Given this post from Jacob Levy on the VolCon
, one might think that Democratic party has no chance with Libertarians. I prefer to think of it as a roadmap.
Last fall I tried to combine my various threshold tests and litmus tests and utilitarian calculations, and I asked
Can anyone name for me a candidate in a competitive race (or, really, any candidate) for either Senate or House who is a) pro-choice; b) pro-trade (supports NAFTA, TPA, and WTO without weaselly exceptions, hasn't been a force in favor of any of the dumb protectionist moves in the past few years); c) not-actively-antigay (sometimes one takes what one can get); d) generally in favor of tax cuts; e) generally in favor of spending restraint; f) generally pro-immigration; g) not guilty of demagoguing Social Security? I'd have a hard time supporting someone who suppported the campaign finance bill or a vigorous drug warrior. Supporting the death penalty is bad, but I'm willing to treat that as a litmus test for executive posts rather than legislative ones. And, obviously, actively pro-gay-rights (marriage, military) would be better than passive, and actively pro-Social Security reform would be better than passive. But I think I could stomach someone who met the named threshold tests [a-g]; and I'd actively want to encourage that person's party (whichever party it was!) to move in that person's direction. But I can't think of a single such candidate from either major party...
President Bush is (a) not pro-choice. He is (b) not pro-trade by that definition (steel tariffs) (c) Tough one. Does this make Bush actively anti-gay
(From the 2000 race)?
In the current presidential race, it's George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, who actively supports anti-gay sodomy laws, doesn't think gays are fit to be parents, supports the ban on openly gay people in the military, opposes hate crimes legislation and gay and lesbian employment rights, and withholds support for domestic partnership benefits for gay and lesbian people.
(d) Generally in favor of tax-cuts -- check (so are many Democrats). (e) Generally in favor of spending restraint -- in talk, yes, in deed, no. (f) pro-immigration -- he used to be, now not so much. (g) The definition of a demagogue according to m-w
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
To me the key point is: "I'd actively want to encourage that person's party (whichever party it was!) to move in that person's direction.". One way is to support candidates in the party with a vote. Bush will be the GOP nominee. The nomination from the Democratic party is up for grabs. Encourage Libertarianism by voting in the Democratic primary (for Howard Dean).