The Blue Republican Movement
Filed under: 2012 Election, Blue Republicans, Libertarian Democrat
If you are friends with any person minutely political you have noticed the Facebook rise of The Blue Republican. To my knowledge this movement arose form a piece by Robin Koerner on The Huffington Post entitled “If You Love Peace, Become a “Blue Republican” (Just for a Year).” Koerner correctly points out:
After two years, however, we now see that Obama 1) conducts wars against countries that do not threaten us (e.g. Libya, Yemen etc.), 2) oversees large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Goldman Sachs), 3) supports the legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) is growing a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc.. )
Put another way, when it comes to such things as the killing of innocent people, taking from the common man to support cronies, and the elimination of the basic values that make our lives worth living, we had the hope, but we haven’t had the change.
Of course, as a longtime supporter of Dr. Paul, I could have told you this as far back as 2007. There is not a two party system in the nation at this time: there is one party with two wings, a D wing and an R wing. They argue over minutiae to distract you into thinking there are real differences, but what changes? Deficits soar, entitlements increase, federal intrusion is more rampant and militarism and empire marches on unabated!
Yet, in my mind the most newsmaking part of Koerner’s piece isn’t the predictable anti-war/civil liberties piece but the following:
IÂ am aware that the main objection to Ron Paul from the left concerns his belief that private charities and individuals are more effective in maintaining social welfare than the government. To this I ask one question. Do you believe so much in the effectiveness of our current centralized delivery of social welfare that it is worth the war making and the abrogation of civil rights supported by both Bush and Obama’s administrations? Moreover, while Ron Paul would look to transition out of the huge federally run welfare programs in the long-run, that’s not where he wants to start: his immediate fight would be to bring our forces back to the USA and to re-implement the Bill of Rights.
The significance of this simply cannot be avoided. Koener argues that the massive ineffectiveness of the federal government in delivering social welfare should give you pause as to whether such a system is worth propping up militarism and empire and the death and destruction that comes along with it? He is asking the left to focus globally and principly, not as a Democrat protecting the clients of the Party.
The movement is to be encourgaed and such principled liberals, no, Blue Republicans,  should be welcomed to the Ron Paul Revolution! They can certainly bolster our left flank!
Memo to Democrats: Opportunity Knocks
While I would love to see the federal government return to its Constitutional scope as in the days of Cleveland, I am also a realist and agree that the best classical liberals can hope for is incremental change as we continue to educate the population about liberty, property rights and the Constitution. Â One incremental change that seems possible, though admittedly not probable, is the Democrat Party reclaiming some of it’s old positions and in so doing, pushing the GOP further right socially. Â In so doing, they just might make inroads into the Tea Party.
Politico reports this morning that the Tea Party and GOProud, a conservative gay rights group is sending a letter to Speaker-in-waiting Boehner asking him to focus on the fiscal issues and limiting the size and scope of government. Â Specifically:
“When they were out in the Boston Harbor, they weren’t arguing about who was gay or who was having an abortion,” said Ralph King, a letter signatory who is a Tea Party Patriots national leadership council member, as well as an Ohio co-coordinator.
King said he signed onto the letter because GOProud seemed to be genuine in pushing for fiscal conservatism and limited government.
“Am I going to be the best man at a same sex-marriage wedding? That’s not something I necessarily believe in,” said King. “I look at myself as pretty socially conservative. But that’s not what we push through the Tea Party Patriots.”
I wonder what Tony Perkins at the Family Research Center thinks about that? Â I tie this issue into the post yesterday about Schoen and Caddell positing President Obama should avoid a reelection fight and put the country first. Â I would make the same case to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Â At some point Democrats must look to the future and the health of the Republic and not short term political gain.
I heard Professor Larry Sabato say once the winner in Virginia is the candidate that is perceived middle of the road. Â Alternatively speaking, the candidate who is painted as “extreme” or “outside the mainstream” loses. In an era of massive, crippling debt, advocating more programs or spending is political suicide (See November 2, 2010) yet with the possible fracture in the GOP/Tea Party alliance over social issues, once again the Democrat Party can make inroads only if they move past the progressive welfare liberalism of the past and return to their roots of sound money, protection of individual rights and anti-imperialism.
But, will the Democrat Party do it? Â No. Â Redistricting over the years has created a House Democratic Caucus that is far out of the mainstream of everyday Americans. Â Only when the rank and file begin to desert the party, will the Democrats, if then, rethink their stance on collective rights and interest group politics.
To think the party of Jefferson, Madison, Jackson and Cleveland has come to this is truly a sad tale.
Read more:Â http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45110.html#ixzz15MYaggqU
The Libertarian Dem
Over four years ago I was astonished by an off hand post made by Markos Moulitsas on his successful liberal blog, Daily Kos. Â It was entitled “The Libertarian Dem” and Moulitsas noted that Democrats and Progressives were already in favor of much of the libertarian agenda: individual rights, civil liberties and peace. Â Yet he still looked to government as the sole institution to protect the individual from corporations.
Kos states: Â The Libertarian Democrat understands that there is a third danger to personal liberty — the corporation. The Libertarian Dem understands that corporations, left unchecked, can be huge dangers to our personal liberties.
Libertarian Dems are not hostile to government like traditional libertarians. But unlike the liberal Democrats of old times (now all but extinct), the Libertarian Dem doesn’t believe government is the solution for everything. But it sure as heck is effective in checking the power of corporations.
In other words, government can protect our liberties from those who would infringe upon them — corporations and other individuals.
So in practical terms, what does a Libertarian Dem look like? A Libertarian Dem rejects government efforts to intrude in our bedrooms and churches. A Libertarian Dem rejects government “Big Brother” efforts, such as the NSA spying of tens of millions of Americans. A Libertarian Dem rejects efforts to strip away rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights — from the First Amendment to the 10th. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.
Sounds good so far, but…wait for it:
A Libertarian Dem believes that true liberty requires freedom of movement — we need roads and public transportation to give people freedom to travel wherever they might want. A Libertarian Dem believes that we should have the freedom to enjoy the outdoor without getting poisoned; that corporate polluters infringe on our rights and should be checked. A Libertarian Dem believes that people should have the freedom to make a living without being unduly exploited by employers. A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives, so strong crime and poverty prevention programs can create a safe environment for the pursuit of happiness. A Libertarian Dem gets that no one is truly free if they fear for their health, so social net programs are important to allow individuals to continue to live happily into their old age. Same with health care. And so on.
The core Democratic values of fairness, opportunity, and investing in our nation and people very much speak to the concept of personal liberties — an open society where success is predicated on the merit of our ideas and efforts, unduly burdened by the government, corporate America, or other individuals. And rather than always get in the way, government can facilitate this.
There’s the rub, in Kos’ mind, the government has a big role to play. Â The Bourbon Democrat believes in eliminating corporate welfare and loopholes, but he also believes the free market and the rule of law is the best way to efficiently meets all the laudible goals Kos espouses.
It will be one mission of this blog to flesh out this interesting discussion this post initiated back on 2006.