Goldwater Democrats?

[Pirate Smile]

From Andrew Sullivan

Goldwater Democrats?

02 Oct 2006 01:33 pm



Well, we've had Reagan Democrats. And we've had Goldwater Republicans. Why not a new version: Goldwater Democrats? By Goldwater Democrats, I mean old-style libertarian conservatives who actually believe in fiscal responsibility, small government, prudent foreign policy and live-and-let-live social policy. After being told we are completely unwelcome among Republicans, should we shift to the Dems?

I have never thought of myself as a Democrat or left-liberal in any way. And there are plenty of people among Democrats I do not agree with at all. But it's getting to the point that the illiberal, authoritarian big government Christianism of the GOP makes me completely supportive of backing the Democrats this time around. My one reservation is, of course, spending. But at this point, could they be worse than the GOP? No Congress has been worse on spending than the current crew since FDR! The war? Again, at this point, we desperately need some check on an administration utterly without prudence or a capacity for self-correction.

And so I find myself in a very uneasy alliance with Markos Moulitsas, who writes the lead essay in the libertarian magazine Cato Unbound. Strange bedfellows. But these are strange times.

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/10/goldwater_democ.html

Kos

Should Libertarians vote Democratic?

by kos
Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 09:01:45 AM PDT

I have written the lead essay for this month's issue of CATO Unbound, the libertarian think tank's online magazine. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/10/02/markos-moulitsas/the-case-for-the-libertarian-democrat/

The case against the libertarian Republican is so easy to make that I almost feel compelled to stipulate it and move on. It is the case for the libertarian Democrat that has created much discussion and not a small amount of controversy when I first introduced the notion in what was, in reality, a throwaway blog post on Daily Kos on a slow news day in early June 2006.

But that post--as coarse, raw, and incomplete as it was--touched a surprising nerve. It generated the predictable criticism from libertarian circles (Reason and several Cato scholars piled on) as well as from conservatives who perhaps recognized their own slipping grasp of libertarian principles but were unwilling to cede any ground to a liberal. But more surprising (and unexpected) to me was the positive reaction: there's a whole swath of Americans who are uncomfortable with Republican/conservative efforts to erode our civil liberties while intruding into our bedrooms and churches; they don't like unaccountable corporations invading their privacy, holding undue control over their economic fortunes, and despoiling our natural surroundings; yet they also don't appreciate the nanny state, the over-regulation of small businesses, the knee-jerk distrust of the free market, or the meddlesome intrusions into mundane personal matters.

Like me, these were people who didn't instinctively reject the ability of government to protect our personal liberties, who saw government as a good, not an evil, but didn't necessarily see the government as the source of first resort when seeking solutions to problems facing our country. They also saw the markets as a good, not an evil, but didn't necessarily see an unregulated market run amok as a positive thing. Some of these were reluctant Republicans, seeking an excuse to abandon a party that has failed them. Others were reluctant Democrats, looking for a reason to fully embrace their party. And still others were stuck in the middle, despairing at their options--despondent at a two-party system in which both parties were committed to Big Government principles.

Over the coming days, CATO will add responses by the DLC's Bruce Reed, famed labor writer Harold Meyerson, and Reason's editor-in-chief Nick Gillespie.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/2/12145/1105

(Cross-posted by Janx's request from GD: P http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2859608 )

[janx]

1. Thank you! I hope this thread gets some good responses.

I'll check on it regularly--but have work to do before my bed time.

[cornfedyank]

2. keep the government out of 3 things.

our bedrooms and our pocketbooks, I remember. What was the third?

[mitchtv]

3. Our Doctor's office?

just a guess

[janx]

4. I just looked it up. It was:

"...off our backs, out of our pocketbooks, and out of our bedrooms."

[cornfedyank]

8. thank you. where at? if you know.

[janx]

10. Just google "goldwater pocketbooks bedrooms" and

you'll find several references to it.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. The government doesn't want to get on your back any more

They want to put you on your back:



Here's What's Left

[NMDemDist2]

5. works for me n/t

[Blue-Jay]

6. Libertarians voting for Democrats? Not bloody likely.

Hell, I'd be happy if "libertarians" actually voted for Libertarians.

[janx]

7. It might depend on the candidate.

They're sure as heck not going to vote for Republicans in droves--not these days.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Sullivan is a real conservative and the kind whom we should ally

No, I don't agree with Andrew Sullivan on everything, or even most things. However leftycommiepinko that I am, I also believe in small government (why? because large institutions, public or private, are unresponsive and aloof, that's why), local control (why? because people in the Sacramento Valley know more about what people in the Sacramento Valley need than paper pushers and bean counters 3000 miles away, that's why) and fiscal responsibility (why? because good fiscal policy should be like sound environmental policy and not take resources faster than they can be renewed, that's why).

Oh, yes, and the government has no business telling me what I can and can't do in my house.

We progressives just may have more in common with Goldwater conservatives than with some some "moderate" factions of the Democratic Party, a respresentative of which, I see, is invited to rely to Kos' piece; and Goldwater conservatives have much in common with us than they have with the neocons and the Christian right.

Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

[gully]

12. Very interesting.

nt

[young_at_heart]

13. Just watched "Mr. Conservative",.....HBO film by Barry's granddaughter

NY Times reviewer: "Too bad he's not running in 2008; this would have made a great campaign film. He was a far cry from today's Republicans.

[AtomicKitten]

17. my comment on this documentary posted in GD-P

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2859608&mesg_id=2859938

[tk2kewl]

14. any libertarian that would vote for the totalitarian repukes needs to

report directly to gitmo.

[tblue]

15. If Goldwater were alive today he would be a Democrat

and he wouldn't be ashamed of it either. He had the courage of his convictions and he could defend them, too.

I heard on Thom Hartmann (I think it was him) that Far Left = everything EVERYTHING produced by the gov't, no free markets or private industry. So when some nut like Sean or Bill O calls us Far Left, tell him if we're Far Left, he's not even on the planet!

I actually think what's Left today is actually pretty Centrist, except according to the Radical Right, which makes up the vast majority of Republican politicians & pundits.

Yep, Goldwater Democrat — makes perfect sense to me.

[janx]

16. kick

[BrotherBuzz]

18. Charlie Brown, running against Doolittle in California, is exactly that!

Race for your life, Charlie Brown

Could ex-Republican Charlie Brown be the one to beat Doolittle?

<snip>

Brown seems like a moderate Republican dream candidate. An Iowa farm boy, he went to the Air Force Academy for two reasons: “I wanted to serve my country, and I’d always wanted to fly.” He graduated with a Bachelor of Science in engineering, married his college sweetheart and went into helicopters after his commission because “they needed guys who would fly these rescue helicopters, and I thought, 'That’s something I could be proud of, going in on rescue and relief missions.’”

So why is Charlie Brown a Democrat? He started out a Republican. His mother, Betty Brown, is a past president of the Iowa Federation of Republican Women, and when he registered to vote at 21, he joined the GOP.

“I didn’t leave my party,” explained Brown. “My party left me.”

Brown feels that the Republicans have abandoned conservative values. “What do Republicans believe anymore?” he asked. “Do they believe in individual liberties when they’re saying it’s OK to spy on American citizens, to suspend habeas corpus? Do they believe in small government when they’re creating huge and ineffective bureaucracies? Do they believe in fiscal responsibility when they’re running up huge deficits?”
<more>

http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=oid%3A56651

[Pirate Smile]

19. kick

[Jack Rabbit]

20. Driver, one more time around the park

[Mz Pip]

21. We have a local talk show host

who is a Libertarian. In 2004 he said he was voting for Kerry. He rants against Bush all the time.

I can relate to Libertarian philosophy to a point. Endless government regulations create bloated bureaucracies that lead to big wastes of money. That said we wouldn't need government regulation if the business sector did the right thing and they often don't.

RIght now we have the biggest government ever and I don't like it one bit.

Mz Pip
:dem: