After Magritte

This is not a blog

My Photo
Name:

We sold our souls for $300.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Libertarian Dems

Read this on Kos and I don't think I agree with him. It may be an effective election strategy, but to me this is hollow. The idea that the government's duty is to stay out of your business and protect you from corporations is just not compelling to me. This is just a very small idea. Now it sounds great today - with the insane government we have. But is that what we really want -- Republicans without anti masterbation laws. What do the Libertarian Dems do about Katrina - or the crushing poverty that exists in places like New Orleans? What do Libertarian Dems do about healthcare or social security? Jack shit.

Give me an FDR. Not Reagan lite. If you can't win on an FDR platform, fuck it, the country is too far gone.

1 Comments:

Blogger Vanilla Bullshit said...

The whole "corporations are bad" simplemindedness is always bothersome to me. "Corporation" is such an insanely broad category. The mindless kneejerk condemnation of "corporations" is mystifying and hugely discredits the speaker, in my view.

I'm not ignorant of corporate malfeasance in cases like the Enron affair, and I think most people when they condemn "the corporations" are thinking of stark examples like that, and Wal-Mart, etc.

But because they are so careless with the wording and so angry with the smearing, it turns a lot of moderates off. If you are going to have a market-driven economy, you are going to have corporations, and that isn't "bad." Lots of small businesses are "corporations," and are the "business Republicans" who are so turned off by the hysterics in the Democratic Party when it comes to this issue.

Basically, that's the one virtue of the DLC, is it managed to convince lots of people that Democrats aren't hostile to the idea of corporations existing. Because corporations are always going to exist.

Now, when you get the big money moving around in the political sphere that corporations have access to, that is where some big time corruption comes in. I am down with the idea of publicly funded elections, which would save tons of money in the long run. I want to see real election reform in the next 25 years (I mean, obviously immediately, but let's be realistic about the mammoth obstacles). Rambling again.

I see many people who decide they're libertarians as merely contrary people who want to be "sick of the whole political thing" as a cool, detached, jaded atitude, so they pick libertarianism because they know it's for legalizing pot and is very good on social issues, and sounds in the most shallow way possible like a decent economic platform. "Hey, I'm sick of hearing all those political windbags, they're the gov't, so since they're worthless, let's not give the gov't money because I'm only looking short term at my own paycheck and not simply assuming everything will keep working like normal if taxes go away."

These people are selfishly un-serious. "Libertarian Dems" is trying to capture that section of the population that is jaded about politics and believes in social liberties and tie them into the Democratic Party. As a strategy, let's attract these potential voters if we can, not a bad idea. But as a formulation that holds up under serious critical scrutiny, I'm with you - no sale.

3:34 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home