us who fought long and hard to turn the Democratic Party on the issue can tell you from first hand experience. But despite the words, the Libertarian Party has had no measurable impact on our struggle for equality, for good or for ill.
And that, it seems to me, is the nub of the issue. In part, the Libertarian Party has had no impact because it has never had any power. But even if the Libertarian Party manages to get power, what will be the likely result? Will the Libertarian Party champion “equal means equal”, knowing that to do so will inevitably mean using government power to regulate personal relationships, or will it continue on the course of “keep the government out of the bedroom”, changing nothing while nothing changes?
Lopez, it seems to me, is right about the fact that it is not enough to say that the government should not be involved, and leave it at that.
Like it or not, the government is involved in “equal means equal”. Civil law marriage exists, and civil law marriage is not going to go away. Government will regulate marriage. The only question is how.
Given that the government is up to its eyeballs in regulating civil marriage (civil marriage exists solely because the state created it), it is fine to argue that there should be “a separation of marriage and state, just like there is separation of church and state”, but is an argument that leads to no practical result.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Like it or not, the government is involved in “equal means equal”. Civil law marriage exists, and civil law marriage is not going to go away. Government will regulate marriage. The only question is how. ”
Tom, you make it sound like gravity, or El Nino. It’s simply a force — totally beyond our control.
Nonsense. It’s only an immovable force if human beings determine that it is.
On related news, Glenn Beck has just made a very strong statement in support of gays in Russia. What will the reaction be by those who treat us like subjects and peasants and presume to tell us all how to think?
I eagerly await their response. Apart from a few scattered publications, I expect to hear crickets.
I hope somebody at IGF writes about it. One of the things I love about this much-besieged website is that it will highlight stories like that.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Government has been regulating marriage in Western culture since the Middle Ages, and (theory aside) I don’t see that changing. Do you?
Unless you do, and soon, then it seems to me that we don’t have much choice but to discuss marriage equality within the context of government regulation of marriage. We’ll win the marriage equality battle, or not, within the framework of existing marriage laws.
Good for Glenn Beck, by the way. Here’s the quote:
I usually dive out of a discussion when the Holocaust is invoked, but in this case, Beck is right. Given Russian Christians’ historic and horrible history vis a vis the Jews, I can’t help but think that Ivan Okhlobystin’s invocation of the ovens was anything but intentional. He meant what he said, and Beck was right to call him on it.
posted by Lori Heine on
I agree that only a gradualist approach will work. But what many people who comment here fail to understand is that they have no way of reaching the literally millions of people who may, ultimately, provide a tipping point on this issue.
Vehement objection is always raised here when I maintain that it is theft to rig the tax code so a noisy majority takes advantage of a minority by appropriating its money. When I say it is theft, they argue.
I have never lost an argument with a right-winger, however, when I make my opinion on this known to him or her. They understand this as a moral argument, and I demonstrate that they have no higher moral ground on this issue — from a Judeo-Christian point of view — because it IS theft.
What the Bible says, exactly, about homosexuality is now subject to debate, whether these people like it (or want to admit it) or not. “Thou Shalt Not Steal,” however, is in the Decalogue. It is worded far too simply to be misunderstood by anyone.
Most of the people who comment here could never even hold their own in a conversation with anyone whose mind still needs to be changed on the gay marriage issue. There probably isn’t anything you can do about that, given your views. But it doesn’t hurt to point out to you that this is the reason why not.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
We are in the middle of a battle about whether or not civil law marriage will be extended to same-sex couples.
It is fine to argue that civil law marriage is wrongheaded, but the wisdom of civil law marriage is not what the fight is about, and the parameters of civil law marriage define the battlefield. The question of whether or not civil law marriage is wrongheaded is irrelevant to the outcome at this point.
Libertarians won’t be a factor in the outcome of the battle unless they show up on the actual battlefield, not a theoretical battlefield. So far, for the most part, I think that few Libertarians have shown up, and those that have are sufficiently conflicted about civil law marriage that they haven’t put any real push into extending civil law marriage to gays and lesbians.
Maybe I’m wrong about that, but that’s what I see. I don’t hold it against them. Why fight for extending civil law marriage when you don’t believe it should exist in the first place? But I don’t think that they are a factor.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Vehement objection is always raised here when I maintain that it is theft to rig the tax code so a noisy majority takes advantage of a minority by appropriating its money.
You may have noticed that I’ve stayed out of the argument, particularly the argument about whether or not taxation/redistribution involves “theft” in a moral/religious sense or not. I’ve done so for a reason.
I was trained in law in an approach that has become known as the “Chicago School of Law and Economics“, and I look at law from the perspective of my training.
To me it is elemental that all taxation inevitably involves distribution of wealth. Most non-tax laws do so, as well.
The policy questions involved in making changes in law are always “What effect will this change in law have on the economy?” (an economic question), “What social policy will this law promote/discourage?” (a mixed question) and “What effect will this law have on equal treatment under the law?” (a policy question).
Somewhere in the mix of those factors, we seek, as a society, a proper balance.
I don’t see taxation as “theft” in the moral sense. I didn’t when I was paying at a 70% marginal rate, I don’t now when I am paying at a 28% marginal rate, and I won’t in a few years when I’m paying at a 35% marginal rate.
Instead, I view taxation as the result of public policy decisions, some wise, some not, about wealth distribution and the purposes to which wealth should be put in furtherance of our economic and societal goals. I think that our tax code is a mess, almost to the point of echoing Jimmy Carter (“a disgrace to the human race”), outmoded and replete with bloat and poor allocation of wealth. Bit I don’t see it as “theft”.
I don’t suppose that my approach would persuade a person, particularly a religious conservative, who believes that taxation — that is, taking money from them and using for a purpose that does not directly benefit them — is “theft” in the moral sense. But I’m not about to change the way I view taxation and public policy decisions just to “reach” a person who views taxation as theft. To do so would be to lie about what I believe, and that I try not to do.
So I will continue to stay out of the discussion about “theft or not”.
posted by Lori Heine on
What makes people squirm about libertarians is that we DO cut issues down to their basic moral and logical core. A political system that permits majorities of people to vote themselves other people’s money is, indeed, one that encourages theft.
That is theft. Finding a “justification” for why someone else’s money belongs in your pocket. Feel free to call it whatever you like. But were you to go to any maximum-security prison in this country, and interview the inmates about why they committed armed robbery, you’d hear “justifications” that are, almost word-for-word, what you hear from “good citizens” about why they deserve for other people’s money to be routed into their pockets via the tax code.
We do agree on a lot of issues. On this one, we’ll simply need to agree to disagree.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
We do agree on a lot of issues. On this one, we’ll simply need to agree to disagree.
I accept that, which is why I don’t normally comment on the “theft or not” issue when it is raised, and don’t plan to in the future.
posted by JohnInCA on
I think you confuse “squirm” with “dismiss”.
I don’t “squirm” because a libertarian “cut[s] issues down to their basic moral and logical core”, whether it’s “tax is theft”, “The South would have desegregated without the Civil Rights Act” or “get government out of marriage entirely”, I roll my eyes and ignore them unless I’m only interested in a theoretical discussion.
Because me? I’m an engineer. In the end while it’s nice to know why something works, when I’m in the lab trying to make it work I care more about the interfaces, access points, and seams, then what’s going on in the black box.
posted by Houndentenor on
I agree that traditional conservatives can be won over on the issue of gay rights and gay marriage. Ted Olson’s arguments provide a good blueprint. Unfortunately it’s the Teavangelical crowd that is running the GOP these days and I don’t see them changing. Given recent polling that increasing numbers of Americans (mostly Republicans) reject evolution outright, I can’t say as I’m optimistic about reaching such people on any topic through evidence and reason. But I applaud anyone willing to try. I encounter such people virtually every day and mostly I keep my mouth shut because in spite of them often being very “nice” they are subject to completely freaking out if their beliefs are challenged in the slightest. So good luck.
About taxes being theft. Oy vey! I agree that the current tax system is a mess. Reforms are welcome. However, I don’t know what system will replace it that everyone will think is fair, especially when millions of Americans lough gorging at the federal trough but resent paying anything. But I”m open to hearing reasonable suggestions for a better system.
posted by Lori Heine on
John in CA, it’s great that you’re an engineer and know how stuff works. Shouldn’t you also argue honestly? I have said in several different comments on this site that I do believe the Civil Right Act was necessary in the desegregation of the South.
Anyone trying to claim otherwise is simply lying.
If you want to “discuss,” then at least try telling the truth.
posted by JohnInCA on
If you were reading my example statements as being attributed to you in particular, then I am sorry for the lack of clarity.
If you are objecting to the notion that such statements might come from a Libertarian at all, then I most certainly do not apologize and in fact reject such a “No True Libertarian” approach.
posted by Lori Heine on
Contrary to the assumption frequently made by commenters on this site, there is no one, dogmatic “official libertarian opinion” on anything — except for the basic principle of nonaggression as a prerequisite for political liberty. We have no Libertarian Vatican handing down pronouncements from on high about what all the faithful must believe on every issue.
For that reason, it is stupid to accuse me (or most other libertarians) of taking a “No True Libertarian” approach.
Some libertarians do, in fact, believe that the Civil Rights Act was unnecessary. It is not necessary for them to believe that, in order to be libertarians, nor does it disqualify them because they believe it.
Even the Libertarian Party website, though helpful in outlining what most libertarians agree on, is not a Pope issuing decrees on what all the faithful are required to believe. Many libertarians are not members of the party.
Although she gets tossed into our teeth every time there’s a debate, neither are we required to revere Ayn Rand. Quite a number of us heartily disavow many of the ideas she expounded.
All the rhetorical razzle-dazzle aside, I’m beginning to get the distinct impression that aggression is essential to the “progressive” point of view.
posted by JohnInCA on
I just want to be clear. I made a statement that was not personally about you. You responded by denying that you agree with a viewpoint that was not attributed to you and accused me of being dishonest.
In my response, in which I attempted to make it clear that I was NOT talking specifically about you, I also headed off the complaint that Libertarians (in general) wouldn’t say such a thing.
You then went off on a rant in which you stated I accused you of something I didn’t (By your own words you do not meet the “if” clause, ipso facto the “then” clause does not apply).
So to be clear: is your statement that I am arguing dishonestly and lying about your beliefs something you stand by?
posted by Lori Heine on
What you are doing, John, is doing the same thing you are pillorying me for having done to you. You are assuming that the comment I just made addressed you and you alone. It was — like the comment you made, whose direction I misunderstood — addressed to a wider group of people.
Excuse me. I excuse you. That evens it out.
If you do, indeed, understand that libertarians believe all sorts of different things on what we consider non-essentials, then I will no longer mistakenly believe you are simply talking to me when you’re really referring to other people.
I did not intend to imply that you believe there is necessarily one libertarian position for everything. That view is expressed so often in comments on this website that it is easy to get the impression that everyone thinks that way, when in fact they do not.
posted by Houndentenor on
But that lack of any consistency about what libertarians believe and what kind of government we would have if they were to somehow be elected to a majority. These discussions are frustrating and probably pointless since without specifics it’s impossible to know what anyone is arguing for or against other than “what we have now sucks”. Well, duh, hardly anyone is happy with the status quo (especially after the insanity of the last year) but without some specific proposals, I have no way of evaluating whether a different approach would be better or worse.
posted by Lori Heine on
Libertarians may never be elected to be a majority. It’s possible all we will ever do is be able to gain enough influence to change the current political climate — which is the political equivalent of the Cold War.
Each side wants to nuke the other. Everybody wants to destroy everybody else — so it won’t be done to them first. It’s mutually assured destruction, and it makes for a Mad, mad, mad, mad world.
The only specific proposal I could offer would depend on the issue or situation involved. All I can say is that my political views are, personally, based upon my faith, and that I believe I shouldn’t do unto others, politically, what I wouldn’t want them to do to me. I would try to apply that to each individual situation.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Each side wants to nuke the other. Everybody wants to destroy everybody else — so it won’t be done to them first. It’s mutually assured destruction, and it makes for a Mad, mad, mad, mad world.
That may reflect the political environment in Arizona, but it doesn’t reflect the Midwest. We’ve got fringers of all stripes for whom your observation is no doubt true, but there is a much large, solid, stable, pragmatic middle that wants working government. I think that’s true of a lot of the country.
posted by Jorge on
The “government should stay out of your bedroom” era, which ended with Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, does not empower LGBTQ people outside of the bedroom—and that’s exactly where we need to take the fight.
Oh, puh-lease.
This might be true in content, but I object to the tone. And the tone that the article describes is in contrast even to the tamest Republican party support for “traditional marriage”. Sometimes silence is golden. In this case I think the type of silence we need is the type that allows GLBT people to advocate for themselves in the political arena. There are many things the public needs to know. The government need not be a part of the struggle.
In the Libertarian view, gay and lesbian marriages are not seen as a committed relationship between two adults, but rather as a step toward ending governmental involvement in marriage altogether. That’s not giving gay people equal rights: It’s stripping away everybody’s rights.
This needs evidence. I don’t see this at all. I think it’s more along the lines of giving every single person the benefit of the doubt. Removing an artificial command-and-control.
The Libertarian belief that all marriages should be viewed as a private contract is especially dangerous when coupled with the party’s disdain for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Doesn’t danger imply some kind of harm that has not yet occurrred? How can doing absolutely nothing be dangerous? The Federal Marriage Amendment, that maybe could be argued as dangerous. But doing nothing? You need to show the present harm.
Okay, yes, this is definitely a confused article. *Sigh.* It’s never a good idea to argue against an opposing political position with arguments that depend on ideological assumptions. You trip all over yourself when you do that.
posted by Lori Heine on
Jorge, you are correct. Sometimes you sound encouragingly like someone who understands libertarianism. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Or something.
One thing I said, in the remarks John in CA found so offensive, that I will repeat — because I believe it (even if it may not be true about him) about those on the political Left in general — is that THEY BELIEVE IN AGGRESSION. It is the constant refrain in nearly every position they take.
They are forever laying the groundwork for it — trying to justify their prospective use of it. Thus, if government stayed out of marriage, this, that or the other terrible thing MIGHT happen. Thus must government aggression to resorted to yet again.
That old saying, “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” is definitely true.
The problem I have with the Left — and I think you get this — is that historically, the Left has used anybody useful to its ends, then tossed them aside, or even tried to eliminate them, when they were no longer useful. History shows that in general, Leftist regimes have been very antagonistic toward gays. Once we are no longer needed for votes or campaign contributions, who’s to say they won’t revert to form?
posted by Houndentenor on
You are correct to point out that historically “leftists” (whoever that might mean) have a tendency to use people on their way to power and toss them aside when they don’t need them any longer. The problem with that statement is that it equally applies to just about any person or group that has ever achieved power. That’s not about “leftists”. It’s about what people are willing to do to gain power and what scumbags they become once they get it. The reason that we have our system of checks and balances is because the founders realized that no one should be trusted with unchecked power. Not just “leftists” but also “rightists” and moderates and anyone else. Anyone is potentially corruptible. Pointing that just at one ill-defined group is dishonest to say the least. It’s also not just true about politics but in any endeavor in which power and money are at stake.
posted by Lori Heine on
If I meant that only one group did it, that would indeed be dishonest. I am a libertarian precisely because I do NOT believe that only one ideological group would behave that way. I spoke of Leftists specifically only because so many of them seem to comment here.
You are absolutely right about the psychology of power, and about how people tend to behave when they get too much of it that is unchecked.
To speak to an earlier comment (I don’t think it was yours, and I’m not even sure it was on this thread), libertarians do not aspire to “get power.” We want to influence the people so they’ll know what to demand of those who have it. That’s why I’ve come to realize the Libertarian Party will probably always remain a third party.
I’m a Republican at the moment, because I want to help influence it in a more libertarian direction. I agree with Tom that this is what must be done. I will see if I can hold my nose long enough to remain a Republican and possibly do whatever good I can.
The whole Duck Dynasty blowup makes me wonder how much good anyone can do to wrest control away from the social conservatives. I’m still hoping. Come the elections this November, we’ll see.
posted by Houndentenor on
In last month’s primary debate for the office of Lieutenant Governor in Texas, all four candidates stated that they want creationism taught in the biology textbooks. That’s the nonsense in charge of the GOP. I wish you well. I sometimes vote libertarian although admittedly mostly as a protest vote against the religious nutjob that would otherwise be running unopposed. I think the GOP is getting more socially conservative, not less. I hope I’m wrong and you’re right. Good luck. I will be voting in the GOP primary this spring if there’s anyone that I can in good conscience vote for. The moderates seem to have left the party entirely, at least where I am. Even “it’s none of my business how other people live so long as they aren’t harming me” would be a vast improvement. What we have instead are people bitching about not being able to arrest people for “sodomy” any more. It’s that bad. So good luck changing the GOP. That change will come when the folks in their 20s are in charge. Maybe I’ll live that long.
posted by Jorge on
I am glad to see you say that. I will avoid the “tax as theft” argument this time, then.
I must have missed what you said about aggression.
The problem I have with the Left — and I think you get this — is that historically, the Left has used anybody useful to its ends, then tossed them aside, or even tried to eliminate them, when they were no longer useful.
In this country I see it more in its attempts to eliminate outliers and dissenters among the groups it is ostensibly allied with, and certainly attempts to belittle such people as stupid or traitors. The explanation I give (and it’s a conventional one) is that such “independent” people show the flaws in liberal thinking or the benefits of conservative thinking and threaten their power.
You do not see such behavior among the right. The more typical black-and-white conformist thinking among the right is the refusal to acknowledge that there even is any such thing as an outlier or dissenter in a particular group, and a tremendous insecurity about ideological purity in any one person. We saw the former with GOProud being disinvited from CPAC, and we saw the latter with Ann Coulter becoming a persona non grata at WorldNetDaily over speaking with GOProud.
posted by Lori Heine on
One thing I do want to point out, however, is that historically Left-wing governments have had an abominable record in their treatment of gays. You may understand that, Houndentenor, but I’m not sure many of the commenters here do.
Whenever I hear a “progressive” Democrat speak unctuously about gay rights, I’m reminded of those commercials, from the Eighties, featuring Joe Isuzu. “Trusssst me,” they say. But I don’t, because I remember what their predecessors around the world have done.
Speaking personally — because the personal is political — the nastiest, vilest things that have been done to me, because I’m gay, have all been done by “progressives.” That’s had more to do with why I no longer consider myself one than anything I have ever heard from Rush Limbaugh or Fox news.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Wow Lori! You mean progressives have been nastier and more vile towards you than the folks at Gay Patriot have? Coming from you that’s quite a statement. Speaking of GP, as of January 1, I will no longer even be visiting their website. I stopped commenting on there many months ago but still viewed the entries and comments. But I’ve decided I’m no longer willing to help out Bruce Carroll or Daniel Blatt by visiting their cuckoo’s nest without walls.
posted by Lori Heine on
I quite agree that GP is a cuckoo’s nest. Dan is a very nice man — I’ve met him. I think the bloggers want to move on to other things, which is why they’re grooming new bloggers. It’s really getting nasty over there because the piranhas are getting red meat thrown to them every day.
When I said “personal,” I was talking about people with whom I interact on a regular basis in my everyday life, rather than people with whom I communicate online. I fortunately do not interact with GP commenters every day. Though if they behaved like that in person, they’d be living in caves.
posted by Houndentenor on
I went to GP last week and it’s more crazy than I remember. Perhaps I just remember it differently or is it even worse than when I stopped reading there in 2008. (And I didn’t even click on the comments. That was always the worst part.)
posted by Jorge on
I looked at GP the other day. The blog posts aren’t really much outside my own take on things, though they may be a little partisan.
The commenters are frighteningly one-dimensional.
Regarding me personally, I’d agree with Lori. If I mention some things on the internet and I get some very nasty comments (in person I’m more reticent, and better able to control who speaks to me). But it’s a stealth deal. People do and say these things when they think they can get away with it, in places where the general public can’t hold them accountable. Overall, however, the nastiest thing I’ve had the misfortune to engage was the gays as potential child molesters myth, from a rightist who was very educated, so much so that I could not take it any other way than as a deliberate distortion out of malice. And it was brazen.
posted by Kosh III on
IMHO the Libertarian Party is NOT gay friendly, they chose as their Presidential nominee in 2008 the vicious gay-basher Bob Barr.
posted by Kosh III on
“the nastiest, vilest things that have been done to me, because I’m gay, have all been done by “progressives.”
Really? I’ve had just the opposite. Come to the South where conservative policies have ruled for decades. See how the former Treasonous States are at the bottom in education, income, health and more.
Hear the vile and disgusting hate spewed against gay people by conservative/GOP/teanuts. Google Tn Senator Stacey Campfield for a good example; one of many vicious gay-hating Republicans.
posted by Jimmy on
Whenever that sentiment is expressed by a former liberal LGBT person, who wants it understood that they are Libertarian now, it reaffirms that ,”because the personal is political”, where one stands usually comes down to who they have the greater grudge against.
posted by kosh III on
Jimmy, I’m not sure who you are referring to with “Whenever that sentiment is expressed by a former liberal LGBT person, who wants it understood that they are Libertarian now” but that is not me.
posted by Jimmy on
Though I was unclear, I was reacting to the same thing you were reacting to.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I found the Slate piece to be pretty spot on for the same reasons that Tom did — but rather than promoting discourse, Stephen predictably quotes the passage of the ‘rebuttal’ that calls anyone who disagrees “ignorant”.
And, of course, the mention of libertarianism immediately gets Lori riled up… taking the conversation away from the original topic: namely, whether or not the Libertarian Party has actually been a help or hinderance (or as the Slate piece put it, AWOL) when it comes to LGBT equality.
posted by Lori Heine on
Well, Mike, this does happen to be a libertarian/conservative website. So actual libertarians and conservatives do read it and comment here.
Imagine that!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I was struck, comparing the two articles, by the fact that both support the Lopez thesis — that, for a variety of reasons, the Libertarian Party’s longstanding support of gays and lesbians has not translated into real-world results in terms of active, political support.
You will notice, I think, that Doherty doesn’t offer a counter-argument to Lopez’s core thesis (inaction/ineffectiveness), but instead berates Lopez for not reciting the full litany of Libertarian Party statements supporting gays and lesbians. I suspect that Doherty is not arguing back on the substance because the facts aren’t on his side.
My thesis as to why the Libertarian Party has not been in the fight — the Libertarian Party’s position that equality will best be gained by eliminating civil law marriage has had the practical effect of keeping the party from engaging on the civil law marriage battlefront — is my own, but I think that it is probably right.
Whatever the case there, I worry about the emerging trend among social conservatives to adopt the libertarian model and abandon civil law marriage altogether, as evidenced by the Fox News piece “Marriage died in 2013” by Dr. Keith Ablow.
The Ablow piece is petulant, to say the least, in a “If we can’t have the ball all to ourselves, then nobody gets the ball …” sort of way. But it is an interesting reaction from a social conservative who was hell-bent on “preserving [traditional] marriage” just a few months ago. I’m reading a lot of social conservative commentary that hints around at abolishing civil law marriage lately, and I think it is something we should pay attention to.
On the part of social conservatives, the emerging “Abolish Marriage” movement is probably nothing more than an ill-considered, petulant and childish emotional reaction to the fact that civil law marriage is almost certain now to be extended to include gays and lesbians. It will probably go nowhere.
Nonetheless, I think that we need to engage social conservatives on the issue, because I think that abandoning civil law marriage would be a terrible development.
Forty-odd years ago, it was radical left gays and lesbians (few in number, but loud) who wanted to abandon the “hetero-normative marriage” model. Today, it is the “protect marriage” social conservatives who seem to be willing to toss marriage out on its ear.
When radical left gays and lesbians wanted to abandon marriage in the 1970’s, more sensible gays and lesbians (Stephen was among them) stepped up to argue for the value of marriage.
The best book on the subject (to my mind) came from an IGF contributor, Jon Rauch (Gay Marriage: Why It is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, 2004) and makes a persuasive case for the value of marriage to our society. Every reputable study supports the theory that civil law marriage has a measurable, tangible benefit to the couples involved and to society as a whole.
Libertarians, as a general rule, want to eliminate civil law marriage. I understand why they take this position, although I don’t agree with it. But libertarians are not likely to have any more success moving forward with that argument than they’ve had in the past, so I don’t worry about them.
I do worry about social conservatives. Social conservatives, unlike libertarians, are a relatively large, well organized and politically powerful constituency. And if past is prolog, social conservatives will have no more scruples about killing civil law marriage off than they’ve had about anything else over the years, so long as gays and lesbians don’t get to be married.
If men like Ablow and the others making the case to “kill marriage” are successful in persuading social conservatives, particularly Christians, that civil law marriage should be abolished, they might well succeed, to the detriment of society as a whole.
posted by Kosh III on
“Regarding me personally, I’d agree with Lori. If I mention some things on the internet and I get some very nasty comments”
Anonymous comments mean little. Public comments, esp. by elected officials ARE significant.
E.g. “AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality” carries more weight when Jerry Falwell said it on a Sunday am national broadcast. Bob Barr pushing DOMA in Congress. Pat Robertson calling for the “quarantining” of HIV+ people. And so on.
posted by acer123 on
Just to clarify, SOME libertarians believe marriage should be entirely a private contract that may involve a voluntary religious ceremony but that the government should stay out of. I agree that, for the foreseeable future, this is unrealistic and that libertarians who offer this as some sort of explanation for not supporting legislative or judicial action to provide marriage equality are either ideologues or being disingenuous.
However, MANY other libertarians, including some at the Cato Institute, the most respected libertarian think tank, have repeatedly made clear their support for both legislative and judicial action to guarantee marriage equality. Read the Cato amicus in the Prop. 8/DOMA cases if you dispute this. Cato was also very vocal on repeal of the anti-sodomy laws and on other issues, but breaks with LGBT progressives in not favoring ENDA and being against state/local anti-discrimination laws that are interpreted as forcing small business owners to provide support services for same-sex weddings against their religious beliefs (they’re also against forcing religious charities to provide no-cost condoms and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees, for that matter, as am I.)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It makes sense. Libertarians have a strong record of seeking to repeal laws that actively discriminate against gays and lesbians (e.g. sodomy laws, DADT, DOMA), but not in seeking laws that actively ban discrimination against gays and lesbians (e.g. ENDA). I get that …
Marriage equality, I guess, can be seen as operating in both directions from a libertarian standpoint, on the one hand eliminating discriminating against gays and lesbians (think DADT), and, on the other, involving government in an area of personal life in which government has no role.
My only point is that I think that many libertarians are conflicted on the issue because it pulls in both directions, which has hindered the efforts of libertarians in engaging social conservatives. I think we see that ambivalence in the Libertarian Party platform, and in the overall response of libertarians to the issue.
posted by Don on
what I find fascinating is that the debate is coming back around to where it was in the late 70s and early 80s with hard-left counter-culture gays not wanting to join marriage, but abolish it because it was joining a patriarchal system with subservience and all this other stuff they didn’t like.
now we’re back to “maybe it would be better if there were no preferential classes of couples” and simply abolish the state-recognized status. but for entirely different reasons.
everything old is new again I guess.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Glenn Beck, a bête noire of the progressive left, has what could be termed a conservative-libertarian bent.
I’d be real cautious about claiming him for the libertarians, if I were trying to make a case that the country should adopt a libertarian political philosophy. Beck is borderline nutcase on a lot of issues, pretty much living in an altered reality of his own invention.
With respect to his position on marriage equality, it does, as the article you cite points out, illustrate the libertarian dilemna:
I have no idea what a “bete noire” might be, and I am too lazy to chase down your French. But the “progressive left”, for the most part, thinks Beck is a drum major without a band behind him. “Marginal” might exaggerate his importance.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Tom, since I’m of French-Canadian ancestry allow me: “bete noire” (literally French for “black beast”) means a person (or thing) that is detested and/or strongly avoided. Synonyms are: bugbear, hobgoblin, ogre, bogeyman, etc.
posted by BillG on
Tom has gotten into the habit of being reflexively negative about everything Stephen blogs, like several of the lefties who comment here. Claiming that the left doesn’t treat Beck as a “bete noire” — please. Read Media Matters. Then complaining that Stephen shouldn’t use phrases Tom doesn’t understand such as bete noire. Perhaps Tom could spell out the lowest common denominator that Stephen should bring his language down to.
Tom, what is your point? I mean, seriously, what is your reason d’etre for coming here day after day?
posted by Jim Michaud on
Ahem BillG, it’s raison d’etre.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom, what is your point? I mean, seriously, what is your reason d’etre for coming here day after day?
First, I have intelligent conversations with other folks who comment on this blog, like the exchange with Lori in this thread. I do my best to comment substantively most of the time, and some others do, too.
Second, although I tire of Stephen’s seemingly endless habit of turning every post into a swipe at the mythical left/liberal/progressive bogeymen he imagines (almost always, I might note, swipes taken without explanation or back up), I think that his posts are often a springboard for thought. This post is an example, although Stephen didn’t go into the substance of the two articles he cited. The articles themselves provided an interesting contrast, and led me to rethink the question of why the Libertarian Party was both pro-equality and largely absent from the marriage equality fight.
Third, I’m in the habit. IGF used to have lots of contributors with very interesting ways of approaching issues surrounding “equal means equal”. I learned a lot from IGF during the 1990’s and even into the mid-2000’s.
Fourth, reading and posting keeps me in touch with a number of people who I’ve come to admire and treasure.
So why don’t you post?
posted by Houndentenor on
No one with any sense wants to be allied with Glenn Beck. No sooner than I laud him for saying something reasonable (which he does occasionally) than he’ll come out with some insane conspiracy theory nonsense and whoever said something nice about him will look and feel like a fool.
As far as not having a band behind him, I wish that were true. I have relatives who follow his every word. #facepalm
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As far as not having a band behind him, I wish that were true. I have relatives who follow his every word.
I find that remarkable, but I accept it as a fact.
Where I live (in rural Wisconsin), very few people believe that President Obama is trying to foment a race-based civil war, plotting to take away our guns in order to re-impose slavery, manipulating the public schools to turn children into agents of a 1984-ish police state, working hand-in-hand with the Republican Party in a vast conspiracy that requires the party to be defunded. That’s true even of folks like my immediate neighbors, who are home-schooling, fundamentalist, conservative Christians, and the guys I spend time with at the gun club, who, if given a choice between their wives and their hunting rifles, would probably choose the rifles. The reason why that’s the case is probably just a good dose of Midwestern common sense, which seems to be inborn.
We’ve got a few people around who hang on Beck’s every word — a guy who frequents a local gas station and spouts his crazy theory that the words “under God” were removed from the “We the People” sentence of the Constitution as part of the Godless takeover, for example, which is something that even Beck hasn’t gotten around to yet — but most folks just shake their heads when they talk about them, and move on to talk about something else.
Every time you write about Texas, I’m reminded that Texas is a state of mind as much as it is anything else. I’ve got relatives in Texas (both my side and Michael’s) but none of them have gone completely over the edge. Fox News, maybe, but not Glenn Beck.
Anyway, my apologies to those who objected my dismissal of Beck as marginal and unimportant. I had no idea that he was taken seriously by the Republican base. Maybe I should have actually read the articles about him, rather than just skimming the headlines. I’ll correct that in the future.
posted by Kosh III on
” used anybody useful to its ends, then tossed them aside, or even tried to eliminate them, when they were no longer useful.”
You mean how GHW Bush, while CIA Director used Panama’s Noriega to launder hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money to help finance the CIA’s war against leftists and others in Latin America, and then when he was no longer useful, we OVERTHREW a legitimate government(again) by force and chucked him in prison.
Or how Reagan and Cheney kissed up to Saddam Hussein, armed him and then Bush Jr—well you know.
But I won’t deny that others have pushed our Empire just as nastily, but righties don’t get a free pass.
posted by Kosh III on
” “Trusssst me,” they say. But I don’t, because I remember what their predecessors around the world have done”
So when someone, say, Rev. Al Sharpton, speaks firmly FOR gay rights, you reject that because black clerics 60 years ago were anti-gay?
You reject what Elzabeth Warren may say just because Ed Brooke wasn’t pro-gay?
That’s not, to quote Spock, “logical.”
posted by Lori Heine on
I am not speaking of black clerics from 60 years ago or for Ed Brooke. I am speaking of leftist regimes in other countries that get power and imprison or kill gays.
I suppose you’ve never heard of Stalin, or Che, or Castro.
Additionally, if you meant to point out two supposedly sane and reasonable — trustworthy — examples of modern leftism, your choice of Al Sharpton and Elizabeth Warren strike me as pretty questionable.
The notion that if someone says pretty things about us, we may blindly follow them anywhere probably accounts for the elevation, by the gay Left, of so many quacks and cranks.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Lori;
I know quite a bit about the libertarian party and the overall libertarian philosophy. Attacking anyone who disagrees with the philosophy or has objections to it as somehow ‘ignorant’ is not going to help your cause.
I have an extensive library of libertarian books (gone through several of the lectures, audio books, etc and gone to several campus libertarian meetings).
I am not ‘ignorant’ about what the philosophy (both the right and left variations) stands for.
You claim that libertarians have the ONLY solutions and that they have had these solutions for a long time….but you also claim that their is no set of ‘Vatican forced’ creed or belief system that libertarians should be expected to follow.
You support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but most libertarians I have met would argue that such private sector health, safety and labor laws involve the “initiation of force”.
So, now it would seem that you are suggesting that about the only thing we can bet on — with a libertarian candidate — is that they will be against ‘aggression’ or the ‘initiation of force’, but they get to decide how to define aggression.
Last, but not least it would be inaccurate to call a dictatorship a ‘liberal’ regime.
If you were familiar with the folks at Advocates For Self-Government (a major right-libertarian group), you would be familiar with the ‘World’s Smallest Political Quiz’. Granted, the questions are often a bit leading, but the political graph itself is more accurate then standard ‘left v. right’ graphs (and more common in advanced political science classes).
The Soviets were ‘authoritarians’. That would currently describe things in China, Cuba and North Korea. Things have gotten a bit better for gay people in China and Cuba, but not so much in North Korea.
Historically leftists were the first people to support any notion of gay rights. Particularly, the Social Democrats and the members of the Left-Libertarian movement.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… ‘World’s Smallest Political Quiz’ …
The quiz is also on the Libertarian Party website.
I took the poll a few weeks back, and ended up in the upper left hand corner of the “Moderate” diamond, equidistant from the “Left/Liberal” and “Libertarian” diamonds.
I’ve always ended up at that point (moderately to the left, moderately libertarian), no matter what quiz I’ve taken over the last few years. It isn’t a surprise, given that my formative political heroes were Bobby Kennedy and Barry Goldwater.
If you are looking for something to do on a cold Sunday afternoon, TJ, take a look at the Political Compass Test. It uses the same general scale, but the questions are more interesting and less leading.
posted by Doug on
Bitch and moan about how awful the progressive left has treated you but just keep in mind that if it were not for the progressive left being gay would probably still be a diagnosable mental illness and the LGBT community would probably have no political influence nor civil rights at all.
posted by Lori Heine on
That’s true. They have served the only constructive purpose liberalism can serve in a healthy society.
Now it’s time for them to quit taking bows and move over to share the stage.
The Left never stops taking bows for things it did 30, 40 or 50 years ago. They’re attention and appreciation whores. “You need us,” is their constant refrain. “You need us, need us, need us!”
Once we did. Now, not so much. Now comes the stage in the evolution of the LGBT movement when its natural progression takes place, and moderate to conservative people who are LGBT begin to come out and take their rightful place in society.
If the movement stays liberal forever, then no LGBT’s except those who are leftist are served by that.
Movements like ours evolve by growing larger and including more and more people — and a wider diversity of people. We have reached the point in our movement in which mindlessly toadying for the Left actually sets us back.
I’ve seen all the documentaries on PBS. I don’t need another lecture.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Now comes the stage in the evolution of the LGBT movement when its natural progression takes place, and moderate to conservative people who are LGBT begin to come out and take their rightful place in society.
I know that’s true, but I don’t understand why conservative gays and lesbians aren’t coming out and taking their rightful place in the conservative movement in larger numbers.
Roughly 20-25% of gay and lesbian voters vote Republican, election after election, so there is no shortage of people. Conservative gays and lesbians have funding (the American Unity Fund, for example), so there is no shortage of money (at least no more of a shortage than those of us in the Democratic Party perpetually face). So what’s stopping them?
I don’t know about anyone else, but I look forward to the day when both major political parties are pro-equality, the day when equality is no longer an uphill political struggle, and we can all vote our views on other issues.
posted by kosh iii on
Their money and votes are welcome just as long as those abominations stay in the closet and out of sight.
Just like Larry Craig, Ken Mehlman, Ted Haggard etc etc
posted by Don on
I think it has to do with disposition more than anything. The chants at early 80s pride celebrations were “out of the bars and into the streets” while preppy gays lamented only drag queens and leather types were on floats.
Conservatism has a status quo, don’t rock the boat tendency. GOProud et al are a bit against that trend. I could be way off, but the “silent majority” of conservative gays by definition aren’t activists of any stripe, much less their own.
But the current right is truly revolutionary. They are rallying to dismantle the New Deal and almost anything that has been passed after 1920. So it would be wrong to label the entire Right as status quo. Although I think they would argue they are returning to the true status quo of a better time.
posted by Kosh III on
Lori
Without Sen Warren and some others, Wall Street, which wrecked us in the Bush Recession, would still be unaccountable and still be continuing to plunder and ruin the economy to satisfy their greed. If that sort of laissez-faire-ism is libertarian the I don’t want it.
Mao, Che? Of course I’ve heard of those monsters. I’m mostly concerned about equality in the USA and even if I did write my Senators about Uganda—they’re probably in favor of more gay-bashing–they’re GOP.
But what of other “leftist” governments which have been in the forefront of equality for gays? Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand? Heck, even Mexico City is ahead of GOP dominated Alabama or Arizona.
You say you’d like to see non-Democrats have more sway. That’s fine so would I but just the opposite seems to be happening. The more equality we have the more vicious the attacks from alleged “libertarians” like Ron and Rand Paul, or from GOP/Teanuts like Cruz, Christie, Palin and Perry.
I will NEVER support someone who opposes my right to live.
posted by Lori Heine on
Kosh, I’m sure you’re being told that the economic crash was caused by free enterprise. That’s the official party lie, and it’s being dutifully gobbled up like fish food.
Wall Street and the banks have been manipulated for decades by Washington. Government has NEVER stayed out of the works long enough for us to even know for sure how a free-enterprise approach might work.
Senator Warren and the “some others” you speak of are devoted statists. I do not agree with much of anything about their politics. Sure, they say some very pretty things. I do not believe that a collectivist/statist government will operate, in the long term, in the interests of the minority. The testimony of history clearly speaks against the notion.
As far as Arizona’s “GOP domination” being the cause of marriage equality being blocked here, as a lifelong Arizonan I can tell you that you speak from ignorance. It was Republicans who backed it, and the Democrat Party that blocked it with the lame excuse that “the time wasn’t right.”
Even the damned Republicans supported it. Of course the time was right. The Dems simply didn’t want it to pass then because they would not get full political credit for it.
If you were serious about never supporting anyone who opposes your right to live, you’d find yourself unable to blindly and reflexively support the Democrats every time.
posted by Houndentenor on
ROFLOL. I think it’s hilarious that you actually believe that it’s government that runs the banks. Sorry I worked for a CEO who kept the President on hold just because he could in an obvious (and telling) power play. The banks write their own rules and bribe Congress to make sure they get things the way they want them. To suggest that Wall Street bankers are at the mercy of Washington is ridiculous to anyone who ever worked for any of those banks. (No doubt smaller banks get screwed but that’s because we have a system of legal bribery of public officials thanks to Scalia and company.)
posted by Lori Heine on
Houndentenor, in the first half of your response, you misrepresent what I said. I never implied that the government “runs” the banks. In the second — apparently believing this will be some huge revelation to me — you get at the heart of what I really meant in the first place.
Wall Street bankers run Washington. It is not the other way around. Together, they drive any small, innovative companies that might compete with them out of business– after, of course, the big corporations have appropriated any good ideas the little guys may have had.
Though many who comment here would doubtless advocate that we “remedy” this by handing government even more unchecked power (as long as they say nice things about gays) — a Darwin Award-winning concept if there ever was one — surely you’re smarter than that.
I no more advocate handing the works over to “Scalia and Company” than I do to liberals.
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t support giving anyone unchecked power. Not anyone and not for any reason.
posted by Kosh III on
“Even the damned Republicans supported it.”
Who? McCain? He’s been opposed to equal rights for gays in marriage and every other respect.
Your fascist/racist sheriff in Maricopa Co?
Rep. Ben Quayle?
Gov. Evan Mecham?
I’ll take Danish socialism over corporatism any day.
posted by Lori Heine on
Kosh, you show how stunningly informed you are in listing names like that. Not only about politics in the state of Arizona, but of the basic facts of life and death.
Evan Mecham is dead, and has been for quite some time.
John McCain is in the U.S. Senate, and Ben Quayle in the House of Representatives. Neither hold office at the state level.
I’ll tell you what…bother to find out what you’re talking about, and then I’ll debate you about Arizona’s state political scene.
posted by Lori Heine on
And actually, Ben Quayle is now a FORMER U.S. Representative. The horrible bigots and whackos in Arizona did not vote him into another term.
Perhaps they’ll hold a séance and enlist Ev Mecham’s help in taking back the state for the Neanderthals.
posted by Kosh III on
“If you were serious about never supporting anyone who opposes your right to live, you’d find yourself unable to blindly and reflexively support the Democrats every time.”
I don’t. I’ve vote Green since 2002 in most elections.
posted by Mike in Houston on
The U.S. was founded as a mish-mash of Enlightenment philosophies, religious beliefs, economic interests, ethnicities and racial bigotry.
The only thing binding our national DNA together has been the realization that no single group had the monopoly on truth or ability to govern to the satisfaction of everyone else — so you have to compromise.
Jeffersonians — keep government constrained, small and local — nonetheless found the need to have strong federal institutions. (Jefferson himself, went outside the bounds of his own Presidential governing philosophy with the Louisiana Purchase.)
Federalists — strong, central government with a strong military — had to concede to limits on governmental authority especially when confronted with the excesses of the French Revolution and Terror.
Historically, one of the few constants has been that our governing philosophies as a country have been able to adapt and change. Whether dealing with the damage of laissez-faire robber barons, monopolists & oligarchs, the Great Depression, global facism, the rise of the military-industrial complex, unregulated polluters, savings & loan debacles, terrorist attacks, undeclared wars, Wall Street & the Great Recession of 2008 (I could go on) — we react to fix what has just happened to us. Not perfectly and not always wisely, but the best we can.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that no one group gets it right 100% of the time in the real world — not progressives, libertarians, conservatives, occupiers, socialists, etc. — and that a country founded on a mish-mash of conflicts and common interests is always best served by keeping that in mind.
posted by Lori Heine on
Actually, Mike, for the very reasons you just mentioned, libertarians DO have the only real solution.
If you actually familiarized yourself with libertarian thought (and you can’t do that simply by going to the LP website), you would learn that the thinkers we take seriously have been saying many of the same things you have for well over a century.
I’m hoping that eventually IGF will blogroll Liberty magazine (For the sake of full disclosure, I must admit that I write regularly for that magazine). I’m not sure whether they blogroll Reason — though I think they do — and that’s another good one. Cato’s blog is also very fine, and IGF does list it.
When you know little about a particular philosophy (or think you know things you don’t), a lot of very silly things get said in the comments here. You can’t convince me that libertarianism is crazy, or even insufficient, if you tell me I believe things I don’t, or that crackpots who claim to be libertarians say things I “must” believe if I’m a libertarian. Nor does it impress me when people express ideas libertarians have been familiar with for years, as if they’re going to be all new to me.
posted by Houndentenor on
You keep saying that people misunderstand but then you’re short on specifics when people try to engage you. I’m not sure what kind of world you envision in your Libertarian fantasy. I only see the Dickensian nightmare. If we need to be enlightened, sending us to another website to read more nonspecific writings doesn’t really solve the problem. I’ll freely admit that I don’t understand how things would actually work in an urban society if Libertarians got their way, but I don’t get any sense that there is any sense of the details of how that would work anywhere in those writings. It’s nice to have a philosophy, but reality often has other plans. Please explain to me specifically what you have in mind because otherwise your complaints just aren’t very convincing. It’s not like I’ve never dealt with this kind of thing in other fields in which someone had an interesting general theory that just didn’t work when we got down to the nuts and bolts level. Being mad that people don’t understand seems to be a primary hobby of Libertarians. Explaining what you offer to replace what we have now (which admittedly is far from perfect) would be a good way to convince people your ideas are better.
posted by Mike in Houston on
sorry — too a while to unpack what you just said in response to my post about no single group having “the” answer…
If the Libertarian Party is not the standard bearer for that strand of governing thought, then it’s any wonder that most people only go an inch deep.
I got my degree in economics — and as part of our senior thesis work we had to do comparative modeling and regression analysis on the full spectrum of economic philosphies. (BTW — the degree is in the Science of Political Economy)
With each model run your task was to reach various economic goals (full employment, GDP growth, etc.) using the base assumptions for that particular economic system — from full command/control to laissez-faire. In the command/control systems, all the levers were held by government policy. In laissez-faire (total free market), there was no governmental lever to pull.
Invariably, you could eventually get to your goals — but never reliably within the time parameters set for the economic goals… except in the models that used an admixture of government spending, market regulation, etc.
The second part of our thesis had to tackle the other side of the analysis — namely, to put a face on the data points that resulted from whatever assumptions & decisions you put in your model… and frankly, that’s where reality sets in.
Political philosophies and economic policies are all well and good in the abstract, but there are real people involved… which is why I continue to believe in a mish-mash approach that tries to ensure that we don’t simply make decisions in a clinical vacuum.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Lori said: Actually, Mike, for the very reasons you just mentioned, libertarians DO have the only real solution.
Wow. Surely, statements such as this will help to persuade people that libertarianism is not some crazy, wacky, Ayn Rand wannabee cult.
Really? You might want to stop and think about what you seem to be saying; “We have the only solutions! Join us! One of us. One of us…
Some conservatives like to slum with libertarians when it suits them — in terms of marketing and fundraising. Ron and Rand Paul are Glen Beck all spring to mind.
I know quite a bit about the right-libertarian philosophy (which tends to dominate self-identified libertarians and libertarian groups).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Really? You might want to stop and think about what you seem to be saying; “We have the only solutions! Join us! One of us. One of us …
There’s a strong utopian strain prevailing at the extremes of American politics, along all points of the political spectrum, and there always has been.
posted by kosh iii on
Lori,
You are correct that I don’t know the ins and outs of local AZ politics. I know about your racist/fascist sheriff in Maricopa Co., Sen. Warmonger(McCain) and the bleached blonde witch of a Governor. I lived there in the Mecham Pontiac era which is why that name popped into my head.
But please enlighten us on how diligently and vocally the GOP has fought for equality for gays in marriage and in general there.
I CAN speak for the GOP/fascists in my state, the unending stream of poison coming from the GOP leadership in the House and Senate as well as the rank and file. The rich corpocrats who bankroll every effort to destroy our lives here.
And I won’t just leave you with vague assertions, google Lee Beaman, Sens. Stacey Campfield and Sen. Joey Hensley, MD, Rep. Floyd who threatened assault and battery towards transgender citizens “I’d just try to stomp a mudhole in him and then stomp him dry” and of course the biggest player here: the Southern Bigot…er..Baptist Convention.
The upcoming legislative session is expected to be more GOP corruption and crony capitalism matched with repeated attempts to strip away more rights from gays, working people, minorities and well just about anyone who is not an approved type of WASP.
posted by Lori Heine on
The organization leading the charge for same-sex marriage in Arizona is called Equal Marriage Arizona, and was started by Republicans and Libertarians. Former presidential candidate Gary Johnson — one of those libertarian supporters of same-sex marriage who, according to the ridiculous Slate article, do not exist — is a big supporter. The woman in charge here locally is Erin Ogletree Simpson, a retired attorney who’s the chair, or something, of Log Cabin Republicans in Arizona.
Here is their website: http://www.equalmarriageaz.com/index.html
A fine article — one of the few I’ve seen in any national publication that really told the truth about what happened to the drive for a marriage-equality law in 2013 — appeared in Reason magazine, and was written by Scott Shackford:
http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/11/gay-marriage-recognition-efforts-in-ariz
The Dems and their left-bot minions want to pretend that Arizona “just wasn’t ready,” but the latest polling shows support in the state for same-sex marriage at 55%.
Sometimes the Borg doesn’t tell you the truth. What a surprise.
posted by Kosh III on
Lori,
You mentioned Liberty magazine so I peeked at it; pretty decent articles.
It says it’s done by the SDA church. IIRC SDA was pretty vehemently anti-gay at one time, sponsoring various “change” programs. Has that changed or moderated?
posted by Lori Heine on
I’m not sure whether you went to the site of the same Liberty magazine I’m talking about. I don’t know what the SDA church is.
I should have provided the website address. It’s http://www.libertyunbound.com/
I think there are a couple of other magazines out there called Liberty, as I’ve tried to Google it a couple of times — having been at a computer other than my own, where it was not bookmarked — and run across others.
The one of which I speak was founded by R.W. Bradford (I hope I have those initials right) in about 1987.
posted by Kosh III on
Yeah, I went to the wrong place. Sorry.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
This is an aside to the discussion over what libertarians believe or don’t, but I’d like to recommend a book to those who want to get a deeper insight into the ideological underpinnings of our political/constitutional “mish-mash”: “The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution“, published in 1967. It doesn’t fit comfortably with the pet theories of either the right or the left, and might be a springboard for re-thinking. If nothing else, I suspect that it might give us pause when we start believing that what we believe is “the solution”.
posted by Wayne in ABQ on
I skimmed through these comments and found them exhausting, but I would like to add a few addtional facts to the discussion. In 1998 the Libertarian Party of Colorado asked me to run for Attorney General. I agreed, and became the first openly gay state-wide candidate in Colorado. Three factors aided my campaign. Sadly the first was the death of Mathew Sheppard during the campaign (he was from Denver). Second was the weekly state newspaper Out Front’s half-page article on my campaign the week before election day. The last factor was the diary that I wrote during the campaign and faxed to every newspaper in the state the Saturday before the election. In the end I received the most votes of any third party candidate in Colorado history (including Ralph Nader), a total of 33,000 votes/2.7% of total votes cast. After this election, the CO Libertarian Party asked me to run for Boulder County Clerk, and campaign on a promise that I would begin issuing marriage licenses to GLBTs if elected. I refused, due to my concern that issuing marriage licenses without a legal basis might get me into trouble with the state bar. So I would say that the Lib. Party’s position on equality and the right to marry varies widely depending on what state you live in. Thus, I’m guessing that the national platform does not emphasize this issue for that reason.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
A ex-libertarian friend of mine talked about the the Colorado Libertarian Party tried to do anything in order to avoid taking a position on the anti-gay ballot measure that passed in 1992.
Years, later, when this friend of mine moved back to California, the Libertarian party candidate was supporting the ballot measure to ban gay marriage (prop 8). Other older men and women who were once very involved with the party tell me similar stories.
The Libertarian Party represents the right-libertarian frame of mind (Ayn Rand does is many ways as well). Maybe it changed now, but in the 1990s – 2000 I hear plenty about how the LP did not want to upset social conservatives and gun-nuts by supporting gay rights.
I have zero problem with the Libertarian Party participating in elections on an equal footing. The discrimination that third parties face in our elections is just silly. I love to debate ideas and beliefs at a town bar or cafe.
But once you get beyond the abstract, you have got to be able to make specific pledges — if you want to be a political group expected to win elected office.
posted by No, the Libertarian Party isn’t behind the curve on gay rights | Mike Coe Reviews on
[…] comments, and it has prompted responses by Brian Doherty at Reason, Stephen Miller at the Independent Gay Forum, and “Libertarians Concerned” (in a long Dec. 30 Facebook posting). Perhaps the […]
posted by The Libertarian Party, libertarians, and gays | The Purple Elephant on
[…] has 683 comments, and it has prompted responses by Brian Doherty at Reason, Stephen Miller at the Independent Gay Forum, and “Libertarians Concerned” (in a long Dec. 30 Facebook posting). Perhaps the speedy and […]
posted by Lori Heine on
Incidentally, today’s Google doodle features a wonderful author, Zora Neale Hurston. Today would be her 123rd birthday. It is well known that Ms. Hurston was an avowed libertarian.
Happy birthday, Ms. Hurston! Next time someone calls libertarians kooks, I’ll simply mention your name.
The anti-libertarian will likely say, “Duh…huh?” Or he/she will snarl that this Hurston character must be a typical white man.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The anti-libertarian will likely say, “Duh…huh?” Or he/she will snarl that this Hurston character must be a typical white man.
Another Loritarian side swipe, like “Though many who comment here would doubtless advocate that we “remedy” this by handing government even more unchecked power (as long as they say nice things about gays) …“?
Lori, deal in ideas, analysis, facts, and support your opinions with evidence, and argue your opinions. Leave the “colorful” red herrings and gratuitous bitch slaps to Stephen.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s easier to argue with strawmen than with people. I’ve never said that libertarians are “kooks”. I do think that as a philosophy it’s rather naive and short on details. It sounds lovely to think that we’d all take personal responsibility and up to a certain point that is a wonderful idea. But it doesn’t really work in a modern, interconnected urban/global economy. We have to do some thing collectively and if people want to call that “socialism” then so be it. As much as Lori resents how people characterize her ideas, I resent the accusation that because I think government should handle SOME things that I think the government should run everything. I don’t and I know hardly anyone who does think that. For someone so quick to take offense at mischaracterization of her beliefs, she is equally quick to make bold assumptions about others.
One thing I will agree with in this thread is the concern that in some parts of the country there is a concerted effort to keep independent or “third party” candidates off the ballots. I find that undemocratic. I’d also include them in debates. I guess there have to be some restrictions. I had a namesake 3rd cousin who ran as a libertarian for Congress about 10 times receiving about 2 votes each time. (One assumes he voted for himself. I could only speculate at who the other one was.) Such a fringe candidate is probably not worth the airtime in a televised debate, but many are. If one is confident in one’s platform, then one should not be afraid of discussing it openly. The problem with their parties is that they threaten the empty rhetoric of the major parties. Libertarians show the hollowness of the GOP’s pretentions of being for smaller government (and yet growing the government whenever they are in power) and the Green party challenges the Democrats on their empty words on environmental issues. We give politicians too much latitude to lie and obfuscate as it is. Silencing dissent only benefits the powerful. It certainly doesn’t serve democracy.
posted by Jorge on
One thing I will agree with in this thread is the concern that in some parts of the country there is a concerted effort to keep independent or “third party” candidates off the ballots. I find that undemocratic. I’d also include them in debates. I guess there have to be some restrictions.
When the Democratic and Republican parties become immune to being taken over or influenced by grass-roots movements such as the Tea Party, or fringe elements such as the NRA, I’ll be more concerned. As things stand, no third party force is likely to change incumbent security across the nation.
Alternately, if we default on our debt and our inflation rate goes into the hundreds, then maybe it’s time to say we need a change. But so long as our political system works, I say don’t break it. While I am mindful of the disaster of the Obama presidency, I don’t think it is attributable to the two party system. We had plenty of other more qualified candidates in the Democratic party.
If we create a strong multi-party system, eventually we’re going to end up with a stable version of one. It will be just as inept, media-driven, and narcisisstic as the system we have today, only it will be even more difficult to govern.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
One thing I will agree with in this thread is the concern that in some parts of the country there is a concerted effort to keep independent or “third party” candidates off the ballots. I find that undemocratic.
So do I.
Reasonable requirements for ballot access (e.g., Wisconsin, which requires candidates to file “nominating petitions” with supporting voter signatures, ranging from 20 for local office to 200 for the Assembly, to 400 for the Senate to 2,000 for statewide office) to are fine, but the ballot access bar is too high in many states in an attempt to keep third party candidates off the ballot, and it hurts our democracy.
I’d also include them in debates.
That’s up to the debate sponsors. I’d be inclusive rather than restrictive, but debates are sponsored by private organizations, and as long as the eligibility requirements are clear (e.g. polls showing 5% or 10% support), I’d let them do what they want to do.
posted by Lori Heine on
Breathe, people. I mentioned that it was Zora Neale Hurston’s birthday. Sheesh.
The continued fixation on taking (aggressive) power continues to be revealed by many of the commenters here. What are my policy proposals for taking power?
I’m not running for anything. I will propose “policy” on any particular subject when it is discussed here, in the context of that discussion. The Libertarian Party, incidentally, is not really trying to “take power.” It took me a while to get that, too, but I’ve finally figured it out.
Its aims are the same as those of small-l libertarians like me. We’re trying to influence the discussion. As it appears I’m doing that, I don’t need to do more.
That some of the people we attempt to influence get royally p.o.-ed is inevitable, and totally welcome. It takes what it takes. I’m sure the bloggers here know that, too.
posted by Kosh III on
Here, the Green Party and some other Party had to go to court to get access to the ballot. They won but the R/D fought every step of the way for several years and now that the R’s have total control they are still trying to block the GP and others.
What are they afraid of?
Third parties can win but it takes special circumstances such as the Whigs falling apart; Robert LaFollette got 5 million out of 30 million in 1924; and we all remember Perot.
posted by Don on
I think it will take continued realignment of the parties further right of center. The Left is making somewhat of a comeback in spits and spurts. But I think it is just as likely to turn even further center-right. Democrats are where Republicans were during the Nixon administration. Price controls? EPA? could you imagine any republican supporting that now?
So the left whimpers about pollution and the right shrieks drill baby drill! To think some labor under the delusion the left is full of socialists. Maybe at home in their basements muttering to themselves. But other than Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, they don’t hold a single office worth mentioning. And heck, those two aren’t even socialists. They just support progressive taxation and laws against usury.
But who wants to ruin a good meme. Black guy is stealing our money to give to lazy people and making us slaves. Oy vey!
posted by Don on
Sorry, I meant to more clearly preface: I don’t think third parties will gain much more traction until the democrats move further to the right. which they may do under Hillary. She was a Goldwater Gal after all.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Libertarian Party, incidentally, is not really trying to “take power.” It took me a while to get that, too, but I’ve finally figured it out. Its aims are the same as those of small-l libertarians like me. We’re trying to influence the discussion.
That explains a lot of things I find puzzling about the Libertarian Party, mostly that it doesn’t act like a political party that is serious about electing anyone to office — recruiting candidates, vetting candidates, running candidates for local and county offices as a stepping stone to state and federal office, fundraising, and so on.
The Libertarian Party candidates I know about in Wisconsin have always struck me as symbolic candidates, typically garnering about 1% of the vote. You’ve given me an insight as to why.
But if it is the case that libertarians “trying to influence the discussion” rather than elect candidates, wouldn’t it make more sense to work within existing party structures, trying to influence the Republicans and Democrats who will be elected?
Barry Goldwater, who was a Republican but one with many libertarian ideas, had a major impact on Republican Party politics in the 1960’s. The party’s movement toward libertarian idea was largely subsumed by Ronald Reagan, who was most decidedly not libertarian-leaning, but for a time libertarian ideas did influence Republican Party politics.
Perhaps I’m blinded by my involvement in the LGBT movement, working as I did within the Democratic Party, but it seems to me that we had success in influencing politics by working within the party structures (well, one of the party structures) to try to influence policy positions, platforms and candidates. I don’t think that we could have done that by working from outside.
After all, what good does it do to be pro-equality if it doesn’t result in anything changing?
posted by Lori Heine on
Tom, that’s exactly why I have re-registered as a Republican. I have that clothespin ready for my nose — as I’ll certainly need it. Though I know many fine people in the GOP, there are a number of others I absolutely detest. But I want to make as much trouble as I can, working to make the party more libertarian.
It’s a good thing I don’t mind making people angry, because over the course of this election year, I certainly will.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It’s a good thing I don’t mind making people angry, because over the course of this election year, I certainly will.
Well, you certainly will if your commitment to libertarian ideas leads you to confront social conservatives about “equal means equal”.
posted by Lori Heine on
I don’t expect to have too much trouble with such a conversation, since to a libertarian “equal means equal” means equal treatment for ALL under the law. No special favors for anybody — us or them.
The argument over “religious freedom” gets interesting with these folks, too. I tell them I’m all for it — because it means Christians who don’t interpret the Bible in a way that condemns same-sex love will finally be able to enter the discussion. That generally dampens their interest in the subject pretty quickly. It also brings them quickly around to a whole new appreciation for the wall between Church and State.
They’re not going to dominate that discussion anymore. Those days are over. Once that sinks in with them, nonsense like the “Duck Dynasty” PR scam will happen with decreasing frequency.
posted by Sonicfrog on
The argument over “religious freedom” gets interesting with these folks, too. I tell them I’m all for it — because it means Christians who don’t interpret the Bible in a way that condemns same-sex love will finally be able to enter the discussion. That generally dampens their interest in the subject pretty quickly. It also brings them quickly around to a whole new appreciation for the wall between Church and State.
They’re not going to dominate that discussion anymore. Those days are over. Once that sinks in with them, nonsense like the “Duck Dynasty” PR scam will happen with decreasing frequency.
OMG My Friend!!! Have you learned nothing from our adventures at GP????
They will NOT go quitely into that good night!!! 🙂