Nader: Progressive-libertarian alliance ‘the most exciting new political dynamic’ in US

[PermanentSleep]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/progressive-libertarianism-the-exciting-political-dynamic-ralph-nader/


So how will this left-right alliance begin?

Nader suggested that it already has, thanks to the unity of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the most conservative and most liberal members of their respective chambers. They've teamed up to propose cuts to the US defense budget, which has long been by far the largest sector of America's annual budget, and to push a more thorough audit of the Federal Reserve, the private central bank which controls America's currency.


"The authentic tea partiers hail from the conservative libertarian wing of the Republican party that has been so disrespected and corporatized by the likes of Bush and Cheney," Nader said. "So here they come into town and they're going to go after a lot of things the Republican establishment is opposed to."

He added that a coming "liberal-conservative connection" will ultimately "draw that distinction between the corporatist and the genuine libertarian conservatives."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE4-nmR3fiM

[JustinTime]

He added that a coming "liberal-conservative connection" will ultimately "draw that distinction between the corporatist and the genuine libertarian conservatives."


Amen to that.

[JK/SEA]

Whatever it takes.

[stuntman stoll]

don't get too excited Nader. Progressives only agree with libertarians when they see bad government, and even then their solutions are different (wrong) because they believe there needs to be more or different forms of coercion.

[Flash]

Libertarians have always worked with some Progressives to end the Fed & end the wars. There's really not much of an alliance outside of that. Most Progressives these days don't even respect privacy or liberty.

[specsaregood]

I was thinking.....could there be a role on Dr. Paul's campaign and/or cabinet team for Nader?
Would it not be beneficial for his campaign to have a "liberal outreach" person working to get some to switch parties to vote for Dr. Paul in the primary?

[Son of Detroit]

I don't see how there can be an alliance of two ideologies that totally contradict another.

[Son of Detroit]

I was thinking.....could there be a role on Dr. Paul's campaign and/or cabinet team for Nader?
Would it not be beneficial for his campaign to have a "liberal outreach" person working to get some to switch parties to vote for Dr. Paul in the primary?

Putting Nader anywhere near Ron's campaign would effectively put Ron's chances of winning the GOP primary at 0%.

[specsaregood]

Putting Nader anywhere near Ron's campaign would effectively put Ron's chances of winning the GOP primary at 0%.

You might be right, but back it up. Why?
If Romney or Palin put him "near" his campaign would that kill their chances as well?

What about in his cabinet? Could there be a position there for Nader?

[HOLLYWOOD]

NEWS FLASH...

Any tell Ralph Nader, how Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich caved in the 11th hour against the Counterfeiting Monetary Beast?

Ralphy, you're shooting your eye out because, Chuck Grassley is a Corporatist

Intent is 99% of Politics... 1% Actual Results

[sailingaway]

I definitely think we should band with them on those issues where we agree.... after all, both our mushy middles band together to our cost, as a matter of 'bipartisanship' -- let's show them some 'bipartisanship!'

[sailingaway]

NEWS FLASH...

Any tell Ralph Nader, how Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich caved in the 11th hour against the Counterfeiting Monetary Beast?



Yeah, that was a real disapointment.

[Son of Detroit]

You might be right, but back it up. Why?
If Romney or Palin put him "near" his campaign would that kill their chances as well?

What about in his cabinet? Could there be a position there for Nader?

Ralph Nader is about as popular in the GOP as Osama Bin Laden.

[Dreamofunity]

I thought Ron teamed up with Frank to do the military budget cuts, and Sanders for the Audit the Fed bill?

[dannno]

I don't see how there can be an alliance of two ideologies that totally contradict another.

That's because you don't understand the dynamic.

There are both progressives and libertarians who see the negative effect corporatism has had in our country and want to end it, and they want to end the destructive wars. How are those not common problems which with we have identified and are trying to battle by holding the Fed accountable and ending the wars?

There are plenty of Republicans who are far more corporatist and pro-war than those progressives, in many senses are much further from our ideology.

[HazyHusky420]

To those of you bashing Nader over this

You know Ron Paul (and other libertarians) has been calling for the same type of alliance as well right?

[HazyHusky420]

Ralph Nader is about as popular in the GOP as Osama Bin Laden.

But wait, Bin Laden is a business partner of many Republicans =P

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Liberal-Conservative as in Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn I can see, but an alliance with progressives is as antithetical as can be to libertarians. Sure, we can come together on a few issues, but an alliance requires some philosophical similarities. Look at how the progressives reacted in NC to Gunny. I for one will not join any such alliance, but I will work with them on issues where we are in agreement. Besides, this is nothing new. In the 50's we had Fusionism (ally/ with Conservatives), and the 60s we had our brief stint with the New Left, and then the 90s had this Fusionism, and now today the New Left again? Will we learn from history?

[Son of Detroit]

That's because you don't understand the dynamic.

There are both progressives and libertarians who see the negative effect corporatism has had in our country and want to end it, and they want to end the destructive wars. How are those not common problems which with we have identified and are trying to battle by holding the Fed accountable and ending the wars?

There are plenty of Republicans who are far more corporatist and pro-war than those progressives, in many senses are much further from our ideology.

The only problem is that the progressives want to replace corporatism with MORE government. Totally against the liberty doctrine.

[Churchill2004]

Libertarians have been wavering back and forth between liberal-lib't alliances and conservative-lib't alliances for some time. Often it's a matter more of temperament and focus than any disagreement on principle. It's been to our detriment that we've so fully wedded ourselves to the right-wing, and I've been shocked (though perhaps I shouldn't have been) at the eager revival of this long-failed fusionism that seemed so thankfully and finally dead by the end of the Bush years.

Working with the likes of Nader, Kucinich, Sanders, and Frank on issues like war, civil liberties, and drug prohibition strikes me as much more appealing than trying to blend in with the fiscal-conservatives-in-name-only like Coburn, DeMint, and Dick Armey. It seriously bugs me when Judge Napolitano uses "libertarian" and "conservative" interchangeably, or refers to the "libertarian, Tea Party members of Congress" as if there were more than two or three of them.

I'm not saying we should try to merge with the left, either. We should stop thinking of ourselves as part of the "right", though. Libertarianism has suffered from being wrongly portrayed as a "far-right" idea, and too many libertarians seem happy to accept that sort of thinking when they rail against our enemies as being on "the left"

[osan]

I don't see how there can be an alliance of two ideologies that totally contradict another.

I'm wondering about that as well. There are areas of common ground in terms of goals, but the reasons each has for holding the goal is different in the fabric. Libertarians, for example, want to cut defense budgets for reasons that include fiscal responsibility, reduction of government, the fact that wars of aggression are morally questionable in the extreme and from the practical POV buy the nation nothing but the enmity of our neighbors and greatly decreased security and prosperity. The progressive basis for wanting to attain the goal is because they may want that money for nonsense like social programs. They wish to GROW government, if anything, and have no compunction to steal from you via taxation.

The goals are important, but so are the bases for holding them. I am not sure that such unholy alliances are a good idea.

[HazyHusky420]

It seriously bugs me when Judge Napolitano uses "libertarian" and "conservative" interchangeably, or refers to the "libertarian, Tea Party members of Congress" as if there were more than two or three of them.

I'm not saying we should try to merge with the left, either. We should stop thinking of ourselves as part of the "right", though. Libertarianism has suffered from being wrongly portrayed as a "far-right" idea, and too many libertarians seem happy to accept that sort of thinking when they rail against our enemies as being on "the left"

Couldn't agree more. It's because of this "libertarian=conservative" bs that many libertarians have been sucked into both Alex Jones' kooky far-right protectionist camp and and the neocons after 9/11. One example is Linux programmer Eric Raymond. He use to be an anarcho-capitalist but after 9/11 he lost his mind and turned into a raging neocon and has since needed to be in a padded room. Unfortunately he hasn't been in a padded room and to this day remains a threat to young impressionable libertarians.

[TheDriver]

Is this the same Ralph Nader who was sticking his nose in Rand Paul's election, a few months ago?

[acptulsa]

I don't see how there can be an alliance of two ideologies that totally contradict another.

Plug Ted Rall into your search engine. There are liberals out there who have finally heard us accuse them of supporting corporatists, and can no longer live in denial of the charges. They want to kick the crooks out. Of course, they just want to put a new set of crooks in. And, of course, they don't see it that way. But they are disillusioned that they keep getting power-corrupted-you-absolutely crooks.

Can we only work with them on issues like corporatism and war? Depends. If we can make them see that socialism grows exponentially more inefficient the bigger it gets, and we concede the true statement that the Constitution does not forbid the individual states from being as socialist as their residents and voters want them to be, we can get true liberals right there with us right down the line on federal issue after federal issue. We just have to show them the beauty of the Tenth Amendment.

Of course, if the states compete for business locations and residents with each other, a socalist state won't have much of a chance against free market states. But we don't have to mention that part, do we?

[Humanae Libertas]

I don't know why some would want an alliance with either Progressives, Liberals, Conservatives etc. They both contradict Libertarian goals, especially Conservatives. They are mostly concerned with keeping things the same, maybe cutting the role of government in some things but believe mainly in follow current laws, including welfare, medicare/medicaid, and other programs. They also believe in more government over people's social lives. Liberals are just the opposite of Conservatives.

Progressives is just another modern day word for Fascist assholes. Look no further than Media Matters, Dialy Kos, MSNBC.

[dannno]

Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, McKinney, Barr, Baldwin Unite under 4 Principles!

FOREIGN POLICY
THE NATIONAL DEBT
PRIVACY
FEDERAL RESERVE

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ron-Paul-Press-Conference-by-Kevin-Zeese-080910-177.html

Polls Indicate Non-Duopoly Candidates Could Determine Outcome of the Election
Ron Paul held what he described as a “very important” press conference on September 10th in Washington, DC. The event brought four third party and independent candidates “together in unity” around a statement of principles. The event came as polls showed the presidential race tightening and third party/independent candidates getting combined votes of over 10% in swing states.The four candidates – Independent Ralph Nader, the Green nominee Cynthia McKinney, the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin and the Libertarian Party’s Bob Barr along with Ron Paul agreed on the following four key principles:

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

http://highboldtage.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/ron-paul-ralph-nader-mckinney-barr-baldwin-unite-under-4-principles/

[emazur]

Nader's '08 VP Matt Gonzalez endorsed the same guy Ron Paul endorsed (John Dennis) to run against Pelosi in 2010.

[HazyHusky420]

Look no further than Media Matters, Dialy Kos, MSNBC.

What about the "FreeRepublic" types? They're pretty fascistic if you ask me, with their nationalism, bigotry, war mongering and all...

[Brett85]

Libertarians have been wavering back and forth between liberal-lib't alliances and conservative-lib't alliances for some time. Often it's a matter more of temperament and focus than any disagreement on principle. It's been to our detriment that we've so fully wedded ourselves to the right-wing, and I've been shocked (though perhaps I shouldn't have been) at the eager revival of this long-failed fusionism that seemed so thankfully and finally dead by the end of the Bush years.

Working with the likes of Nader, Kucinich, Sanders, and Frank on issues like war, civil liberties, and drug prohibition strikes me as much more appealing than trying to blend in with the fiscal-conservatives-in-name-only like Coburn, DeMint, and Dick Armey. It seriously bugs me when Judge Napolitano uses "libertarian" and "conservative" interchangeably, or refers to the "libertarian, Tea Party members of Congress" as if there were more than two or three of them.

I'm not saying we should try to merge with the left, either. We should stop thinking of ourselves as part of the "right", though. Libertarianism has suffered from being wrongly portrayed as a "far-right" idea, and too many libertarians seem happy to accept that sort of thinking when they rail against our enemies as being on "the left"

Well at least the right wants to make sure you have the right to say whatever you want to say. There's a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania who is proposing throwing people in jail for exercising their 1st amendment rights. If the Democrats had complete control they would abolish both the 1st amendment and the 2nd amendment.

[HazyHusky420]

If the Democrats had complete control they would abolish both the 1st amendment and the 2nd amendment.

So would Republicans, just under different pretextes and with different rhetoric.

[Churchill2004]

Well at least the right wants to make sure you have the right to say whatever you want to say.


http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa7/Spleener12/Reaction%20pics/1257443836328.jpg

[HazyHusky420]

Well at least the right wants to make sure you have the right to say whatever you want to say.

Yeah explain Michael Savage and Michael Reagan, who both called for throwing anti-war people in jail, and Reagan who called for killing truthers.

[oyarde]

I cannot see progressives interested in Liberty .

[HazyHusky420]

I cannot see progressives interested in Liberty .

and I can't see conservatives being interested in liberty either.

It's not about liberty as a whole it's about certain common goals and with progressives it's civil liberties and less war mongering.

[oyarde]

and I can't see conservatives being interested in liberty either.

It's not about liberty as a whole it's about certain common goals and with progressives it's civil liberties and less war mongering.

Progressives have a terrible voting record on civil liberties . Woodrow Wilsons .

[Brett85]

Yeah explain Michael Savage and Michael Reagan, who both called for throwing anti-war people in jail, and Reagan who called for killing truthers.

I never saw any Republicans in Congress introduce a bill that blatantly violated the 1st amendment.

[Brett85]

and I can't see conservatives being interested in liberty either.

It's not about liberty as a whole it's about certain common goals and with progressives it's civil liberties and less war mongering.

Yeah, since the left is so supportive of gun rights and tried to repeal the Patriot Act when they got in power.

[HazyHusky420]

Progressives have a terrible voting record on civil liberties . Woodrow Wilsons .

I'm talking about Ralph Nader/Cynthia McKinney types. Not Wilsonians or Clintonians.

[HazyHusky420]

Yeah, since the left is so supportive of gun rights and tried to repeal the Patriot Act when they got in power.

I'm talking about Greens and Independent progressives (like Ralph Nader, the subject of this thread), not Democrats.

[HazyHusky420]

If we can have an alliance with anti-gay protectionists like Pat Buchanan over foreign policy, government spending and gun rights then why can't we have an alliance with socialist progressives (I don't mean Democrats I mean people like Ralph Nader) over foreign policy, corporate welfare and civil liberties? It's not like we're endorsing their other views.

[HazyHusky420]

I never saw any Republicans in Congress introduce a bill that blatantly violated the 1st amendment.

You didn't specify politicians, but you're still wrong because of the patriot act, which not only invades privacy but infringes on freedom of speech, meaning you can't say what you want on the phone.

[CUnknown]

I don't see how we can not have an alliance with the principled left. Putting pride and labels for people ahead of getting stuff done is wrongheaded imo. We should team up with the right, left, middle, whoever wants to stand for liberty on certain issues. We don't need to agree with people 100% to form an alliance.

An alliance with the left makes all kinds of sense, actually. Imagine how big a coalition of people who want us home from the wars, who want the bill of rights and habeas corpus restored, who want to end the drug war .... imagine how big that coalition could be!

This idea that seems to be floating around that they want to join us, but we shouldn't give in to them ... that is just so wrong to me on so many levels. If only we could convince 10% of liberals to join in an alliance with us... that would be so incredible for our movement. I can't believe anyone here would oppose that. It's going to be extremely difficult to convince liberals, and I see that perhaps it would be just as difficult to convince people here.. That's a shame..

[BenIsForRon]

If we can have an alliance with anti-gay protectionists like Pat Buchanan over foreign policy, government spending and gun rights then why can't we have an alliance with socialist progressives (I don't mean Democrats I mean people like Ralph Nader) over foreign policy, corporate welfare and civil liberties? It's not like we're endorsing their other views.

This.

Seriously, anyone who denies what Ralph Nader said is more partisan than they are willing to admit, i.e. Austrian Econ Disciple. To think there is a group of people who are impossible to communicate and work with is an incredibly partisan, anti-individual mindset.

This alliance is real and building, if it takes form as a new third party or as just a unofficial alliance in legislative bodies is up for debate, but it's happening. And it's definitely a good thing.

[Brett85]

You didn't specify politicians, but you're still wrong because of the patriot act, which not only invades privacy but infringes on freedom of speech, meaning you can't say what you want on the phone.

I wasn't aware that the Patriot Act infringes on free speech. At least we got an anti Patriot Act Senator elected in Rand Paul.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Libertarians have been wavering back and forth between liberal-lib't alliances and conservative-lib't alliances for some time. Often it's a matter more of temperament and focus than any disagreement on principle. It's been to our detriment that we've so fully wedded ourselves to the right-wing, and I've been shocked (though perhaps I shouldn't have been) at the eager revival of this long-failed fusionism that seemed so thankfully and finally dead by the end of the Bush years.

Working with the likes of Nader, Kucinich, Sanders, and Frank on issues like war, civil liberties, and drug prohibition strikes me as much more appealing than trying to blend in with the fiscal-conservatives-in-name-only like Coburn, DeMint, and Dick Armey. It seriously bugs me when Judge Napolitano uses "libertarian" and "conservative" interchangeably, or refers to the "libertarian, Tea Party members of Congress" as if there were more than two or three of them.

I'm not saying we should try to merge with the left, either. We should stop thinking of ourselves as part of the "right", though. Libertarianism has suffered from being wrongly portrayed as a "far-right" idea, and too many libertarians seem happy to accept that sort of thinking when they rail against our enemies as being on "the left"

Agreed. Nice post. My AP Government teacher always characterizes libertarianism as "economically conservative", and it makes me angry, because I honestly don't see how libertarian economic ideas can be "conservative", if they've never truly existed before. I don't really think of myself as a rightist. All I know is that I agree with many "leftists" on problems affecting society, but I do not agree with their offerings of more government to fix those problems. I guess that makes me a fusion of both ideologies as they proclaim themselves to be (but not necessarily what they practice, as we've seen with the GOP and even the Democratic Party lately).

[Churchill2004]

I wasn't aware that the Patriot Act infringes on free speech. At least we got an anti Patriot Act Senator elected in Rand Paul.

Judge Napolitano gives a great explanation of how the law makes it illegal to tell anyone you've recieved a self-written search warrant ("national security letter"). One version of the speech (there are several floating about) is on reason.tv

As someone who lives in the heart of bible-belt Arkansas, I find it absurd that "traditional conservatives" are somehow not a threat to liberty. Aside from being the biggest bandwagon-ers for Bush-era GOP (because Dubya tickled their cultural fancy),they are also largely responsible for the prohibitionist impulse towards drugs, the virulently anti-gay attitudes they seek to and have encoded in law, the hyperventilating opposition to secularism and non-Christians (complete with "We're a Christian Nation!" ignorance), supporting bans on pornography, I could go on....

If you want to see the absolute worst of Christian-ist theocracy, I suggest you go read the platform of the deceptively misnamed "Constitution" Party. I understand how Bob Barr stupidly pissed on his tennis shoes, but the day Ron Paul (quietly and almost ashamedly) endorsed Chuck Baldwin had to be the nadir of my support for RP.

[HazyHusky420]

I wasn't aware that the Patriot Act infringes on free speech.

If you can't say what you want on the phone then you have no free speech.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This.

Seriously, anyone who denies what Ralph Nader said is more partisan than they are willing to admit, i.e. Austrian Econ Disciple. To think there is a group of people who are impossible to communicate and work with is an incredibly partisan, anti-individual mindset.

This alliance is real and building, if it takes form as a new third party or as just a unofficial alliance in legislative bodies is up for debate, but it's happening. And it's definitely a good thing.

Can you care to show me where I said I am against working with these individuals? An alliance is a far-cry difference than working with individuals on single issues. Besides, I all ready have an alliance, it's called the Minarchist-Anarchist alliance, and that is tenuous enough at times, because there just isn't enough radicalism in the movement. Why you think alliance and agreeing on single issues is the same thing, I don't know, but it is wrong of you nonetheless.

If there was ever a party, I could just see the tension and arguments boiling over when we advocate for the abolition of the IRS and Income Tax, and the progressives are there advocating even higher taxes, and even more spending domestically. Just imagine the feud that would erupt over State-Welfare...Whether good or bad, libertarians are strict no-compromisers. If you happen to agree with us, then awesome we will work together on that position, but an alliance is unfathomable. Count me out. (I will actually learn from the mistakes of my predecessors, namely Rothbard & Liggio in the 1960s)

[zade]

I don't see how we can not have an alliance with the principled left. Putting pride and labels for people ahead of getting stuff done is wrongheaded imo. We should team up with the right, left, middle, whoever wants to stand for liberty on certain issues. We don't need to agree with people 100% to form an alliance.

An alliance with the left makes all kinds of sense, actually. Imagine how big a coalition of people who want us home from the wars, who want the bill of rights and habeas corpus restored, who want to end the drug war .... imagine how big that coalition could be!

This idea that seems to be floating around that they want to join us, but we shouldn't give in to them ... that is just so wrong to me on so many levels. If only we could convince 10% of liberals to join in an alliance with us... that would be so incredible for our movement. I can't believe anyone here would oppose that. It's going to be extremely difficult to convince liberals, and I see that perhaps it would be just as difficult to convince people here.. That's a shame..

Yep, but many conservative libertarians say "there's no such thing as a principled leftist," which pretty much puts a stop on this alliance forming. Of course, there are leftists who say there's no such thing as a principled libertarian. Both sides need to get over it, because there are broad areas of agreement, as you pointed out

[HazyHusky420]

If you want to see the absolute worst of Christian-ist theocracy, I suggest you go read the platform of the deceptively misnamed "Constitution" Party. I understand how Bob Barr stupidly pissed on his tennis shoes, but the day Ron Paul (quietly and almost ashamedly) endorsed Chuck Baldwin had to be the nadir of my support for RP.

Lol, now that's something I agree with you on. Chuck Baldwin is a fruitcake. He has ties to the Pensacola Christian College who make the abeka Christian school book curriculum, and believe me, someone who went to an abeka school from kindergarten to the seventh grade, those books are absolutely insane. Apart from it's constant endorsement of theocracy the books also defend the federal reserve and take the neocon positions on foreign policy. As a kid I remember seeing "Chuck Baldwin" in alot of sample letters and story problems in the books.

[HazyHusky420]

I will actually learn from the mistakes of my predecessors, namely Rothbard & Liggio in the 1960s

Times have changed. Libertarianism is more mainstream and accepted than it was in the 60s.

[CUnknown]

[...]If there was ever a party, I could just see the tension and arguments boiling over when we advocate for the abolition of the IRS and Income Tax, and the progressives are there advocating even higher taxes, and even more spending domestically. Just imagine the feud that would erupt over State-Welfare...Whether good or bad, libertarians are strict no-compromisers. If you happen to agree with us, then awesome we will work together on that position, but an alliance is unfathomable. Count me out. (I will actually learn from the mistakes of my predecessors, namely Rothbard & Liggio in the 1960s)

The thing is, that if we're ever in a situation to actually disagree with each other to the point where it would have legislative consequences, that would be a beautiful, beautiful world. The entire point of the alliance in the first place would have been successfully completed and we could go our separate ways happily, knowing we just saved the fucking country.

Right now, libertarians and socialists can shout at each other until they're blue in the face and no one cares. Neither of us have any power whatsoever. Okay, so we've both got one Senator (Rand - Sanders). But do you think Rand and Bernie Sanders are going to spend a lot of time arguing with each other up there? Heck no. They're going to be working together to END THE FED. To END THE WARS.

Do you see my point? Libertarians and socialists are both outside the mainstream and outside the halls of power. It only makes sense to team up and charge forward together. Once we achieve power, we part ways.

The alliance is a temporary tactic to give us the best shot at accomplishing real change. Think about it. The arguments that you just made against it actually make no sense whatsoever, given the current state of both of the groups we're talking about (i.e. powerless).

[Rothbardian Girl]

Times have changed. Libertarianism is more mainstream and accepted than it was in the 60s.
Is this really so? From my (admittedly scant) research, libertarian sentiment was pretty high in the 60's and 70's until the so-called New Left took over. But maybe that is what you are referring to? Please forgive my ignorance.

I think Rothbard blamed the New Left's co-optation for wrecking the alliance; it was not necessarily that he disagreed with some of the issues the more progressive types were concerned about. It's been a while since I read Betrayal of the American Right, but I still remember that Rothbard wasn't as critical of the progressive activists as I thought he would be. As long as it can be shown that Nader's supporters wouldn't give into the demands of the mainstream Democratic Party line, I would see no problem with this type of alliance.

EDIT: I just saw the post above me. Awesome.

[Brett85]

If you want to see the absolute worst of Christian-ist theocracy, I suggest you go read the platform of the deceptively misnamed "Constitution" Party. I understand how Bob Barr stupidly pissed on his tennis shoes, but the day Ron Paul (quietly and almost ashamedly) endorsed Chuck Baldwin had to be the nadir of my support for RP.

Well if you don't support Ron Paul then why do you post here?

[BenIsForRon]

Great post CUnknown.

The one problem to forming this alliance is that the principled left seems to be more spread out. For example, you have lots of non-profits working towards different goals, you have your environmental groups, your social justice groups, your anti-war groups... but none of them really come together during election time to put forward a serious candidate. The right was the same way until we got Paul.

So the question is... how do we unite the dispersed activists into one political force? One that puts forth candidates at the Federal and State levels and can't be ignored by the media?


Well if you don't support Ron Paul then why do you post here?

You should look up the definition of nadir.

[Churchill2004]

Well if you don't support Ron Paul then why do you post here?

I do support Ron Paul, as would have been plain if you understood the meaning of the word "nadir". But it is not an unqualified or unquestioning support. I disagree with him on certain issues, I think he has made mistakes, and I think endorsing Chuck Baldwin was the wrong thing to do. Particularly since it made zero difference in the election and Barr still got more than 2.5x as many votes. (Not that Barr's arrogance didn't also piss me off).

[Brett85]

I do support Ron Paul, as would have been plain if you understood the meaning of the word "nadir". But it is not an unqualified or unquestioning support. I disagree with him on certain issues, I think he has made mistakes, and I think endorsing Chuck Baldwin was the wrong thing to do. Particularly since it made zero difference in the election and Barr still got more than 2.5x as many votes. (Not that Barr didn't also piss me off).

Well I think that many Ron Paul supporters supported Chuck Baldwin in the general election. The guy was strongly against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. If your main disagreement with him is on the abortion issue, then you disagree with Ron Paul as well.

[Churchill2004]

Well I think that many Ron Paul supporters supported Chuck Baldwin in the general election. The guy was strongly against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. If your main disagreement with him is on the abortion issue, then you disagree with Ron Paul as well.

I do disagree with Ron Paul on abortion, but that was far from my only disagreement with the CP. Like I said, go look at their platform. It's a bunch of authoritarian, theocratic crap. Good on them for rejecting Alan Keyes the neo-con in favor of Chuck Baldwin the paleo-con, but that doesn't make them any less loathsome for supporting what amounts to the creation of Vice Police who arrest people for such things as "sodomy", pornography, cohabitation, gambling, and whatever else the delusional retrogrades are convinced makes baby Jesus cry.

And while I'm sure some Ron Paul supporters went over to Baldwin, it was obviously a minute fraction, and thankfully so. I'll take a conservative-leaning libertarian. I look less kindly on a bunch of authoritarian conservatives who posture themselves as being anti-statist.

[Vessol]

If it brings more votes for Paul, yay, but these people have very little in common with us.

[Brett85]

I do disagree with Ron Paul on abortion, but that was far from my only disagreement with the CP. Like I said, go look at their platform. It's a bunch of authoritarian, theocratic crap. Good on them for rejecting Alan Keyes the neo-con in favor of Chuck Baldwin the paleo-con, but that doesn't make them any less loathsome for supporting what amounts to the creation of Vice Police who arrest people for such things as "sodomy", pornography, cohabitation, gambling, and whatever else the delusional retrogrades are convinced makes baby Jesus cry.

And while I'm sure some Ron Paul supporters went over to Baldwin, it was obviously a minute fraction, and thankfully so. I'll take a conservative-leaning libertarian. I look less kindly on a bunch of authoritarian conservatives who posture themselves as being anti-statist.

But don't they at least want issues like gambling and pornography to be handled at the state level rather than the federal level? If they actually wanted to federalize these issues they obviously wouldn't support the 10th amendment.

[Churchill2004]

But don't they at least want issues like gambling and pornography to be handled at the state level rather than the federal level? If they actually wanted to federalize these issues they obviously wouldn't support the 10th amendment.

That doesn't make their support for such authoritarianism acceptable to me. The CP is not a federal-only party. They run candidates for state office. Besides, aside from the fact that Constitution by way of the 14th amendment guarantees certain basic rights against all levels of government, those who support the 10th Amendment only so they can impose state-level tyranny give federalism a bad name.

[BenIsForRon]

If it brings more votes for Paul, yay, but these people have very little in common with us.

If they don't, then who does?

[Vessol]

Both your average conservative and liberal have little in common with us. Why? Because they both believe in using coersive violence in one way or the other.

[StilesBC]

The thing is, that if we're ever in a situation to actually disagree with each other to the point where it would have legislative consequences, that would be a beautiful, beautiful world. The entire point of the alliance in the first place would have been successfully completed and we could go our separate ways happily, knowing we just saved the fucking country.

Right now, libertarians and socialists can shout at each other until they're blue in the face and no one cares. Neither of us have any power whatsoever. Okay, so we've both got one Senator (Rand - Sanders). But do you think Rand and Bernie Sanders are going to spend a lot of time arguing with each other up there? Heck no. They're going to be working together to END THE FED. To END THE WARS.

Do you see my point? Libertarians and socialists are both outside the mainstream and outside the halls of power. It only makes sense to team up and charge forward together. Once we achieve power, we part ways.

The alliance is a temporary tactic to give us the best shot at accomplishing real change. Think about it. The arguments that you just made against it actually make no sense whatsoever, given the current state of both of the groups we're talking about (i.e. powerless).

^ This

The goal is to end the duopoly. We should have absolutely ZERO preference of establishment Republican over establishment Democrat. They are both corporatists. Much of the differences between them are petty and manufactured for our entertainment.

[BenIsForRon]

Both your average conservative and liberal have little in common with us. Why? Because they both believe in using coersive violence in one way or the other.

Yeah, you didn't answer my question. I'll ask more directly: who does have a lot in common with us?

BTW Ron Paul believes in coercive violence: he believes in tariffs.

[Sola_Fide]

^ This

The goal is to end the duopoly. We should have absolutely ZERO preference of establishment Republican over establishment Democrat. They are both corporatists. Much of the differences between them are petty and manufactured for our entertainment.

I guess you're right, but how would socialism end corporatism? Wouldn't it completely solidify it?

[PermanentSleep]

..

[PermanentSleep]

The thing is, that if we're ever in a situation to actually disagree with each other to the point where it would have legislative consequences, that would be a beautiful, beautiful world. The entire point of the alliance in the first place would have been successfully completed and we could go our separate ways happily, knowing we just saved the fucking country.

Right now, libertarians and socialists can shout at each other until they're blue in the face and no one cares. Neither of us have any power whatsoever. Okay, so we've both got one Senator (Rand - Sanders). But do you think Rand and Bernie Sanders are going to spend a lot of time arguing with each other up there? Heck no. They're going to be working together to END THE FED. To END THE WARS.

Do you see my point? Libertarians and socialists are both outside the mainstream and outside the halls of power. It only makes sense to team up and charge forward together. Once we achieve power, we part ways.

The alliance is a temporary tactic to give us the best shot at accomplishing real change. Think about it. The arguments that you just made against it actually make no sense whatsoever, given the current state of both of the groups we're talking about (i.e. powerless).

Completely agree.

[Bman]

BTW Ron Paul believes in coercive violence: he believes in tariffs.


Believes? Care to prove that? I'd say accepts them as a more reasonable approach than the current status would be a fair comment, but believe? Like it or not Ron believes completely in the Free market. Ron's just a bit more practical than some of our hardliners that frequent this site.

[nobody's_hero]

Nader is a liberal that you can talk to. Many will try to tune you out or talk over you. I like the exchanges he has with the Judge.

Flashback:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXWdPjvvZn8

[vita3]

It's about time the two sides came togeher on issues they agree upon.

[vita3]

Bump for a winning political formula, issue by issue

[Aratus]

populist + progressive era, yes!
bill of rights, yes! i'm psyched!!!
lets go thru the WHOLE budget!

[Stary Hickory]

Waiting for the lemmings to be coopted by the left like it was in the early 1900s. The old Democratic party was ruined just like this...so lets do it again. I have yet to see the olive branch from the left a strong desire for more government is a strong desire for limiting freedom.

Social liberties and the left.....not so much. Police state has grown leaps and bounds...attacks on the internet and freedom of speech have begun. I await with popcorn...this ought to be good. After one of the most despotic regimes I have witnessed people honestly consider this.....

Come back and talk to me once the Dems get a good purging like the GOP did and till will get.

[Stary Hickory]

I don't see how there can be an alliance of two ideologies that totally contradict another.

I know right? Especially after one of the most dictatorial and tyrannical progressive regime we have ever had...a libertarian/progressive alliance is only natural right? There is good libertarian momentum on the right....libertarians are held in higher regard than they have ever been besides classical liberals and the old old Democratic party. So it makes perfect sense to now align with authoritarians who see no limit in what government can do....people who openly disdain and mock the Constitution, people who stand in the way of a Federal Reserve Audit, people who want to run your healthcare, take away your right to raise your kids, legislate how much salt is in your food and so on...

I can just taste the freedom

[charrob]

as someone who has voted for Ralph Nader since 1996, i've been saying this since 2007 when i attended the RP Revolution in D.C. There's a huge number of issues the two sides agree on; it's a shame not to combine our numbers.


end the wars
end the torture
end free trade pacts
end foreign aide
end wallstreet bailouts
end the Fed
end corporate welfare
end a zillion military bases
decrease defense spending
social libertarian (gay rights, etc.)
separation of church and state
end the Patriot Act / civil liberties
good number of liberals are against amnesty
end the department of Homeland Security
end the war on drugs


The place where we part is having a safety net for those who fall between the cracks. However there is alot of issues that could be accomplished if we unite.

[Aratus]

good point! even jerry brown now wants to deal with the budget issue square in
one year if possible rather than stretching the misery over 4 long california years.

[Stary Hickory]

Cross end the FED off yoru list
Gay rights and aborting babies does not make Progressive for civil rights...in fact they think that the commerce clause gives them unlimited power....commerce is human action....the power to control every human action is a tyranny on a scale hard to imagine.

Seperation of church and state? Do we have a problem with Religion being forced on people by the state? In fact no....progressives actually go out of their way to deny people the ability to practice faith in schools, they oppose homeschooling and anything other than a corrupt government run fascist school system.

Again civil liberties....they push constantly the fairness doctrine...they force stations to play channels no one wants to listen to, attacks on the internet have begun already. Free speech is under constant siege by progressives. I am not seeing it with the cvil liberties thing...the things progressives want to do to you far outweighs any liberties they may claim to support.

End the DHS?.....if they really wanted to end the DHS they would have not EMOWERED it repeatedy. The DHS has taken on a new life...with progressives in control of almost all areas of government. Ok what about the DOE, education, FCC, Agricultural DEP, and all the other progressive agencies?

Wallstreet bailouts? Progressives pushed those through REPEATEDLY...my god. The only resistance to it was from the right...and that was a weak resistance at that.

Ending free trade pacts? To what end? To create a tariff system that penalizes th consumer and rewards unions and big businss who buy policial favor? No thanks. Free trade agreements are great when they are actually free trade and not some political sham.

[Brett85]

as someone who has voted for Ralph Nader since 1996, i've been saying this since 2007 when i attended the RP Revolution in D.C. There's a huge number of issues the two sides agree on; it's a shame not to combine our numbers.


end the wars
end the torture
end free trade pacts
end foreign aide
end wallstreet bailouts
end the Fed
end corporate welfare
end a zillion military bases
decrease defense spending
social libertarian (gay rights, etc.)
separation of church and state
end the Patriot Act / civil liberties
good number of liberals are against amnesty
end the department of Homeland Security
end the war on drugs


The place where we part is having a safety net for those who fall between the cracks. However there is alot of issues that could be accomplished if we unite.

Free trade pacts shouldn't be ended. They should just be simplified so that we have actual free trade rather than a 1,000 page, managed trade bill.

[charrob]

Cross end the FED off yoru list
Gay rights and aborting babies does not make Progressive for civil rights...in fact they think that the commerce clause gives them unlimited power....commerce is human action....the power to control every human action is a tyranny on a scale hard to imagine.

i believe you are confusing the democratic party with true liberals/progressives. Unlike the democratic corporatists, these latter groups do believe in the issues that were bulletted. Abortion is a controversial subject based on whether you believe a fetus has rights.


Seperation of church and state? Do we have a problem with Religion being forced on people by the state? In fact no....progressives actually go out of their way to deny people the ability to practice faith in schools, they oppose homeschooling and anything other than a corrupt government run fascist school system.

Meet the new Chair to the Environment and Economic Subcommittee:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5WHkT45Vs&feature=related

Additionally there's a group in Texas responsible for taking the establishment clause out of the U.S. Constitution in public schools in the United States. And it has been suggested more than once to offer creationism as an 'alternative' in public school science classes. So, I would say yes, we do have an undercurrent of continual force by the religious right in this country to force their views, morals, values and religion on everyone else in the country.


Again civil liberties....they push constantly the fairness doctrine...they force stations to play channels no one wants to listen to, attacks on the internet have begun already. Free speech is under constant siege by progressives. I am not seeing it with the cvil liberties thing...the things progressives want to do to you far outweighs any liberties they may claim to support.

Have you ever heard of Glenn Greenwald?


End the DHS?.....if they really wanted to end the DHS they would have not EMOWERED it repeatedy. The DHS has taken on a new life...with progressives in control of almost all areas of government.

There should be no argument on this: true liberals / progressives want absolutely nothing to do with the Department of Homeland Security and would vote to end it. I can't believe you would argue this, except that, again, you are confusing what has become of the democratic party with true liberals. Most liberals detest Obama; many did not vote for him and those that did only did so as a 'lesser of two evils'. Others that voted for him are totally disgusted and have vowed never to do a 'lesser of two evils' again; they see Obama as the 3rd term of GW Bush.



Ok what about the DOE, education, FCC, Agricultural DEP, and all the other progressive agencies?

These were not in my list; the issues in my list are those issues both sides could come together on.


Wallstreet bailouts? Progressives pushed those through REPEATEDLY...my god. The only resistance to it was from the right...and that was a weak resistance at that.

Wrong. The original tea parties protesting the Wall Street Bailouts consisted of people from both sides. As the tea party became more radicalized by religious nuts and other right-winged rhetoric and funded by the likes of the Koch Brothers then "lead" by Sarah Palin, those on the left that first attended them as a result of the wall street bailouts separated themselves from it. But no, true liberals were vehmently opposed to the Wall Street bailouts and TARP.


Ending free trade pacts? To what end? To create a tariff system that penalizes th consumer and rewards unions and big businss who buy policial favor? No thanks. Free trade agreements are great when they are actually free trade and not some political sham.

Both liberals and libertarians, including Ron Paul, would like to see an end to NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, etc.

[charrob]

Free trade pacts shouldn't be ended. They should just be simplified so that we have actual free trade rather than a 1,000 page, managed trade bill.

right.... the pacts (NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO) are these managed trade bills that both sides would like to get rid of.

[Chieppa1]

There is a split, both on the left and the right; between those who understand that we have an economy that is most honestly called: Corporatism. Businesses getting in bed with government to control their markets. This isn't free market, it isn't Capitalism, it also isn't Socalism (while it is closer). Then there are the party bases. The people who, no matter WHAT, will vote for the R or the D. They will defend their guys/attack the other side. An example of this is the "fair-weather" anti-war left, anti-Patriot Act left. They have disappeared from view since Obama came in. Just like 70% of the newly fucked up "Tea Party" is just Neo-Cons that will forget to disagree with the next Republican that raises taxes and signs a bailout bill.

It comes down to the principled vs. the sellouts. So any effort to push out the sellouts, then let the two sides of the principled group fight it out.

[Romulus]

Lots of liberals or progressives see corporations as the enemy, and government as the solution. If they could only understand they both work in tandem with little difference, much like R's and D's, then there might be a break-through, creating a genuine alliance.

[Romulus]

as someone who has voted for Ralph Nader since 1996, i've been saying this since 2007 when i attended the RP Revolution in D.C. There's a huge number of issues the two sides agree on; it's a shame not to combine our numbers.


end the wars
end the torture
end free trade pacts
end foreign aide
end wallstreet bailouts
end the Fed
end corporate welfare
end a zillion military bases
decrease defense spending
social libertarian (gay rights, etc.)
separation of church and state
end the Patriot Act / civil liberties
good number of liberals are against amnesty
end the department of Homeland Security
end the war on drugs


The place where we part is having a safety net for those who fall between the cracks. However there is alot of issues that could be accomplished if we unite.

+ rep.

Both sides agree on a lot of things..

[Athena]

I'm a progressive who supports Ron Paul. I'm not sure progressives and libertarians could form a new political party, but we can present a united front on everything besides taxation for social safety nets. That's the only real area of disagreement.

Over at firedoglake, we've been talking about this for a while:

http://my.firedoglake.com/deanbaker/2010/12/02/the-left-right-alliance-scores-big-victory-with-fed-data/

...just one example.

Jane Hamsher attacks the Nation for conspiracy theorizing about grassroots TSA opposition:

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/11/24/the-nation-attacks-john-dont-touch-my-junk-tyner/

Matt Taibbi is an example of a journalist covering current events in a way that demonstrates both the common ground we share and how extremely screwed we are all going to be if we don't figure something out, and fast.

[Romulus]

I'm sorry, Taibbi can be pretty slanted and disingenuous about things sometimes.... He's know to blame bankers, but leaves out the Fed and corrupt government when laying things out.

[PermanentSleep]

Perhaps we should differentiate between the corporate puppets in power and the average citizen. Because last time I checked, on both the right and the left, the average citizen is voting based on a set of beliefs they BELIEVE their candidate shares and then having to watch said elected official do the opposite in many cases, leaving the citizen constantly thinking WTF.

I think there is a significant difference between the corporate puppets on the Left holding high elected office and the average citizen Democrat. The average citizen Democrat does share similar opinions on some issues that Libertarians do, and writing off the entire Left simply because a party platform says one thing and the elected officials do the opposite (oh shit, both parties do that!) is foolish. Many of my left leaning friends are outright pissed off about the continuing wars, DHS, etc. etc. etc. under Obama. The only difference is that Bush was so f'ing terrible that they've tried to cling to Obama as much as possible just to not look as hypocritical as they've claimed Republicans have been; even though that's precisely what they're doing. If we used the same reasoning with the Right we'd have to write everyone registered Republican off as well. And if that were the case, we might as well withdrawal all of our support, time, and money and go live in a cave because winning would be an impossibility. It's the average citizen Democrat we should be reaching out to and allying with, just like we tried to do in the last Presidential race with the Republicans...while simultaneously calling out all bullshit at the public office level.

[Athena]

I'm sorry, Taibbi can be pretty slanted and disingenuous about things sometimes.... He's know to blame bankers, but leaves out the Fed and corrupt government when laying things out.

Here:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/mailbag-foreclosure-fixes-taxing-the-rich-and-obama-as-a-randian-20110110



Hey Matt,

Long-time fan. Really excited to see you try this new format to interact
with your readers. On to my question:

Say you're about to embark on a cross-Atlantic flight, and the plane's packed to the gills. You're just settling in, ready for takeoff, and just then, walking in at the last minute, is your flight companion.
He awkwardly fits his carry-on luggage inside the overhead bin, secures his belts, finally turns to you, extends his hand and says, "Hi, I'm..." Given your extensive coverage and experience with a wide-range of characters, who would you pick as the one most guaranteed to make your flight memorable? You have the pick of the litter: Jack Abramoff, Lloyd Blankfein, George Bush Jr., Dick Cheney, Alan Greenspan, Sarah Palin... etc. etc. None of them will know who you are. Or at least when the conversation starts. I'll leave it to you to play it out.

Thanks,
Gelek

Gelek,

In that situation, as a journalist, you'd naturally like to pick someone who knows a lot and is a bombastic, stupid narcissist as well as a loose-lipped drunk. And for my purposes, I also want someone who knows what actually happened behind the scenes in the fall of 2008, when I'm pretty sure a string of Watergate-sized crimes were committed as the Treasury and the Fed were marionetting the survival of the big banks using taxpayer money and state power. So combining those two prerequisites... Well, we probably have to rule out a Christian Scientist like Hank Paulson, but there are plenty of other interesting candidates. Dick Fuld? He seems dumb and impolitic enough. John Thain? Ken Lewis? John Mack? I'll probably go with Fuld.

[Romulus]

That reads well, but I'd like to see him get that into print. Whether its him or not, it does not make it into print, unless I missed something. I read his article in which he followed around Bernie Sanders in DC and he gave him all the credit for 'Audit the Fed' and no mention to its true author Ron Paul. Bernie is the one who stripped it down!