Libertarian populism is bunk

[Clarakore]

Have you heard about “libertarian populism” yet? If not, you will. It will surely be touted all over the airwaves and the opinion pages by the same kind of people who assured you, a few years ago, that Representative Paul Ryan was the very model of a Serious, Honest Conservative. So let me make a helpful public service announcement: It’s bunk.

Some background: These are tough times for members of the conservative intelligentsia —those denizens of think tanks and opinion pages who dream of Republicans once again becoming “the party of ideas.” (Whether they ever were that party is another question.)

For a while, they thought they had found their wonk hero in the person of Mr. Ryan. But the famous Ryan plan turned out to be crude smoke and mirrors, and I suspect that even conservatives privately realize that its author is more huckster than visionary. So what’s the next big idea?

View: Read more

Edited July 12, 2013 by The world needs you

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I love how it sinks quickly into slagging off the Republican Party with lines like "the party of ideas, if they ever were"

ignoring things like emancipation bring a Republocan idea.

Wasn't Socail Security and Medicaid Republican ideas too?

[Space Commander Travis]

Heavens, all this heavyweight political analysis, heaily leavened with satire, gives me a headache. Do people really take any of these people seriously any more? It really does just encourage them.

[Clarakore]

Heavens, all this heavyweight political analysis, heaily leavened with satire, gives me a headache. Do people really take any of these people seriously any more? It really does just encourage them.

Some do. Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning professor at Princeton.

While his words won't convert the libertarian populist base it will alert those who up to now were unaware of that fringe part of society.

Edited July 12, 2013 by The world needs you

[Frank Merton]

The idea is simple: get the government out of our lives so we can live them the way we choose. A bit tough to actually achieve in a society of millions, each demanding the same thing.

[Mikko-kun]

Divide the country to smaller fractions and give them more power over their lives, more local form of democracy. Or divide the states to counties, if you like, but that's the principle.

Why I think it's good, because if you make a harmful decision, it won't affect 250 million people, but 5 million, or 500 000. It's also easier to buy politicians when you have less of them, but when you have more of them, you need more effort. And not everyone might be for sale.

The politicians we have dont exactly excel at making healthy changes for the better, even if those changes were initially seen as scary, new and met with untrust. Because that hurts their career. With smaller-scale democracy you wouldn't probably have to have so much pain working your way up in politics, so you could risk your career more easily for those kind of decisions. Many people fall for rather keeping the seemingly-good status quo than even trying out something new that could make things for the better in the long run, after the initial doubt and initial expenses of adaptation.

There will always be people refusing the new things, because it's a thing in your mind to refuse new things of certain kind.

[Frank Merton]

The Greek Polis had it about right -- a city of 20,000 to 50,000 along with its surrounding countryside. Anything much smaller and basic civilization, such as weekly live symphony orchestras, become hard to sustain. Anything much larger and its ungovernable.

[Jeremiah65]

Some people still don't understand what the foundations of Libertarianism is about. They continue to spew the idea that it is about big business and knocking the working class hero off the unemployment or temporary assistance train.

Not true.

"Real" Libertarianism is not about "no government"...it is about "limited government". No Gov is anarchism...and that is not what we are about. We Libertarians recognize the need for gov...we just see places it has it's nose stuck where it does not belong. We see policies that need to be re-thought.

I am not and have never been against unemployment "insurance"...people and their employers pay into it and a person is entitled to make claims against that "insurance" just like you do when you have an auto accident or get sick and make a health insurance claim. It is insurance and should be used as such.

True Libertarians are not about "no gov"...we simply believe that there are certain things that the gov has no place in being involved...such as...a consensual contract between two individuals for goods or services...we tend to believe in the phrases "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware) and "caveat venditor" (let the seller beware).

At the very most....the Gov's place in business is to facilitate it...not control it.

Oh well....some folks "get it" and some never will....

[praetorian-legio XIII]

It seems to me that the dismal state of this once confident, proud, finanicailly secure, patriotic country is the result of not one side or the other but a combination of both.

Libertarians, as I consider myself, might be the change needed to break the stagnant mold of our over sized, inaffective, corrupt government (naive as that may sound). I don't think that a smaller less intursive federal government is a bad thing. I don't think that the states having more control to govern themselves, given to them by the citizens of that state is a bad thing. I don't think that upholding the constitution and bill of rights is a bad thing. I don't think that a return to basic common sense and throwing polical correctness out the window is a bad thing. I don't think that running the lobbiests out of D.C. is a bad thing. I don't think think that controlling our borders is a bad thing.

I think that impeaching the president along with a majority of the senate and house members is a good thing. I think that the american people taking back control of this out of control administration is a good thing.

So for those of you that will continue to argue one side of the aisle or the other, you've help put us where we are today and where, without some real change ( the libertarian party?), the state of the US will only get worse for us, our children and their children.

[Space Commander Travis]

So is Obama a uniquely evil phenomenon in this regard, then? Does the previous adminstration equally deserve censure?

[Jeremiah65]

It seems to me that the dismal state of this once confident, proud, finanicailly secure, patriotic country is the result of not one side or the other but a combination of both.

Libertarians, as I consider myself, might be the change needed to break the stagnant mold of our over sized, inaffective, corrupt government (naive as that may sound). I don't think that a smaller less intursive federal government is a bad thing. I don't think that the states having more control to govern themselves, given to them by the citizens of that state is a bad thing. I don't think that upholding the constitution and bill of rights is a bad thing. I don't think that a return to basic common sense and throwing polical correctness out the window is a bad thing. I don't think that running the lobbiests out of D.C. is a bad thing. I don't think think that controlling our borders is a bad thing.

I think that impeaching the president along with a majority of the senate and house members is a good thing. I think that the american people taking back control of this out of control administration is a good thing.

So for those of you that will continue to argue one side of the aisle or the other, you've help put us where we are today and where, without some real change ( the libertarian party?), the state of the US will only get worse for us, our children and their children.

Excellent points.

I am continuously amazed at how the extreme left and right (and the absolute polarization they are causing) do not realize the terrible damage they are doing.

Divide and conquer...just step out of your usual position and take a slow look around yourself...the tactic works and the damage is obvious all around you...if you choose to see it.

Empowering the States is a "must" in my humble opinion...

Controlling the lobbyists and special interest groups is a must...

Returning to the basic fundamentals of the Constitution (and it's limits on power of Gov) and the Bill of Rights...an absolute must...

Just my opinion...and apparently...a growing opinion...seeing how the Libertarian party is the fastest growing party in the country...funny....Paul "Thugman" didn't mention that in his article though...

Edited July 12, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[Frank Merton]

Libertarianism derives from the word liberty, and to most Americans that means personal freedom, although it also has a secondary meaning of the freedom of a nation from colonial or hegemonic power by another nation. (These two different meanings are often confused. For example, the Declaration of Independence talks about liberty with the second, not the first, meaning).

I think liberty should be seen as essentially a good thing but more as a means to even better things -- prosperity and happiness and dignity -- and there are times when personal liberty needs sacrificing for greater goods. The liberty of the plutocrat to abuse employees and customers and suppliers needs limiting. The liberty of the rights holder to withhold from the public access to valuable books needs limiting. The liberty of the church to ring its bells in the middle of the night disturbing the sleep of neighbors needs limiting.

[Jeremiah65]

Well Frank, that was a difference I had hoped to discuss. "Libertarian" does not equal "Anarchist".

Everything you said is basically true. One of the core planks of the platform is "you should be free to live as you wish as long as your freedom does not impose upon the freedom of another".

I will not cross the fence and come into your yard and tell you how to live...I expect the same courtesy in return. If you bring you baggage and laundry out onto the front sidewalk...then we might need to talk.

Public decency is expected of everyone. If you want to sit naked in your house (behind closed doors and curtains) and play video games, smoke weed or watch porn...I do not care...just don't bring it out on the sidewalk and we will be just fine.

The freedom to make a living doing what you do best without over regulation license fees and requirements...

The freedom to prosper from your decisions or suffer their consequences....

The freedom to choose what you put in or take out of your body...

Yes, there are certain expectations or limits that are required for what we like to consider being "social" or "civilized"...those are common sense...

ETA...

As a side note, most people have totally the wrong view of what an "Anarchist" truly is. Anarchists do not long for the "Road Warrior" world...they truly believe that it is within man to one day be totally self governing...that within each of us is born the spark of "goodness"...the knowledge of right and wrong and that humanity has the capacity to know the difference and choose to be good.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[Frank Merton]

I see nothing wrong with walking down the street bare-ass naked, provided you aren't old and fat like me.

Personally I put more emphasis on prosperity and order than on freedom, but as a philosophical matter it is of little import It is some of the specific policies that some identified as Libertarians, and in particular, their opposition to the independence of the Federal Reserve, that I feel misguided.

Vietnam is not a "free" country as Americans like to think of themselves as being; it is a subject that tires me no end with those few Americans who have the insulting tendency to want to argue it (until recently I visited the States often but now my retirement is upon me). I have several times made lists of ways in which I am much freer than are most Americans.

[spartan max2]

Libertarians FTW

Edited July 12, 2013 by spartan max2

[spartan max2]

Some do. Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning professor at Princeton.

While his words won't convert the libertarian populist base it will alert those who up to now were unaware of that fringe part of society.

good job he won a prize.

That's funny cause didn't Obma win a peace prize and then he send a troop surge of 30k to Afghanistan

Needless to say I don't completely trust the people who hand out these prizes anymore.

Edit: oh and Hitler got nominated for one back in his time. So a lot of times these prizes are just political.

Edited July 12, 2013 by spartan max2

[tapirmusic]

Even though this is a hyper-partisan attack on "libertarians".... And even though this topic is proof that the Democrats are already absolutely terrified that Rand Paul will become this country's next president...

Shouldn't this be in the Philosophy Forum?

[Clarakore]

Along the line of Krugman's argument (when that piece was read in full) is the following by Roosevelt Institute fellow Mike Konczal.

Can libertarian populism save the Republican Party?

The specifics of a libertarian populist agenda are often lacking, but advocates sometimes point to to things like Rand Paul’s budget plan. This is a plan that calls for flat taxes, cutting discretionary spending through a balanced budget and removing the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate to promote low inflation and high employment.

This brings to mind Eugene Mirman’s joke about bears, where he notes that the common notion that you should play dead if you see a bear “is a rumor that bears spread.” Similarly, the idea that reducing the tax burden on the rich while calling for tighter money and deregulation counts as “populism” sure seems like a rumor spread by the 1 percent.

As Ross Douthat notes, this is an approach that deserves to lose given the economic realities facing the working class. From the voter’s perspective, one immediate problem is that libertarian populism looks less like a genuinely new agenda and more like a fresh marketing spin on the GOP’s current platform favoring “job creators.”

—snip

http://www.washingto...publican-party/

Edited July 12, 2013 by The world needs you

[tapirmusic]

Krugman and his cat can go cry in their pie!

[Jeremiah65]

Can libertarian populism save the Republican Party?

Absolutely not and the party has no intention of it.

You are obviously confusing Republicans with libertarian ideas (note the lower case "L") with true Libertarians...I present exhibit "A"...

The Libertarian Party platform.

http://www.lp.org/platform

Thee is a distinct difference in a Republican with libertarian ideas or positions and a true Libertarian.

A "true" Libertarian is fiscally conservative and socially liberal...this is a fact. Anyone that tells you something different is trying to sell you snake oil. It's simply the way it is.

The Libertarian Party will one day overtake the Republicans and when the "people" realize our position on economy and social issues...we will take a fair share of Democrats as well.

Perhaps it is time for the Democrats to go as well...they have outlived their usefulness. There are something like 30 different registered political parties in the USA...my advice is do as I did several years ago...read! You may find the party you are so in love with does not really represent your mind and ideology as well as you thought they did.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[Clarakore]

As much as the public service announcment regarding what libertarianism is can be appreicated by a few here, as is, many on this site as fringe as it is already know.

Krugman's article (when read in full) was specifically about certain elements within the Republican Party proposing a new strategy based on "populist libertarianism." That is their upcoming strategy to brand themselves as libertarians and not as Libertarians with a capital "L".

It could be an interesting conversation for libertarians themselves in how the Republicans might hijack their agenda and distract others from what libertarianism really is. Or it could be an authentic dose of libertarianism injected into the GOP. Regardless there is a renewed intersection occuring between the two and some are keenly aware of it.

The whole point of this thread is about a more narrow and specific strategy regarding that intersection of Republicans and libertarian ideology. It was introduced this year in May by Phyllis Schlafly.

---

Phyllis Schlafly Tells Republicans To Ignore Hispanic Voters, Focus On White People (VIDEO)

Should Republicans ignore Hispanic voters altogether?

That's the advice of conservative firebrand Phyllis Schlafly, who told conservative radio program Focus Today last week that the GOP needs to spend its time reaching out to white voters, and ignore Hispanic voterswho aren't going to vote conservative anyway.

The idea that Republicans should court the Hispanic vote is "a great myth," Schlafly said. " And there is not the slightest bit of evidence they are going to vote Republican. And the people the Republicans should reach out to are the white votes—the white voters who didn't vote in the last election."

—snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/phyllis-schlafly-hispanic-voters-ignore-white-people_n_3361620.html

Krugman's and Konczal's arguments, both of whom are esteemed economists, is a criticism of that specific strategy.

While this is all part of a conversation a degree higher intellectually than mere partisan attacks or denigrating the two-party system it is still perfectly in bounds to pursue that angle alone for those who desire to ignore this. No worries, carry on!

For the few here who can understand or appreciate the more specific arguments set forth by Krugman and in turn follow up with a critique specifically tailored to that topic then you are invited to offer us your thoughts here.

Here is another view on this same issue of the current Republican Party strategy, which if you are not familiar with now will most likely be hearing about and seeing in action within the upcoming months.

The following piece was cowritten together by political scientists Alan I. Abramowitz and Ruy Teixeira.

Doubling Down On White Voters Looks Like A Terrible Strategy For The GOP

In the aftermath of Barack Obama's relatively comfortable reelection victory in 2012 — a win fueled by massive margins among African Americans, Hispanics and other nonwhite voters — an intense debate has begun among Republican leaders and strategists over the future direction of the party. The GOP has now lost the national popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. Yet according to national exit polls, Republican candidates won the white vote by double-digit margins in the last four of these elections, including a 20-point margin in 2012.

Given these results, some prominent Republican strategists, including Karl Rove, believe that the key to the party's future viability in presidential elections is finding ways to increase its share of the growing nonwhite vote. Since 1992, according to national exit polls, the nonwhite share of the electorate has increased from 13% to 28%, and this trend is almost certain to continue for many years to come. Based on census data, the voters who will be entering the electorate over the next few decades will include a much larger proportion of nonwhites, and especially Latinos, than the voters who will be leaving the electorate.

But not all GOP strategists agree with the approach advocated by Rove and his allies or with the necessity of increasing the party's share of the nonwhite vote in order to achieve success in future presidential elections. In a recent series of posts at RealClearPolitics.com, analyst Sean Trende has argued that Republicans can effectively compete in future presidential elections without substantially increasing their support among Hispanics and other nonwhite voters by focusing on increasing turnout and support among white voters, who will continue to make up the large majority of the American electorate.

—snip

http://www.businessi...strategy-2013-7

So is this a sensible strategy for the Republican Party or not?

And that is what Krugman was calling bunk, not the whole libertarian ideology, no, he was specially discussing this strategy as being bunk.

Edited July 12, 2013 by The world needs you

[Jeremiah65]

I admit at first, I took what they were saying as a "lumping" of the two parties together...which was the point of my initial rebuttals...they are not the same.

I believe the Republicans know they are a dinosaur party...soon to face the fate of the Whigs and the Federalists. I believe they are grasping at anything and everything to try and stay relevant but it simply will not work. they are too rigid...too old.

They are still on the bully pulpit trying to tell people that they are for small gov't and big freedom yet they want to dictate what you can put in or take out of your body and fully willing to create legislation (and the entities to enforce that legislation) to control people's "morality". That is not "small gov and big freedom".

THAT will be their downfall.

I am for responsible spending when necessary (fiscal responsibility) but then...just leave the people alone. The Repubs cannot get out of their own way by allowing religious dogma to try and drag the modern world back a century...it shall be their undoing.

If the Repubs continue to ramrod through archaic legislation in the name of religion and morality (supposedly when there is a division of church and state)...they will get what they ask for and what they deserve...

Unless they make a profound leap into the modern era...this will not end well for the Republicans...

Y

You can count on it.

[Clarakore]

No worries and thanks for your opinions through and through.

Here is the 1 minute video of Phyllis Schlafly's advice to the Republican Party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3crfYmG7XBA

Krugman's argument included this but also focused on the Republican branded "libertarian populism" as reducing the social safety net and how that plan will backfire since most of the voters that Phyllis Schlafly said to focus on depend on that social safety net to a certain degree. These two points coming into conjunction will not help the Republicans as much as Schlafly and, specifically, Rand Paul believe it will according to Krugman.

[darkmoonlady]

Love how Republicans want it both ways' capitalism unfettered and no government help. OK sounds fine until you put it into play with lobbyists who transform legislation into swiss cheese for corporate interests who turn around and ruin the economy, don't want to pay a living wage then want to get rid of public assistance. We have figured out that the corporate interest is making the top level executives the most money and everyone else can just go starve. Libertarians want government out of our lives but they play by the exact same rules, wallow with the same shady lobbyists they swore they

wouldn't. http://irregulartimes.com/2013/05/13/rand-paul-partied-with-lobbyists-for-tax-cheats-before-introducing-bill-to-let-tax-cheats-off-the-hook/

[Mikko-kun]

It might be sensible for republicans to win votes, for that I dont know.

But it wont be sensible for them in the long run, at least if they can't stupidize voters and take away their caring and readiness to act (act by voting for one), take those away by whatever means. It's not sensible if they want to look like they still have a backbone. They should go southern-state style and endorse slavery but not in a racist way this time, just let everyone be slaves despite what's their color of skin, as long as they're not rich. Also remove all free healthcare and reduce rich people's taxes and increase state control. Not this two-sided bs. You either stand by what you believe in or dont, no dilly-dallying.