PunkAssBlog.com

Recently, Markos posted a lengthy essay at Cato Unbound on the rise of the Libertarian Democrat. He describes supporters of this idea thusly:

…there’s a whole swath of Americans who are uncomfortable with Republican/conservative efforts to erode our civil liberties while intruding into our bedrooms and churches; they don’t like unaccountable corporations invading their privacy, holding undue control over their economic fortunes, and despoiling our natural surroundings; yet they also don’t appreciate the nanny state, the over-regulation of small businesses, the knee-jerk distrust of the free market, or the meddlesome intrusions into mundane personal matters.

Markos is correct that any right-thinking Libertarian should be so deeply concerned over the loss of individual liberty that a vote _against_ the Republicans ought to be a priority for them, but since when do Libertarians like the idea of corporate controls? Markos’ central position is that corporations have run amok and are more powerful than governments, but the Libertarian response to his essay demonstrates how unsellable this idea is to Libertarians.

For example, Andrew Olmsted had this to say:

I realize that people don’t want to believe this, but business has to deal with one very simple fact: on its own, business cannot force anyone to buy its products. Microsoft can’t make you buy Windows, or Office, or any of their other products if you don’t want to do so. Even if they have a monopoly, they can’t make you buy their products. The complaints Kos and hekebolos make above aren’t really a problem of corporations having too much power; they’re problems of government having too much power.

TalkLeft believes Markos may be dressing up liberal, FDR-style ideas in Libertarian clothing to get people onboard, and based on Andrew’s comment and those of many other Libertarian blogs, I’d say they see through this little trick.

Of course, most liberals don’t buy Libertarian arguments like Andrew’s. Even though you may choose to opt for “nothing” when given a choice between the product(s) of an oligopoly/monopoly and nothing, the suffocation of choice that occurs, the prevention of any real alternatives from rising, is destructive and coercive. Corporations in America have repeated formed tight cabals that prevent items like, say, the electric car from being widely adopted. They form conglomerates to create “synergy” that is also known as information control. See: Media, Corporate.

Markos is right: we need to reign in the corporations. But we don’t need to hide behind Libertarianism to do it.

Americans distrust big companies but feel disempowered to do anything about it. This is a perfect way for Democrats to reclaim their liberal roots by connecting them with a real need for responsible governance of corporations. TalkLeft described liberalism this way (emphasis mine):

To me liberalism can and does embrace economic libertararianism where it meets the goals of liberalism. We are pragmatic. If social justice and economic equality could be reached be cuts in the estate tax, we liberals would support it. We oppose it because it does exactly the opposite.

Exactly right! We are pragmatic with an eye towards social justice and economic equality. Markos uses language like “the nanny state” when describing liberalism, but all he does is feed a mythical beast that was created by elitists. He missed a real opportunity to fight those stereotypes. Instead, he decided to run and claim a new title for Democrats, one that doesn’t fit the bill at all.

We don’t have to shoehorn our ideas into the oversimplified package of Libertarianism. Liberal ideas are extremely marketable because they are designed to genuinely enable and protect an enormous majority of the country.

Markos’s plan is no different than chasing any other unwilling audience. Libertarians can be appealed to in the short term, but they do not represent what most Americans want.

They want health care help:

At the top of the list, almost two thirds (63%) of U.S. adults cite lowering the costs of health care and health insurance as a top priority for the President and Congress, followed by making Medicare more fiscally sound for the future (58%) and increasing the number of Americans with health insurance (57%).

They want environmental responsibility from the government:

“As you may know, scientists have found evidence that the earth’s climate is warming. From what you have heard or read, do you think global warming is a very serious problem, a somewhat serious problem, not too much of a problem or not a problem at all, or haven’t you heard enough about this to say?”
Serious Problem: 73%
Not a Problem: 19%
Haven’t Heard Enough 6%
Unsure 2%

“Do you think the U.S. government is doing too much, too little, or about the right amount in terms of protecting the environment?”
Too Much 4%
Too Little 62%
About Right 33%
Unsure 1%

And they want an honest government:

“How concerned are you about each of the following? Corruption in Washington . . . ?”
Very Concerned 60%
Somewhat Concerned 31%
Not Very Concerned 5%
Not At All Concerned 2%
Unsure 1%

Fortunately, we can show Americans that these ideas aren’t a pipe dream if the Democrats would just embrace the ideas of liberalism and vociferously defend them from slander. So forget Libertarianism, Markos. You should simply own and defend the central idea in which many of your positions are grounded: liberalism.