Libertarianism Isn't The Answer To Anything

According to ProgressivePunch's reckoning the 10 Republicans who have bolted their party's House leadership on crucial votes most frequently this session are:

• Walter Jones (R-NC)
• Chris Gibson (R-NY)
• Justin Amash (R-MI)
• Jimmy Duncan (R-TN)
• Thomas Massie (R-KY)
• Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
• Mark Sanford (R-SC)
• Morgan Griffith (R-VA)
• Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)
• Tom McClintock (R-CA)

Only three could be accurately described as "mainstream conservatives," which is what the Beltway media calls moderates these days, Gibson, LoBiondo and Griffith. The others really are hard core rightists on almost all issues. Leave Sanford out of the equation; he's indefinable and insane. The rest of them are the "libertarian" or libertarian-leaning contingent. You might want to throw in a few other House Republicans as well, Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Raúl Labrador (R-ID), maybe Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Matt Salmon (R-AZ) and Jim Bridenstine (R-OK). They might oppose the corrupt corporate world view at the center of the GOP policy agenda hammered home of Boehner and Cantor, but even when they cross the aisle and vote with Democrats, they're almost all still far to the right of even the most reactionary Blue Dog/New Dem scum like John Barrow (GA), Jim Matheson (UT), Mike McIntyre (NC), Sean Patrick Maloney (NY), Pete Gallego (TX), Bill Owens (NY), Ron Barber (AZ), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) and Henry Cuellar (TX), all of whom vote with the Republicans on crucial roll calls much more often than they vote with their own party. Walter Jones, for example, has voted for progressive positions more often last year than 8 of the Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. His ProgressivePunch score is 39.06 for 2013. John Barrow's is 23.31 and Ron Barber's is 25.40. Jim Matheson is worse than any of them. Kyrsten Sinema lied to Arizona voters and portrayed herself as a "progressive Democrat" but she voted about as frequently with Boehner and Cantor as Justin Amash did and even more often than Jones.

So what does it mean today to be a libertarian in Congress? They tend to make common cause with progressives against domestic spying, marijuana prohibition and imperialistic foreign policy agenda. A few are fractionally less bigoted towards the LGBT community. But when it comes to economic equality, they're garden variety greed-and-selfishness Republicans who hate unions and hate working families. And, inexplicably, all of them side with their party in its war against women, its war against immigrants and its war against minorities. This weekend Edwin Lyngar, a former Ron Paul delegate and lifelong libertarian, wrote an essay at Salon about his transition from libertarianism to liberalism. He was always aware that libertarian circles were filled with kooks, nuts, conspiracy theorists and clowns. "Most of our supporters," he now admits, "were totally fucking nuts."

After leaving my small town upbringing, I learned that libertarians are made for lots of reasons, like reading the bad fiction of Ayn Rand or perhaps the passable writing of Robert Heinlein. In my experience, most seemed to be poor, white and undereducated. They were contortionists, justifying the excesses of the capitalist elite, despite being victims if libertarian politics succeed.

...I started losing respect for the movement while watching the financial meltdown. Libertarians were (rightly) furious when our government bailed out the banks, but they fought hardest against help for ordinary Americans. They hated unemployment insurance and reduced school lunches. I used to say similar things, but in such a catastrophic recession isn’t the government supposed to help? Isn’t that the lesson of the Great Depression?

Through all the turmoil, the presidential election went ahead. Although I didn’t vote for him, I wept when Barack Obama took the oath of office in early 2009. They were tears of bewilderment, joy, pride and hope, despite the fact that I did everything within my own limited power to keep the moment from ever happening.

From the ashes of the election rose the movement that pushed me from convinced libertarian into bunny-hugging liberal. The Tea Party monster forever tainted the words freedom and libertarian for me. The rise of the Tea Party made me want to puke, and my nausea is now a chronic condition.

There are a lot of libertarians in the Tea Party, but there are also a lot of repugnant, religious nuts and intolerant racists. “Birthers” found a comfy home among 9-11 conspiracy people and other crackpots. After only a few months, I had absolutely no desire to ever be linked to this group of people.

As evidence, I offer the most repugnant example of many complaints. I’ve heard the n-word used in casual conversation from people I would never expect.  Some people might not believe it or think I’m playing the race card, but I’m not. I’ve heard the word more than I care to admit and more often in the run-up to the 2012 election. Perhaps because I’m a big, fat and bald white guy with a mean goatee, racists think I’m on board with them. I am not, and I’m ashamed to admit that my cowardice at confronting this ugliness makes me complicit.

During Obama’s first term, I also went to graduate school for creative writing at progressive college, and I settled into my marriage with my wife, a Canadian and “goddamn liberal.” I can’t point to just one thing that pushed me left, but in Obama’s first term I had a change of heart, moving from a lifelong extreme into the bosom of conventional liberalism.

I began to think about real people, like my neighbors and people less lucky than me. Did I want those people to starve to death? I care about children, even poor ones. I love the National Park system. The best parts of the America I love are our communities. My libertarian friends might call me a fucking commie (they have) or a pussy, but extreme selfishness is just so isolating and cruel. Libertarianism is unnatural, and the size of the federal government is almost irrelevant. The real question is: what does society need and how do we pay for it?

A month before the 2012 election, I changed my party affiliation to Democrat. I am a very late bloomer, that it took me so many decades to develop my own values. I was thirty-nine.

I don’t think regular Americans have any idea just how crazy libertarians can be. The only human corollary I can offer is unquestioning religious fervor, and hell yeah, I used to be a true believer. Libertarians think they own the word “freedom,” but it’s a word that often obfuscates more than enlightens. If you believe the Johann Wolfgang von Goethe quote “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free,”  then libertarians live in a prison of their own ideology.

Late last year we looked at Libertarian Michael Cole (TX) who switched to the Democratic Party and announced her the seat that neo-fascist Steve Stockman is giving up to run for the U.S. Senate. In a guest post about his own odyssey he explained that "over the past year, I have discovered that the Libertarian Party no longer addresses my needs, my desires or my vision of the future of this country. I have come to the conclusion that in examination of my core beliefs, that I am more aligned with the Democrat Party."

The first real time that I began to second guess the Libertarian movement is when I took a class on the Gilded Age. The class was a real eye opener. For those that are not well versed on the time period, government regulations would have been a Libertarian dream; there was little or no regulation of business. Government was small. The nation was exploding in economic growth.

Unfortunately it was only to the benefit of the robber barons, the captains of industry. Unless you were affluent, life was hard. Workers were paid next to nothing; working conditions were horrid, children were worked just as hard as adults. Any attempts at organizing or redressing these wrongs were met with sometimes deadly force. If you were a minority or a woman, your rights were a joke at best. There were no protections for the worker, the consumer or the nation from the whims of the elite.

There was no limit to what a business could do. Prices rose. The gap between rich and poor widened. Government corruption was at an all time high. We were a rich nation, that was fast becoming a economic power house, but at what price?

The rise of the Progressives in the early 1900s began to change all that. Anti-Trust acts opened up the door to innovation and competition by making unfair business practices illegal. Workers rights and child protection laws were passed. The old adage, if you make overtime or your kid does not work in a sweat shop thank a Union is true.

So why would anyone want to return to that?

The answer simply could be the law of unintended consequences. In the quest for government reform, we do not see the downside to what we propose. We want less government, but do not realize that the loss of the EPA will not spur business as much as it would spur pollution. We do not realize that a loss of the FDA will not streamline the process for better drugs, but allow unsafe drugs to be marketed. We do not seem to understand that business will seek to make a profit even if it puts lives at risk. That is an acceptable cost for them. No business does the moral thing if it is unprofitable.

The idea of laissez-faire economics will not work, it never has. Society should be about helping as many people as possible, not enriching a few. That is not to say that success should not be encouraged, merely that it is possible to have more than a few win.

A Sensible Odyssey: East Texas Congressional Candidate Michael Cole Explains Why He Switched Parties

The other day, we met Jason Thigpen, a progressive Republican congressional candidate in North Carolina who realized his positions are more in line with the Democratic Party than with the Republican Party. He switched. Some Republicans, like Jason, become Democrats because of values. Others, like conservative Florida Democratic congressman Patrick Murphy, for example, switch for expediency or political opportunism. There's a difference, a really big one. In the eastern Texas suburbs around Houston, from Baytown up to backward Jasper in KKK country, the congressman is domestic terrorism suspect and former meth-freak, Steve Stockman. Last year, Libertarian Michael Cole ran against him. Together, Cole and the Democrat only managed to win 30% of the vote in this deep red district with an R+25 PVI and where Obama took just 26% of the vote against Romney. This year Cole is running again, but as a Democrat. I asked him to write a guest post about why and how he made that decision.

Why I am a Democrat
by Michael Cole

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…” Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence, 1776.

It would seem at first glance odd to use the first line of the Declaration of Independence as the lead off on an explanation of why a candidate, or a private citizen, had switched from the Libertarian to the Democrat Party; but, on reflection, it is possibly the best way to start. 237 years ago, the Declaration served as the explanation to the world as to why America would break off from the British Empire, our Founding Fathers addressed their grievances and the statement that the Empire no longer represented their needs, their desires or fit into their future. Over the past year, I have discovered that the Libertarian Party no longer addresses my needs, my desires or my vision of the future of this country. I have come to the conclusion that in examination of my core beliefs, that I am more aligned with the Democrat Party; as such, I seek to be elected as a Democrat.

The best way to begin explaining why I made the choice to switch parties could best be explained in why I was a Libertarian. The idea of personal freedom is an appealing call. At first glance the idea of the level of personal freedom would be attractive to any American. We fought a revolution for the right to make our own path. The Civil War, the First and Second World Wars have proven that Americans are willing to not only fight and die for their own freedoms, but to give the last full measure of human sacrifice for the freedoms of others.

When taken at first glance, the Libertarian Party is attractive. When you look at the looming federal debt; out of control spending, a federal government that seems to be out of control and mismanaged the idea of less government can be appealing. After all, if the American people are entrusting that much money to the government, then it MUST handle that money efficiently and currently there is no proof that the Federal Government is doing that. Too many times we see Libertarians pointing out the corruption of government.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary," James Madison- The Federalist Papers

The corruptibility of man is listed as the major flaw of government. That the individual can make better choices that a government that is riddled with corruption; after a while I began to wonder; if government fails because of corrupt men, then will not the same corruptness be found outside of government?

However, the answer is not the dismantling of our nation. If our government is corrupt and out of touch, it is because we allow it. You get the government that you vote in. Shutting down the government is not the answer. It is reform that is needed; it is a return to the progressive nature of Lincoln, of Theodore Roosevelt of FDR of JFK that we need.

The first real time that I began to second guess the Libertarian movement is when I took a class on the Gilded Age. The class was a real eye opener. For those that are not well versed on the time period, government regulations would have been a Libertarian dream; there was little or no regulation of business. Government was small. The nation was exploding in economic growth.

Unfortunately it was only to the benefit of the robber barons, the captains of industry. Unless you were affluent, life was hard. Workers were paid next to nothing; working conditions were horrid, children were worked just as hard as adults. Any attempts at organizing or redressing these wrongs were met with sometimes deadly force. If you were a minority or a woman, your rights were a joke at best. There were no protections for the worker, the consumer or the nation from the whims of the elite.

There was no limit to what a business could do. Prices rose. The gap between rich and poor widened. Government corruption was at an all time high. We were a rich nation, that was fast becoming a economic power house, but at what price?

The rise of the Progressives in the early 1900s began to change all that. Anti-Trust acts opened up the door to innovation and competition by making unfair business practices illegal. Workers rights and child protection laws were passed. The old adage, if you make overtime or your kid does not work in a sweat shop thank a Union is true.

So why would anyone want to return to that?

The answer simply could be the law of unintended consequences. In the quest for government reform, we do not see the downside to what we propose. We want less government, but do not realize that the loss of the EPA will not spur business as much as it would spur pollution. We do not realize that a loss of the FDA will not streamline the process for better drugs, but allow unsafe drugs to be marketed. We do not seem to understand that business will seek to make a profit even if it puts lives at risk. That is an acceptable cost for them. No business does the moral thing if it is unprofitable.

The idea of laissez-faire economics will not work, it never has. Society should be about helping as many people as possible, not enriching a few. That is not to say that success should not be encouraged, merely that it is possible to have more than a few win.

I began to question many things in the Libertarian ideologies. Extremely limited government is the calling card of the Libertarian side. They point out the Austrian Economists of Misses, Hayek and Freidman as the shining path to a better economy. In that path they oppose most if not all forms of government forays into the economy and most forms of government assistance. However, they seem at times to cherry pick their works.

“There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.”

Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom

Even the pillars of the Libertarian economic system felt that true freedom could only be ensured with a social safety net. So if they would have been in favor of modern Democrat Party issues, then it is arguable that any reasonable Libertarian should take a hard look at the Democrat Party.

So I took a hard look at the Democrat Party. Both my personal belief on liberty and individual responsibility is held in the party platform. Like the Democrat Party, I do not believe that money is equated to free speech, that corporations are NOT people. Like the Democratic platform I believe that the middle class is the bastion if greatness for our nation. That if we want to be truly strong and truly great we must invest in ourselves.

Democrats have traditionally felt the nation could achieve greatness. At the height of the Depression, FDR felt that America could afford Social Security. Kennedy felt that we could touch the surface of another planetary surface. LBJ felt that we could be a great society.

America is about dreams. America is about a better tomorrow. America is about ensuring that all succeed. It should be about how as many people as possible win.

“If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”

Kennedy and Hayek were right in that regard. A free nation that lets its weaker members fail for the benefit of the wealthy is not truly free. A society is no stronger than its weakest citizens. And from the best I can see, the Democrat party wants the most success for the most people. For that reason, I am proud to go Blue.

But, in this era of politicians speaking what they feel needs to be said to be elected; I expect many to doubt that sincerity. I understand it. I would be leery as well. I can only state that I ask that you judge me not only by my words, but my actions.