8 replies to this topic

[Kevin Street]

Here's a really fascinatng article by Julian Sanchez:

Attack of the Dean-Leaners: The Libertarian Case for the Democrats

His basic argument is that government grows most slowly when the executive and legislative branches are held by different parties, and that Democrats are somewhat closer to Libertarian ideals (relatively speaking) than Republicans, so a Democrat might as well be President. In a perfect world, he'd rather vote for the Libertarian candidate, but practically speaking, Democrats will have to do.

Quote

When we look at those outcomes, we find that, as Harvard's Jeffrey Frankel wrote in late 2002, there is a dramatic disconnect between rhetoric and reality: "The pattern is so well established that the generalisation can no longer be denied: The Republicans have become the party of fiscal irresponsibility, trade restriction, big government and bad microeconomics. Surprisingly, Democrat presidents have, relatively speaking, become the proponents of fiscal responsibility, free trade, competitive markets and neoclassical microeconomics."

Hmmm...

[G1223]

So does he mean we need to return the left to power in congress becasue it was the mismanagement of republicans for the6 yrs they have had power that got us into this mess while their near stranglehold on power from 1952 to 1996 was a sign that the government was going great.....   Yeah right

[Kevin Street]

^ No, he's saying that Libertarians should vote for a Democratic President because:

1. Republicans will still control both Legislative branches, and the different powers will balance each other out.

2. Democratic administrations usually enact legislation that's a smidgen closer to the Libertarian ideal. Republican administrations are as anti-Libertarian as you can get.

[Delvo]

I've never met a Libertarian who considered Democrats closer to their thinking than Republicans, nor can I imagine how anyone could think so... unless they're Libertarian in name only, sorto like John MacCain and Jim Jeffords calling themselves Republicans. The more common thought among Libertarians is that Democrats are the most dangerous thing to the country, and Republicans are just not really opposing them. And I've even heard some Libertarians say, for THAT reason, that favoring the Democrats would be good, only for the purpose of destroying the Republican Party and replacing it with one that would actually oppose the Democrats instead!

[Kevin Street]

But maybe its time to rethink old allegiances? Something has to change, if Libertarians ever want to make progress toward their goals.

Edited by Kevin Street, 17 October 2003 - 02:59 PM.

[Rov Judicata]

I don't see how democrats can possibly be considered closer to libertarian ideals than republicans.

Other than that, it's a solid analysis. I rather like the idea of things needing broad bipartisan support. Not only is it less dangerous, it's also far more entertaining.

[Drew]

Quote

Should Libertarians vote Democrat?

No. Democrats should vote Libertarian.  

[Drew]

Javert Rovinski, on Oct 17 2003, 04:02 PM, said:

I rather like the idea of things needing broad bipartisan support. Not only is it less dangerous, it's also far more entertaining.

I lean toward the notion that Congressional gridlock was built into the system from the start. It's yet another check-and-balance.  

[Kevin Street]

Javert Rovinski, on Oct 17 2003, 03:02 PM, said:

I don't see how democrats can possibly be considered closer to libertarian ideals than republicans.

Some Libertarian ideals, anyway.

This the link Sanchez quotes from in my quote of him (Try saying that three times fast! ):

Trading Places

Quote

By  Jeffrey Frankel:
How did the Republican party, long associated with fiscal conservatism, come to preside over so large a deviation from sound economic policy? It is the result of a long but little-noticed transformation.

Since the 1960s, the Republican and Democrat administrations have switched places on economic policy. The pattern is so well established that the generalisation can no longer be denied: the Republicans have become the party of fiscal irresponsibility, trade restriction, big government and bad microeconomics.

Surprisingly, Democrat presidents have, relatively speaking, become the proponents of fiscal responsibility, free trade, competitive markets and neoclassical microeconomics. This characterisation sounds implausible. Certainly, it would not be recognisable from the two parties' rhetoric. But compare the records of Presidents Carter and Clinton with those of Presidents Reagan, Bush senior and Bush junior.

And he goes on to do just that.