Libertarian-minded people and less-libertarian-minded people here often discuss the feasibility of more libertarianism within the Democratic Party to attract and keep more libertarian people voting Democratic.
Some say it will work, some say it won't and with plenty of reasons as to why.
The problems with these discussions are multiple and most of them are with liberal Democrats because they're making the task bigger than it needs to be and hence, making seem undoable when it really isn't. Very few people are pure in their beliefs. And this needs to be taken into account.
Firstly, many liberals misread who these "libertarians" are. Far too many instantly think of Randians, hardcore LP activists and a host of other extreme examples with the general libertarian realm. What all libertarians (of all levels of intensity) have in common is a very general point of view that undistilled to its most raw and all-inclusive level would go something like this:
The government can and should reduce, eliminate or alter its role in many functions because the net results for society would be better that way.
There is really no honest argument against this. The problem comes in agreeing where this is applicable.
Secondly many liberals interpret this whole libertarian notion as an "all or nothing" deal. Wrong. Sticking to pragmatic economic issues (which is where the real work here needs to be done), this simply means building a message around a few important issues that matter to libertarians and following thru and doing it well.
Making time to include where the government can get out of way or reduce its role eonomically and acting on it can pay HUGE dividends. This works well with market-distorting subsidies, petty and anti-competitive regulations and corrupt tax codes. This means siding with common people, employer and employee alike, and not special interests and saying so.
Taking corporations off the target list for simply big and rich and instead focusing on laws and regulations and all government involvement and avenues that give them unfair power is also better a approach both policy-wise and in terms of how it's read by the business community. No special priviledge is a better message than control thru a myriad laws.
Appreciating unintended consquences and collateral damage and taking them into account is very important. Advertised benefits of policy should be taken with a grain of salt. The details of laws and how that advertised end will be achieved in equally as important.
NCLB is a perfect example of how more government involvement worsens the situation on the ground. The advertised goal sounds great but the methods to achieve that goal are flawed and are failing. This general premise can and should be applied to many things besides education and honest rethinking should take place.
Sometimes more really is less.