Libertarian Democrats: A movement in search of a leader By Aaron Blake, Published: August 1 at 2:33 pmE-mail the writer
Lost amid all the hubbub about Rand Paul and Chris Christie’s war of words over NSA security programs and the rising strain of Republican libertarianism is this: A similar divide is alive and well in the Democratic Party — arguably just as much in the GOP (if not more). Several Democrats from this movement will meet at the White House this afternoon to discuss their concerns with President Obama and Republicans.
For evidence of the widespread uneasiness on the left, one need look no further than the vote in the House last week to defund the NSA’s phone record collection program. While much was made of the fact that nearly half of Republicans voted for the measure, it’s just as notable that 111 of 194 Democrats did the same.
In other words, well more than half the House Democratic conference voted to defund a surveillance program overseen by a president of their own party. That’s a pretty stunning fact that has gotten lost in the current debate.
So why hasn’t this issue played out on the Democratic side like it has on the Republican side (i.e. in full view)? Put plainly: It’s a movement in search of a leader. There isn’t one big nationally known player on the left that is pushing this issue in a way that Paul is on the right.
For now, the de facto leaders of the left’s effort to rein in the Obama Administration’s surveillance programs are Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and, arguably, the journalist who has been working with Edward Snowden to reveal the programs, Glenn Greenwald. While these two have been pushing the issue hard, they aren’t exactly political figures with huge built-in constituencies.
Aside from those two, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has been talking about ways to make the programs better, working as a bridge between libertarian-leaning Democrats and the Obama Administration (she wrote a Washington Post op-ed to that effect earlier this week). But, as Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman, Feinstein is hardly a libertarian leader on the left.
As with Feinstein, discussions on this issue within the Democratic Party have taken place largely under the radar, and no potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidates have taken up the mantle of the libertarians, as Paul has on the right.
That’s despite the fact that polling shows a sizeable constituency for just such a candidate. A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week showed very similar levels of privacy concerns in both parties, with more than six in 10 of both liberal and moderate Democrats saying the NSA’s surveillance programs intrude on Americans’ privacy.
Privacy concerns in the Democratic Party have waned — predictably — since Obama took office, but there remains a sizeable constituency for a potential 2016 contender to take advantage of — particularly given two possible candidates closely tied to the administration’s national security programs (Hillary Clinton and Vice President Biden) currently lead the field of contenders.
Julian Sanchez, a research fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said Wyden is doing yeoman’s work, but acknowledged that he’s “not really a rabble rouser in the mold of someone like Rand Paul.” He said that part of the reason the GOP’s infighting makes news is because it’s a transitional phase for the party. While Republicans were very hawkish during George W. Bush’s presidency, Democrats have long been conflicted on issues of privacy and national security.
“Now that [GOP concerns are] finally being voiced, it sounds louder in contrast with the previous silence, and may even be a bit louder for having been pent up all this time,” Sanchez said. “And so it’s natural to note that more than the somewhat hoarse-voiced and weary objections from civil libertarians on the left who’ve been shouting since 2002.”
Potential 2016 contenders who could take up this mantle include noted liberals like Howard Dean or even Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). But Dean hasn’t been a major figure in the Democratic Party for a while now, and Warren has close ties to the Obama Administration, which would seem to make her less likely to buck it on these issues.
It’s not at all clear that this leader will even emerge, but if they do, they could quickly build a pretty significant profile.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Democrats can't be libertarians. It would be difficult to say that the government should stay out of your lives while campaigning on promises of more and more government entitlements. But then again, neither can the current republican leadership.
Democrats can't be libertarians. It would be difficult to say that the government should stay out of your lives while campaigning on promises of more and more government entitlements. But then again, neither can the current republican leadership.
Real Libertarians are Pro Choice. The Rand Paul look alike Libertarians promote Big Govt regulating every aspect of a woman's sex life.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Real Libertarians are Pro Choice. The Rand Paul look alike Libertarians promote Big Govt regulating every aspect of a woman's sex life.
No they aren't. Many libertarians look at an abortion as aggression toward another human. The one basic principle of libertarianism is non aggression. It would be more likely for the religious right to adopt a more libertarian non aggression belief than the progressive left.
Quoted Text
Non-aggression is an ongoing obligation: it is never optional for anyone, even pregnant women. If the non-aggression obligation did not apply, then earning money versus stealing it and consensual sex versus rape would be morally indifferent behaviors. The obligation not to aggress is pre-political and pre-legal. It does not arise out of contract, agreement, or the law; rather, such devices presuppose this obligation. The obligation would exist even in a state of nature. This is because the obligation comes with our human nature, and we acquire this nature at conception.[3]
Quoted Text
In 2008, the Libertarian Party candidate for president was Bob Barr who has called abortion "murder" and opposed legalized abortion
The Libertarian party on Abortion": (The Real Libertarians)
Quoted Text
Government should be kept out of the matter of abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. Source: National platform adopted at Denver L.P. convention , May 30, 2008 Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that libertarians can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another’s abortion. It is the right of the woman, not the state, to decide the desirability of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, and/or home births. Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000
LINO's, reject the Libertarian stance on Abortion. Those LINO's (The Paul Twins) are pro Big Government regulation and interference in the private lives of American Citizens.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
For now, the de facto leaders of the left’s effort to rein in the Obama Administration’s surveillance programs are Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and, arguably, the journalist who has been working with Edward Snowden to reveal the programs, Glenn Greenwald. While these two have been pushing the issue hard, they aren’t exactly political figures with huge built-in constituencies.
27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep_915">
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
The only role of government is to preserve liberty. The liberty of a child in utero included.
Even you liberals recognize children's rights in utero. But only when it is their right to government entitlements. A child conceived prior to the death of the father and born after his death, is entitled the father's survivor benefits. California took it one step further. A child conceived AFTER the fathers death using frozen sperm is ALSO entitled to the fathers survivor benefits.
So a sperm, without even fertilizing an egg, has the RIGHT to GOVERNMENT survivor benefits. The unborn has contractual rights?? How can that be??? A clump of cells can't have contractual rights!!
A child conceived prior to the death of the father and born after his death, is entitled the father's survivor benefits.
The embryo isn't entitled to anything... UNTIL IT'S BORN. THEN IT'S A PERSON and has the rights of every person.
Really Cissy, read your own post.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The embryo isn't entitled to anything... UNTIL IT'S BORN. THEN IT'S A PERSON and has the rights of every person.
Really Cissy, read your own post.
I did. The unborn fetus is legally entitled to survivor benefits. How can a clump of cells receive be recognized an a legal person? If the father dies and has no children, why on gods green earth would a child born after death be recognized as his child? And if it has the legal rights to survivor benefits while in the womb, how can it be legal to purposely kill it to prevent its legal right to collect it?
No they aren't. Many libertarians look at an abortion as aggression toward another human. The one basic principle of libertarianism is non aggression. It would be more likely for the religious right to adopt a more libertarian non aggression belief than the progressive left.
The force of law is the issue, not the abortion.
Libertarian philosophy of non-interference by the government, would outweigh any claimof need for government use of force to prevent abortions.
Pro-choice as defined by box is not a libertarian belief.
Choosing and determining your own family values and staying out of everyone else's business is a true Libertarian belief.
Libertarianism = Hands off your family values, marriage and religion.
Libertarians believe that government involvement in traditional parenting responsibilities has weakened families and replaced family-taught morals with government-taught morals.
The only role of government is to preserve liberty. The liberty of a child in utero included.
Even you liberals recognize children's rights in utero. But only when it is their right to government entitlements. A child conceived prior to the death of the father and born after his death, is entitled the father's survivor benefits. California took it one step further. A child conceived AFTER the fathers death using frozen sperm is ALSO entitled to the fathers survivor benefits.
So a sperm, without even fertilizing an egg, has the RIGHT to GOVERNMENT survivor benefits. The unborn has contractual rights?? How can that be??? A clump of cells can't have contractual rights!!
1. Rights aren't given by the government.
2. The government must be kept out of the abortion debate.
3. Abortion is a family moral.
4. Government legalization is the government giving their blessing to the abortions and the abortionists. The government should be neutral on the matter.
I did. The unborn fetus is legally entitled to survivor benefits. How can a clump of cells receive be recognized an a legal person? If the father dies and has no children, why on gods green earth would a child born after death be recognized as his child? And if it has the legal rights to survivor benefits while in the womb, how can it be legal to purposely kill it to prevent its legal right to collect it?
Libertarian philosophy of non-interference by the government, would outweigh any claimof need for government use of force to prevent abortions.
Libertarian core principle is non aggression, non interference would be closer to anarchy. Libertarian is for limited local government used to protect liberty. Stopping one person from killing another is a legitimate roll of government for most libertarian. If a person wants to euthanize grandma or their handicapped child, I would find it hard to believe a libertarian would be fine with non interference.
Libertarian core principle is non aggression, non interference would be closer to anarchy. Libertarian is for limited local government used to protect liberty. Stopping one person from killing another is a legitimate roll of government for most libertarian. If a person wants to euthanize grandma or their handicapped child, I would find it hard to believe a libertarian would be fine with non interference.
Punishing a person for killing is more Libertarian than prevention.
Prevention is more of a nanny/NSA issue.
I firmly believe most Libertarians would support the government having no opinion to force on to the public, on this matter.
You are asking the government to legislate morality based on your personal feelings regarding the unborn.
As the Pope himself would ask, who the hell are you to judge the morality of others?
America is made up of people from many different cultures and family values.
You can't pick and choose what the government can morally legislate for use against all other people.
In a contest between government right to force people to not abort and let the matter be a personal choice, made between a person and his creator's guidance, most Libertarians would not side with the government's use of force.
I am 100% pro-life.
Yet I seek to impose my choice on no person.
I will work to provide data to display the horrors of abortion.
Yet I would never support the government dictating morality.
The act of killing a fetus is punishable by a person's God.
Governmental intervention is unnecessary.
People who choose to not reproduce are a self correcting issue.
Their numbers will drop each generation.
The hand of God and Karma will reward/punish the abortionists.
As they also punish themselves and their own families by denying themselves the power of creating and enjoying a new life in their families.
Somehow I just can't see Libertarians lined up in the streets demanding government use of force to stop abortions.
The governmental use of force should not be used to legislate morality, religion or family values on the citizens. This is an idea that I know that you support as well.
Your arguments are all based on your own personal beliefs and morality.
You are entitled to use them in your own family matters and for your own personal choices.
You are not entitled to act on behalf of your God to demand legislation to force your beliefs and morals onto others.
Decide which side you are on.
Do you want the government legislating your life choices or not.
Keeping in mind that in all the world people die every minute at the hands of others.
If you supported the US government taking action against those who commit abortions.
The government would then go after other countries and try to use the same force on them.
Would you support war against abortion tolerant countries?
If not, why would you support the same use of force against your own families, friends, neighbors and people who came from other cultures?
Would Jesus support executing abortionists, or would he be pro-life, forgiving the sins of others.
You can't stop abortions with a law. Have you learned nothing from the other 10 billion laws?
Logged
