Valentine's Day breakup: Liberals dump libertarians

From the New Republic:

One mini-saga of the past decade in American politics has been the flirtation—with talk of a deeper partnership—between progressives and libertarians. These two groups were driven together, in the main, by common hostility to huge chunks of the Bush administration's agenda: endless, pointless wars; assaults on civil liberties; cynical vote-buying with federal dollars; and statist panders to the Christian right.

Yet this liberal-libertarian lovefest was doomed. As Jonathan Chait argued in this 2006 essay, true "liberaltarianism" would require progressives to give up their core goals of smoothing capitalism's rough edges and delivering economic security. Amid the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, that ain’t happening.

Click here for the full article.

Hmm.  I consider myself libertarian on social issues and like Barry Goldwater I'm certainly no fan of the statist nanny state tendencies of the Christian right.  I believe they totally misinterpret God's gift of free will and liberty and completely misunderstand Christ's true message of perfect love.  Love and a moral life must be lived willingly and not by force.  Love and free will can not exist without each other. 

On matters of national security and foreign affairs, I disagree with libertarians because freedom is impossible without a vigorous defense and sometimes a vigorous offense against those that threaten that God given freedom.  I'm proud that President Eisenhower turned the GOP from an isolationist party to one that asserts America's role in perserving and advancing the cause of freedom around the world.  President Bush's finest moments came when he spoke on this very subject and I believe historians will one day have to recognize his contributions to the cause of freedom.

On fiscal issues, I disagree with both liberals and libertarians. I believe in federalism and local governance in all ways possible but I don't agree that government should be as limited as libertarians would like, nor would I like to see an all encompassing nanny state as liberals wish.  There is a third way, a balance of government with private enterprise that should exist.  Regulation is necessary - just as it is necessary in a football game to maintain a level playing field and a basic sense of fairness.  My beliefs in this area are consistent with President Eisenhower's beliefs on the proper role of government and federalism.

We want neither government nor corporations to monopolize our individual lives and dictate our every move.  But most of all, I am an advocate for fiscal conservatism -- whatever services the public demands the government provide, we must find a way to pay for it without burdening future generations.  On this much, I believe libertarians are far more likely to side with the GOP than they are with Obama -- because however much they fear the Christian right, they fear the freespending liberal Democrats more.  Granted, the GOP's actions during the Bush years was anything but fiscally conservative -- but the rhetoric [see T-Paw's interview with Dennis Miller] is now on the right track and Obama is perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be a fiscal trainwreck far worse than Bush.

But if ever a libertarian needed a reason to fear the liberal Democrats more than the GOP, just read this lovely comment from the TNR article:

One problem I have with libertarianism is that it is an inherently adolescent philosophy:


"If Dad would just get off my back, and let me do whatever I want, I could accomplish so much!"

Which is soon followed by Sonny Boy plowing the family car into a concrete piling. Sometimes Father DOES know best, and you better damn well listen to him... or else.

Another problem is that their idolatrous worship of capitalism blinds them to the fact that business has more power than government and therefore can be a bigger threat to personal liberty. For example, your rights of free speech disappear once you pass through the doors of your workplace, but the corporation you work for can spend whatever it likes to exercise its new right to "free speech."

Personally, I would rather trust a government I have nominal control over, instead of corporatism over which I have NONE.

Wow.  So instead of checking both corporations and government -- this guy would prefer to have total control of corporations and the illusion of control over government.  A government which will always be "too big to fail", have a complete monopoly over the services it nationalizes and can slam critics as "unpatriotic".  No, I can't imagine why liberals are getting such heartburn from the libertarians they courted during the Bush years.  With commentary like the above, I'm sure the feeling is mutual.