It’s easy to point and laugh at the strange libertarian/liberal bedfellows at yesterday’s anti-NSA protest, and other than the title of this post, I’ll leave it to the comments. But I will make a point about Libertarians that’s a bit different from NSFWCorp post that Anne Laurie linked to the other day. (Here’s a fresh NSFWCorp link if you missed it.) In that post Mark Ames digs into the archives of Reason Magazine to find articles explaining how libertarians will co-opt liberals by “political cross-dressing.” In short, he thinks that silly liberals will support libertarian causes (anti-NSA, anti-TSA) and miss the real agenda of libertarians, which is to privatize those agencies for the benefit and profit of their corporate backers.
As gullible as liberals might be, and as damaging that Koch cash is to under-funded Democrats in races, let’s not forget the key political fact about the Libertarian Party: a Libertarian challenger is about the best thing that can happen to Democrat, and the worst thing for a Republican, in any race for Congress or the Senate, especially if the Republican is a teabagger. My guess is that at least 2/3 of the vote going to a Libertarian in the average race is from “Reasonable Republicans”, and if the Libertarian isn’t a flake and the teaturd wears his tri-corner hat to every campaign rally, it might even be more. There are lots of Republicans who just can’t abide the Tea Party but who also are constitutionally unable to click on the “D” line. The Libertarian Party gives them an ideologically acceptable receptacle to throw away their vote.
The beautiful thing about the Libertarian Party is that all the corporate money thrown their way gives them the bucks to get a candidate on the ballot in races across the nation. If Liberals attending rallies where Gary Johnson speaks encourages the party to put more spoiler candidates on the ballot, that’s nothing but good news for Democrats.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
Because the Libertarians are going to aim for ‘reasonable Republicans’ and not ‘reasonable Democrats’. I’m Ralph Nader and I approve of this message.
Libertarians are Republicans ashamed to call themselves that. Democrats are worse. They always are. Why would they run to put more Democrats in power?
Cacti
Ummm, yeah.
Good thing our own front pagers don’t get sucked in by this.
giggle
So, what’s Edward Snowden up to these days Mistermix?
C.J.
Can anybody explain why Dan Choi was speaking at the rally thing?
Cacti
@C.J.:
Attention whore.
SATSQ
JPL
Is this the football thread?
Roger Moore
@C.J.:
Because he’s never seen a camera he doesn’t want to step in front of?
AxelFoley
@C.J.:
He was there, huh? I was wondering what he’s been up to.
Well, not really. But I’m not shocked that that attention whore was there, along with the rest of his fellow attention whores, grifters and rat-fuckers.
pluege
a really good line.
Omnes Omnibus
While I agree with you that the Libertarians pull support from the Republicans more than they do from Democrats, I still side with Ames on this. I don’t want to see Democrats get tied to the Libertarians in any visible way. Vote together where it makes sense, sure, but that’s about it. Also, if some of the Libertarians are Republicans who can’t stand the Tea Party but still hate Dems, having liberal or Dem involvement with Libertarians would tend to decrease their enthusiasm for the Libertarians
I see it as more of a don’t interrupt your opponent as he is making a mistake situation. Please proceed, rightwingers.
luc
Good to know that you seem to have no problems with the NSA behavior (seemingly only for the reason that it occurs under a democratic president).
Yatsuno
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
Fixteth. Though your point is also valid. A lot of Libertarians are Republicans who don’t like the constant Jeebus stuff either. But they are, in fact, Republicans. Which is why they vote for Republicans. Every. Single. Time.
(Lawd. What is with me and blockquote fails lately?)
Omnes Omnibus
@luc: You’re new here, ain’tcha?
Chris
My problem with left wing activists who reach out to libertarians on this topic is even simpler than that, actually. It’s not just the idea that we’re making a deal with the devil; if we were, it might be worth doing. It’s the fact that this particular devil has absolutely nothing to offer us.
We’re always talking about how the Pauls are just con artists, but the biggest con they’ve ever pulled is convincing people that they even matter. They’ve been around since the eighties at least; in that time, have they ever had any impact, any impact at all, on the political system, for good or for bad? Because if they have, I’ve never heard of it. Are they bringing any significant amount of money, or votes, or insider political connections, to the table? Not that I can see. So what do we gain by reaching out to them? If left wing activists have a problem with the security state, they can say so themselves. There’s no need to further legitimize a family of clowns whose only real audience is the media.
Botsplainer
Is it really good news if the presence of liberals helps to legitimize the views of libertarians?
“Even the liberal ‘X’ likes and associates with libertarian ‘Y’ on a number of issues, so the libertarian view really isn’t that nutty”.
Omnes Omnibus
@C.J.: I want to know why his military rank is being used on the website for the rally. Either he is still out of the service and shouldn’t be using it or he is back in and using it is a violation of the UCMJ. Besides, lieutenant? Not that impressive.
Anya
@C.J.: I dislike Dan Choi as much as the next guy, but why wouldn’t he be there? Should he be a one issue agitator? Also, too, he always struck me as libertarian.
Bill E Pilgrim
I just read that article by Ames and the summary for me is basically that Bill Maher is a shallow half-idiot who’s easily taken in by, and given to, ideological posturing. This of course is something I pretty much already knew. That may be a bit too summarized of course, so we can add “and others like Maher” but the point is the same really.
If someone were saying that you can’t be aghast at the continuing “war on terror” and all of the abuses that go along with it without subscribing to all of the views of anyone else who feels that way, for example oh let’s say Rand Paul, I’d say that that person is about as shallow as Bill Maher.
If someone is not saying that but only pointing out that some people are dupes and there are always people ready to dupe them, fine, but that feels pretty banal and obvious.
Michael Bloom
Yeah, I have a problem with this too: that the parts of libertarian rhetoric most appealing to Democrats are the opposition to the National Security State, regulatory capture, and privatization– all the traits of plutocracy that those of us in the 99% need to stand against. If libertarian arguments peel off those people, our candidates might not think this stuff matters.
Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937
When was a Saturday protest of a thousand people covered by the national news? I couldn’t believe it was on my TV last night. the immigration reform march a few weeks ago was bigger and not covered.
Yatsuno
@luc:
lolwut?
Valdivia
OT but RIP Lou Reed
Chyron HR
Sure, every other time True Progressives have joined forces with right-wingers you’ve ended up being their useful idiots, but THIS TIME it’ll be different, right?
Corner Stone
mistermix, this seems like two different posts crammed onto each other with no obvious break in between.
Maybe I’m just distracted by the hot NFL action.
Omnes Omnibus
@Valdivia: WHA??????
ETA: Damn. Rolling Stone’s obit.
Frankensteinbeck
@Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937:
Protests of 300 people are covered by the national news, if they’re Heartland Americans. Protests of 100,000 people are not covered, if they’re poor Latinos in Los Angeles demanding that the government help people.
Valdivia
@Omnes Omnibus:
yeah, just saw it on the twitters. :(
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/lou-reed-velvet-underground-leader-and-rock-pioneer-dead-at-71-20131027
max
In short, he thinks that silly liberals will support libertarian causes (anti-NSA, anti-TSA) and miss the real agenda of libertarians, which is to privatize those agencies for the benefit and profit of their corporate backers.
I like Ames just fine, but I doubt privatize everything applies much to the NSA. (The privatization that bringeth the money in for the corporate backers has already occurred – that’s why we have a contractor problem. Reducing funding to the NSA reduces their income. Reason-style libertarians certainly want to privatize everything as a matter of ideological commitment but if you haven’t noticed they have constructed their Super ZIP Disneyland full of ideological amusement rides. Libertarians in that context are useful idiots for rich people. The kind of folks who have one single ideological commitment – MORE MONEY FOR RICH PEOPLE.)
At any rate, since civil liberals (I don’t know how libertarian wandered into that construction but it should leave now) are generally outnumbered, sometimes by a little, mostly hopelessly, it is nice when the Reason types come over to the side of the angels but one doubts their commitment to civil liberalism. As Rand Paul so frequently demonstrates.
Whatever. In the four decades since the Libertarian party sprouted, the movement proper has gone nowhere except for the times when its candidates can play the More Republican Than Thou card against the regular R candidate, and even that generally goes nowhere.
max
[‘When this subject comes up, people sure do spend a lot of time freaking out about weird, random and totally unrelated shit.’]
Ronnie Pudding
Why is this being framed as a libertarian cause? I can’t be pissed about the NSA because it might benefit libertarians? “White Riot”? Wtf.
And good for Dan Choi. He’s right on this issue.
Hill Dweller
@Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937:
For the same reason the Village paid little attention to Republicans at all levels of government sabotaging Obamacare. But the minute the website has issues, it is treated as a crime against humanity.
The Village is wired for Republicans.
Botsplainer
@Yatsuno:
Actually, this phrase says it all.
They support Republican governance and talking points, would caucus with them and will throw their own putative goals aside in order to support Christian conservative governance.
You don’t see them at many choice events or taking the lead on objections to state sponsored religion or school prayer, do you?
Valdivia
@Frankensteinbeck:
Exactly! I was out and about yesterday and there was barely a ripply downtown from these guys, but hey they made the news. Immigration, nah. But they’re Real Americans so they get primo time on TV.
Baud
Policy wise, I don’t see how libertarians are worse than any other type of Republican we have to deal with. Their threat comes from convincing enough gullible, otherwise-Democratic voters not to support Democrats.
Hill Dweller
@Valdivia:
I blame Metallica.
Chris
@max:
Exactly.
Like I said above: they don’t matter. There’s no reason to reach out to people who bring so little to the table unless you’re in the MSM’s mindset of “it’s only legitimate if it’s bipartisan or if a Republican does it.”
Anya
@Valdivia: I had to google him so what type of a cred do I lose?
gnomedad
Stay home and donate to the ACLU.
Betsy
@luc: that is SO funny, given the comments posted on Cole’s last post
Oh, my.
Cassidy
This line if thinking doesn’t take into account local republicans sandbagging elections by running people in the dem primaries, winning, and then dropping out, leaving the conservative candidate unopposed.
@Omnes Omnibus: Aug 3 as well.
Omnes Omnibus
@Cassidy: Jeebus.
Betsy
@Yatsuno: I know, I know! It’s like radio what’s his number never happened last night. ha
ETA: rda909 I mean
Omnes Omnibus
@Betsy: Not just that. There have been a large number of threads about the NSA on this very blog time and time again and the FPer who wrote this post has written a lot of them.
Valdivia
@Anya:
none with me! :)
@Hill Dweller:
excellent idea.
Sly
@Valdivia:
In Memoriam
Redshift
@Yatsuno: Yeah. Republicans who are ashamed to call themselves that are mostly independents, not libertarians. (Hence the meaninglessness of “Romney is winning independents,” which only happened because so many Republicans became independents post-Bush.)
Violet
@Valdivia: Oh, man. What a loss.
Redshift
@Frankensteinbeck:
Or if they’re anti-war protesters.
Sly
I’m all for pressuring Republicans and Republican-leaning independents into voting for vanity third party candidates.
But to believe that this is the goal of heighten-the-contradictions, solipsistic and self-involved leftists and “liberaltarians” (guffaw) is to be engaged in a deep and dangerous delusion.
Redshift
@Ronnie Pudding: No one’s saying you can’t be pissed about it, they’re just saying it’s a bad idea to legitimize it as a libertarian issue by holding joint protests with libertarians.
Redshift
@Valdivia: Damn. I’m glad I got to see him, but it’s a major loss.
mai naem
@Valdivia: Guess Lou’s taking a walk on the wild side now.
Marcia Wallace died yesterday. Wonder who number three is going to be?
We used to have Barney Miller, Bob Newhart and MASH reruns on our indie TV channel in the 80s. I never got into the Barney Miller show but I loved the Bob Newhart show. I didn’t watch MASH for the longest time because of the theme song which I thought meant that it was going to be a depressing show. Major Duh!
Suzanne
@Valdivia: i have no idea why I’m shocked by thus, but I am.
Omnes Omnibus
@Redshift:
I never did. I am envious.
Liberty60
Libertarianism is founded on a vehement opposition to the core value of liberalism, which is the social contract, where individual liberty is protected by collective action.
Some have called libertarians crypto-authoritarians, for good reason.
Follow the logic of their “every man his own property” and you arrive at “Might Makes Right”.
Spaghetti Lee
Honestly, I think MM is right here. The sort of people who “could” vote Dem but can be peeled away by the Libertarians are probably people who are actively looking for excuses not to vote Democrat. That said, anyone who is scared away from fighting for what they believe just because libertarians happen to agree with it needs to grow a spine.
And so long, Lou Reed. I think he got better as he went along. I’m not much for the Velvets, but I love New York and Magic and Loss.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ronnie Pudding: This wasn’t a post about NSA surveillance – except tangentially.
FlipYrWhig
Ya know, this is a place where I come down somewhere other than where I usually do. I think a huge amount of the NSA “revelations” has been utter bullshit, misconstrued and then exaggerated by people eager to strut their independence from Obama and Democrats. But if people really do care about this set of issues, this doesn’t strike me as a bad way to go about it. Let the obnoxious libertarian Republicans be good for _something_. There isn’t a one-drop rule where if bro-bertarians like something it taints that thing for everyone else. (Consider decriminalized weed, for instance. OK, come back to me now…)
Big businesses favor a more lenient immigration policy, and so do I, but that doesn’t mean I’m on board with everything else big businesses want to do, and if Monsanto or someone wants to sponsor an immigrant-rights rally, it doesn’t mean everyone at the rally also just got duped into supporting pesticides and GMOs.
SatanicPanic
@Yatsuno: I don’t totally agree with this. Libertarians are far more invested in ideology than mainline Republicans. Republicans and liberals at least agree that government should be used to solve problems and to help people in need, they just disagree on the problems and who deserves help. Libertarians don’t believe this at all. They’re like communists are to liberals- they might vote along with us because our interests sometimes agree, but they’re not like us.
If libertarians had an ideology that would at all appeal to people, I might be scared.
Baud
@SatanicPanic:
If that were ever true, it’s not anymore. The only difference between Republicans and libertarians may be that Republicans will protect their own, while a sincere libertarian will not. But even libertarians have to get elected, so I’d imagine that distinction also isn’t a real one.
Omnes Omnibus
@Spaghetti Lee:
It’s not about being scared to fight for something because libertarians support it as well, it is about fighting smart. Fundamentally, libertarians do not share my view of how society should function. We may agree on a couple of outcomes, but that is about it. They aren’t an ally.
SatanicPanic
@Baud: Sure it is. The tea party wing might be opposed, but they’re still a minority. Most Republicans are more than happy to help people in need. They just define “people in need” as rich people.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Redshift:
Me too!
Lou was touring in ’84 (?), came through Grand Rapids on a Monday night. He played at Fountain Street Church. Friends and I got tickets in the small balcony, just above the stage to Lou’s right. It was like 8-10 of us Xers up there, rockin’ out, and a floor full of Boomers sitting on their hands. Mid-set, Lou says something like, “Man, this place is dead. Are you people bored?” Then he looks up at us in the balcony and says, “Not you guys. You’re great! Thank you!”
So I’ve got that going for me.
Spaghetti Lee
@Baud:
I think the difference is mostly just attitudes and style choices: what buzzwords you use, where you’re from, where you went to school, who you specifically hate and loathe (gays, Messicans, and atheists vs. ‘statists’ and social Democrats), etc. If there’s a functional difference between Justin Amash and, say, Richard Shelby, I can’t see it.
Baud
@SatanicPanic:
The tea party may be a minority, but they control the Republicans right now. I don’t see a point in speculating what non-tea-party Republicans believe in their heart if they cede control of the party to the tea party.
@Spaghetti Lee:
I agree. For example, is there a high-profile libertarian that is pro-choice? That would seem to be a no-brainer for them.
ericblair
@FlipYrWhig:
They won’t, though. When you had Rand Paul hopping up and down on the teevee about privacy and drones, you’ll note that he didn’t work the Senate to push through a bill, which would have been a good place to start since he is supposed to be some sort of Senator. What he did do was to push for a practically useless but grifteriffic lawsuit against the NSA.
Libertarians are crypto Republicans or grifters or hackers/cyberstalkers or usually a combination of the above. They’re not going to help.
SatanicPanic
@Baud: because it means that there’s a potential for a split there. I don’t think libertarians and conservatives are a good fit, just like anarchists and communists are both considered left, but they don’t actually have much in common.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@SatanicPanic:
Just watch how quickly a Libertarian will set aside their demand for a balanced budget when it’s the Republicans are calling for a tax cut. That realization that Libertarian ideology is a mile wide and an inch deep got me out of that fucked up party. Which is just as well with their idiotic ideology about national security that it should be done by self funding mercenaries.
Omnes Omnibus
@Enhanced Voting Techniques:
Pillage and plunder?
SiubhanDuinne
@Cassidy:
@Omnes Omnibus:
Okay, as an August Thirdie myself, now I’m curious.
Omnes Omnibus
@SiubhanDuinne: Came up in conversation last night. Turns out Cassidy is one of us. That’s about all there is. Statistically, it probably is normal.
SatanicPanic
@Enhanced Voting Techniques:
When you want to destroy the social safety net either one works
FlipYrWhig
@ericblair: agreed, but rallying for a cause is at least somewhat helpful in terms of “awareness.” At a certain point awareness has to meet action, I agree, and most libertarian-leaning Republicans haven’t bothered with that part.
Chris
@Spaghetti Lee:
Yeah, and even “who you specifically hate and loathe” tends to add up to the same thing. SoCons like segregation because it keeps black people down, but glibertarians like it because it gives them more disenfranchised people to prey off of. Glibertarians hate regulations and taxes because they prevent them from doing as they please, but SoCons hate them because they often protect those same cultural groups that they hate.
The difference between libertarians and the more culturally conservative elements of the party is basically “do you hate gays, Messicans and atheists because they support statists and Social-Democrats, or do you hate statists and Social-Democrats because they support gays, Messicans and atheists?” Which is, at this point, a chicken-and-egg question and a distinction without a difference.
Chris
@Enhanced Voting Techniques:
Ditto. As a late teenager I gave libertarianism a brief look on the way from “conservative” to “liberal.” And moved right on past it mostly for the same reasons as you.
SiubhanDuinne
@Omnes Omnibus: Thanks.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@Spaghetti Lee:
Between yesterday’s thread and this one, I think the message is If you’re going to partner up with libertarians, be sure you have a plan/policy already worked out that you want them to agree with, because we guarantee you that ALEC has already written one for them.
IMO, that’s how liberals get themselves into trouble when partnering up with libertarians: they assume that everyone is just coming together to agree on general principles, while the libertarians have pre-written legislation in their pockets that they’re going to try and implement as soon as enough teabaggers get into office. Like it or not, they plan ahead far more than liberals do, so any liberals getting involved with them need to be prepared to counteract the libertarians’ plan.
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
It’s going to take a lot more than a marginal increase in the chance for electoral vicory for me to hang out with glibertarians.
I’m happy to let our progressive betters do so, however, if that’s their wont.
Can’t hurt, escept they’ll come regurgitate the bullshit here, as is obviously their wont.
Ruckus
Really isn’t this about knowing your enemies?
Libertarians or Republicans, what is the difference?
How they get to the same point of screwing everyone else?
The words they use to describe the trip to the point of screwing everyone else?
They are not your friends. They both want policies that will negatively effect you, greatly effect you. You like one of their policies? Don’t be fooled, they will be willing to give up that policy to screw you over.
jamick6000
all the panic about libertarians is pretty funny to me. very, very few people actually believe in libertarian garbage; the few who do are just loud. Yet some liberals seem to be in a constant panic about them, constantly trying to ferret out libertarians.
as for Ames/NSFWcorp: they’ve had it in for Snowden from the start. His boss, Paul Carr has a long history of shilling for tech companies, and it’s who NSFW gets its funding from. (Obviously, Snowden’s leaks have damaged tech companies.) I wouldn’t pay to much attention to these stories.
nellcote
@FlipYrWhig:
Most of the rally photos I’ve seen feature Oathkeepers banners. What am I supposed to be aware of again?
Omnes Omnibus
@nellcote: Basically, I would not want to share a stage with the Oathkeepers over any issue. I would not want to lend them any legitimacy (assuming that I have legitimacy to lend).
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@jamick6000:
Ames himself has, ya know, a little bit of first-hand experience with Putin, Putin’s plutocratic friends (inside and outside of Russia) and their security apparatus. Follow that money.
Yastreblyansky
@Cacti: Meow.
Yastreblyansky
@Cacti: Meow.
J R in WV
@Omnes Omnibus:
Hep me out here – what are the Oathkeepers? I saw a PU truck the other day with a decal on the back window… but can’t tell what it’s about from that.
OK, Google reminds me of the nuts there. Nevermind…
Omnes Omnibus
@J R in WV: Oathkeepers.
jamick6000
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): follow my ass
J R in WV
I have Veterans for Obama bumperstickers on one car and one truck – so I took that oath, and I had the classes on the UCMJ and legal vrs not-legal orders.
Not legal orders mostly involve not burning a village just because a rabid LT says so. Might also involve not invading a country that never did anything to the USA, by the way! But IOKIYAR, right? No Oathkeeper stuff for Shrub, right?
What’s the difference there? Ok Yeh, Blackity blak black, right?
ETA: How about those Lions!? take over the ball with less than a minute to go and beat the [email protected]! Whoo… I’ve never rooted for the Lions before, but that was quite a game by Stafford and his receivers.
Phil Perspective
@max: One forgets that Obama, Clinton, Rahmbo and a lot of Democratic elites fall for that clap-trap by trying to privatize schools and a lot of other things. Do people forget the 1990’s already and Bill and Al’s attempt at reinventing government?
Omnes Omnibus
@J R in WV: That was a difficult game for me. As a Packer fan, I naturally root against both teams. So today, I didn’t exactly root for Dallas to win, it was more that I was rooting for Detroit to lose. Not how it went down, but those are the breaks.
gorram
@FlipYrWhig: The separate liberal and libertarian perspectives on both the security state and immigration matter though. We’re both “pro-immigration” in that we largely oppose militarizing the US-Mexico border in order to stall border-crossing, but libertarians have absolutely no interest in amnesty and want any path to citizenship to be built around those immigrants being productive little workers for technically illegal wages.
Likewise, the language used by Stop Watching Us (or, for that matter Rand Paul’s filibuster on drones) should give you pause. They keep talking about the effects on “suspicionless” US citizens – if you lack citizenship, if you’re deemed “suspicious” (GOLLY GEE WHAT’S THAT CODE FOR?), or in Paul’s case if you’re just a US citizen who’s overseas (which may or may not be proof of “suspicion”), their arguments are designed not to apply. Just like with the drive for privatizing the TSA and rebuilding a slimmed down version around ethnic and religious profiling, there’s an implicit argument here for something similar to be done with the NSA.
The only way that the liberal and libertarian perspectives on this look “shared” is if you contrast them with non-libertarian conservative ideas. We all know both sides do it is bullshit, but an equally important part of challenging that is noticing that there’s not two sides. There are conservatives who fit into the GOP narrative about when government is or isn’t appropriate, but there are also conservatives (ie “libertarians”) who on a few issues are concerned about indirect impacts on them or their businesses. It’s important not to confuse that with them caring at all about the other people who are primarily impacted by immigration or security policy, because the record shows that they won’t lift a finger for them.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@jamick6000:
You keep doing your damnedest to dismantle that which keeps tabs on the plutocrats offshore banking activities- including, but not limited to, funding the violent crackdowns on striking labor in the Central Asian and Transcaucasian petro-fields- and ain’t nobody gonna be following your ass anywhere. Chasing it, maybe…
FlipYrWhig
@gorram: all that is fine, but I don’t need to share someone’s fundamental perspectives in order to have goals in common. Sometimes someone who sucks ass is going to blunder into a political position I also hold, and I’m not going to reconsider my view just to get his cooties off me.