Target Group for Dems in the next 10 years - Libertarian Republicans

[absyntheNsugar]

What are your thoughts on this?

I think we could sucessfully take the Libertarian Repubs - I have met many Repubs who have already jumped ship to the Dems due to Bush. I think the Dems could easily take this group, meaning we could make California solid blue, and perhaps even take Texas (Ron Paul is an example of who I'm talking about.)

The key in the move would be to run pro-civil rights, pro-gun, pro-choice candidates against ones with Religious Right ties.

Your Thoughts?

[amlouden]

1. no

the problem with libertarians is their ideas on taxes and the government

[absyntheNsugar]

5. Well I agree most of us don't agree with them 100%

But to build a sucessful majority to counteract the tricks the Repubs have been playing as of late we will need to invite others into our 'big tent.' Court the more moderate Libertarian types.

In all honesty, I think if we ever had a truly fair government re-org we could lower taxes. Specifically if we re-orged the military - so much defense spending is pure waste, and if we ever truly re-orged in a fair, just and sane manner, we could knock out 25% of our taxes and run a surplus.

Side note....many Libertarians (except for the die-hard Ayn Rand types) think we do need to raise some taxes, although many of us here would probably debate how the taxes would be levied.

[Liberal Classic]

34. Thank you for the kind words

It's refreshing to hear someone recongize that there is such an animal as a moderate libertarian, or even that a big tend could hold us. :)

[tsipple]

2. Yes, absolutely.

It has to be the right Democrat, though. Probably not Dick Gephardt, for example.

The Cato Institute is much more friendly with Democrats than ever before.

Last time Democrats didn't have a winning coalition, but libertarian-leaning Republicans are definitely a possible coalition addition.

[AP]

11. I can't believe I'm reading this.

If you people don't see the threat to Democrats from the Cato Institute, then I'm very worried.

Cato and Republicans have the same idea: corporate control of America.

Republicans think that we need a little socialism to get their first. Cato thinks the free market is the best way to get to that end.

[Character Assassin]

22. Quite incorrect

Cato and Republicans have the same idea: corporate control of America.

I see this fallactious contention again and again, and the mileage people try to get out of it never ceases to amaze.

CATO in no way either advocates or endorses corporate control of America.

Please support your contention.

[AP]

25. Cato believes in the law of the jungle.

They know the biggest (and richest) will win. They may not say they're doing it FOR the biggest and richest, but the big rich people who support Cato know that's were it's all headed.

Republicans don't want to leave anything to chance, so they just want to control the government and use the government as the mechanism for transferring wealth and power to the biggest and richest. Free market or socialism for the wealthy -- the outcome is the same. And neither is interested in having a bigger, better economy which distributes wealth to people willing to work hard, and fairly, to get it.

[Character Assassin]

32. Sorry, that's just crap

Cato believes in the law of the jungle.

Where does the 'law of the jungle' include redress of violation of rights and/or property? Where does the 'law of the jungle' exhibit the principle of non-initiation of force?

[bryant69]

3. The down side is that

They would probably ask us to jettison concern for the poor. Because when you get right down to it we want to continue taking their money to help support the poor, and they don't like that.

Our best shot with the libertarians is probably to be the lesser of two evils. They disagree with us on the role of government, but at least we are not as crazy as the Republicans.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[HFishbine]

4. You'd have to

abandon social programs from Pell grants to medicare, but other than that, I'd say go for it!

[liberalcapitalist]

6. 50% right, 50% wrong

People think that liberals are pie-in-the-sky idealists-- then they don't know libertarians. A true liberal will agree 100% with libertarians on social issues... But libertarians are worse than Republicans in their belief that business will do no wrong if left alone. When it all comes down to it, I think the coprorate illuminati, whom the libertarians seem to think is a nonexistent boogy man, is more of a threat than the religious right.

That being said, I would like to see libertarians jump to our side, but will it happen? To do so would be to totally abandon their core belief of "big government is bad." I don't think Libertarians will vote for what is in their eyes the lesser of two evils.

[tsipple]

9. Well, That's Not Quite True

Libertarians don't believe that business will do no wrong if left alone. They do believe, however, that government has a limited role because it has flaws as well. "The cure is worse than the disease" sort of thinking.

I think Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans have a fair amount of common ground, particularly on social issues and, post-Clinton, balanced budgets. So, yes, I think they would find the Democratic Party a more welcoming group than the borrow-and-spend big corporate government Republicans now in power.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. If the libertarians are in, I'm out

Along with a lot of other working class people. If we can bring them in without changing our platform, sure, but if we're going to push more pro-corporate policies to get "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" Republicans, we'll lose more than we gain.

[rudeboy666]

8. libertarian leanings

I don't think that many who have libertarian leanings would classify themselves as 'libertarians'. Libertarianism itself is a very specific political doctrine. You need to be very familiar with its major literature and principles before you could genuinely classify yourself as a libertarian( and these are the ones who are very rigid over taxes and government).

I think that the leaners, on the other hand, would be flexible(or compromise) on tax/gov issues. I think that most leaners are more concerned with civil libertarianism. Of course, they are equally critical of major government programs and spending. Still, I don't think that they are as rigid in this area as their more doctronaire brthren.

[AP]

10. Hell no. Democrats need to explain the follies of libertarianism.

They don't need to appeal to them. This is like Dean's confederate flag comment. You don't want to be the candidate FOR libertarians. You want to be the candidate for Democrats, and if you do that well enough, the libertarians, and everyone else will put down their flags and pick up yours.

[absyntheNsugar]

12. But if we never reach out...

they will never join us.

I understand your concerns...and yes the Cato institute has some scary policy...but very few Libertarian Leaning Repubs really buy Libertarian doctrine through and through.

[AP]

14. Reach out? How? On what issues?

Democrats need to just be democrats. They need to explain that, if you're not in the top .5% of income earners, and if you get most of your money from earned income (ie, working for a living) you have no business voting Republican.

If that's what you mean by reaching out, I'm OK with that.

But if you mean Democrats need to stop arguing for progressive taxation, and have to give up on gun saftey, and affirmative action, and have to be for energy deregulation, I say, to hell with that.

[absyntheNsugar]

15. Civil Liberties, Abortion, the Economy

These three are the big things that will win them. The economy brought them to Clinton in the 90's, Abortion will bring in the Female Lib-leaners, and civil liberties is a big concern for ALL of them.

[AP]

23. Dems cover those issues already. Answer the "how" question, so that we

can be clear about what you're proposing.

[absyntheNsugar]

26. As far as means....

Run candidates like Dean.

He's the one candidate I see Lib-leaning Repubs jumping ship over. Anyone with Marc Perkel-like philosophies.

Granted, you wont win them all, but us Dems and the Lib-leaners cross on many subjects, and if we can conquer their fear that we are gun-grabbing big spenders (all we have to do is show them Clinton's numbers - he spent less than Bush, Bush II or Reagan) we have them.

[AP]

27. Dean is a libertarian. I agree with you there. But running a guy who's

weak on race, likes energy deregulation, isn't all that interested in progressive taxation, is too much of a betrayal of core Democratic principles.

I'm not going to give up on the Democratic Party by running a liberterian who doesn't care about core Democratic principles.

Furthemore, run a libertarian, and you'll get the libertarian vote. All 10% of them. Democrats will be confused, and REpublicans will vote for Republicans.

[absyntheNsugar]

29. I counter that argument

Dean is a Democrat with libertarian-leaning values. Kinda like myself (he's a bit stronger on the Libertarian side than I am)

But unlike a REAL Libertarian, he is not in favor of:

- Vouchers
- Privatized roads
- Privatized Energy
- Decreased Regulation
- Opening up the forests for full-scale logging

He just leans that way on guns, taxation and civil liberties. And like I said before, we could have a tax cut and a surplus if we just re-orged government. Cut the defense pork, cut the tax breaks for corporations and cut the subsidies for industries that don't need them. And presto-changeo, you have a surplus and a pay increase for government workers across the board!

[Liberal Classic]

33. I'm a libertarian and I always thought the road thing was silly

The Libertarian Party is filled with extremists anyhow. Why worry about tollroads when we have a prohibition to worry about?

Actually, for all the hell Cato takes around here they have written some excellent articles on corporate welfare.

And I do like Dean. I don't agree with him on all things, of course, but ideas like mandatory DNA typing for capital crimes is a breath of fresh air.

[AP]

35. Be honest with me. The Libertarians really want Dean, right?

He's the most Libertarian candidate ever to run for President, isn't he.

[SahaleArm]

37. In many ways I agree with libertarian...

or free society principles, but the world isn't merocratic, it's political, racial, and social. You can't ignore these when governing. Libertarian's would embrace Dean if he stuck with his principles but he's pandering to all sides for the Democratic nominee.

[tsipple]

17. Message, Not Policy

First of all, that message ("If you're in the top .5% of income earners...") isn't the most effective, in my opinion. Many people aspire to be in that category. (There's some good political and social science on this, actually.)

Let me try this message on you -- the exact same policy but phrased differently.

I'm in favor of a progressive tax policy. Nobody likes to pay taxes. But a democracy is made up of its people, and so is its government. Government's responsibility is to help assure equal opportunity under the law, and to provide the environment where all Americans can grow and succeed.

So that's why I'm in favor of a progressive tax policy. Poor and middle class Americans deserve the same opportunity to get ahead as anyone else. Wealthy Americans should be willing to pay their fair share from the country that gives them so much opportunity. President Bush is undermining that American ideal, and we must undo the damage he's caused. We must stop doling out favors to the President's friends and allies. We must do right by all Americans, poor and rich alike. When I am President I will make sure that all Americans can once again aspire to and achieve success.

I'm getting tired of politicians talking about the "top 1%" or the "top .5%" -- I don't think they're talking about me, but I'm not so sure. Them versus us'ism is getting old, and I'm a Democrat. Why not talk about why we all have a stake in getting the policy right? That's a far more compelling message for the same policy, I would argue.

[AP]

24. How 'bout...

Everybody has to pull the weight equally, if America is going to work. When you pay more of your income in taxes than someone you gets most of their income form passive investments that require little risk and no labor, then we're not all pulling the weight equally.

[JVS]

13. Be Hardliners

They can come into the tent via the lesser of two evils door. They are not welcome through the front door.

[Hammie]

16. No way

Democrats want goverment solutions for every problem, libertarians think goverment solutions are the problem. I don't see how you can sell those guys on the Democratic party. But, hell I'd pay to watch you try.

[tsipple]

18. "Democrats want goverment solutions for every problem"

No, that's hardline socialists, not Democrats.

Sorry, can't let that one slip past without correction.

[BurtWorm]

19. I don't think Dems should bend over backwards for Libertarians

Despite the "libert-" in their names, they're among the most philosophically constipated political animals I know. Every little choice has to be measured against a libertarian principle, as though all philosophy has been decided and it's just a matter of getting the story straight. If they want to vote Democratic, fine, but catering to them would drain all of the blood and soul out of the party (if there's any left).

[DrWeird]

20. Most libertarians I know are against civil rights.

It's the whole "I should be able to discriminate against whoever I want to" thing.

[Hammie]

30. Yes and no

They believe that their right to free asociation trumps your right to not be discriminated against.

[Kinkistyle]

41. Example?

Some substantiation of this claim please?

[KG]

21. radical idea: getting dems to vote for dem candidates!

:)

[leftyandproud]

28. NO---our goal SHOULD be this....

Persuade libertarian Republicans to DUMP the GOP and register as true libertarians. This will siphon many votes away from the so-called conservative party...which is good for us.

[Liberal Classic]

31. If the job of political parties is to attract votes, go for it

As a libertarian let me say that if the Democratic Party publically supported an end to drug prohibition I think many anti-drug-war Republicans and libertarians as well as Greens would vote D. Now, the Democrats would really have to be the big tent party to pull this off, since there are some disparate opinions on some other issues, guns and abortion two big ones that you did mention.

Part of the problem, in my humble opinon, is that any Democrat who is insufficiently pro choice is labled a right-winger. (The Republicans have the opposite problem, of course) It is going to be difficult for either party to overcome this contentious issue, and abortion is even more divisive than gun control. It's possible to believe in half-measures for gun control but if someone is pro-choice compromise is difficult. If a featus is really is a person, obviously it's hard to compromise on protection under law.

That having been said, many people are willing to set aside some issues to get action on others. Could the drug prohibition be this issue? When it comes to the drug war nearly every Democrat I ask is opposed to it, at least for soft drugs such as marijuana. Not all, of course, but a vast majority of the rank and file seem to be in favor some some change in direction in this country's policies of drug interdiction and control. Democratic leadership seems to be the exact opposite. Almost every elected offical or party chair I have asked is opposed to softening public drug control policies, and even if they are willing to address one aspect of prohibition they remain solidly in favor of prohibition as a grand strategy. The Republican Party has this problem on some issues but not when it comes to the drug war. Most of them are for it, and those that aren't are treated like red-headed step-children as pro-gun Democrats are sometimes.

However, this is an issue that crosses ideological and party lines and unlike abortion it is an issue which lends itself to compromise. If the Democrat Party could adopt prohibition repeal positions as they did before World War II I think they would find some more votes coming their way. I believe that such a position should be a significat change, but need not be a total and complete legalization. A regulation plan that attempts to take the profit out of the black market is what is needed. It is not needed to allow heroin salse at convienence stores, but distribution channels need to exist to supplant the black market. Regulation does need to exist, as well, to prevent unscrupulous elements from addicting people on purpose, but doctors should have enough authority to perscribe to addicts without themselves losing their license as they do now. One of the most important things is that it should be revenue positive not revenue negative. Treatment plans should be paid for through sales taxes of regulated substances, the taxpayer should not be forced to subsidize addiction or drug use.

Anyway, some thoughts from a libertarian type person who likes Democrats.

[Sean From Tampa]

36. I love this guy

I was about to write a long message, but Liberal Classic beat me to it. He said almost everything I want to say.

I just want to add that there's a difference between people who belong to the Libertarian party, and those with libertarian leanings.

We need to go after the libertarian-leaning Republicans and we can do it. As a general rule, while Repugs say they want to get government off our backs, liberal Democrats are much more "libertarian."

After all, the conservative Repugs are the ones who want to outlaw abortion. Try and have a sensible discussion with one about gay rights - he'll immediately hide behind state anti-sodomy laws to justify his bigotry.

And try and have a sensible discussion with one of these right-wingers about our futile war on drugs. It can't be done.

Remember, these were also the people who castigated Bill Clinton for evading the draft. Guess what?! Military conscription is illegal. It has been since the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments, which clearly ban involuntary servitude. They also state that no citizen may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

In short, those draft dodgers, like Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, etc. did not break any laws. The Congress of the United States and the President violated the Constitution.

In short, we need to let those libertarian-leaning Republicans know that we're truly the best supporters of individual rights.

[mandyky]

38. Libertarians want less govt and regulations

than the GOP, any serious Ayn Rand Libertarian would never vote for a Democrat I'd be comfortable with.

[SahaleArm]

39. No Libertarian would vote...

for either major party. Since the Evangelical right has co-opted the GOP, there's no way they would be the party of choice. Libertarians are not imperialists either.

http://www.lp.org

[Kinkistyle]

40. I used to be a Republican and a Libertarian.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, Libertarianism is a natural pitstop on the road between Conservatism and Liberalism. I was a Libertarian for a long time before the Idjit in the Office pushed me into the light, but I believe that most Libertarians are on the cusp of becoming moderate Democrats (a la Big Dawg Bill Clinton). I dislike that many Liberals classify Libertarians as Conservatives, because they really aren't. They may be fiscal conservatives, but on most social issues, they are very liberal (like abortion, death penalty and religion).

I really do agree that we should be focusing on this group of people as potential converts rather than the enemy.