Markos Missed His Meds

Raging chest infection or not (perhaps I’m feeling a bit like Dylan Thomas today) I have at least enough energy to make a point – flatulence not withstanding.

Yesterday, Markos Moulitsas was allowed some space in the heady journals of libertarian thought with a piece in Cato Unbound titled The Case for the Libertarian Democrat.

Understanding that I’m not yet willing to believe that the answer to the now failed conservative/libertarian fushionism is at all remedied by us, the “get out of my face” crowd, joining democrats should be no reason that I not call Markos a boob for thinking that he even has a case to make. I’ll cut to the chase and go right to his summary:

For too long, Republicans promised smaller government and less intrusion in people’s lives. Yet with a government dominated top to bottom by Republicans, we’ve seen the exact opposite. No one will ever mistake a Democrat of just about any stripe for a doctrinaire libertarian. But we’ve seen that one party is now committed to subverting individual freedoms, while the other is growing increasingly comfortable with moving in a new direction, one in which restrained government, fiscal responsibility and—most important of all—individual freedoms are paramount.

Let me deconstruct a bit. First, what he says about the modern GOP is largely correct. The rest is bullshit.

…the other is growing increasingly comfortable with moving in a new direction…

What new direction? Perhaps one can say, although on this I’m also yet unconvinced, that a handful of western Democratic Governors have moved to a more business friendly posture. The national Democratic leadership has shown, not a willingness to move in a new direction, but no leadership at all. When Senator Sam Brownback proposed a renewed debate on entitlements recently he was ignored by the Democrats that he wished to engage – even after saying that private accounts were not part of the discussion. In the mean time most of the criticism from the left of the right is not about their lack of restrained spending but their lack of spending enough and their unwillingness to raise taxes to pay for the social projects they see a fitting.

…one in which restrained government, fiscal responsibility…

Restrained government? I guess it depends on what “restrained” means.

The chorus of “we’re now the party of fiscal responsibility” is a mantra both unproved and historical nonsense. It’s easy to say such things and impossible to prove a negative. But I venture that the wish list of expanded government programs, from universal health care, more federal money for public schools, universal pre-school don’t come with nifty price tag then color me Karl Marx.

… and —most important of all—individual freedoms are paramount.

Individual freedoms like, say, allowing customers to smoke in your place of business, allowing the rights of employers and employees to contract with each other without government interference, allowing individuals to control their own healthcare choices (think DSHEA), looking for creative ways to redistribute wealth, the growing assault on food choices and the ridiculous assault on the likes of Wal-Mart for actually saving households money.

There is one reason for libertarians to vote for Democrats; gridlock. But the thought of listening to Nancy Pelosi’s abrasive voice and incoherent babble is so off-putting to one’s imagination that it causes violent scrotal tightening that’s sure to reduce reproductive rates.

I’m voting for “none of the above” by write-in. What some may see as frivolous others may take for principles.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006 at 9:23 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.