Well.

[demiurgent]

The democrats -- including my favorite, Howard Dean -- are looking to "neutralize and compromise" on Gay Marriage and Abortion.

They think, because they're truly fucking stupid, that they lost because they were painted as extreme on these issues.

I think they lost because they don't nominate dynamic progressives. They nominate faux-Republicans who don't inspire anyone in any way.

John Kerry lost them that election, because he was painted as a Liberal by the enemy even though he was a pro-business moderate. Anyone we field will be painted that way. If we had an actual honest to Christ charismatic Progressive at the front of the ticket....

But no. Now they want to compromise their stance on Women's rights, on Gay rights, on Civil rights.

Why the fuck should I vote for them? If they're just going to do Republican things in office, they aren't an alternative to the Republicans. If they're not going to fight because they're afraid they'll lose, then they've already fucking lost.

And once again, I'm reminded that somehow, I've turned into someone whose opinions and beliefs are simply not relevant to the United States of America. I have no home. I have no party. There is no room for Liberals in American government any more.

Merry Christmas.

Comments

sliding toward mediocrity and ignorance

[cinnabari.livejournal.com]

I have no home. I have no party.

Ditto. I feel like we're backsliding into ... I can't say the Dark Ages, because I'd welcome a little honest barbarians-at-the-gate right now, instead of all this pandering, compromising, mealy-mouthed moralizing. Rather than fight and - gasp! - educate people and try to change the world, we should duck our heads and go along with the 'moral majority' and promote ignorance? I am afraid for our country. And sad for it, too.

[ocarina.livejournal.com]

Wait, wait.. the Republicans have been loving big government, spending like crazy on top of being social conservatives... and now the Democrats are going to be big government fans who aren't social liberals??

They're turning into the SAME PARTY.

But on the bonus, this means people may have to give up on these loser parties and actually join the one that best represents their views. You know, the only party for classical liberals. And boy do the Libertarians need some main stream moderates in the party.

[eagle]

The problems there are that first, the libertarian party is a bad joke, second, that they don't believe in the social contract, emergent societal behavior, or any other sensible approach to dealing with a modern society and therefore are not a suitable home for progressives, and third, the chances of a third party winning the presidency of the US are an order of magnitude smaller than the Democratic Party doing an abrupt about-face.

Other than that, perfect.

Am I getting snarky in websnark's journal? o.o

[ocarina.livejournal.com]

Only a bad joke in that we keep nominating nutsos who say they want to do unconstitutional things. Otherwise, the people we elect in smaller offices are simple moderate social liberals/economic conservatives who basically want the government smaller. We're better in practice than any other party.

"second, that they don't believe in the social contract, emergent societal behavior, or any other sensible approach to dealing with a modern society and therefore are not a suitable home for progressives"

I'm going to have to strongly disagree and, pending an explanation, think you're a jerk who knows nothing about politics, economics, society, or Libertarians. Sorry. That's just such a mess of words that don't mean anything with no concrete ideas behind it. I could as soon say the democratic party has no real foresight on socio-economic issues or innovative ways for dealing with timeless issues and is therefore a party suited only for old, rich people with too much time on their hands. It is just as empty, meaningless, and pompous.

And I guess just because the president is so visibly a head of his party, you assume he has a lot of power and only toes the party line. Despite this third party getting his ear on things that really matter to us, like the fair tax. We don't have to elect anyone to get our ideas into practice, and for someone for whom ideas are more important than those who espouse them, that's what matters to me.

Re: Am I getting snarky in websnark's journal? o.o

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

I want it known, for all those involved, that I'm backing away from this particular subthread like the coward I am.

Game on, sir and madam.

Re: Am I getting snarky in websnark's journal? o.o

[eagle]

I'm going to have to strongly disagree and, pending an explanation, think you're a jerk who knows nothing about politics, economics, society, or Libertarians. Sorry. That's just such a mess of words that don't mean anything with no concrete ideas behind it. I could as soon say the democratic party has no real foresight on socio-economic issues or innovative ways for dealing with timeless issues and is therefore a party suited only for old, rich people with too much time on their hands. It is just as empty, meaningless, and pompous.

You know, if you decide you want to insult someone, just do it. If you're going to apologize immediately afterwards, maybe you should consider whether you really should have done it in the first place.

I completely agree with you about the Democratic Party. I'm not a Democrat either. But the idea that the libertarian party is a home for progressives strikes me as absurd. Last time I checked, the libertarian party platform didn't include universal health care, a living wage, a universal safety net, a strong and healthy public sector, an aggressive and powerful legal check on corporations and capitalism, or a sense of obligation to society as a separate entity with different emergent properties, not just a collection of individuals.

I'm in some position to know. I used to be a libertarian. I'm not any more, precisely because over time I've developed a different set of priorities.

Maybe the libertarian party could become all of those things, but I highly doubt it. It's more likely the Democrats can become those things, although unfortunately that's also unlikely.

And yes, I've heard the whole third party rant many times. I agree it has some effect; I don't agree that it has enough effect to really change the direction of the country. I'm just not convinced. I could be wrong, but it's not because I've not thought about the arguments.

game on!

[ocarina.livejournal.com]

See, I didn't really insult you, just told you what I think based on those words. If you are, in fact, just those words, then maybe I'm right. But you're not.

Basically it appears to me that your terms for 'liberal' and 'progressive' are entirely routed in very, very modern and limited rhetoric. Progressive doesn't mean liberal or Democrat, as you probably well know. It means something that moves forward. How can Democrats call themselves progressives when some of their ideas are old and already proven not to work elsewhere? Libertarians are actually coming up with NEW ideas with ideas for government that move forward, not backwards. MORE freedom, not back to less.

Classical liberals ARE what today's libertarians are for the most part. Go to Europe or England and ask what a liberal is. It's a someone for smaller government and more freedom. It's Jeffersonian.

And the both today's Republican and Democratic parties used to be third parties, which you should know since you used to be one, but must have forgotten.

I just don't know how anyone who advocates forcing people to do things can call themselves progressive, is all. Your list of requirements - I can see all that in the Libertarian ideas. Not necessarily the government providing it, but it is there. And you're mistaken if you think that most Libertarians don't want ways to check corporations. But most people would agree that we don't want corporations regulating themselves, yet would allow the government to become a self-regulating corporation.

The main problem with Libertarians is that there are too many anarchists or capitalist-anarchists in the party. But every group has its extremists, though not all are defined by it in the media.

Re: game on!

[eagle]

I do understand the libertarian party platform; LJ comments probably aren't the best forum to try to cover all the bases in a political discussion. I'll also spare Eric an extended political argument in his private LJ. :) Just a small handful of additional comments, and then I'll shut up about this -- it's something I feel strongly about due to personal history.

I agree with you that Jeffersonian liberals and libertarians are very close. I'm not a Jeffersonian liberal either. In US terms, I'm a socialist, although the US being as right-wing as it is, that doesn't really mean all that much. (The Democratic Party would be the centrist-right party in pretty much any European country.) The political language and labels in the US are a mess, to say the least, so I'm going to have a hard time succinctly communicating to you the general set of things I believe in, but I do know that it's not US libertarian.

I understand how the libertarian party aims to provide the things that I want; I was a subscriber to The Freeman (published by the Foundation for Economic Education) for years and read it cover-to-cover. After a whole lot of thought and discussion and study of economics and thought about how people behave, I personally came to the conclusion that I don't think that approach will work. I think it's based on a lot of assumptions that sound good in theory but are not born out in practice.

I'm not trying to convince you here; it would take far more words than this, and I think Eric would get rather tired of us if we really tried to have the full debate here. (Not to mention that I've lost a lot of my enthusiasm for that debate over the years.) This isn't really an argument -- consider it an example of the reaction to the libertarian party from someone who calls himself progressive and who, similar to Eric, doesn't find a home in the Democratic Party these days.

If I were going to jump to a third party, I'd be more likely to go to the Green Party, particularly since they've gotten rid of Nader (great consumer advocate, really bad politician).

Re: game on!

[ocarina.livejournal.com]

Wow, I've gotta admit, I'm just impressed to meet with someone who's so totally opposite from my views for almost the exact same reasons. It's probably good for me, since dissent only makes me stronger! =D

But "After a whole lot of thought and discussion and study of economics and thought about how people behave, I personally came to the conclusion that I don't think that approach will work. I think it's based on a lot of assumptions that sound good in theory but are not born out in practice." is pretty much word for word how I'd describe what I think of socialism.
I'm a lot more practical than most Libertarians, especially because Jefferson himself went against his ideas when doing things that turned out really good for the country (buying Louisiana for one), but now that I'm living in a much more socialist country (Canada), I'm realizing more and more why socialism isn't progressive, but more of a status quo thing.

I totally agree with you about Nader, btw, but I also think the Green party is a trussed up lobbying group, a statement that never fails to get me punched by a very dear friend who's a big Green. I'm a big enviromentalist, but on my dollar, because I tend to think the government just does everything badly, inefficiently, or corruptly, so should do as little as possible.

Anyway, sorry for getting so snarky before, honestly. You just don't make any sense to me, and now that you've backed up your stance with more ideas and information, I find that fascinating. But I am a bit defensive when it comes to my party, though I spend a lot of time ranting about it with other libs.

Re: game on!

[eagle]

Oh, no problem at all! My initial response was flippant, so I had it coming. :) And I do understand how you feel -- understanding of what the Libertarian Party really stands for is a bit hard to come by (particularly once one digs deeper than the War on Some Drugs). One thing that I really do respect about libertarians is that by and large they think hard about their positions.

Hope you're having a really good holiday season. Maybe some other time we'll have an extended debate. :)

Re: game on!

[ocarina.livejournal.com]

"Maybe some other time we'll have an extended debate. :)"

It's a date! :D Let's do it in Eric's journal again, so everyone will think he's getting lots of comments, but he's not!

And the holidays just aren't complete without avoiding helping out in the kitchen thanks to the internet and commenting in LJ!

[nous-athanatos.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

I think that the Democratic party pretty much ceased to exist somewhere during the Reagan era. All that is left is a pathetic little ghost of the party that has not yet lost the habit of power. I'm sure it will linger on because it has deep enough pockets that it can stay on life support indefinitely. The state is giving way to the market and the Dems have just resigned themselves to being the other market alternative, rather than an alternative to the market.

::sigh::

[paradisacorbasi.livejournal.com]

It's all very depressing.

I'm honestly giving serious thought to joining that kid's Jedi party.

[nicholey-2003.livejournal.com]

i'll agree. it's hard to be a liberal democrat these days because i find us losing so much support from our own party. when howard dean becomes moderate ... that's how you know we have some issues to tackle.

i honestly believe, though, that if enough people stand up and remind the rest of us democrats just what we as a party are founded on - what our core beliefs are - then with any luck our party will begin to realize what has to be done to take the country back. becoming moderate is not going to do it. taking a stand ... it just might.

[freakfest.livejournal.com]

We're thinking about moving. Our current choices include Canada, Scotland, and some Scandinavian country. Iceland, maybe. Anywhere but here.

[forsythferret.livejournal.com]

"Maybe if we stop doing all these things that make them mad, they'll stop calling us nasty names."

Except, y'know, the Republicans will just move even further right. How long at this rate before Nixon looks like a socialist?

Sigh. I know precisely how you feel, but I'm either stupid enough or naieve enough to hope things can be turned around..

[wednesday]

an actual honest to Christ charismatic Progressive

Last I checked, the Charistmatics didn't have a strong progressive presence in government -- oh no wait.

um how is your spam filter is it full of real but old mail said roast beef