Welcome to Freedom Democrats

Tyler Cowen argues in the New York Times that money doesn't necessary buy the votes of members of Congress, but influences their access to ideas and information.

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on campaign spending also comes into clearer focus through the median voter theorem. The court ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. Critics fear that the political influence of corporations will grow, but some academic specialists in campaign finance aren’t so sure.

For all the anecdotal evidence, it’s hard to show statistically that money has a large and systematic influence on political outcomes. That is partly because politicians cannot stray too far from public opinion. (In part, it is also because interest groups get their way on many issues by supplying an understaffed Congress with ideas and intellectual resources, not by running ads or making donations.) It is quite possible that the court’s decision won’t affect election results very much.

In following up on Lessig's attempt to convince libertarians that public financing of elections would take the asymmetry of money out of politics and enable a more libertarian outcome, I realized that a lot of people, including Lessig, libertarians at Cato, and the group here at FreedomDemocrats, all agree on the big picture "why" of how politics gets captured by special interests. But there is disagreement on the "how" and that "how" is very important in coming up with prescriptions for change.

At its core, the problem is asymmetry among the classes and various special interest groups. There is a mutual understanding at this point about the combination of concentrated benefits and distributed costs. That's a foundational axiom that we all seem to be working from.

But how? Lessig argues that this incentive structure encourages the wealthy elite to hand out lots of money to lobbyists and campaigns. They buy the influence they need to get the policies they want. Take the money out and the system breaks down.

Cato and others argue that it isn't about asymmetry in money but asymmetry in information. The average voter doesn't understand what is going on about these backroom deals being cut. The Congressman and his staffer aren't being told the whole story by the lobbyists presenting the case for policy X or policy Y. And there's not really an incentive structure in place that rewards staffers or Congressmen who search for the truth.

But the more you lower the barriers to information through an open and transparent government, the more you bring public attention and outrage to these deals. New technology like the Internet is great for providing sunshine in these situations. And it creates a new medium to inform people that isn't dependent on the media elite that may also have an interest in misleading voters.

I think the asymmetry in information is the how, not Lessig's asymmetry in money. Congressional staffers are underpaid and overworked. They are heavily dependent on lobbyists for information. There is something of a prisoner's dilemma set up in which one single member of Congress bucking the special interests won't change anything, so why bother? The asymmetry in information would ensure that the people who want the concentrated benefits would know about the vote, but the wider public probably wouldn't care or even know. It's a no win situation.

But I don't know if the prescriptions from Cato are enough. What are your thoughts?

Apparently, there is some Kos poll floating around that is supposed to demonstrate the 'bat shit crazy' nature of republicans due to the level of support for secession. Of course, i would remind readers that during the Bush years, there was an equally high polling number along "the left" who likewise supported secession. But whereas secession support among the right is mere hot air, secessionist ideas among some on the left, conversely, remain strong, even with a Dem majority. Frankly,if secession were to happen, it would be from a "progressive blue State." Case in point, this week's Time Magazine article on the Vermont Secessionist movement. This is how they describe themselves:

"left-libertarian, anti-big government, anti-empire, antiwar, with small is beautiful as our guiding philosophy."

The movement estimates around 10-15% of the Vermont population supports secession from the United States. As I laid out in out in earlier post, liberty ultimately is exit, not voice. Even as the likes of John Buttrick warn that conservative expropriation of the libertarian movement threatens to destroy it(at the very least, the Libertarian party), and the Campaign for Liberty celebrates an endorsement from "Duty to the State First," warmonger Sarah Palin, libertarianism is still alive in the United States.

On this site we used to have a Congressional scorecard of members and their voting record. I've let that fall behind during the past few years. But with the ongoing attempts to rebrand the site I wanted to do something that tracked the legislative records of members of Congress. So here's my request, what are some votes you've heard about, read about, over the last year that stuck out as something you'd at least expect a libertarian-friendly Democrat to vote for or against? I'm not necessarily going to go through and find all of the libertarian-friendly votes in the 111th, but rather votes we'd expect to be an easy "ask" for a Democrat. Ask if that doesn't make sense. I'll also look through legislation we'd expect a libertarian-friendly Democrat to back. For example, I think that work to end the trade and travel ban on Cuba is an easy ask. Thoughts?

Here's a recent long television interview posted by Ch.13 in Rochester.. Even though Credico is often described as a "progressive activist," it's pretty clear from the interview that Credico's views are actually pretty libertarian on a range of issues, not just the "drug war."

I'm working at least one, but potentially multiple, posts that will become tabs at the top of the page discussing the "ideology" of Freedom Democrats, to the extent that it's possible to summarize our ideology. I see several components and I want to generate discussion on how much explaining is needed in each:

- Traditional Left-Libertarianism. I define "traditional" as the school of thought within libertarianism that differs from right-wing or "royalist" libertarians in their view of private property in natural resources. I come from a Georgist background and I still think that concern over the appropriation of the commons is a hallmark of this site. I also think it combines with a concern for egalitarianism, while right-wing libertarians are notorious for not only not caring about egalitarianism but going out of their way to attack it.

- Mutualism/Cooperative Anarchism. Essentially, the schools of anarchist thought that promote cooperative enterprises and solutions. This further defines the site in opposition to libertarian and anarchist schools of thought that believe any man, or woman, can be an island.

- Libertarian/Agorist Class Theory. I want to have some specific discussion of class theory since this site really has adopted it into our discussions.

Others?

Would it help if I posted this on the front page to attract attention? Please made comments on how to improve this. It will be linked at the top of the page.

A History of Freedom Democrats

On July 12, 2005, FreedomDemocrats.org was launched as an online community for "libertarian Democrats." Over the next five years, the blog has continued to be on the vanguard of discussions of libertarianism, liberalism, and Democratic Party politics. 2006 became the year of the libertarian Democrat with the blog participating in the lively discussions hosted at Cato Unbound in October before the fateful 2006 election returned Democrats to power in Congress. For the next two years, ongoing discussions about a fusion between libertarians and liberals, or liberaltarians, developed but they have stopped short with the new Obama administration and the backlash of Tea Party protesters against his agenda. Amid these angry anti-government and anti-Democratic protests, whither libertarian Democrats? To understand where we are going, it's helpful to understand where we come from.

Origins: Democratic Freedom Caucus

Despite the similarity in names, FreedomDemocrats.org is not affiliated with the Democratic Freedom Caucus but many of the founding members of the blog have been active in the organization. The DFC is a loose organization of Democratic activists promoting an agenda of personal liberty, economic liberty, limited government, and social responsibility. The group does not officially describe itself as libertarian, although some members do. Other terms used by members to describe their views include "classical liberal," "Freedom Democrat" or "Jeffersonian Democrat." Politically, the DFC defines itself by rejecting both the Republican and the Libertarian parties. FreedomDemocrats.org shares this commitment to the Democratic Party. While ties between the DFC and FreedomDemocrats.org were closer when the blog was first founded, the two groups have diverged and followed different pathways.

2004: Libertarians for Dean

During the Democratic primary leading up to the 2004 election, several activists who had met through the DFC came together for the creation of a "Libertarians for Dean" blog. During the course of the primary, the blog focused on Governor Howard Dean's support of both gay rights and gun rights, of both fiscal responsibility and international responsibility. From his opposition to the Iraq War to his A rating from the NRA as Governor of Vermont, Dean was a unifying figure for libertarian-leaning Democratic activists. Howard Dean's campaign for the White House not only acted as both a catalyst for the coming together of the progressive blogosphere, but also the formation of a more permanent website of libertarian-leaning Democrats in 2005: FreedomDemocrats.org.

2005: Paul Hackett

Following the nomination of John Kerry as the Democratic nominee and the reelection of George W. Bush, the Libertarians for Dean blog looked for a new focus. Although Howard Dean had been defeated, he brought into the Democratic Party a new group of activists ready and willing to work for change. This was not only true of a new cohort of progressive activists, but a growing number of activists who took a more libertarian approach to politics. During 2005, the blog community reestablished itself as FreedomDemocrats.org and began to look ahead to the 2006 election. 2005 was also the year of Paul Hackett, Democratic candidate for the special election in the Ohio 2nd. Described as a "libertarian Democrat," Hackett opposed the Patriot Act and called No Child Left Behind "Orwellian." Although he was defeated, his candidacy was a strong jolt to the movement of libertarian Democrats.

2006: The Year of the Libertarian Democrat

The Cato Institute's David Kirby and David Boaz argue that libertarian-leaning voters, voters who tend to display both socially liberal and fiscally conservative views, swung strongly against George W. Bush during his 2004 reelection. While Bush received 72% of the libertarian vote in 2000, his support dropped to 59% in 2004. Just two years later, libertarian-leaning voters again turned against the Republican Party and helped elect several new Democrats to Congress, including Jon Tester of Montana and Jim Webb of Virginia. 2006 became the year of the libertarian Democrat with several outlets, including Cato and DailyKos found Markos bringing attention to libertarian Democrats.

2007, 2008, and Beyond

As a community, we expected there to be problems in pushing forward the message of libertarian Democrats once Democrats returned to power in Congress. In the years since 2006, the Democratic Party has faced its own internal divisions over issues like the Iraq War and warrentless wiretapping. The primary fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama foreshadowed many of the issues that have fueled the Tea Party movement, such as disagreements over an individual mandate for health insurance. The Republican Party also naturally regrouped as it prepared to move beyond George W. Bush and find a new standard bearer. The Republican Party primary saw its own libertarian candidate emerge, Congressman Ron Paul, who energized libertarian-leaning voters on the right. According to the same study by the Cato Institute, libertarian-leaning voters swung back to their historic level of support for the Republican presidential nominee in 2008. But they note that younger libertarians tended to favor Obama, indicating a future for libertarians within the Democratic Party is still possible.

As FreedomDemocrats.org prepares for its next five years, the blog is focused on finding ways to bring these libertarian-leaning voters back to the Democratic Party by promoting a responsible agenda of freedom and liberty. As the name of the blog indicates, FreedomDemocrats.org is focused on the Democratic Party as the vehicle for political, partisan activity. While this blog is also host to lively discussions about activism and change outside of the political arena, the consensus of the community is that third parties such as the Libertarian Party are not viable in the current political system, nor are the Republicans in any position to break free from their socially conservative base in a way that would make them an appealing choice. We are Freedom Democrats.

Larry Lessig recently gave the above presentation on "Public Choice" at Cato that was attended by an array of both libertarian and liberal/progressive pundits. Lessig's intent, I gather, is to sell "libertarians" on public financing, an issue that has once again come to fore in the wake of the "Citizen's United" Supreme Court decision. The only point of disagreement I have with Lessig's lecture is the use of Ronald Reagan as a device to appeal to libertarians. Maybe that warmed the hearts of the Cato boys, I don't know. But it certainly allowed the likes of Yglesias to dismiss "public choice" as a mere right-wing phenomenon. However, "left-right lens" partisans like Yglesias have nothing substantial to contribute to conversation to begin with; he can now return to his regularly scheduled programming that the only thing wrong with government is that the wrong people are in charge,blah, blah, blah....

However, Lessig sees Public Choice as THE ISSUE with governance. No doubt; I've been harping on that point for the past year and half, predicting that "class theory" would become a dominating topic, and now it has become just that. However, Lessig's solution, which he views as radical, is a constitutional amendment to force public financing(there is no other alternative now). Now, I'm not going to rehash my littany of reasons why I disagree with public financing, since I've already done so here. But it is clear now, in the wake of the Court's decision, that liberals/progressives can't rely on legislatively slim majorities to pass a "campaign finance reform" package that would simply be DOA under a court review. It has to be a constitutional amendment at this point. This, of course, requires a much more broader coalition to achieve. So it is no surprise that Lessig is trying to open up a progressive-libertarian dialog. But for radical libertarians, the problem underlying Tullock Auctions is the monopoly,not campaign contributions. The DC political economy would simply adjust with respect to the latter. In the meantime you would be asking libertarians to cut their own throats. Many libertarian positions, particularly with respect to foreign policy, the police state, etc are not popular. There would be little public tolerance of public financing of libertarian candidates, or "leftist candidates" in general, articulating say, a Chomsky or Zinn position on foreign policy. If you want to view an example(and I would contend that this is not a biased sample, either) of how the Tea Partiers react when they encounter an authentic libertarian, watch this short video. The Tea partiers accused the libertarian of being an acorn sympathizer and called the cops on him. Sorry, public financing would result in libertarianism in the public dialog being a type of "establishment, nationalist libertarianism" along the lines of an Eric dondero. Any "radicals" who managed to get on the ballot would be dismissed as a hypocrite for "taking" public money(just as radical libertarians are dismissed as being hypocrites for drving on "public roads;" of course, there is no other option that is not criminalized). I'm not a particularly good chess player, and I'm certainly not capable of playing "11th dimensional chess,' but i can at least see two moves, ahead. And I'm not stupid...

Since I'm an absolutist on free speech, I would have to agree with the court on the Citizen's United case. If you you want to deal with the problem of corporate money, then deal with the underlying problem, namely the corporations. That is, abolish them as a legal fiction. Of course, that's not going to happen, in that the artificial rents of much of corporate law is what underwrites much of the DC political economy. At the very least, in contemplating this post advocating the return of Gordon Gekko, allowing the sharks back into the corporate waters, targeting those who who are exactly spending all that money on hunting trips with their favorite congressmen(noting that lobbying expenditures are often sunk costs), might not be such a bad idea.

I noticed an interesting nugget of information while going over David Kirby and David Boaz's study of the libertarian vote. In both 1992 and 1996, a significant portion of the libertarian vote was for third party candidates, which I assume was largely for Ross Perot. By the time 2004 and 2008 comes around, the level of support for third parties among libertarians is virtually nothing. But 2000 shows 8% of libertarian voters supported a third party candidate. Of the total election, third parties were barely at 1.53% in 2008 and only 1% in 2004. The story in 2000 was Ralph Nader's 2.73% compared to just over 1% for the rest of the third party field. So there was a spike in libertarian support for third parties right as Ralph Nader, not any sort of Libertarian Party candidate, saw a spike. Libertarians for Nader? What gives?

I have created the first of what will be several pages that will serve to explain the history, politics, and purpose of FreedomDemocrats.org to new visitors. Please read the page that outlines a history of the website and provide feedback here. Perhaps you'll enjoy the walk down memory lane.

And any ideas for additional issues that need pages covering them?