Major-Party Libertarianism?
Monday June 2, 2008
More About: Bob Barr on Civil Liberties | The Libertarian Party Takes a Hard Right Turn
With the Libertarian Party's nomination of paleoconservative Religious Right archdemagogue Bob Barr, many libertarians are abandoning the party and seeking new channels through which to promote libertarian philosophy.
The London Telegraph's Alex Singleton argues (see "How Libertarians Undermine Liberty") that the most efficient way of promoting libertarian philosophy is more than likely through the major parties rather than through new niche parties. And there are in fact Republican and Democratic caucuses dedicated to libertarianism within their respective parties. But how do they stack up?
The Republican Liberty Caucus (web site)
The RLCUSA-PAC, representing libertarian Republicans (most notably Rep. Ron Paul), features a statement of principles that defines the parameters of the caucus. While it largely adheres to vague party platform language, it does appear to be connected to some identifiable policy points. The first clear one is a little bit jarring:
Another clause deals with the intersection of human rights and foreign policy:
In sum: The RLC platform is anti-civil rights. In other areas, it is as good as or better than the mainstream Republican Party platform on civil liberties issues--but the RLC's opposition to the past five decades of civil rights legislation is difficult to overlook.
The Democratic Freedom Caucus (web site)
The DFC, representing libertarian Democrats, has a much different mandate from the RLC. While neither party is especially good on civil liberties issues, the Democratic Party tends to be much stronger. When the ACLU, the drug decriminalization movement, the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the LGBT rights movement, the anti-surveillance movement, the pro-public defenders movement, the anti-death penalty movement, the anti-censorship movement, the pro-separation of church and state movement, or the pro-immigrants' rights movement are mentioned at a state Republican Party convention, it is generally in a negative context. When they are mentioned at a Democratic Party convention, the context varies. The same can be said of every major civil rights ruling of the past century, from Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966) to United States v. Virginia (1997) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The two civil liberties issues that the Republican Party best champions are gun rights and property rights. On other civil liberties issues, the Democratic Party, despite its own dismal history on civil liberties issues, is nearly always the less objectionable of the two major parties.
But the other half of libertarianism--fiscal libertarianism, the libertarianism of low taxes, free trade, and minimal corporate regulation--is less directly related to what we ordinarily call civil liberties, and on fiscal libertarianism, the Republican Party tends to shine. So it stands to reason that when the DFC has something to say that does not reflect the national Democratic Party's existing priorities, it usually has something to do with money--arguing that labor-based taxes such as the income tax be reduced or phased out in favor of land taxes, for example. This is all very interesting from an economic policy perspective, but not from a civil liberties perspective.
On traditional civil liberties issues, the DFC platform tends to be a little vague and rarely steps outside of the national Democratic mainstream. Here are a few of the stronger points:
But that's essentially it. There is no explicit position on abortion, same-sex marriage, or immigration, the three hot-button civil liberties issues that generate the most discussion. There is no reference of any kind to black civil rights or to racism. There is no reference to women's rights, children's rights, the rights of the elderly, or the rights of the disabled. The only arguable reference to LGBT rights is a brief reference to "[f]reedom of...lifestyle." In the 635-word platform, 429 words deal with fiscal libertarianism but only 150 words deal with civil liberties as such--and those words tend to be vague.
So What's a Civil Libertarian To Do?
Neither major party prioritizes civil liberties, but the Democratic Party tends to be more accountable to civil libertarians. That being the case, the Democratic Party would probably be a safer bet than the Republican Party for civil libertarians who want to become active in a major party. This does not, however, make it a good option.
If you're a Republican civil libertarian, you will probably not be happy with the Republican Liberty Caucus' positions on civil rights issues, which are more problematic than the stated positions of the Republican Party at large. A better bet might be the Republican Main Street Partnership, which describes itself as centrist rather than libertarian but tends to be stronger on civil liberties issues, in practice, than either the RLC or the broader Republican Party. You may also be interested in issue-specific Republican groups, such as the pro-LGBT Log Cabin Republicans or the pro-choice Republicans for Choice.
If you're a Democrat and a fiscal libertarian, or if gun rights is the civil liberties issue about which you are most concerned, then the Democratic Freedom Caucus may be for you. If you're concerned about other civil liberties issues, then you may still find a home in the DFC but would be more likely to find common ground with issue-specific groups, such as the pro-LGBT Stonewall Democrats.
And if none of these options satisfy you, you can always identify as an independent. That's what I do. Sure, I could join one of the major parties and try to influence it to better accommodate my way of thinking--but at this point in my life, it just makes more sense to contribute the bulk of my volunteer hours to organizations with more specific, issue-focused missions. As the Libertarian Party's nomination of Bob Barr so clearly demonstrates, the goal of a political party, no matter what its stated values may be, ultimately becomes political influence. Issue-focused organizations, such as the ACLU and NRA, tend to have narrower and more ideologically consistent mandates--and they lobby members of both parties to support these mandates.
See also:
|
The London Telegraph's Alex Singleton argues (see "How Libertarians Undermine Liberty") that the most efficient way of promoting libertarian philosophy is more than likely through the major parties rather than through new niche parties. And there are in fact Republican and Democratic caucuses dedicated to libertarianism within their respective parties. But how do they stack up?
The Republican Liberty Caucus (web site)
The RLCUSA-PAC, representing libertarian Republicans (most notably Rep. Ron Paul), features a statement of principles that defines the parameters of the caucus. While it largely adheres to vague party platform language, it does appear to be connected to some identifiable policy points. The first clear one is a little bit jarring:
We support the Constitutional restrictions on federal government powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 as an absolute limit on all government functions and programs. We oppose the adoption of broad and vague powers under the guise of general welfare or interstate commerce.In practice, this amounts to opposition to the New Deal (found constitutional by the Supreme Court under the general welfare clause) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (found constitutional by the Supreme Court under the commerce clause). As I've written before (in my July 2007 blog entry "Bill Richardson: The Best Civil Liberties Candidate for 2008"), it is extremely difficult to assess opposition to the Civil Rights Act as beneficial from a civil liberties perspective. It is libertarian in the sense that it favors a small-government philosophy, but it fails to protect individual civil liberties.
Another clause deals with the intersection of human rights and foreign policy:
We oppose all legislation that concedes Congressional power to any regulatory agency, executive department, or international body.In practice, this means that the RLC does not recognize the legitimacy of international treaties impacting government policy, including the Geneva Conventions, and opposes human right accountability measures such as the International Criminal Court.
We oppose any public financing of campaigns or public political forums and any law that allows organizations to collect campaign donations against the wishes of their individual members.Translation: The RLC opposes campaign finance reform, but also wants to increase regulation of unions.
We support the original intent of an individual right to keep and bear arms.Self-explanatory. This is a good position.
We support initiatives in defense of medical, racial and banking privacy.Virtually everyone claims to support medical and banking privacy, but "racial privacy" is a veiled reference to California Proposition 54 (2003), which would have prevented the state government from collecting data on racial demographics, effectively ending many affirmative action programs and making it difficult to identify racially-correlated disparities in government services. Like much of the RLC platform, this can be better categorized as opposition to black civil rights initiatives than as support for civil liberties as such.
We favor flexible alternatives at the state and community level to combat the harmful aspects of drug use.Translation: The RLC opposes drug legalization and decriminalization, but is open to the use of community courts. This is a moderate reformist position.
We oppose any mandatory draft registration or conscription.Self-explanatory, and a good position.
We favor civil discussion of [abortion], but take no position on the merits of conflicting legal, ethical, and religious viewpoints on either side.This has been the de facto position of the Libertarian Party since 1988.
In sum: The RLC platform is anti-civil rights. In other areas, it is as good as or better than the mainstream Republican Party platform on civil liberties issues--but the RLC's opposition to the past five decades of civil rights legislation is difficult to overlook.
The Democratic Freedom Caucus (web site)
The DFC, representing libertarian Democrats, has a much different mandate from the RLC. While neither party is especially good on civil liberties issues, the Democratic Party tends to be much stronger. When the ACLU, the drug decriminalization movement, the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the LGBT rights movement, the anti-surveillance movement, the pro-public defenders movement, the anti-death penalty movement, the anti-censorship movement, the pro-separation of church and state movement, or the pro-immigrants' rights movement are mentioned at a state Republican Party convention, it is generally in a negative context. When they are mentioned at a Democratic Party convention, the context varies. The same can be said of every major civil rights ruling of the past century, from Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966) to United States v. Virginia (1997) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The two civil liberties issues that the Republican Party best champions are gun rights and property rights. On other civil liberties issues, the Democratic Party, despite its own dismal history on civil liberties issues, is nearly always the less objectionable of the two major parties.
But the other half of libertarianism--fiscal libertarianism, the libertarianism of low taxes, free trade, and minimal corporate regulation--is less directly related to what we ordinarily call civil liberties, and on fiscal libertarianism, the Republican Party tends to shine. So it stands to reason that when the DFC has something to say that does not reflect the national Democratic Party's existing priorities, it usually has something to do with money--arguing that labor-based taxes such as the income tax be reduced or phased out in favor of land taxes, for example. This is all very interesting from an economic policy perspective, but not from a civil liberties perspective.
On traditional civil liberties issues, the DFC platform tends to be a little vague and rarely steps outside of the national Democratic mainstream. Here are a few of the stronger points:
Individuals should have the freedom to engage in any activity that does not violate others’ freedom.This can be read as an assertion in support of drug decriminalization, but the fact that it does not specifically mention drug decriminalization (indeed, that the War on Drugs is mentioned nowhere in the DFC's platform) is troubling.
Liberty also includes the right to legitimate self-defense.This reflects the DFC's tradition of including Democrats who favor an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is certainly a good thing from a civil liberties point of view and represents a point of clear disagreement with the national Democratic Party's propensity to support gun control.
Juries should be informed of their traditional right to judge the constitutionality of a law, in addition to judging the facts, as applied to a specific case. Neither prosecution nor defense should be allowed to pack a jury so as to make it biased or unrepresentative.In other words, the DFC defends the controversial practice of jury nullification and opposes the controversial practice of jury-stacking. Both positions are excellent.
But that's essentially it. There is no explicit position on abortion, same-sex marriage, or immigration, the three hot-button civil liberties issues that generate the most discussion. There is no reference of any kind to black civil rights or to racism. There is no reference to women's rights, children's rights, the rights of the elderly, or the rights of the disabled. The only arguable reference to LGBT rights is a brief reference to "[f]reedom of...lifestyle." In the 635-word platform, 429 words deal with fiscal libertarianism but only 150 words deal with civil liberties as such--and those words tend to be vague.
So What's a Civil Libertarian To Do?
Neither major party prioritizes civil liberties, but the Democratic Party tends to be more accountable to civil libertarians. That being the case, the Democratic Party would probably be a safer bet than the Republican Party for civil libertarians who want to become active in a major party. This does not, however, make it a good option.
If you're a Republican civil libertarian, you will probably not be happy with the Republican Liberty Caucus' positions on civil rights issues, which are more problematic than the stated positions of the Republican Party at large. A better bet might be the Republican Main Street Partnership, which describes itself as centrist rather than libertarian but tends to be stronger on civil liberties issues, in practice, than either the RLC or the broader Republican Party. You may also be interested in issue-specific Republican groups, such as the pro-LGBT Log Cabin Republicans or the pro-choice Republicans for Choice.
If you're a Democrat and a fiscal libertarian, or if gun rights is the civil liberties issue about which you are most concerned, then the Democratic Freedom Caucus may be for you. If you're concerned about other civil liberties issues, then you may still find a home in the DFC but would be more likely to find common ground with issue-specific groups, such as the pro-LGBT Stonewall Democrats.
And if none of these options satisfy you, you can always identify as an independent. That's what I do. Sure, I could join one of the major parties and try to influence it to better accommodate my way of thinking--but at this point in my life, it just makes more sense to contribute the bulk of my volunteer hours to organizations with more specific, issue-focused missions. As the Libertarian Party's nomination of Bob Barr so clearly demonstrates, the goal of a political party, no matter what its stated values may be, ultimately becomes political influence. Issue-focused organizations, such as the ACLU and NRA, tend to have narrower and more ideologically consistent mandates--and they lobby members of both parties to support these mandates.
See also:
Comments
The Republican Liberty Caucus Web Site is a better, or at least additional, source of online information about the RLC than the RLCUSA-PAC site is.
Your article tries to make it appear that the RLC is opposed to civil rights, reading into the RLC’s opposition to government expansion some direct tie to federal civil rights legislation.
It seems that much of your article is your personal re-interpretation of what is written, rather than the interpretations used by the organizations and individuals involved. Certainly your re-interpretations contain much more than is in the actual text you’re interpreting.
To suggest that an expressed opposition to the federal government exceeding constitutional boundries is an endorsement of racism and is anti-civil rights is quite a stretch. I’m sure the many minority and Log Cabin Republicans that are RLC members would be very surprised by your interpretation.
You could plausibly claim based on the statement of principles that the RLC is against racial preferences. I suppose if government-enforced unconstitutional racism is your definition of civil rights, then the RLC might be against it. To imply that the RLC is against laws that prevent individuals from being treated negatively by the government based on their race is reading into it something that isn’t there.
You might also have quoted:
“We believe every human being is endowed by nature with inherent rights to life, liberty and property that are properly secured by law. We support a strict construction of the Bill of Rights as a defense against tyranny; the expansion of those rights to all voluntary consensual conduct under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; and the requirements of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
and
“The first ten Amendments to the Constitution enumerate, but do not limit, the natural rights of every individual. These rights are intended to limit government action beyond the specified powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 and should be broadly construed to recognize privacy and liberty rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.”
Your assumptions are somehow mistaking general procedural objections to a large class of unconsitutional legislation for an imagined objection to a specific cause.
I would be opposed to randomly murdering people as wrong even if it was in a “good cause”. Similarly, violating the limitations of the constitution in the name of a “good cause” isn’t a good idea, even if you agree with the cause. We have a formal amendment process for some very good reasons.
I suppose if constitutional limitations don’t mean anything to you, then it’s an irrelevant argument, but if that’s the case then I question your qualifications to discuss U.S. libertarianism.
I realize that based on your bio you’re coming at this with the perspective of someone heavily involved in generally Democrat-populated organizations, but if the end goal is freedom and equality for all, then please realize that there isn’t just one way (more government power) to accomplish that goal. Restrictions on government power are good tools as well. Government can’t abuse power it doesn’t have.
A quick news search over the past few years for the RLC and the ACLU together would lead you to many instances where both organizations have supported the same causes and signed on to the same letters of support.
Since you are heavily involved in NOW, I don’t expect you to willingly support any Republican-based organization, but please at least be a little more evenhanded in the “facts” you purport to list in your articles. Disguising your assumptions and unwarranted interpretations as official RLC positions seems to show people your personal bias more than it says anything about the RLC itself.
I was also wondering if Ron Paul did or didnt endorse Barr? How does Paul feel about the Barr Root ticket. How does Paul feel about Wayne Root.? Did Paul endorse or oppose Root? IS Paul thinking about a vp spot with Barr? Ive been looking everywhere for this info. Can find it. They have a couple of videos at www.BarrRoot.com but nothing about Paul. The Barr/Root ticket is going to fail without paul. I read an article about Ron Paul maybe being a vp or vice ( veep ) on the libertarian ticket BarRoot? Would this mean the LP will drop Root and run Bar and Ron Paul? Its a pretty good article but I dont know how true it is. Here is the Link www.BarrRoot08.com
First, the RLC is not anti-civil liberties. The problem is state liberals in the LP have made it so that government coercion to protect civil rights is fine but government coercion to prohibit is wrong. It is impossible to say the government is allowed to protect an action but not prohibit an action. When a right is “protected” it becomes a privilege handed to you by government. Think about it, did racism disappear as soon as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed? No, the people had to change. Government power was expanded, though. This is true in any situation. Government legislation to “protect” a right is just the government taking more power under the guise of helping the people. There is no conflict between the LP, which has advocated the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the RLC on civil rights and liberties.
Second, the assertion that because the RLC wants unions to be unable to collect money from those unwilling to give they want more regulation is absurd. The position advocates that union not be able to take contribution from you without your consent. That gives more power to the individual.
Lastly, the DFC is not better for a small government Libertarian of any kind. It is only better for a state liberal concerned that the government will not be able to stop thought crimes.
I don’t see any significant distinction between the LP and RLC positions on civil liberties.
… In practice, this amounts to opposition to … the Civil Rights Act of 1964 …
Not to the civil rights portions of the Act, but to the coercive interventions that violate freedom of association. Since the Statement explicitly supports the equal protections of the 14th Amendment, the RLC opposes any state or local government restrictions based on race. But, we also oppose any legal penalty for private discrimination, no matter how perverse or unjust. That isn’t the government’s proper task.
… In practice, this means that the RLC does not recognize the legitimacy of international treaties …
You misread the clause. We don’t oppose treaties adopted by the Senate, only the transfer of legislative powers to international bodies. The Constitution assigns powers to Congress, but it does not grant them the right to transfer that legislative authority to anyone else.
The Geneva Conventions are a set of four treaties adopted by the Senate. None of them grant any legislative powers and the RLC does not oppose the provisions.
Translation: The RLC … wants to increase regulation of unions.
You’ll notice that the provision cited says nothing about unions. It defends the right of individuals to control their own money when it is used for political purposes.
… “racial privacy” is a veiled reference to California Proposition 54 (2003) …
Or any other law that protects individual’s rights to not disclose anthing about their private characteristics or affairs. Yes, that does make it impossible to grant special privileges and entitlements on the basis of class or group characteristics, which is a very libertarian position.
… Translation: The RLC opposes drug legalization and decriminalization …
No, it doesn’t say that. It says the there should be no federal laws restricting any drugs, but favors local and state laws to combat harmful effects (ie: treatment programs or protection of minors).
… the RLC’s opposition to the past five decades of civil rights legislation
Only those provisions that violate free association or private information. We have no problem with any law protecting civil (proper government functions) rights to equal protection and due process under every law.
I do thank you for providing a link to the Statement, so that your visitors can read the full Statement in context.
Bill Westmiller
RLC National Chairman
www.RLC.org
The Republican Liberty Caucus Web Site is a better, or at least additional, source of online information about the RLC than the RLCUSA-PAC site is.
Your article tries to make it appear that the RLC is opposed to civil rights, reading into the RLC’s opposition to government expansion some direct tie to federal civil rights legislation.
It seems that much of your article is your personal re-interpretation of what is written, rather than the interpretations used by the organizations and individuals involved. Certainly your re-interpretations contain much more than is in the actual text you’re interpreting.
To suggest that an expressed opposition to the federal government exceeding constitutional boundaries is an endorsement of racism and is anti-civil rights is quite a stretch. I’m sure the many minority and Log Cabin Republicans that are RLC members would be very surprised by your interpretation.
You could plausibly claim based on the statement of principles that the RLC is against racial preferences. I suppose if government-enforced unconstitutional racism is your definition of civil rights, then the RLC might be against it. To imply that the RLC is against laws that prevent individuals from being treated negatively by the government based on their race is reading into it something that isn’t there.
You might also have quoted:
“We believe every human being is endowed by nature with inherent rights to life, liberty and property that are properly secured by law. We support a strict construction of the Bill of Rights as a defense against tyranny; the expansion of those rights to all voluntary consensual conduct under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; and the requirements of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
and
“The first ten Amendments to the Constitution enumerate, but do not limit, the natural rights of every individual. These rights are intended to limit government action beyond the specified powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 and should be broadly construed to recognize privacy and liberty rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.”
Your assumptions are somehow mistaking general procedural objections to a large class of unconstitutional legislation for an imagined objection to a specific cause.
I would be opposed to randomly murdering people as wrong even if it was in a “good cause”. Similarly, violating the limitations of the constitution in the name of a “good cause” isn’t a good idea, even if you agree with the cause. We have a formal amendment process for some very good reasons.
I suppose if constitutional limitations don’t mean anything to you, then it’s an irrelevant argument, but if that’s the case then I question your qualifications to discuss U.S. libertarianism.
I realize that based on your bio you’re coming at this with the perspective of someone heavily involved in generally Democrat-populated organizations, but if the end goal is freedom and equality for all, then please realize that there isn’t just one way (more government power) to accomplish that goal. Restrictions on government power are good tools as well. Government can’t abuse power it doesn’t have.
A quick news search over the past few years for the RLC and the ACLU together would lead you to many instances where both organizations have supported the same causes and signed on to the same letters of support.
Since you are heavily involved in NOW, I don’t expect you to willingly support any Republican-based organization, but please at least be a little more evenhanded in the “facts” you purport to list in your articles. Disguising your assumptions and unwarranted interpretations as official RLC positions seems to show people your personal bias more than it says anything about the RLC itself.
Out of curiosity, what led you to come to these bizarre interpretations of the positions of the RLC. You’ve got almost all of them dead wrong.
Your reading is highly selective. On the issue of drugs, you pick one sentence while ignoring the previous sentence which says “We recognize the harm that drug abuse causes, but also that the ‘drug war’ has been ineffective and has led to terrible abuses of personal liberty.” Obviously since the RLC supports personal liberty as clearly and repeatedly stated in the statement of principles it must therefore oppose the war on drugs and support at the very least decriminalization of Marijuana. What the statement you misinterpret basically says is that the RLC favors a policy which ends the war on drug users and supports a resolution where the choice to use or not use drugs is up to individuals and not the state.
On civil rights, there is no statement in the RLC statement of principles in opposition to the civil rights act. The RLC just believes that everyone should have civil rights equality and that there should not be preferential treatment or special privileges for any group.
I could go on. You’ve gotten most of the positions wrong. Perhaps the statement of principles is too ambiguous, or written with the assumption that people already know that the RLC is a libertarian organization and will therefore interpret the statements rationally rather than spinning them in a weird direction.
It looks to me like you saw the word Republican and for some bizarre reason assumed that the RLC is a statist organization - like a lot of people you may suffer from a perceptual derangement about anything associated with the Republican Party.
You might be interested to learn that the positions of the RLC are founded not necessarily in the libertarian movement of the 70s, but can be traced back through the history of the Republican Party which has always had a powerful straign of libertarianism.
There’s a great article on the tradition of liberty in the Repbulican Party at www.libertyrepublican.com/a>.
Dave