Well.

Dec. 24th, 2004 12:33 pm
demiurgent: (Dark Eric)
[personal profile] 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.

game on!

Date: 2004-12-24 07:59 pm (UTC)
ext_11867: (Default)
From: [identity profile] 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!

Date: 2004-12-24 08:12 pm (UTC)
eagle: Me at the Adobe in Yachats, Oregon (Default)
From: [personal profile] 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!

Date: 2004-12-24 08:23 pm (UTC)
ext_11867: (Default)
From: [identity profile] 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!

Date: 2004-12-24 08:35 pm (UTC)
eagle: Me at the Adobe in Yachats, Oregon (Default)
From: [personal profile] 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!

Date: 2004-12-24 08:42 pm (UTC)
ext_11867: (Default)
From: [identity profile] 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!

Profile

demiurgent: (Default)
demiurgent

June 2013

S M T W T F S
      1
234 5678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags