(This will be cross-posted on my blog, Wantsomewood.blogspot.com.)
Last week, Kos proposed a political alliance with libertarians, made possible by changing Democratic positions and rhetoric to accommodate libertarian views. A Cato Institute hack responded with a blog posting that, for some reason, was all the rage here at DailyKos, even though it did little to actually respond to Kos's suggestion (Kos wanted libertarians and liberals to find some middle to meet in, while the Cato writer essentially demanded that liberals give up liberalism in exchange for some political support). I rightly criticized Cato for this, and for their long history of illiberal ideas, and was told that I was attacking a "straw man."
I wrote this diary to prove that I am not attacking any "straw men." The Cato Institute has been an enemy of liberalism since the day it was founded. To prove it, one need only look at their own words, which are, of course, easily accessed on their web site.
First of all, here's the Cato Institute advocating auctioning off all public lands within 20 to 40 years (those are the exact words on their web site). Yes, these people want to sell off Yellowstone National Park-not exactly a mainstream opinion that will attract lots and lots of new voters.
http://www.cato.org/...
While they're at it, they wish Disney would own the Grand Canyon.
http://www.cato.org/...
Not content to be anti-National Park, they're also anti-smart growth and pro-sprawl (I guess they've never been stuck in a traffic jam in their whole lives).
http://www.cato.org/...
It's well-known that they support social security "reform" (one of many areas in which they agree with President Bush).
http://www.socialsecurity.org/...
And as with President Bush, their interest in "reform" is just an excuse for privatization.
http://www.socialsecurity.org/...
http://www.socialsecurity.org/...
They're not big fans of the International Criminal Court, either (and note that "American sovereignty" is part of their concern):
http://www.cato.org/...
And, of course, they support school "choice" and repeat right-wing lies about teachers and teachers' unions.
http://www.cato.org/...
http://www.cato.org/...
Note the preposterous comparison of teachers' unions with old-style robber baron corporations in this report.
http://www.cato.org/...
They don't like Howard Dean much, either (there's also a ridiculous slap at Joe Conason in the first article linked here).
http://www.cato.org/...
http://www.cato.org/...
Think libertarians want universal health care? If they do, they're certainly not enthusiastic about Massachusetts' recent attempt to provide it (and, as always, they insist that the "market" will somehow bring it about, as long as the evil government gets out of the way):
http://www.cato.org/...
While I suppose libertarians are probably pro-gay-rights for the most part (although they certainly aren't universally pro-gay), they aren't wild about the kinds of civil rights laws that are necessary to protect minority rights in this country, including those of gays (in the real world that libertarians often seem not to inhabit, discrimination doesn't magically disappear when attitudes about race, gender, or sexual orientation change). It's downright chilling to read this approving review of a book that seems to advocate doing away with much civil rights legislation.
http://www.cato.org/...
On taxes, they support replacing our progressive tax system with thoroughly regressive consumption taxes, or worse, a flat tax.
http://www.cato.org/...
Of course, they oppose the estate tax, and I have to wonder in what bizarre alternative universe the estate tax "falls disproportionately on women, minorities, and owners of small businesses." Also, note how easily they slip into using the right-wing vocabulary ("death tax") to describe it.
http://www.cato.org/...
While they're at it, naturally, they propose a capital gains tax cut.
http://www.cato.org/...
Remember last year, when we were fighting to prevent the "nuclear option" and preserve the filibuster? You guessed it-Cato was on the other side of that fight.
http://www.cato.org/...
Of course, they oppose the minimum wage (and note how the author tries to have it both ways in the first linked article by arguing that minimum wage laws are ineffective because they don't apply to small businesses, making it hard for me to believe Cato crying crybaby tears in other contexts about how small businesses are stifled by government regulation).
http://www.cato.org/...
http://www.cato.org/...
On the energy front, Cato's wonks are quick to dismiss both the potential of alternative energy and liberals' interest in it.
http://www.cato.org/...
While it is true that Cato opposes impositions on civil liberties of the sort that Bush has done repeatedly (the one thing I will give them credit for, although anyone who thinks you have to be a libertarian to support civil liberties is wrong), it's interesting that they criticize Bush far more for overspending and (horror of horrors!) expanding the size of the federal government. In other words, they criticize Bush not for being too conservative, but for not being conservative enough.
http://www.cato.org/...
And if you think that Cato is consistent about criticizing Bush, think again.
http://www.cato.org/...
These are not long-lost political brothers of mine. Furthermore, this is not attacking a "straw man"; every link above is from the Cato web site, or a web site to which they link directly. Of course, there's also the issue of the corporate money that makes Cato possible, but I can't include everything in one diary.
We rightly take Democratic congresspeople to task when they vote against us on even one of these issues. Why, then, would we move to ally ourselves with a think tank and a philosophy that is bad on all of them?