Democratic Libertarianism

It's a little annoying to receive a warmer welcome on someone else's site than on my own. Frankly, I'm jealous: Anglachel's site has fewer readers, yet the commentary is more erudite and intelligent.

At any rate, my small contribution there may be of some use here. (I've re-worded slightly.)

* * *

I would argue that Obama has more than a whiff of the radical about him. However, his radicalism differs from the sort usually ascribed to him.

One may fairly label Libertarianism radical. Look at Obama's economic advisers -- the staunch free trader Austan Golsbee and the Cato Institute's own Jeff Liebman. Liebman was, I think, the main power behind Obama's signals that he intends to "fix" Social Security. That statement was predicated on false numbers coming out of Cato.

Just as only a Nixon could have gone to China, only an Obama could screw up Social Security. No Republican could ever do it.

Now look at Obama's media supporters. Markos Moulitsas is a Libertarian. Two years ago, he wrote "The Case for the Libertarian Democrat" for the Cato Institute. Arianna Huffington, until recently, espoused an ultra-Libertarian viewpoint, advocating a complete dismantling of the social safety net.

These two Libertarians now lead the Cult of Obama. These former Republicans have taken it upon themselves to redefine permissible debate within progressive circles. Radical chic and Democratic Libertarianism are now two names for the same entity.

My thesis: Libertarianism, having accomplished all it can hope to accomplish working through the Republicans, is now trying to insinuate itself into the Democratic party.

That charge may seem counterintuitive at first, but look closely and you'll the see the indicators. The spurt of Democratic enthusiasm for Ron Paul provides one example.

Wright may play a role here. Black segregationist religious movements have never been left-wing, and have always disdained the FDR legacy. Economically, these movements have always espoused either Libertarianism or some other right-wing doctrine. In the 1930s, the NOI (which began in Detroit) forbade members from participating in unions. As war approached, they favored the Bund. Malcolm X left the movement after Elijah Muhammed forged an open alliance with George Lincoln Rockwell. If Farrakhan's economic stance could be summed up in a word, the word would be Libertarianism.

* * *

After the above letter was published, some interesting discussion followed. I hope the authors won't mind if I republish their words here.

Hi Joseph. Thanks for pointing that out as well. I also have grounds to believe that Obama is a Libertarian Democrat. I guess that would be a good reason for college-aged adults to support him. If you look on thefacebook.com, the support for both Ron Paul and Obama is huge. As a young student myself, I never understood how the Libertarian movement became so popular since I started college. When I was in high school, one of my classmates declared in history class that he was a Libertarian (because his brother who was in college at the time was also a Libertarian) and I was like, "what the hell is a Libertarian?" and now it seems like every other kid on campus is a Libertarian or "progressive" for Obama. It's kind of scary if Libertarianism does insinuate itself in the Democratic Party. That is something I don't want to see happen.

Well, I suppose I'm torn over term libertarianism. It has a surface appeal with the idea of individual freedom and responsibility. That fits the Western mystique up to a point (until your remember how pioneers hung together to survive). But if you scratch deeper you end up agreeing with the late author Marian Zimmerman Bradley that it's simply "Social Darwinism." In other words it helps those already ahead of the game stay on top.

Too many years in the Bay Area (both native and living) have me in the "radical chic" camp of the argument. Years ago Alison Bechtel produced a great cartoon showing two female demonstrators showing off the clothing items they picked up in various third world countries. (In other words, it was like a huge shopping trip akin to Macy's for the matrons.)That's the bulk of non-AA Obama supporters in Bay Area (CA).

As for youth providing bulwark for libertarianism that's been an accelerating trend since Reagan. Each succeeding generation of upper class kids has been pampered not only with material goods but extreme lessons in self-esteem. As a result many are impossible to be around, much less work or communicate with on a regular basis. Supporting Obama provides them both with the opportunity to fit with their peers and feel "important."

To my ear Sen. Obama has never sounded like a left leaning centrist. On issue after issue Sen. Obama lets it be known that he's to the right of Sen. Clinton. She's going to raise taxes on households making over $200,000, he's going to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000. She's going to force people into health care plans, he's going to let the people continue to decide for themselves if they can afford health care.

Sen. Obama lets you know he's the type of conflicted pro-choicer that a pro-lifer like Sen. Casey can respect. Obama has his public positions on free trade and troop withdrawal from Iraq but, if you listen hard enough, his top advisers indicate he has his private positions on those matters.

Recently Sam Nunn, Dave Boren, and Lee Hamilton endorsed Sen. Obama. Believe it or not, but his progressive supporters are taking that as a good sign.

Like some others here though, I have had difficulty with seeing Obama as a left-centrist. I originally saw him significantly farther to the right than Clinton, Edwards and other high-profile long-term Democrats, eg his position on health care, his watering down the nuclear leak legislation, his 'present' votes etc and his Milton Friedmann school of economic advisors, all for laissez-faire free-market unregulated capitalism.

However, Obama has been allowing his public persona/image to be painted with a veneer of left radical cred, pandering to the left with dog-whistles.

Thanks to this blog, up until now, I hadn't seen the connection with Libertarianism. Duh! That would help explain why the dog-whistles and wedging have worked on a cross-section along the spectrum through traditional leftist and rightist factions, and also the youth voting bloc.

Catriley over at NO QUARTER remarked that she's seeing the frat houses that mocked the anti-war supporters who now have Obama stickers in the windows, and who had GWB stickers in the windows before.

Democrat for a Day doesn't even begin to cover it. These are white men using black men as a bat to beat and old white bitch with. The minute she is out of the way (assuming she is, and the better she does in PA, the less likely that becomes), the McCain stickers are going up.

They aren't in this for anti-war reasons. They aren't in this for "hope" or "change." They are in it to beat the bitch, and once that's done, Obama will be dropped like any bat once you finish beating up your target.

I'm glad someone brought up Libertarianism as well. I didn't take Libertarians seriously until the last several years when - as I mentioned previously - they began to gain a huge following on college campuses and on online networks like the Facebook and Myspace. For a long time Paul was the most popular Republican candidate on Facebook. The fact that Paul raised so much money from online donations should make both Republicans and Democrats take notice. Mike Gravel also switched over to the Libertarian Party recently. I think Libertarianism will become a competitive third party in my lifetime. Obama's Libertarianism, his Libertarian supporters, as well as Libertarianism's growing popularity with young people needs to be addressed. I know some Libertarians at my school who voted for either Paul or Obama in the primary and the reasons why some Republicans - namely Independents and Libertarians - are so attracted to Obama should be studied with a closer lens.

I went to a private high school in a conservative upper class city. Most of my classmate's parents are the conservative Republicans who voted for Bush and will vote for McCain in November (remember, these aren't poor whites who cling to guns and religion. These people were 100% WASPS who will never vote for a Democrat - including Clinton - because they are just fine with remaining at the top of the social hiearchy). However, many of my classmates have become "progressives"/fauxgressives(the graduate school trust fund babies you will find in San Francisco, NYC, Ann Arbor, Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, and Boston) who will vote for Obama or they are Libertarians (yes, many enjoy drugs and are athiests) who will vote for Paul or Obama.

This is just from the people I know and go to school with but you can see where Obama's support comes from and why Clinton, the candidate who will fight for universal health care and other social programs for the poor, isn't popular among the young, the educated, and the upper class who care more about feeling good and voting for an AA candidate who runs on the platform of hope and arrogant coolness rather than actually change anything that has to do with giving up some of their wealth and priviledge to help those who desperately need real change in our governmental policies.

I definitely see this trend continuing as the income gap widens between rich and poor, and the top 1% who are priviledged to attend private and ivy league schools will vote for Libertarian candidates who will cater to the needs of the new liberal elite.

These comments gave me an education. I now have a clearer idea of the mechanism by which Libertarianism was injected into the Democratic Party. Obama is supported by the same kids who pay $100 a pop for "Affliction" T-Shirts.