As I reflect on Markos's latest effort to bridge libertarians of all stripes, tones, shades, persuasions and degrees, I am once again encouraged and taken aback.
A more fruitful discussion of these possibilities needs to address where Dems fall short in the eyes in most libertarian types. I can assure that libertarians of all kinds already know where the Dems are more on their side than the GOP is. No need to harp on them. We all know about the civil liberties and foreign policy issues.
So my first critique to Markos is stop selling the idea based on what is already known as common ground and concentrate on bridging differences in ways that don't violate progressive aims and ends but perhaps tweek or change the means to that end.
My second critique involves examining the true roots of corruption...corporate and other kinds as well. Vesting more control in a centralized government is probably not the best answer since this concentration of power helped bring on the special priviledge and corruption in the first the place. The important point needs more discussion as does the examining of "UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES" of well-intended government action. Far too often, advocates of government action (like those of pharmaceutcal drugs) push the benefit without considering side-effects and unintended consequences. Govrnment "solutions" can have the same effect. Very important.
My third critique has to do with a very important idea that Markos and others make the mistake of dancing around and you simply cannot. I defer to libertarian "Zen Politics" for a quote from his reaction to Markos's essay:
"He also makes the classic Democrat mistake of only seeing personal liberties in the context of being a consumer of business, and not personal liberties in the running of a business, and expects libertarians to say "Thank you sir, may I have another?" I predict this is one of the areas he is going to get a major smack-down in the coming responses from actual libertarians.
Sure, he scores some cheap points about corporate influence on government, but the traditional (and accurate) libertarian solution is that you vote for people who will actually take power away from government. Without government power, there is less reason for corporations to spend money influencing . . . nothing. What Kos is suggesting is perhaps a major-party-inspired band-aid, but wow it just does nothing to address the underlying issue."
This last point is very important. Small business owners (I am one), merchants find little help from the GOP...just lip service tied into "Big Business". The free market is actually missing here. We have a rigged market that benefits deep pockets. Business regulation and law ca be a double edged sword. It can sound benefical (like clear skies) but actually hurts the little guy and budding entrepreneur.
The jacket doesn't fit as is, but a little tailoring work can go a long way. You need only look to the West to see a growing number of voters who would switch parties if the Dems only gave serious thought to these ideas.