I am a member of the
Democratic Freedom Caucus, a grassroots organization that at one time called itself the home for "libertarian Democrat." We found, however, that the reaction to the term
libertarian was never what we desired to convey. Traditional Democrats tended to view us with distrust, while so called libertarians would assume that we were either an oxymoron or schizophrenic. The organization has adopted a new strategy of using terms such as "Jeffersonian Democrat" or "Freedom Democrat." I use the term "Freedom Democrat" to describe myself at my blog
Freedom Democrats, which tries to focus on stories that would fit into the niche of talking about "libertarian Democrats." However I feel like I am still having problems in reaching out to people and explaining to them what it means to be a "Freedom Democrat." How would you feel if someone called themselves a "libertarian Democrat" and what type of positions would you assume they would take?
Foreign Policy: Much of the group in the
DFC over the past few years has revolved around the Bush Administration and the Iraq War. There has in fact been a great degree of polarization in the libertarian community between the core that remains opposed to the Iraq War and a new group, called
neo-libertarian, which strongly supports the Bush foreign policy.
The latter can be represented by individuals like Neal Boortz, who in addition to supporting the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq recently published a book with Georgia Congressman John Linder calling for a national sales tax. These neo-libertarians may still have socially liberal views on prostitution, abortion, gay rights, and drug use, but their foreign policy and total sell out of protecting civil liberties have angered many in the libertarian community.
The group that remains committed to opposition imperialism abroad and the authoritarian crack down on civil liberties at home have gravitated either toward remaining in the Libertarian Party or joining the Democratic Party. Many took part in supporting Howard Dean's 2004 primary campaign, and some of us (myself included) managed a short-lived "Libertarians for Dean" blog.
Other libertarian activists have joined the Democratic Party primarily because of foreign policy issues. Thomas Knapp, a libertarian activist and writer, and Mike Bozarth, a former member of the State Libertarian Committee in Missouri, joined the Democratic Freedom Caucus and helped created the DFC's Missouri Chapter. In 2004 Frank Gonzalez ran as an under-funded and unknown Libertarian candidate for the Florida 21st and did better than the only previous Democratic candidate to run in the district. He's running in 2006 as a Democrat, encouraged to jump the fence by the DFC and the mismanagement of our foreign policy by George W. Bush and the GOP.
Polling from the Pew Research Center indicates that the major divide in American politics today is over foreign policy. Shouldn't the traditional libertarian position of opposing imperialism be welcomed in the Democratic Party? And wouldn't you assume that a "libertarian Democrat" or "Freedom Democrat" or "Jeffersonian Democrat" or even a "low tax liberal" would feel that way?
Social Policy: Even beyond foreign policy I think that most Democrats would identify libertarians as natural allies of liberals in this 'culture war.' I think Frank Gonzalez, the above mentioned libertarian Democrat, sums it up when he says:
If elected, I should never have any authority to tell you how to live your life with the sole condition that your choices be peaceful and harmless to others. In other words, I will live and let live.
Rick Santorum, who is no friend of libertarians, has attacked liberals of being an ideology that believes that people should be free to do anything they want as long as they don't hurt anyone. Santorum and many social conservatives view this as a bad thing. But shouldn't we believe that most Americans honestly believe that you should be left along unless you're hurting someone?
During the special election, Paul Hackett was called a libertarian Democrat for making similar statements:
I'm for limiting government. I'm for fiscal responsibility. I'm for a strong national defense. I'm for fair trade. This means I don't need Washington to tell me how to live my personal life of worship my God. And I don't need Washington to dictate what decisions my wife can make with her doctor any more than I need Washington to tell me what guns I keep in my gun safe. I fought for Iraq's freedom, not to come back and have a government tell me I can't have my freedom because the world is too dangerous. Our freedoms are what make America great and desirable to the rest of the world and any government that wants to take away its people's freedoms under the pretense of national security is what makes the world more dangerous.
Paul Hackett was an amazingly popular figure among the liberal blogosphere, despite the label of being a "libertarian Democrat." Or perhaps because of the label? I think part of the popularity of being a "libertarian Democrat" has to do with the framing of social issues as a matter of having the government leave you alone. It's a tough guy approach that can win over voters in red states and red districts.
If foreign policy is one of the major issues encouraging libertarians to at least question the idea that Republicans are the party of limited government, social issues clearly show a divide between the two parties where the Democrats are by far the better option. Before getting into the discussion of economic issues, I wanted to present the following graph. It was created following a Senatorial Scorecard that I developed of key votes from a libertarian perspective over the last four years. You can see how the Democratic Senators (Blue) and Republican Senators (Red) ranked on the scorecard:
I think that it's obvious from a glance at the graph that the major gap between the parties isn't on economic issues, it's on social issues. Now I understand that some members of the community may wish to see a greater gap between the parties on economic issues. But the fact remains that right now the choice is crystal clear between the two parties when it comes to social issues. Why shouldn't we take advantage of that when appealing to swing voters that may have libertarian leanings?
And as a note, you may notice a blue dot all by itself in the Libertarian quadrant. That's Russ Feingold. The other blue dot on the border between Libertarian and Centrist is Jeff Bingaman.
Economic Policy: This is where the disagreement may come in about appealing to libertarian-leaning swing voters. There seems to be a general desire to form a liberal-populist alliance in the Democratic Party by focusing on economic issues over social issues. Bob Casey perhaps represents the epitome of this strategy. The desire to find a Southern Democrat, be it Warner or Edwards, could also be a sign of this thinking.
Why?
Why is there a desire to ignore libertarians and instead focus on populists or authoritarians?
Bush has provided plenty of fodder in attacking him fiscal irresponsibility. Spending has gone out of control in all areas of the government. At the very least we need to point out that for all of this extra spending, we're not getting anything more in actual services.
It is true that libertarians would like to see smaller government, but given the bloated federal budget does this necessarily mean cutting important programs like education and health care first? Why couldn't a Democrat focus on an agenda of cutting the defense budget, which does more to aid the military-industrial complex than actually defend Americans? Or cutting subsidies to agribusiness and factory farms. Or subsidies to nuclear energy and oil companies. Or the subsidies to pharmaceutical companies in Bush's Medicare plan. The list just goes on and on.
Here's the deal I think that many libertarian-leaning voters are willing to take when it comes to economic policy.
- 1- We're ok with Democrats repealing some of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, but offer up a proposal that would reduce taxes on the rest of us. Consider expanding the Earned Income Tax Credits and other ways to help the working poor. Raise or eliminate the cap on the payroll tax going into Social Security, but use that extra revenue to reduce the overall percent that is taxed.
- 2- Democrats can continue to focus on expanded health care for all Americans, but can there also be discussion to cut spending on corporate welfare? Go after the subsidies I mentioned previously. Bush has increased discretionary spending by 35.1 percent in his first term, while Clinton cut it by 8 percent in his first term. Bush has obviously been increasing spending in areas that are not helping America move forward. To help America move forward with programs like health care, why not cut the pork?
- 3- Balance the budget.
What's wrong with asking for that? My final series of questions to you begins with asking how you originally would view the term "libertarian Democrat." Do you feel any different now? In attempting to sell this message, do you even think that "libertarian Democrat" is the best approach? How would you feel about something else, like "Jeffersonian Democrat," "Freedom Democrat," or "low tax liberal." Any other thoughts or criticism?