I wish we could split the libertarian vote.

[lostnfound]

Hearing the CATO institute VP on DemocracyNow! today reminded me of a great frustration with libertarians: they want to shrink the government but shirk off any hint of shrinking the defense budget.

So there's CATO this morning, arguing that funding for CPB/PBS should be wiped out, while funding for Voice of America shouldn't be. CATO doesn't "do" foreign affairs.

Why not? Here's a guess: CATO followers are useful idiots for the corporate masters, but the goal of 'shrinking government' has to be constrained to domestic issues only, or it conflicts with the goals of the war profiteers.

What do libertarians as individuals think? If informed, I bet a large percentage of them would conclude that at least half of the defense budget is one big pork project, or corporate welfare. In fact, getting libertarians to face up to corporate welfare would probably divide their ranks nicely too.

Watching the Bush Administration destroy our civil liberties and pervert so many liberal projects (such as installing a partisan as head of the CPB, or skimming our tax dollars off to backers, or using public schools to brainwash and to recruit) has made me far more skeptical of government solutions for anything. Anything the government gives us can end up getting withheld for political purposes or used as a bargaining chip.

Further, it's a lot easier for the government to bury some ugly operations and projects in a big budget than in a small one. If the federal government was smaller, and tax dollars suddenly started getting spent on covert wars or secret spy agencies etc., it would be much more obvious to the taxpayers.

The libertarian stream is a big one. CATO is something of a corporate libertarian thinktank, isn't it? If we could create a divide within libertarianism between individualists and corporatists, or start a movement within libertarianism towards a smaller, truly defensive defense department, some of those people could become better allies.

[pocket]

1. Libertarians are fond of saying that

providing for national defense is in the constitution, and (insert federal program here) isn't

[lostnfound]

8. But it's not DEFENSE, it's EMPIRE! And it's very expensive. nt

[eallen]

2. There are many libertarians who oppose the war, and large defense budgets.

Justin Raimondo, for example, runs the blog www.antiwar.com.

Most of the libertarians I know voted against Bush in 2004. Not just because of the war. Bush is the most anti-libertarian president in recent memory. He opposes civil liberty on every issue where it is at stake, and has accelerated the growth and expense of government. (To a first approximation, anyone who believes in civil liberty and fiscal conservatism can be counted as a libertarian, almost regardless of other views.)

Given Bush's transformation of the GOP into a tool of the religious right, I think it would be easy for Democrats to pick up quite a few liberatarian votes, providing they start using the language of liberty. In addition to talking about reproductive rights as important to women's health, talk about abortion as essential parts of individual liberty. In addition to talking about gay marriage as a matter of fairness, describe it also as an issue of individual liberty. Ditto, Plan B. Ditto, physician assisted suicide. Ditto, medical marijuana. And explain again and again how the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment broadly and liberally protect liberty, and how it would be a misinterpretation of the Constitution to read these narrowly.

[Fiona]

3. Yeah

we could use the extra six votes.

[eallen]

4. Florida and Ohio never again will be decided by razor-thin margins?

Neither major party ever will get the more extreme libertarians. And the conservatives masquerading as libertarians will vote GOP regardless. But there are quite a few libertarians whose chief concern is civil liberty. And if Democrats can't pick up their votes at a time when civil liberty's biggest danger is the GOP ... well, that's pretty damn stupid if you ask me.

[lostnfound]

7. Yes, and quite a few are concerned about 'their money'

Need to translate the massive defense budget into what it is costing them, and explaining how wasteful it is.

Unfortunately, our Democratic leaders won't differentiate themselves from the Republicans on this, either.

[Mythsaje]

5. You have a point...

I've actually been considering these things a lot lately. Wife's more of a Libertarian than a Liberal, so I live with these discussions on a fairly rarely basis.

The Left has to aim some focus at "Civil Liberties" as well as "Civil Rights." As I see it, it's an obvious link--deny NO ONE, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, or sexual identity--their civil liberties, and you might get a few more Libertarians on board.

Re-think the War On Drugs. Many Libertarians consider it a BIG waste of time and money.

Acknowledge the 2nd Amendment as it was intended. To protect us from outside assault AND internal tyranny.

Stop trying to be World Policeman. It's not necessary to have a HUGE defense budget if you're not constantly spending it trying to fix problems all over the world...that's what the U.N.'s supposed to be for.

Simplify taxation, and MAKE THE MONEY COUNT. Pursue any hint of corruption like a pack of hounds, and get rid of pork-barrel politics. Don't even consider raising taxes while the money's being wasted or drained off to benefit the politicians and their supporters.

A lot of Libertarians are anti-tax and anti-federal spending. They distrust the Federal government (looking around, I see their point). If we could push through a Federal Civil Liberties/Rights amendment, then turn at least SOME control of taxation and distribution back to the states, we'd turn a lot of Libertarians.

Take away corporate "personhood" and make people responsible for their actions regardless if they're acting on behalf of a corporation or not. This would defuse SOME of the pro-business legislation the Libertarians would like to see.

Thankfully not ALL the Libertarians are Ayn Rand types, but enough of them are that you need to find the right frame to get them on board certain types of legislation...if you do it on a state level, with a government that is both responsible and responsive, you might have a chance.


edited to fix a typo

[Teaser]

6. We could actually use *both* of their votes.

Why settle for simply splitting them up?