Markos Doing The Heavy Lifting

So Daily Kos blogger Markos Zúniga came out and called himself a Libertarian Democrat today. This is not new, back in 2003 he made similar statements on the need for the Democratic Party to focus on being the Party of personal liberty and reach out to libertarians. I strongly admire Kos for his intent, but I can't help but express a concern. And at the same time some appreciation.

You'll notice that the blog's name is Freedom Democrats. And I am a member of the Democratic Freedom Caucus. I throw around the term 'libertarian' a lot, but the DFC itself tries to avoid the term. Why? Libertarianism has been stereotyped by the left as being nothing more than the Church of Ayn Rand, just as the right-wing media has spun the Democratic Party as a bunch of Marxists.

When Markos pointed out that the Democratic Party does have a branding problem in that many people assume that all Democrats believe that government is the solution to everything, he was criticized for spreading an evil Republican meme. Yet that didn't stop others from repeating an equally false meme about libertarians, that we're all self-ish capitalist pigs that love Atlas Shrugged. I myself strongly dislike Ayn Rand and one of the oddest debates I've ever had was with a fellow Democrat who both loved Ayn Rand and also had the nerve to say that because I was a libertarian I wasn't a true Democrat . . . anyway.

If Markos is writing a book about "Libertarian Democrats" I'll appreciate him doing the heavy lifting of building a positive brand for libertarianism within the Democratic Party. At the very least, I hope that it will reduce the knee-jerk reaction that "libertarianism" produces among Democratic Party activists. But I'm also concerned . . .

Libertarian Dems are not hostile to government like traditional libertarians. . . . A Libertarian Dem believes that true liberty requires freedom of movement -- we need roads and public transportation to give people freedom to travel wherever they might want. A Libertarian Dem believes that we should have the freedom to enjoy the outdoor without getting poisoned; that corporate polluters infringe on our rights and should be checked. A Libertarian Dem believes that people should have the freedom to make a living without being unduly exploited by employers. A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives, so strong crime and poverty prevention programs can create a safe environment for the pursuit of happiness. A Libertarian Dem gets that no one is truly free if they fear for their health, so social net programs are important to allow individuals to continue to live happily into their old age. Same with health care. And so on.

Most of the negative reaction from liberal Democrats on the site was little more than "Eww, Libertarians have cooties!" I am not that concerned about Markos causing problems for how Democrats view libertarianism, I think his clout will help us. But I am concerned that by spinning his own definition of what it means to be a Libertarian Democrat, he's going to make libertarian voters very suspicious of working with the Democratic Party. Just check out the reaction among some Reason-oids.

I will also agree with Robot.Economist's criticism of the "Libertarian Democrats" Markos highlighted. I strongly agree with the conclusion that the West, especially the Mountain West, shows the future pathway for the Democratic Party. But instead of Brian Schweitzer and Jon Tester, why not bring up Bill Richardson, Tony Knowles (Who Markos endorsed in 2004) or Pete Ashdown (Admittedly a long-shot candidate). Or Senators Wyden, Bingaman, or Feingold (non-Western, but certainly a fan of the DailyKos crowd)? And if Markos really cares about "Libertarian Democrats" why hasn't he brought any attention to Frank Gonzalez?

Here's the situation, assuming Markos moves forward with pushing the "Libertarian Democrat" narrative. Our 'left flank' is covered by his effort; he will be a great aid in reducing the knee jerk reaction we've been fighting. But our 'right flank' is vulnerable if we let him define the issues that make up a "Libertarian Democrat." I feel like a true "Libertarian Democrat" would be skeptical of government and would also realize that the main way to protect people from corporations is for government to stop arming big business. I quoted from Joel Salatin's "Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal" and how regulations can stick it to the little guy, but I didn't get a single reply.

I want to hear your thoughts now. Many of you made several posts over at DailyKos. What's your view of the situation?

Update: Wow, 786 comments and two spin off diaries (Here and Here).

I wanted to make an observation. Check out my recent post about the incompetence of the DLC and my observation about the two major camps in the Democratic Party that are uniting by their opposition to the DLC. I think I can summarize the two main camps that reacted to the diary.

Camp A- The social liberals, the people who are Democrats because of the social issues and their ethnic/cultural/religious background. Since the blogosphere tends to be more white and affluent than the population as a whole, I'm going to best that most of these people have a secular bent and are strong civil libertarians. Their opposition to the DLC comes over issues like the war. These people responded strongly to this statement:

"A Libertarian Dem rejects government efforts to intrude in our bedrooms and churches. A Libertarian Dem rejects government "Big Brother" efforts, such as the NSA spying of tens of millions of Americans. A Libertarian Dem rejects efforts to strip away rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights -- from the First Amendment to the 10th. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms."

Camp B- The economic populists. They can be summed up by the people who believe that the pathway for victory is "econonomic populism and cultural moderation." Their opposition to the DLC stems from historical differences; the DLC grew out of unhappiness with the failures of old school Democrats like Mondale. They are the real opponents to us and Markos may well have some significant problems in keeping the loyalty of their audiance in the future. Because they are worried by the implications of this statement:

Of course, this also means that government isn't always the solution to the nation's problems. There are times when business-government partnerships can be extremely effective (such as job retraining efforts for displaced workers). There are times when government really should butt out (like a great deal of small-business regulation). Our first proposed solution to a problem facing our nation shouldn't be more regulation, more government programs, more bureaucracy.

Thoughts?

Update Two: Third spin-off diary here. And check out some libertarian reaction at Hammer of Truth and the view from below. In short, no one believes that Markos has any claim to being a libertarian anything.

Kos's heart is in the right place, and that matters a great deal. I can see points of disagreemnt, but the point is not to get caught up in that. Hell, we don't all agree here at FD, but we agree about the importance of re-orienting the Democratic party towards the principles of freedom and liberty. Kos is entirely right that this is moving our framing in the right direction. I'm excited.

I am very excited by the fact that Kos even had the balls to touch the term libertarian. For years I've had to deal with a lot of criticism from fellow Democrats for even touching the term.

In the long run, I think this is good.

Only Nixon can go to China, right?

The book will really be something interesting to look forward to.

I don't trust kos's politics enough to give him the benefit of the doubt this time. I am afraid that redirecting the cult of kos at the notion of "libertarian Democrats" be less of a Yalta conference or a "Nixon to China" scenario (i.e. bridge building) and more of an attempt to hijack the notion for his own ends. I think the potential for scaring libertarians away from the Democratic party (again) is something that he should seriously consider before he consecrates a new guru image.

I also resent the fact that many lib Dems on that site (and those poor souls on myDD) have taken a lot of heat for their views, yet kos remained complete silent on the issue.

I just have this sneaking feeling that kos's book will end up looking like Nietzsche's self-indulgent "Thus Spoke Zarathustra."

I understand that Markos comes from a somewhat more moderate background than most liberal bloggers. He certainly doesn't come from the "More taxes, more regulation, and more spending is the solution" wing of the party. I can appreciate that, at the least. While his feet are firmly in social liberalism, I'm not sure what made him even think of using the word "libertarian" to describe himself. A lot of people think he should have used "Populist Democrat" but I think he's smart enough to realize that populism doesn't work, that's something I think he and Howard Dean both share. I'm just not sure why he picked "libertarian."

I think it's pointless to label people as being in camp A or camp B-- instead, we should focus on the direction that we want our country to move. If we are all willing to follow the same path, it doesn't matter where we plan on going when (and if) after we've traveled as far as we can together.

With that expressed, I think that everyone should read The Conservative Nanny State (thanks for the recommendation Logan!). This is an awesome book, and provides a framework for a coherent, informed left-libertarian economic movement.

p.s. Ayn Rand is a mediocre thinker and a mediocre writer.

I bring in the camps just to try to explain their reactions. I don't think we can pigeon hole everyone, but I do think it's interesting to note the different reactions and try to understand where they are coming from.

what a mess. I think did more harm than good. But I'm glad he did it anyway. Maybe someone could secretly get markos over here under some different name we could talk to that lad.

I don't want him writing some book when he has a lot to learn about what he's talking about.

and changing my hardline views of being an independent libertarian. One of my favorite Senators is Barry Goldwater and his book "Conscience of a Conservative" got me interested more in politics and coincided with my existing beliefs. Anyhow, I despise the me too Repubicans and their big government and socially intolerant ways. If this was the era of Taft and Goldwater things would be different. I used to claim I was a Jeffersonian Republican, but now I much prefer Jeffersonian Democrat. Bush and the neo-con christian right has made me do the unthinkable and switch sides.

With that in mind, I am no longer uncompromising and strive for only a pure ibertarian state. It is not going to happen and instead of wasting time on the me too Republicans or the fringe libertarians, I see a possibility with the Democrats. I had always despised the Democratic party for their big spending, big government, and anti-states rights ways.

However, I came across this site from following Kos daily and learned about the DFC. Kos may be against a lot of my beliefs, but the mention of government might not always be the solution and talk of liberty has got me interested. Sure there is still too much big government talk on a lot of his posts, but he has a step in the right direction. These new grassroots Dems provide a much better option than the Bush cronies on the other side.

you should post a diary here tomorrow morning to alert us and give us a heads up andf then go post it at Daily kos and tell your story and share your thoughts. we'll be there to help with newly emerging kossacks ditto-heads.

he has used the term before, when he first took the political compass test and shared his score. yes, it's sad that i remember that, but anyway, i think he used the term to "upset the applecart". it worked, but surprisingly there were tons of commenters agreeing that they too were "libertarian democrats". i would say there were more of them, than those railing against the term. the word has some sizzle. though i think he basically meant "populist".

for the most part, when democrats are criticizing libs, they are not refering to people who read murray rothbard, they are refering to people who complain about taxes (but not spending), and regulation almost to the exlusion of anything else, though often supporting the war in iraq, and the "law and order" state, all the while voting republican but hiding behind the libertarian label. you know these people, they listen to neil boortz. i'm not sure why this is so shocking to libertarians, because this is often the most high profile public face of libertarianism.

I realize that Boortz might be the stereotype that some people associate with libertarianism, but I honestly thought that among some politically active people the might know something about the LP instead of depending on a shock jock.

About libertarian Democrats? God help us all.

This to me is simply a combination of both growing misconceptions about what libertarianism is, and a manifestation of discontent with the political mainstream. I've been noticing a growth in this ever since Bill Maher started calling himself a libertarian (which he manifestly is not). A poster at Hit & Run aptly described this sort of libertarianism as this year's 'trucker hat'.

Discontent with the Democrats doesn't make one a libertarian. Neither does being a corporatist who believes the government has no right to put Ken Lay in prison. But being a libertarian isn't about being for pot and pornography and gun rights. Sure, you get to have those things. But the reason has nothing to do with the merits of gun ownership or drug legalization, but a more fundamental determination about what the role of government in the lives of free citizens should be.

I'm all for a working relationship between libertarians and Democrats, not least of which because I think that is the best chance either group has of actually getting anything done. But the means to build that relationship has to be based in both of us being able to speak to each other honestly about what we believe in. Markos has managed to appropriate the worst instinct of the Democratic party - he wants to get our support and is being condescending to us and our interests in order to get it. That's worked great for the party so far, hasn't it?

hey logan. finally decided to take you up on the invite to come by here.

one thing i think is worth discussing about your post is your statement that the populists are our opponents. i think i see where you're coming from, but maybe your definition of "populist" is different from mine.

i see populist-elitist as being yet another axis of the political idea-space. so while you can have authoritarian populists like the fascists, who start out promising all kinds of good things to the working folk, and strengthening unions (until they have the guy who owns the factory take over the union, that is), there's no reason you couldn't have libertarian populists.

it's a question of how you get that chicken in every pot. do you send in the national guard in to raid the chicken farms and distribute the poultry to hungry families? or do you find a way to organize your society such that chickens are easily affordable to all?

or you could say it's a question of what kind of society you want to create in the end. one that is naturally egalitarian, or one where the wealth gravitates toward itself?

so i see left-libertarian-populist as being a natural combination, not an opposite. but if you're talking about LBJ great society types, i guess i can see them being difficult.

l'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers

I tend to support policies that some people call "populist" and I've been known to support "populist" candidates. But as you say, "populist" can mean many different things.

Want of my problems with "populists" in general is a use of class warfare in their rhetoric and policies. My main problem with this is that I just don't see it as a winning strategy for the Democrats. That's not to say that I'm not for standing up for the little guy. Just that there's a right way and a wrong way to go about this.

I had a similar thought. I was thinking of the reasons that people believe in "small government" rather than just having a collection of policy preferences that happen to all point towards small government.

Basically, I think people come to the "small government" movement because they think the state has a tendency to get bigger regardless of whether it is in the general interest to do so. There are various plausible mechanisms for this, so there are likewise various motivations for joining the small government movement. Among them are:

Elitist: The less productive half of society will naturally form an electoral majority for the purpose of stealing from the more productive half.

Populist: The rich and powerful will dominate the government and use it to reinforce their power and steal from the rest of us.

With this framework, I think lib-Dems tend towards the populist camp.

For what it's worth, I can also think of a couple of institutional tendencies towards big government:

Institutional competition: Every person/institution seeks to expand its own power. Since the state is the most powerful institution in society, it will tend to win any competition for power with other institutions. Without a self-conscious resistence to this tendency, a society will tend towards totalitarianism.

I forget the other...

You've got some good points about elitist vs populist. This, I think, gets back to the whole right vs. left debate. The right is defined by its support of the concentration of power in the hands of the elites of society. The left favors decentralization of power in the hands of the people. The big split on the left is between government as a primary means of doing this or not. I think the libertarian/anarchist left needs to realize we're stuck with government, while the socialist/statist left needs to realize that government isn't the only tool.

I just don't see it as a winning strategy for the Democrats.

just out of curiosity on this note, what did you think of edwards' "two americas" rhetoric? would you categorize that as a form of class warfare, possibly soft warfare? and how effective do you think it was as a message?

l'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers

Edwards was my number two pick after Dean in 2004. I didn't like Lieberman or Gephardt, and I didn't think Clark had the experience. I was narrowed down to three options and Dean was a great candidate on the issues. Kerry was, well, blah. Edwards was better than most of the pack, but I find that his emphasis on the "Two Americas" fails to think about where the majority of Americans think they are and where they are going. Dean is right, people tend to overestimate how wealthy they are compared to everyone else. And everyone wants to be rich, and a surprising amount of people have high expectations of being better off in the future. That cuts into class warfare.

I think psycholink's thought are wotrthy of a diary in how he breaks down the views of tackling diffeent problems. very illustrative.

I'll be gone starting tomorrow for the weekend, won't be back until Monday. You guys are on your own!

Welcome to Freedom Democrats

Search this site:

Markos Doing The Heavy Lifting

It's all about the big picture

Deep Down, I am Too

Why Kos can use the L-word...

Indeed

Breaking the deadlock or just a hijacking?

Why Libertarian?

forget labels, read the Conservative Nanny State

Camps . . .

Back from the trenches

New to the fold

welcome

he has used the term before,

Boortz

He's writing a book?

re: populist

Economic Populists

we are the populist libertarians

Means . . .

class warfare

Edwards

So who's up tomorrow?? LOL.

Weekend . . .

User login

Navigation

Syndicate

Endorsements

Democrats for B.J. Lawson

Links

Recent blog posts

Recent comments