There is a potentialy
HUGE opportunity for the Democractic party to gain new voters. And I'm not talking about the undecided moderate swing voters the DLC sells out our progressive agenda for either. Thanks to the complete failure of the neocons, a lot of people who considered themselves conservative or libertarian that use to vote Republican because of their beliefs in fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, state's rights, protectionism, and a 'mind our own fucking buisiness' foriegn policy have become disenfrancised. Not only that, they could be courted. These are not the Ayn Rand types, they don't bow down before the free market. They definitely don't go for corporate welfare.(Now an annual multi-billion part of the Republican budget) And don't belive the hype, they don't take issue with social programs aimed at helping people get ahead in life. These people are ripe for the taking. And we wouldn't have to compramize any of our core beliefs to bring them in.
More down there...
However, some liberals can't get one simple fact past their own knee jerk reactions, no matter how many times it is repeated to them:
These people do exist! I (and others) explain this time and time again, yet people still cringe at the idea of progressive libertarians joining us.
But I'll try again.
These types use to vote Republican. These types were isolationists who did not go for premptive wars and nation building. They were for fiscal responsibility, something previously atributed with Republicans. They opposed NAFTA and globalization. They belived in states rights. They opposed censorship from 'holier than thou' PC types. They hated the gradual erosion of civil liberties. They felt the drug war was unethical, and a huge waste of money. They support the second amendment. When Waco and Ruby Ridge occured, they became worried about federal agents. And they agreed with Scalia and Thomas on one recent occasion, when they opposed the ruling upon "eminent domain".
Come to think of it pretty damn near everyone who posts here fits that catagory as well. Minus the voting Republican part of course.
Some of these people are already here posting on this sight, yet they do not get the warm welcome they deserve. And it's too bad since they could bring others on board to give us a Democratic majority. Too many people however, don't understand that the old ways of defining "Liberals" and "Conservatives" no longer apply. They cringe at the word "libertarian". That's too bad. If they would actully stop and listen, we could have our cake and throw it too.
I did a diary on this topic a few months ago. I'm going to take a few of the great quotes that were posted here in order to re-itterate my point. I'll kick it off with Becca00's kick ass straight forward description of the progressive libertarian agenda.
Progressive libertarians:
* Stand for the idea of self-determination
* Stand for the idea of a welfare system that works to get people off welfare by enabling recipients to succeed
* Stand for the idea of a strict separation of church and state
* Stand for the preservation of ALL civil liberties
* Stand for the idea that the reach of government (including into our bedrooms) must be restricted
* Stand for the idea of personal privacy as a constitutional right
* Stand for the idea that owning a gun is a constitutional right
* Stand for the idea that government "for the people" must be fully transparent
And most of all, progressive libertarians understand that while the free market is an outstanding economic system, it is essential that such a system be well-regulated by the government to protect us all from the ravages of an untamed free market.
You many now return to your regularly scheduled chaos.
http://godsdead.blogspot.com
by becca00 on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 10:24:55 PM PDT
LOgan Ferree from Freedom Democrats, a web sight for progressive libertarians had this to say:
Libertarian Democrats (4.00 / 2)
There are libertarian Democrats out there and we do want to join with the Democratic Party. Glad to see someone of a similar mindset. It's important for the rest of the Party to realize that we're not all LP extremists. Interested people should check out a small grassroots group called the Democratic Freedom Caucus, a group of libertarian Democrats. We've encouraged two former LP members who ran for Congress in 2004 to join the Democratic Party and run again in 2006--Frank Gonzalez in the Florida 21st and Kevin Anderson in the Texas 4th. Both of them show a willingness to moderate their message. We're working to find other candidates to support too. I'm also doing my best to cover the movement on my own blog, Freedom Democrats.
~[-0.13, -8.67]~ Socially Just, Fiscally Responsible: Freedom Democrats.
by LoganFerree on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 10:37:07 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Now here is Glibfidget, a guy who knows his shit.
I've never voted for a Democratic national candidate in my life before 2004. Now, I vote nearly straight ticket, volunteer, give money, etc. Because you're right, "conversative versus liberal" no longer applies. The neocons and social conservatives in the Republican party have shifted the battleground under everyone's noses. But some of us have been keenly sensitive to that.
And I think most people are inclined to vastly underestimate the draw of little l libertarianism. The way I see it, there are two possible swaths of politicians set to make a big splash in this political climate. The first is socially liberal independent-ish Republicans--your McCains, Gullianis, Arnies, what have you (none of those examples fit the bill perfectly, but you get the idea). The second is fiery populist Libertarian-leaning progressives--Schweitzer, for instance, Feingold if you can drop the baggage. The common thread between those two is exactly the vast unexplored territory as-yet unstaked out by mainstream national political parties, little l libertarianism.
By little l libertarianism I mean not the sort of ideological litmus testing that you see with the LP, but people that are massively receptive to the basic gist of libertarianism--people who distruct things like the drug war, the patriot act, etc, people who think gay marriage, stem cell research, are just fine in their books, people who want a smaller, leaner, more effectient, effective, and less corrupt federal government, people who have very negative reactions to the idea that we should be blazing a war path for democracy abroad, etc etc etc. These are people the Democrats can win, if they play to them.
I describe Libertarianism, simply, as a belief in social liberalism, economic conservatism, and armed neutrality in foreign affairs (holding seriously to Kerry's "wars of neccessity versus wars of choice" litmus test). The Democrats win on two of those three issues, and the bush administration and republican leadership has all but abandoned the middle issue entirely anyway. Libertarians, for the most part, hate Bush more than Democrats do, for very good reason.
But to court these people, you have to play up the similarities rather than differences. It's not a perfect fit, but it's a good enough one to build a strong majority with (think of pursuing this sort of tent-widening like you would in a parlimentary system where you need a swath of people that agree with you 75% of the time to create a majority, and creating the majority is more important than total consensus on that 25%). You have to stop viewing people that are distrustful of entitlements, for instance, as enemies, when they also agree with you on deficits, illegal wars, etc. You have to stop picking apart people on gun rights, for instance, when they also agree with you on abortion rights, equality rights, civil rights, etc. If fiery libertarian-leaning populist progressivism wins the day as the Next Big Thing (which is by no means assurred), it will only come as a result of a politician that can successfully play to those similarities, rather than one that litmus-tests away anybody with those differences.
Anyway, great diary.
What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam? Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.
by glibfidget on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 03:17:51 PM PDT
Glibfidget touches on the main point I'm trying to make here,the difference between "l"ibertarians and "L"ibertarians. Small l libertarians are not the Randriod lasse fare economics free traders. They do not belive in the pretext that corporations are citizens. Personal freedom and free trade do not have to be intertwined. I don't know how many times I've explained this to libertarian bashers who then respond that it will never work because Ayn Rand sucked, but I'm sure I'll probably have to again. If corporations actully paid their taxes,rather than setting up a bogus offshore tax shelter (ie. a mailbox in the Camden Islands) as their corporate headquarters, we could fund our social programs without burdening regular working class people.
The Republicans have built their false "conservative" identity by claiming to champion ideals that a lot of Americans value. These values happen to be ones that most liberals shouldn't have any problem with. State's rights, fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, protectionism, and free speach are now ours for the taking.
The forgoten Republican mantra of state's rights alone is worth taking from them. The constitution was founded with the idea on respecting the rights of the states to self govern. After the civil rights act, the Republicans paid lip service to this premis in a thinly veiled attempt to appeal to Dixiecrats that opposed intergration. Not that the true constitutional premis of state's rights ever mattered to them. They just spun it like it's all the Democrats and their big goverment that you can't keep colored folk in their place. By playing this card they've fanned the flames of racial strife for over 40 years, just to keep themselves relevant. Unfortunatly for them, some people actually belive in states rights. They belive that for reasons that have nothing to do with desegrigation. America is a huge country that covers more land and people than all of Europe combined. What's relevent for the states of California, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada, Florida, Wyoming, Ohio, and Massachusetts may not always be the same thing. That premis is what kept the states together from day one. The Republicans have been playing this card forever. When push csme to shove though, they backed right the fuck up. Where was the Republican respect for states rights when they appealed Florida's recount in '00? What about having the DEA busting medical marijuanna providers in California? What about Alaska and Hawaii's resolutions against the Patriot Act? What about Bushes demands that Gov. Blanco relinquish soverign controll of Louisianna's national guard to him during Katrina? Even David Duke was pissed of at the Bushies over Katrina, especialy after Backwell paramilitary thugs were patroling the streets. If someone that far to the right is alienated, imagine how many less extreme voters are ready to jump ship. Not to mention that returning more power to the states will help out the more progressive states. By regulating to the states controll over social programs unpopular in red states, California and New York would keep their higher tax earnings for those programs they want instead of having that money diverted to states that don't value them.
These are just a few examples of long standing Republican platform issues ripe for the taking that don't conflict with our progressive agenda. If liberals could only realise that these libertarians are not Randroids (unlike the DLC), we'd be able to take our country back.