Last week the Republican establishment wanted to change some rules to make it harder for grassroots candidates like Ron Paul to gain traction in future campaigns. The power grab was stark enough to anger delegates who weren’t even Paul supporters, and the “Nays” drowned the “Ayes” on the voice vote. Nevertheless, the chair ruled “The Ayes have it” without doing an official count.
The Democratic establishment played the same game last night. Earlier this week the party had voted to remove references to God and Jerusalem from their party platform. I’m not sure whether it was the conservative heckling or the threat of losing rich Jewish donors, but the establishment realized it was a dumb move that risked alienating independent voters, so they tried to put it back in. Unfortunately, they had to break their own rules to reverse course. The chair ruled “The Ayes have it,” clearly without a two-thirds majority, resulting in Booing (about the power grab, not about God).
Reason has the relevant video clips. Both parties claim to desire the will of the people but are more than willing to subvert that when it threatens their grip on power. For all we know, this sort of arbitrary voice counting happens all the time in these parties, preserving the illusion of democracy while the leaders really call the shots (I’ve even personally experienced a fraudulent “The Ayes have it” at a local caucus). It just reinforces the notion that the establishment of both parties are corrupt, caring more about preserving their power, whether it’s closing the doors on candidates they don’t like or overriding platform decisions. If the party leaders don’t care about their own delegates’ voices, what makes you think they care any more about yours?
OK, but you already knew that. Maybe you’re already planning to vote for the “least bad” of these two options even though you don’t really like either of them; giving you more reasons to dislike both isn’t going to change that strategy. One of these parties is still going to win the Presidency.
Well, I submit that there is more to politics than winning the Presidency. Look at all the attention these conventions are getting. Hours of coverage on TV and radio that is worth millions in free advertising, on top of the millions in taxpayer funding that the parties somehow qualify for. One party will “lose” the electoral vote in November, but both parties are winning the long-term struggle that keeps them both sharing power. Rising political stars give speeches and enhance their name recognition. The crossfire of rhetorical attacks cements the notion that these are our only two options, exaggerating the differences between the two parties even as the new Democratic platform on civil liberties quietly sheds its opposition to the Bush-era tactics that Obama has since embraced.
Did you know that the Libertarian Party already had their national convention? Hardly anyone noticed. If the Libertarian party started getting 2% or 5% or 10% of the vote, maybe they would start getting more attention. To use econospeak, it’s all about signalling. The more support they get, the more legitimacy they appear to have, igniting an upward cycle that could overcome the downward cycle that keeps them out of the 99%. Just getting the Libertarian candidate in the presidential debates would do wonders for our national political discussion, even if you don’t agree with the party on everything (and I don’t) and even if they never win an election. But that will never happen as long as the party is always considered a “wasted vote.”
Besides, Gary Johnson is the strongest candidate the party has had in years, if not ever. Far from an extreme anarchist freak who’s never been in charge of anything, Johnson was a successful governor of New Mexico for eight years. He’s a practical, reasonable politician who also happens to run marathons and climb Mount Everest and Mount Kilimanjaro in his spare time.
I’m hoping that the more votes Johnson gets this cycle, the more attention the Libertarian Party will get for the next cycle. Maybe nothing will change unless we get somehow get some proportional representation. Maybe I’m being naive and just throwing my vote away. But I’d rather do that than throw my vote at a corrupted establishment.
What’s that quote… “It’s not the people who vote that count, but the people who count the votes.” In this age of information technology, there’s simply no excuse for such huge national organizations to be relying on voice votes on anything that actually matters.
Voting for Johnson is easier in a state like Washington. Our electoral votes are going to Obama, period, no matter what I do. So I might as well vote my conscience (which may or may not be Johnson, but is more likely Johnson than Romney). In a state like Missouri, or my old home of Ohio, there are strategic considerations that we here in Washington don’t have to bother with.
Absolutely. I completely agree with your second paragraph. It is really frustrating to be see the limited choices available to a voter in this country. You can vote for someone who most closely represents your views, but that may mean “wasting” your vote.
There was a movement back in 2000 to get Democratic voters to “swap” votes with Green voters in other states. In other words, ask voters in Florida to vote for a Democrat. In exchange, a voter, in, say Massachusetts, will vote Green. Obviously, it didn’t work. Of course, we all know what happened. Florida became the key state, and the quote in your first paragraph became the deciding point in history (I sure would like to count those votes myself).
But I digress. Our system is messed up. As the author pointed out — you know that. But that leads me to another point, and one that I should probably make in a different forum, but here I am (having landed here by chance). My question is this. By and large, Libertarians have hitched their star to the Republicans. Why?
The obvious answer is, because they are the lesser of two evils (which is why Greens often vote Democratic). But can we be so sure?
There is no doubt that many Republicans want to shrink government. Men like Ron Paul, of course, are essentially libertarians running as Republicans. I get that.
But by and large, the more libertarian actions that have occurred in the last few years have come from the left, not the right. Meanwhile, many Republicans are working really hard to curtail rights that are simply taken for granted in other countries.
When I first read your comment, I (naively) assumed when you said “Washington” you meant “Washington State”, which is where I’m from. In Washington State, we are the verge (if polls are to be believed) of legalizing marijuana. Think about that. Hundreds of thousands go to jail each year for smoking, possessing or growing marijuana or even having a boyfriend that happens to do any of the three. Yet, slowly but surely, we are trying to change that.
I realize that regulation can be onerous, and taxes can be too high. But it is hard to imagine that those things constitute a greater threat to liberty than arresting people (or friends of people) for simply possessing a substance that medical professionals consider to be less damaging than alcohol or tobacco. We are not talking a handful of arrests, mind you, but nearly a million a year.
Similarly, the case of Florence vs Board of Freeholders should give any libertarian pause. Essentially, in a split decision, the court said that the police can arrest you, strip search you, then throw you in jail based on a warrant (that in this case, was incorrect). It was the conservative justices that upheld the law, not the liberals. In other words, it stands to reason that we should elect Democrats, not Republicans, if we want to have judges that are more libertarian.
This is clear within the Republican party platform, and the stated actions of many of its members. They want to roll back Roe vs. Wade. This could be a threat to the liberty of thousands of women throughout the country. Furthermore, it is likely that a judge that is willing to roll back Roe vs. Wade will also feel the same way about other libertarian cases (like Florence).
As a moderate Democrat/Green/Libertarian (how’s that for a combination) I hope that we can make progress on these issues, even if we don’t realize our own political dream. I hope that those who get really fired up about bad regulations can work with Democrats and Republicans to change or eliminate the regulations, instead of just using them as political hay. This might seem unrealistic, given the current climate, but I personally know that Democrats would be thrilled to simplify the laws regarding brewpubs (remember, it was a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who legalized home brewing). I hope that people can come together and legalize drugs (starting with marijuana) and legalize prostitution more widely.
Sorry if this isn’t the best place for such a long comment, but I am sincerely interested in your thoughts.
Thank you for your thoughts. The question of why libertarians align closer to Republicans than Democrats is an interesting one. It’s one I have thought about before, and I may devote a longer post to it at some point. Overall, I think libertarians are closer to Republicans than Democrats; we have even seen Republicans become presidential candidates of the Libertarian Party (Paul in ’88, Johnson in ’12) but never Democrats (to my knowledge). It is true that the liberal base tends to be more pro-freedom on drugs, but the Democrat establishment seems to still be as against it as the Republican establishment, and the conservative base seems to be becoming more pro-freedom about it as time goes by. Furthermore, Democrats around the country seem to be more obsessed with restricting many other similar freedoms related to consuming things that may harm you, like soda and junk food and the like. So, yes, liberals tend to be more pro-freedom on this one issue (which is a big one for libertarians), but 1) the Democratic party is not really better on it than the Republican party, 2) the Democratic party is much worse on other related things, and 3) there is a chance that the Republican party will become more open to it in the future.
Similarly on civil liberties, you are correct that Republicans have been very bad on it, including the case decided by the conservative judge you mentioned. But, again, as we have seen with four years of Obama, the Democratic party in general seems to be little better – although there are certainly exceptions, such as Oregon’s Wyden, just as there are Republican exceptions such as Rand Paul.
So in summary, you raise some good points and I will think about them some more, but I think I disagree that “the more libertarian actions that have occurred in the last few years have come from the left, not the right,” because I think I could find plenty of non-libertarian actions from the left as well, or at least enough to make it uncertain. Thanks again for your thoughtful comment.
Thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate it.
I think there is a disconnect between the Democratic party establishment and the party members. This was evident last week when the party establishment changed the platform. This is nothing new. Obama and most Democratic party officials are too timid to make the changes that most of them want to see. This was surely the case with gay marriage. As a Senatorial candidate, he supported it. Then he didn’t. Then he evolved to support it again. Who knows what really happened, but my guess is that he always supported it, but was too much of a political coward to say so until Biden put him in a box.
My hope is that Obama, like many Democratic officials, will evolve on other issues as well. I read your previous blog (218 reasons not to vote for Obama) and agree with almost all of the points. So do many liberals. Basically, we will vote for Obama (for other reasons) but hope he will change on those issues.
The folks that support gay rights had to hope that Obama would change his mind on various issues (as Dan Savage said “Evolve Faster!”). Now, only a short while later, they have seen the change they wanted.
I realize that I didn’t do a very good job with the sentence you quoted. I should have said that I believe that progress on liberty is most likely to come from the left, not the right. Both sides have folks that want to change things, but the ones coming from the left are most likely to happen (or have happened). The right might be able, if elected, to shrink government a bit. Maybe they will be able to shrink some regulations. But Republicans have controlled various chambers of government quite a bit in the last twenty years (sometimes at the same time) and have done little of this. I think it is far more likely that they will shrink government, but not regulations. This creates the worse of both worlds; forcing a handful of overworked bureaucrats to wade through silly, outdated regulations (I know a brewpub operator who had to wait several months for federal approval — practically killing his small business).
I agree that liberals and Democrats have proposed various crazy, often silly limits on personal liberty. But I think the changes that have come from the left (or are likely to come from the left) more than make up for it. The fact that my brother can marry a man that he loves more than makes up for the fact that I have to buy two sodas instead of one big one. The fact that my sister can get an abortion by a certified doctor in this country more than makes up for the fact that I have to pay an extra nickel for a bag in the grocery store. In ten years, when I can smoke a joint in my own home without being afraid of cops busting down my door makes up for just about left wing proposal I’ve ever heard of.
Finally, just as there is a disconnect between the Democratic rank and file and the establishment, there is surely a big difference between the Democrats and the left. This is probably most evident when watching cable T. V. The right is well represented by Fox News. Maybe that’s not fair — maybe the right is misrepresented by Fox News, but that is the main voice for the right that I see on TV. On the important question of security versus liberty, I think Fox has made it clear that they value security more.
On the other hand, the left is well represented by Comedy Central. Jon Stewart spent a huge amount of time and energy pointing out how ridiculous the “large soda” ban was. He has also championed cannabis legalization, gay rights, as well as abortion rights. His attacks on security proposals (first by Bush, then by Obama) have come often and strong. More to the point, he has taken the TV networks to task for not reporting these threats to liberty. I guess my point is that Jon Stewart is probably more of a libertarian than just about any public figure I know, other than members of the Libertarian party or Ron Paul. Unlike the other people, I think most of what he supports is more likely to become reality.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. I think there is a disconnect with the Republican party as well; a lot of the younger generation seems to be more libertarian as far as personal liberties and national security. I definitely agree with you that Republicans have only expanded government when in power, and that some of their plans for shrinkage would lead to a “worst of both.” Libertarians definitely disagree most with Republicans on defense and military interventions, yet for whatever reason there still seems to be room for less hawkish members within the party; maybe they are hoping for change on these and civil liberty issues just as people like you hope for change in the Democratic party.
As an aside – since you mentioned it twice – abortion is not a uniform issue for libertarians; some believe the fetus is not a human, and therefore the woman can exercise her liberties however she chooses, others (like myself) believe the fetus is a human, and therefore that human’s liberties overrule the woman’s liberty to abort it. This may partially explain why pro-life libertarians like Paul align more closely with Republicans than Democrats. From your perspective, abortion may “cancel out” bans on plastic bags; from my perspective, they are both an assault on liberty, and it’s a somewhat horrendous comparison.
But even without considering abortion, for whatever reason there have been members in the Republican party lately who have not only shared libertarian ideals for taxation and regulation but also regarding civil liberties – Paul, Johnson, even Justin Amash and Rand Paul; there actually seem to be more and more of them. However, while there may be members in the Democratic party who share libertarian ideals on civil liberties, I’m not aware of any (though I could be wrong) who also share the taxation and regulation side of it. Maybe that has something to do with it. Of course, there are also plenty of libertarians who don’t really like either major party at all.
It is interesting that you mention new Republicans and their more progressive stand on civil liberties. Amongst the urban liberals, something similar is going. Urban environmentalists (usually the biggest fans of regulation) are pushing more and more to free up the developers in the city. They rightly acknowledge that zoning laws intended to preserve the status quo in a city hurt renters and the environment. If you can’t build affordable, dense housing in the city, then people will move to the suburbs. Public transportation becomes more costly and difficult. If you decide at some point to write an article about libertarian ideas coming from the left, you might add that one as well.
Very good point about abortion. That is why, unlike gay rights, it is an issue that will be with us for many years to come.
I also conveniently ignored gun rights. There is no question that Democrats, generally speaking, want more restrictions on guns. To be fair, liberals are not nearly as restrictive as the stereotype suggests. The takeaway from the movie “Bowling for Columbine” (by the very liberal Micheal Moore) was that guns are here to stay. Restricting access is not the answer, but creating a more civil society is. In other words, guns don’t kill people, but people who are paranoid about their neighbors kill people.
I agree with your last paragraph. I can’t think of any Democrat who is opposed to a high tax rate (myself included). Of course they want it low in the abstract (doesn’t everyone?) but when push comes to shove, they would rather have the higher rate if it pays for the services they feel are worthwhile. Many liberals also see taxes as a more libertarian way to solve problems. Cap and Trade is a ridiculous mess (hundreds of pages of regulation) while a carbon tax could be much simpler. I personally favor taxes on all sorts of things (tobacco, marijuana, plastic bags or a cup of soda) versus bans or more regulation. Of course, a more libertarian view would be to have neither.
I would consider Dennis Kucinich to be a “tax and spend” libertarian. Most of the objections you level at both Obama and Bush would simply go away under his administration.
To me, there is no disconnect between taxes and libertarianism. Of course taxes infringe on our liberty. If the taxes are too high, then it is a great infringement. But we need some taxes just to pay for police, fire, etc. I claim (and you may disagree) that corporations, like government, need to held in check before they infringe on our liberties. I could go on and defend a more liberal society, but I think it is better to look at world-wide models. My guess is that Kucinich, like me, likes Holland. Very free in some ways, but quite restrictive in others. As a whole, though, I think they have more liberty than us. I wonder what most libertarians think?
Oooh, another idea for a column for you: Which country has the most liberty and why. 🙂
I recently read a biography of former President Franklin Pierce by Michael F. Holt. One of the most interesting aspects of this book is Holt’s discussion about the role of political parties in antebellum America, specifically the frequency at which new parties were liable to be formed and old alliances completely shattered in an instant.
The most marked difference with our current system was that a political party in the antebellum era did not have to necessarily be “approved” by the government prior to a state or national election. For example, an advocate for the Whig party could approach a potential voter and attempt to convince him of the merits of the Whig party and do this right when the voter arrived at the election site, while he was making his decision. This was fairly common and all parties would often bring out some sort of representation (and a hearty amount of alcohol, sometimes) to try and persuade voters of the validity of their party. There was certainly an element of fraud and corruption within this system, but what is interesting is the frequency with which different parties gained prominence within American politics, and how people would often form parties around one concrete issue rather than one uniform platform. Furthermore, political leaders and voters would often switch parties when they deemed a new issue more important (for example, the focus in the 1830s and 40s on the role of tariffs and banks in the economy, which switched to the morality of slavery and its westward expansion in the 1850s). Thus, during the era of the Second Party System we see the rise of Democrats, Anti and Pro-Masons, Whigs, Free-Soilers, Know-Nothings, Temperance, and the Republican parties as strong political entities over a roughly 30 year period. When was the last time we had that many different political parties vying for power in the American political structure?
This is not to glorify the ways of the past; rather, I express my hope that there is a possibility for a future beyond a two party system. Our current system – with its tax benefits for the two major parties, along with several other issues, such as a news media that wants to paint every issue in black and white and give little attention to anyone outside the red-blue spectrum – does not bode well for any outside political party. However, Ron Paul’s popularity (along with controversy) within the Republican party suggests that’s there’s room outside the party for a political philosophy that divorces itself from many major aspects of the party, while still maintaining a few others, perhaps. I think the same could be said of different factions within the Democratic party as well. I, like you, would much rather vote for the right candidate in my estimation, regardless of party.