Alliance between libertarians and progressives?

[phillyaggie]

Ralph Nader and Ron Paul seem to not mind.


The American Conservative » Ralph Nader’s Grand Alliance

snippet:

“Look at the latitude,” Nader says, referring to the potential for cooperation between libertarians and the left. “Military budget, foreign wars, empire, Patriot Act, corporate welfare—for starters. When you add those all up, that’s a foundational convergence. Progressives should do so good.”

I thought I’d bring up the subject of Ron Paul with Nader after seeing the two jointly interviewed on Fox Business Channel in January. Nader had caught me off guard when he identified an emergent left-libertarian alliance as “today’s most exciting new political dynamic.” It was easy to foresee objections that the left might raise: if progressives are in favor of expanding the welfare state, how well can they really get along with folks who go around quoting the likes of Hayek and Rothbard?

“That’s strategic sabotage,” Nader responds, sharply. “It’s an intellectual indulgence. … If they’re on your side, and you don’t compromise your positions, what do you care who they quote? Franklin Delano Roosevelt sided with Stalin against Hitler. Not to draw that analogy, I’m just saying—why did he side with Stalin? Because Stalin went along with everything FDR wanted.”

There may be an insurmountable impasse between the camps on social-safety-net spending. “But,” Nader says, “you could get together on corporate entitlements, subsidies, handouts, giveaways, bailouts. Ron Paul is dead set against all that. So are a lot of libertarian-conservatives. In fact, it’s almost a mark of being a libertarian-conservative—in contrast to being a corporatist-conservative.”

“Do you read all these right-wing theoreticians?” he goes on. “Almost every one of them warned about excessive corporate concentration. Hayek did, [Frank] Meyer did, even Adam Smith did in his own way.” He leaves the mechanics of a left-libertarian political coalition to be sussed out later.

If the issues around which progressives and libertarians can coalesce, I ask Nader, are the most intractable, deeply entrenched problems, is he proposing that such a coalition would be more tenable than the one currently cobbling together the Democratic Party, with its many Blue Dogs and neoliberals?

“Exactly,” Nader says. “Libertarians like Ron Paul are on our side on civil liberties. They’re on our side against the military-industrial complex. They’re on our side against Wall Street. They’re on our side for investor rights. That’s a foundational convergence,” he exhorts. “It’s not just itty-bitty stuff.”

[hammersklavier]

An interesting macro shift...the question is whether such an incipient alliance can attract other major elements and structure itself into a coalition that can sustain itself over time...

[phillyaggie]

An interesting macro shift...the question is whether such an incipient alliance can attract other major elements and structure itself into a coalition that can sustain itself over time...

doubt it, thought it is certainly interesting. Notice how even Nader leaves the fine details of actually establishing such an alliance in practice to someone else.

[geoffrobinson]

There was talk of this in 2008. Obama thoroughly disabused most libertarians of this notion. Economically, liberals are so bad from a libertarian perspective they'll take their chances with the Republicans where they actually have some influence.

[phillyaggie]

There was talk of this in 2008. Obama thoroughly disabused most libertarians of this notion. Economically, liberals are so bad from a libertarian perspective they'll take their chances with the Republicans where they actually have some influence.

only problem is that Obama turned out to be a corporatist Democrat, not the progressive Democrat that his handlers sold him in part. Libertarians fight the same issue of corporatist Republicans.

[gren]

I think the talk of such an alliance is only really meaningful in representative bodies. That is where libertarian-leaning Republicans will coalition with progressive Democrats to get the 51% of the vote they need to pass--or more likely, block--legislation they dislike sponsored the more business (subsidy wise) or war friendly parts of their respective parties. Cross party coalitioning like this has always taken place to pass/block legislation.

Will this matter in getting more libertarians are progressives elected? No. I don't think it will.

[Illiniwek]

FDR didn't side with Stalin against Hitler. Stalin swung to the Allies when Germany launched operation Barbarossa. FDR did side with Stalin against Churchill, but that's not really a parallel that Nader wants to draw.

The Left dreams of an alliance with libertarians, but it simply won't happen.

[NickTheCage]

Guys like Frank, Durbin, McCain, Graham and Schumer are my favorite Rothbardian Government lovers

[geoffrobinson]

only problem is that Obama turned out to be a corporatist Democrat, not the progressive Democrat that his handlers sold him in part. Libertarians fight the same issue of corporatist Republicans.

The problem is that once you take away sex, drugs and rock n' roll, Democrats, especially the progressives, are all about controlling people and their decisions. That doesn't mesh with libertarians.

There is space in the Republican sphere for libertarians even with acknowledged disagreements. I don't see the reverse being true with Democrats. Everything from excessive regulation, to unions, to whatever you can think of economically is just too much for them to co-exist in the same party. Republicans today, even the ones with more aggressive foreign policies or your average social conservative, are much closer to libertarians in their view of liberty.

Or at least conservatives and their reading of the Constitution are willing to throw a lot of these issues to the states. So on a federal level, that is pretty much supporting a libertarian position.

[Dayman]

This quasi-libertarian refuses to vote for any politician who panders to the religious right, therefore I don't have many Rs to vote for.

[Politburo]

The problem is that once you take away sex, drugs and rock n' roll, Democrats, especially the progressives, are all about controlling people and their decisions.

Feel free to identify any progressive policy that is about controlling people (I'll save you the trouble.. commerce is not "people", taxes are not "control").

A much more accurate statement might be that progressives see government as one way to improve society, where libertarians see government as a tool that should only be used when necessary (protection of property rights, mainly).

[Dayman]

A much more accurate statement might be that progressives see government as one way to improve society, where libertarians see government as a tool that should only be used when necessary (protection of property rights, mainly).

What, you mean your side isn't perfect good and the other side isn't perfect evil? Reasonableness? You must be Canadian.

[geoffrobinson]

Feel free to identify any progressive policy that is about controlling people (I'll save you the trouble.. commerce is not "people", taxes are not "control").

A much more accurate statement might be that progressives see government as one way to improve society, where libertarians see government as a tool that should only be used when necessary (protection of property rights, mainly).

So you are saying you don't want to control people you just want to tell them what they can buy and sell and how much of their own money they can keep? Except for that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?

[Politburo]

Taxes and regulation of commerce have been around since the beginning of the country.

[NickTheCage]

Feel free to identify any progressive policy that is about controlling people (I'll save you the trouble.. commerce is not "people", taxes are not "control").

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with commerce and control but certain taxation is definitely about control.

A much more accurate statement might be that progressives see government as one way to improve society, where libertarians see government as a tool that should only be used when necessary (protection of property rights, mainly).

Libertarians also see govt as a tool to enforce contracts.

[Politburo]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with commerce and control but certain taxation is definitely about control.

The only tax that really fits this, off the top of my head, would be the upcoming tax for not having health insurance. But keep in mind that few, if any, progressives really support this on its own, they wanted a single payer system.

[NickTheCage]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with commerce and control but certain taxation is definitely about control.

The only tax that really fits this, off the top of my head, would be the upcoming tax for not having health insurance. But keep in mind that few, if any, progressives really support this on its own, they wanted a single payer system.

Property taxes control where you send your children to school amongst other controls

[Politburo]

That's a bit of a stretch, no? Obviously paying property tax does not obligate you to send your kids to public school. That said, you can't just jump over and go to Lower Merion schools, but that's really more of a logistical problem than "progressives trying to control people".

[Sailaway]

Feel free to identify any progressive policy that is about controlling people (I'll save you the trouble.. commerce is not "people", taxes are not "control").

Gun control, school choice*, and union rights (as in the right not to be forced to be in one) come to mind.

*Not sure if all progressives are anti-choice or just some, so don't take this as a blanket statement.

[Politburo]

All good points. It's taking a long time for many on the left to realize that their arguments were rejected in Heller.

One already has the right to not be forced into a union as closed shops were outlawed by Taft-Hartley. I'm not sure anyone wants to change that. But similar to school choice, opposition to so-called 'right to work' laws is more of a logistical issue than borne out of some desire to control people as asserted above.