Once More, With Feeling
by Jon on Oct.30, 2008, under Babble, Politics
Who I am: a radical left-libertarian, of a Georgist / geolibertarian bent in particular. I hold a strong distrust of The State, and a strong belief in the Hayekian principles regarding the virtues of spontaneous order and the intelligence of the invisible hand — yet I understand the differences between the system we have, and a system under which these principles may function effectively.
Without an understanding of the role of corporate privilege, the role of government in banking and monetary policy, the effects of intellectual property law, and most significantly, the uniqueness of natural resources as one of the means of production, and the importance of establishing equality in access to these resources — the right, even the purest of the anarcho-capitalist libertarian right, cannot seriously claim to represent the virtues of a genuine free market ideology.
Yet, without an understanding of the aforementioned Hayekian principles, and without a general appreciation for the libertarian axiom that all moral political philosophy must be based on the notion that no person has the right to initiate force or fraud on another person, and that the rights of government to act are generally derived only from the right to self-defense — I can’t fully embrace the radical left of the Greens or any of the myriad of actual socialist parties.
So what does this mean in terms of how I vote? Well, as the former chair of the Libertarian Party of Davidson County, former webmaster of the Libertarian Party of Tennessee, and a one time candidate for the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party USA, I have a consistent and demonstrated willingness to support third parties, when the major parties do not offer me anything I can support.
Unfortunately, there is no Geolibertarian Party, or even any vaguely left-libertarian party willing to meet me within the margin of error. There is no third party I can support in full conscience. Bob Barr and even Charles Jay are each too far to the right. Cynthia McKinney is too far to the left.
So whoever I support, major party OR minor — it will be a compromise. With an ideological choice completely off the table, my choice must be made on pragmatic utilitarian grounds — meaning a choice between those candidates who are most likely to effect something remotely close to, or moving in the direction of, the world I want.
So what I’m basically looking for in a compromise candidate is someone who is as left-wing as I can get on social issues, with a center-left position on economics. Someone who will work for the working and middle classes, someone who will put the interests of the individual above those of those of the corporation, yet someone who doesn’t believe that the state is a magic bullet or always the first best answer to every problem.
Which means that in my heart, this election is a choice between Ralph Nader and Barack Obama. And since the potential for Ralph Nader to make any real effect on the discourse of the electorate peaked 8 years ago — well by process of elimination alone, Barack Obama is the obvious choice.
But from there — we look at Barack Obama, and we see — well, something different. First and foremost — intelligence, intelligence, intelligence. For the first time in my life, we have a candidate who I want to have a beer with — someone with whom I may disagree, but with whom I believe I could have a genuine, intelligent, fruitful, and rational discussion over those things with which I disagree.
And when you combine this with his demonstrated ability to communicate, to connect, to motivate and inspire — what you have is, to quote Bill Richardson, “the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America’s moral leadership in the world”.
Not only will this make the first time I’ve ever voted for a major party presidential candidate, it will be the first time I’ve ever voted FOR any presidential candidate.
October 30th, 2008 on 1:35 pm
Wow, Jon…amazing post. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
October 30th, 2008 on 1:43 pm
Jon,
Although I will not be voting for Obama, I understand where you are coming from and I will say this….your post is probably one of the more intelligent articles that I have read in the last little while that adequately explains the point of view coming from a left-libertarian position. Our party is being overun by right-wing boortzians and is being left by the radical-left. Your intellectual presence is sorely missed within the LPTN. For me though, the geolibertarian positions might just be a tad left of myself. Mabey Milstead will start up his “upper-left quadrant” party that he is always going on about. Mr. Gravel was as left as it was going to get in Denver, but I am not sure that he has an understanding of Hayek or of some of the nuances of left-libertarianism. I spoke with Mike and his family and thanked him for having the courage to throw his hat in the ring.
October 30th, 2008 on 2:23 pm
Thanks Ginger!
JR,
Yeah, it is pretty sad what has been going on with the LP. Of course I *always* thought the LP tipped too far to the right, but there used to be at least enough balance to keep alive my hope that it might be reformed. But the thing with tipping one direction is that gravity’s working for that direction.
I probably would have voted for Gravel had the LP nominated him, in fact officially I think I did renew my membership when I made a ballot access donation in Gravel’s name. Though you’re right, he’s not really an intellectual left-libertarian either — but he would have been by far the closest to one I’ve ever seen run.
Milstead befuddles me. I sorta agree with him in theory, but then the particulars he comes out with seem … I don’t know … tone-deaf or something. I guess… I think there’s an upper-left vacuum to be filled in the place where hardcore liberal-tarian progressives meet hardcore left-libertarians. But he seems to want to create a mushy-moderate version of that … which is pretty much where the better Democrats already are, so what’s the point?
October 30th, 2008 on 2:51 pm
“with a center-left position on economics”
Jon, come on. You think Barack Obama is center right on economics? Now I can’t, in any way make a case for John McCain. But I can most assuredly make a case against Barack Obama. I just don’t understand how somebody as intelligent as you can not see that Obama is an leftwing radical when it comes to economics. As for social issues, does he not also oppose gay marriage? What other social issues are there, except for abortion, that the President really matters on? I can understand the “having a beer” part. The guy is certainly personable, but the presidency of the United States is much more important. Heck I would have a beer with Hillary. I’d probably smoke dope with her, but I don’t want her running the country.
What about the Fairness Doctrine? How about his ideas on doing away with the union’s secret ballot? Do you really think a leftist like Obama is not willing to violate civil liberties? What about all of the massive spending/ government growth he is proposing?
Seriously, I just don’t get it.
October 30th, 2008 on 3:43 pm
>think Barack Obama is center right on economics?
Uhh, what? “center-left” != “center-right”. Yes, Obama is clearly center-left on economics. Ask Brian Moore, Gloria LaRiva, or Monica Moorehead if Obama’s really a socialist. They’ll tell you Obama’s a socialist as surely as Ron Paul will tell you John McCain is an anarcho-capitalist.
Oh those wacky radical leftists with their belief that oil companies and millionaires should pay more so we can give a tax cut to the middle and working classes. It isn’t “radical” to support small adjustments to the inner workings of progressive tax policies that have been in place for decades. You may want the country to move to a flat tax, but right or wrong, *that* is the more radical option of the two.
>does he not also oppose gay marriage?
Unfortunately he doesn’t go all the way to marriage, this is true. As I said, compromise. But he does believe in using civil unions to provide virtual legal equality — McCain does not and Palin *certainly* does not — and few people believe he would actually *oppose* full marriage rights if the case was put before him, he simply believes the country isn’t ready to accept it and isn’t working for it.
>What other social issues are there, except for abortion, that the President really matters on?
Well, abortion is a pretty important thing to “except”. And ultimately the president is important on virtually all social issues for the same reason he is on the abortion issue: Supreme Court nominations. Of course “social issues” do also impact priorities and policies in other areas as well. Should the government fund stem-cell research, etc.
>What about the Fairness Doctrine?
While I might oppose giving it too much reach, I am not perfectly opposed to the general spirit of the Fairness Doctrine, especially where it applies to entities broadcasting with government-granted monopoly use of a piece of the public magnetic spectrum. In any case, Obama does not support its reinstatement.
>n doing away with the union’s secret ballot?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/15/fact-check-update-would-obama-take-away-right-to-secret-ballot-for-unions/
I don’t see much wrong with what I see so far. Sounds like another case of taking a statement that is literally true but twisting it into bizzaro world. Rove 101. Sorta like how teaching kids to avoid sexual predators is the same thing as sex ed?
>Do you really think a leftist like Obama is not willing to violate civil liberties?
I think he will be magnitudes better than McCain, yes.
>What about all of the massive spending / government growth he is proposing?
You’re still dropping the “left” from “center-left” and “left-libertarian”. I don’t oppose all such plans, I view them — given the system we have — as necessary evils required to correct the failures of corporate mercantilism and allodial capitalism.
October 30th, 2008 on 6:35 pm
I don’t know Jon. McCain sucks though also. An Obama victory won’t be the end of the world. Heck, I don’t even own a gun and having lost my ass last year, I’ll probably get one of those fat IRS redistribution handouts. Seriously, I just differ with you, in that I believe Big Brother will come from the left, masked as a savior. It is what it is. America will survive.
November 3rd, 2008 on 10:49 am
My two choices were the same. In the end, I feel dissappointed in myself for chosing the major-party candidate because he was the only one with a real chance, even though my heart doesn’t lie with him. I hope to see a day when we have more than just two viable choices, and I feel like I’m doing nothing to work for that everytime I pick the ‘lesser of two evils’.
November 8th, 2008 on 10:52 am
Yeah, it’s a conundrum. Of course I have no fear of “wasting my vote” (though I might feel differently if I lived in a swing state), but this time around it seemed like *every* option was a lesser evil, so it made sense to get behind the one who most impressed me on non-ideological grounds, ie leadership skills, intelligence, judgment, character, etc.
Plus if I am going to make vote of conscience for someone who can’t win, I still want that vote to have some purpose — showing support for building an institution or movement, and that left Nader out of the equation, since as an independent candidate a vote for him only supports his own cult-of-personality rather than contributing to anything lasting. There were reasons to support him in 2000, but not this year.
Unfortunately our system is designed to always polarize around two centrist choices. If we ever want real multi-party democracy we need substantial changes to the underlying system — first and foremost, instant runoff voting, and proportional representation in Congress, along with reforms to the debates and media access. How we ever get that when the major parties control the machine and have no incentive to fix it, I have no idea. I suppose the only answer is a groundswell of public sentiment that leaves them no choice.