If Republicans are the real enemy, why call them Libertarians?

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2013, 01:33 AM - Edit history (2)

The Democratic Party faces continual challenges from the Republican Party, and we lose about half of those contests. We are in a perpetual fight with them... a see-saw battle for big stakes.

I do not recall a Democrat ever losing any major race to a candidate for the Libertarian Party. Like the Green Party, the Libertarian Party has never, IIRC, elected a congressperson or governor, and certainly never a president.

Given this dynamic, it is a bit odd that any Democrat would become obsessed with referring to Republicans as "libertarian." Ron Paul was elected many times, always as a Republican. He ran for president a time or two... as a Republican seeking the Republican Party nomination. Rand Paul was elected as a Republican and remains, in fact, a Republican. There is talk that he will run for President in 2016... as a Republican.

If my concern was that the Democratic Party do well, I don't see why I would continually claim that certain Republicans are libertarian. To what purpose?

Reversing the tags to attack Republicans would be like calling Nazis, "Spaniards." Spain was a fascist-friendly neutral in World War II and thus not a beloved nation, but calling Nazis Spaniards would have been a damn peculiar approach to the war effort. (Assuming one opposed the Nazis, rather than using the war to drum up bad feeling about some neighbors of Spanish descent who one wished would leave the neighborhood.)

Is the Tea Party somehow a "libertarian" organization? I seem to recall that such claims were promulgated by the Tea-Party and debunked decisively. The Tea Party is merely a faction within the Republican Party that seeks to dupe somebody, somewhere, into thinking there is anything libertarian about them.

Curiouser and curiouser.

At some point one has to ask themselves what the game is. Why call Republicans who are quite authoritarian (anti-abortion is a distinctly authoritarian stance, for instance) "libertarian"?

I suspect that the motive has nothing to do with Democrats doing well and everything to do with stigmatizing ACLU types within the Democratic Party, for whatever reason.

Speaking for myself, calling Rand Paul a libertarian is worse than merely misleading... it is a freaking kindness to the man. He is a Republican, which is like saying he is a plate of dog-shit.

But some folks get excited about calling anti-choice pro-jail Republicans who are neither Libertarians NOR libertarian by the L-word. And most of those Republicans would welcome the tag!

Very strange stuff.

As a die-hard civil-libertarian, something all liberals used to be, and that actual liberals still are almost definitionally, I find the game of tagging Republicans with a name that flatters them in relative terms, but happens to serve to erroneously de-legitimize the brand of political thought long supported by and ably represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as well as the word "liberal" itself, an odd one.

[Bonobo]

1. A paranoid person might think they are trying to take civil liberties "off the table", nt

[KittyWampus]

3. A reasonable person would ask who is actually calling Republicans "libertarians".

Is this happening on DU? In the newspapers? I haven't seen it.

And the issue with libertarians in regards to US elections is they may end up playing the role of Nader and Greens.

If not shaving off just enough votes to lose a close election… making electronic vote stealing that much easier.

And btw, Nader was taking money from Republicans.

[Bonobo]

9. A deranged person might blame the democratic process itself

rather than affixing the blame where it belongs.

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

2. The "Tea Party"...

The "Tea Party" is not a party, it is an extremist Republican faction. By talking about the faction as though it were a separate entity, I wonder if the Republicans end up being insulated somewhat from any public backlash against "Tea Party" ideas. These "Libertarians" are also a Republican faction, another group of Republican extremists. If we call them Libertarians, perhaps Republicans aren't held accountable for extremist Republican ideas and actions, and the pre-existing Libertarian Party gets the blame. Seems like maybe one of those big framing issues which George Lakoff has been warning us about for years.

[leftstreet]

4. It's so you won't notice Dem & GOP policies are the same

get it?

[mick063]

5. Fear

I honestly believe that.


Democrats can effectively combat a known enemy. The talking points are well rehearsed.

If an opponent aligns on selective issues that appeal to Democrats, there is genuine fear that Democrats may be tempted to follow.

Republicans hold power primarily due to wedge issues. Abortion, religion, guns, taxes, etc. The pseudo "Libertarians" within the GOP are offering up another serving of wedge issues. Issues that "single issue" voters may embrace.

For example, a person whose life has been utterly destroyed due to marijuana conviction, could very well be persuaded to follow a Republican libertarian. Just one of many possible examples of potential wedge issues.

There are people, here on DU, that do not help the Democratic cause, by labeling traditional Democrats as "Paulites". They are literally pushing people over the edge and into the arms of the "Libertarians" with such demeaning talk.

The old wedge issues are increasingly less effective for the GOP because those issues work well with a diminishing, older population. The Libertarians are offering a new set of wedge issues that appeal to a new, younger generation of voters. This is why it is extremely important for the Democratic Party to get a jump on these issues and stay on the right side of them. So far the party is not. Civilian surveillance, marijuana prohibition, and military intervention are all areas where the Democratic Party can end up on the wrong side of the wedge issues of the future.

[OnyxCollie]

6. Libertarian is used as a pejorative with impunity here.

I agree with you that it is used to stigmatize "ACLU types with the Democratic Party."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=320161

[cthulu2016]

8. It is fine to use capital L Libertarian as a pejorative, since

Capital L is a Party in competition (however pitifully) with the Democratic Party.

But the bizarre chain leading to the suggestion that people opposed to NSA spying are racist (?!) because Ron Paul doesn't care about stop-and-frisk does not appear to be accidental.

[quinnox]

7. Many times it is an attempt to paint those liberals who are against the spying and surveillance

as no better than the libertarians, usually done by BOG types. It is a cheap shot, basically. It of course is nonsense, as there is a strong tradition of being anti-authoritarian and police state on the left, which is distinct from the libertarians.

It can also be used to paint other things in the same manner where the libertarians and the left intersect, such as the drug war and so on.

[joshcryer]

13. Look at how the Wikileaks Party was appropriated by right-libertarians.

It is not a cheap shot nor is it nonsense, it is reality. The right-libertarians are capitalists, they believe in mens rights, they hate feminism, they hate socialism, they hate social welfare and in the end if a business wanted to refuse business to anyone of any race or nationality, they would be completely supportive of such authoritarian behavior, because it is the capital, it is the business, that is more important to them than social justice.

[struggle4progress]

10. The libertarians currently have a strategy of trying to

build up their brand by splitting progressive voters from the Dems in hopes those folk will vote libertarian, and they're using a variety of tactics for that, such as trying to persuade folk "there's no difference between the major parties"

It's visibly part of the contemporary political landscape, and people need to be aware of it

Viewed from a purely ideological PoV, the libertarians in the US appear to be a bizarre hybrid of left and right -- but the majority of funding seems to be coming from extreme RW sources, and the objective effect of libertarian political noise right now merely strengthens the RW status quo

[struggle4progress]

11. "civil libertarian" is a compound phrases that means something different

than one might guess from the two words separately

in particular, "civil libertarian" is not actually some subgroup of "libertarian"

[joshcryer]

12. Big L Libertarians appropriated the word to obfuscate the politics.

Big L Libertarians are not libertarian at all since they're capitalists.

But it's necessary to distinguish them because they do have commonalities with left-libertarian civil properties, at least as far as the rhetoric is concerned. In reality right-libertarians would be fine with indentured servitude and slavery, yes, you heard that right, slavery. Right-libertarians justify slavery because slaves are property, and a good capitalist takes care of their property, so slaves would be better taken care of than regular people. Chomsky has spoken extensively on this contradiction within right-libertarian rhetoric and philosophy.

In reality right-libertarians would be fine with businesses refusing service to black people, gays, whatever, because their business is their property and they can do with it what they wish. In reality right-libertarians would be fine with massive data mining and spying on individuals as a business practice, because that's a legitimate business to have, and corporate secrets are their property.

See how this goes? Right-"libertarians" are basically an absolute Orwellian manifestation.

[pnwmom]

14. Assange said that the "libertarian section of the Republican party" was American's "only hope."

He specifically mentioned the Pauls.

I take it you disagree with him?

[limpyhobbler]

15. I think you got it right.

It has 'everything to do with stigmatizing ACLU types within the Democratic Party, for whatever reason'

The reason is to smear people who criticize Obama's civil liberties record, to make it seem like the criticisms are politically motivated and being planted by known douche bags who none of us can stand.

The NSA defenders see potential for some political alliances there between the more liberty-minded people across both parties. Like with the Amash amendment to defund domestic NSA spying. It almost passed with broad support in both parties. The security establishment sees that alliance and it scares the shit out of them because it could expose their abuses and take their money. That's where part of the nonsense is coming from.

And then there are some who are just Obama loyalists, they really aren't trying to defend the NSA they just want to defend Obama. With them the reason is the same. They see the potential alliance between progressives and some conservatives on this issue and it scares the shit out of them. That's why so much of the rhetoric revolves around driving a wedge to scare progressives away from cooperating with right-wingers on this limited issue where we might agree.

Popular threads include

"The Black Helicopter Left and Its Disconnect from the Constitution"

"The Convergence of the Glenn Greenwald Left and the Alex Jones Right"

[LeftishBrit]

16. I think the real issue is...

that many right-wingers spread the view that civil libertarianism and economic libertarianism go together. As one of their sayings goes, 'the freer the markets, the freer the people'.

In the UK in the past, the two were not equated, and indeed different terms were used. 'Libertarianism' generally meant 'civil libertarianism' and economic libertarianism was called 'laissez faire economics'. But with increasing collaboration between British and American right-wingers, the term libertarian is now used in the same way here.

The danger of that is that right-wingers can use it as propaganda to persuade people that 'free market' right-wing economic policies are essential for people's freedom. And this can have negative effects at all levels. Centrists and even centre-leftists may be persuaded that it is possible and desirable to be 'socially liberal but economically conservative' - in fact, this is not even IMO truly possible, let alone desirable, as the threat of destitution is just as coercive as the threat of legal punishment. Anti-establishment leftists may be persuaded that collaboration with anti-establishment right-libertarians is acceptable. Etc. More generally speaking, even people who are not highly political can be affected by the discourse. In the UK, surveys suggest that younger adults are more socially liberal than their elders, but are more right-wing and anti-welfare-state economically - the propaganda seems to have had some effect.

In my view, social and economic progressivism; civil liberties and the social safety net; are really indivisible, and the attempts on the right to divide them have been very pernicious.

In the UK, a lot of the obsession with 'official secrets' and anti-civil-libertarian policies such as the 'sus laws' actually began or worsened under the free-marketeering Thatcher government.

Civil libertarianism is great and has been undermined too much. Economic libertarianism is not and has been promoted too much.

And the real danger of Republicans and other right-wingers calling themselves 'libertarians' is that it's a way of persuading some people that economic right-wing policies are necessary for our freedom.

ETA: Being an economic libertarian or even a Republican or Thatcherite is very regrettable, but is not a criminal offence or an aggravating circumstance in criminal law. The fact that a whistleblower is a libertarian or Paul supporter is a good reason for voting against them if they stand for political office, but does not justify putting them in prison. And I have been arguing vehemently on this board since at least 2007 against right-libertarianism and any political collaboration of lefties with right-libertarians!