Could we form a new "permanent" majority dem party by appealing

[Hamlette]

to libertarians?

quote:

Conservative fusionism, the defining ideology of the American right for a half-century, was premised on the idea that libertarian policies and traditional values are complementary goods. That idea still retains at least an intermittent plausibility--for example, in the case for school choice as providing a refuge for socially conservative families. But an honest survey of the past half-century shows a much better match between libertarian means and progressive ends. Most obviously, many of the great libertarian breakthroughs of the era--the fall of Jim Crow, the end of censorship, the legalization of abortion, the liberalization of divorce laws, the increased protection of the rights of the accused, the reopening of immigration--were championed by the political left.
snip
Can a new, progressive fusionism break out of the current rut? Liberals and libertarians already share considerable common ground, if they could just see past their differences to recognize it. Both generally support a more open immigration policy. Both reject the religious right's homophobia and blastocystophilia. Both are open to rethinking the country's draconian drug policies. Both seek to protect the United States from terrorism without gratuitous encroachments on civil liberties or extensions of executive power. And underlying all these policy positions is a shared philosophical commitment to individual autonomy as a core political value.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6800

Who would of thunk the CATO Institute could be wooing the Dems? Not to happy with the GOP, this article is an excellent description of what divides us and how to bridge the gap.

As a former business owner, I can understand the frustration.

[Ignacio Upton]

1. Not if we nominate Hillary

She symbolizes the type of "Nanny State liberalism" that makes it harder for us to win them over. People like Hillary, Lieberman, and Feinstein (and sadly Tipper Gore...although I don't know if she's still agrees with that) want to spend more time on freakin' video games, labels for lyrics and smoking bans.

[billbuckhead]

2. A fools errand. We will do far better going after our base and Hispanics

The question isn't whether there should be regulation, but how well it's done and who benefits.

[salib]

3. "Our base and Hispanics"? That is a strange juxtaposition.

[billbuckhead]

7. Not at all. Ever hear about "Working families?"

Where have you been? Historically Hispanics have trended Dem and help us in the west and south to counterbalance our problems with working class and rural whites. The smart ones will come over to our side over this issue cause they don't want anymore cold race wars. It sounds idealistic, but there really is enough for everyone to get ahead if we worked together, instead building these dubious walls.

[salib]

15. Boy, you really missed that one.

Blew your hair back?

First, either "Hispanics" are "our base" or they are not. If not, then they are not the ONLY group outside "our base."

"our problems with working class and rural whites." Huh? Come on and stop "building these dubious walls", ok?

[billbuckhead]

16. Hispanics are such a growing part of the electorate, particularly in Red states

Hispanics offer a way to beat the Republicans in Red states without prostituting our progressive values. Ask J.D. Hayworth.

[salib]

4. I have to call "BS" on this one.

Anything from the Cato institute is so far to the propertarian right that it is 99.9% not worth looking at.

That said, I also do not believe that a "permanent" democratic majority will include the wisp-like philosphical-waifs that call themselves "Libertarians." It is at best a whiny, pseudo-sociopathic, love-in by those who felt unfairly socially outcast for their lack of compassion.

[Hamlette]

19. gee, you got that from the article or did you decide to diss it without reading it?

No need to look at what "the other side" thinks or does. We know it all and we don't have to get along with them anyway.

Some days I think DU should get over itself. This article is the first think from the "right" I've agreed with in years. If you don't want to read it, for heaven's sake don't. But you do realize you sound like just like Rush Limbaugh when you dis it without reading it don't you?

I thought we were the thoughtful party and they were the knee jerk party.

Whatever you do, don't tell me I'm wrong.

[salib]

30. Interesting that you attack me, not my argument.

I called BS on the article and some of it's assumptions, i.e., that Libertarians have anything to do with a possible "permanent majority", or really have any relavance as all. Otherwise, I "dissed" the source, with a LONG LONG history of incredible bias.

BTW, what makes you think I did not "read" the article?

[bobbolink]

5. Sure, run after libertarians, which means doing away with all poor folk.

Yup, that'll be reeeeaaaaallllll nice...

:thumbsdown:

[Abuhans]

6. Libertarians are not friends

Of the progressive movement. It is a young movement with a little upsurge in numbers among youth looking to be radical and extreme enough to the point of silliness. I also know enough to know that CATO doesn't speak for a large wing of these laissez-faire ideologues who somehow find themselves AGAINST NAFTA and CAFTA and would get real shrill over any compromises with leftists. And the stuff about libertarian mountain west, I am not really buying it. From what I see, libertarianism requires a large amount of self-driven indoctrination, of which common folk wherever they are are not going to bother doing. Which means that common sense economic populism could easily swoon people living in states with "libertarian sympathies."

[Kelly Rupert]

8. They're our friends socially, and we should emphasize that.

Economically, they're in bed with the Republicans. But socially, they're friends, and we should emphasize that.

[Abuhans]

10. I don't think they'll get back in bed with the Republicans economically or socially

Anytime in the forseeable future. That said, they are not our friends socially either. I don't know about you but legalizing things like meth, heroin, cocaine, deregulating automatic weapons and explosives ain't my cup of tea, but it is theirs and they'll demand we drink from that craziness if there is to be some sort of partnership. The Democrats can do fine with out them by being an anti-war, pro-poor party.

[bobbolink]

11. How do you figure? Of course libertarians are RW economically!

They want to finish off anything left of the New Deal, and let poor folk die in the streets.

How much more RW can they get?

[Abuhans]

12. Republicans anti-New Deal?

I don't think Republicans care about that stuff a bit, libertarians are the only ones foolish enough to call for repeals of the government instituted reforms on the market which brought us out of the Great Depression. Republicans only care about economically right wing issues when it suits the corporate fatcats lining their pockets, the second it actually threatens THEIR interests, it is corporatist policies all the way. The Republicans care about keeping gays and other minorities down, maintaining the empire, and most of all benefitting their big business sponsors. Horrifying to say the least, but genuinely economically right wingers like libertarians contain a specter of their own. NO protection for the poor, empowerment of the rich who would own the economy and milk it to many peoples' detriment.

[bobbolink]

13. ohmy goodness..... time for a review of republican economics!

[Kelly Rupert]

17. We can certainly find quite a bit of common ground with them.

There's no need for an outright partnership. They can keep their drugs, but we can both agree on gay rights. They can keep their weapons, but we can both agree on abortion rights. They can keep their business deregulation, but we can both agree on preserving the Bill of Rights. Most libertarians recognize that the fully-unregulated state is an ideal to be worked towards, not an immediate practicality. By emphasizing the need to keep a free, just society, we should be able to pick up a few votes from them.

[originalpckelly]

9. Excuse me? Permanent majority?

I don't like that kind of talk, I didn't like it when I heard it come from their mouths or when it comes from the mouths of people on our side.

To even suggest the thing shows arrogance, arrogance which will cost us '08, as well it should. The people of America lent us power, they didn't give it to us.

[Sapphire Blue]

14. How about appealing to/advocating for the poor? oops, I forgot... not sexy enough.

At least that's the excuse I've seen time & time again.

[Hamlette]

18. I guess you don't think we can walk and chew gum at the same time?

from the article:

Most obviously, many of the great libertarian breakthroughs of the era--the fall of Jim Crow, the end of censorship, the legalization of abortion, the liberalization of divorce laws, the increased protection of the rights of the accused, the reopening of immigration--were championed by the political left.

snip

Can a new, progressive fusionism break out of the current rut? Liberals and libertarians already share considerable common ground, if they could just see past their differences to recognize it. Both generally support a more open immigration policy. Both reject the religious right's homophobia and blastocystophilia. Both are open to rethinking the country's draconian drug policies. Both seek to protect the United States from terrorism without gratuitous encroachments on civil liberties or extensions of executive power. And underlying all these policy positions is a shared philosophical commitment to individual autonomy as a core political value.

snip

On the one hand, restrictions on competition and burdens on private initiative would be lifted to encourage vigorous economic growth and development. At the same time, some of the resulting wealth-creation would be used to improve safety-net policies that help those at the bottom and ameliorate the hardships inflicted by economic change. Translating such abstractions into workable policy doubtlessly would be contentious. But the most difficult thing here is not working out details--it is agreeing to try. And, as part of that, agreeing on how to make the attempt: namely, by treating economic policy issues as technical, empirical questions about what does and doesn't work, rather than as tests of ideological commitment.

end quote

But, of course, many here think welfare reform has been a disaster. I don't. And it's my job. I thought it was a terrible mistake. I was wrong. I've seen it in action in one of the red states. The reddest state.

[Sapphire Blue]

21. Hint: this isn't the 'Libertarian Underground'. Perhaps you should try to take it elsewhere.

[Hamlette]

26. Okay. I'll head over to DailyKos.

Since he proposed this to CATO a few months back.

So, you want to tell the 44% of Libertarians who voted for us in 2004 (up from 20% in 2000) they shouldn't vote for Dems or just not talk about them here on DU?

Oh, right. We're supposed to play to the base.

Both of them.

Like the GOP.

Yeah, that'll fix things.

[Sapphire Blue]

28. Bye

:hi:

[Odin2005]

20. No, they would pull us right-ward economically.

We need too get more Jon Tester-type socially conservative left-wingers to vote for us more consisantly. I am not willing to compromise over economic issues, PERIOD. If that means we must come to a compromise with socially conservative folks so be it. The Poor shouldn't be thrown under the bus.

[Selatius]

22. If you want another permanent Democratic majority, then urge the party to reaffirm the NEW DEAL.

The New Deal was a success. The Party should not have moved away from the ideals that animated it.

[Az]

23. Progressive and Libertarian cannot mix

We may see eye to eye on some social issues but in general they are diametrically opposing positions. Progressives see government as a tool to help society. Libertarians see government as a necissary evil that should be cut back as much as possible.

[Pushed To The Left]

24. We are more libertarian on social issues than Republicans

Anybody who opposes the hard right--that would include Libertarians, Greens, moderates, some Republicans, and Independents---should be supporting Democrats right now! Judging by what happened on November 7th, lots of them already are!

[Az]

25. There are similarities but they are false

Libertarians simply want government out of their lives. Period. That applies to social and economic lives. THe similarity is that we both look at the rights draconian attitudes towards a number of social issues with disdain. The enemy of our enemy is not always our ally. They may be useful in certain coallitions. But a permanent agreement is not possible.

[aquart]

27. Could we NOT talk like Republicans?

And when Cato comes wooing...just say no.

[EstimatedProphet]

29. I don't want a permanent majority

It leads to arrogance. The knid of arrogance that recently damaged the Republicans so much. They wanted, and thought they had, a permenent majority, and it produced in the contempt they showed the people.