Where the Fuck is My Political Party?

[Evil_One]

@Eyer8

Do your really believe that the Democrats are soft on national defense?

Yes. And the further left you go, the worse it gets. Why do you think John Kerry was “reporting for duty” at the Democratic National Convention? He was trying to make the most out of four months in Vietnam 30 years ago rather than talk about his Senate record. That’s because he consistently voted down weapon systems and other spending for the defense department. (Yes, folks, Bush was in the National Guard and didn’t go. Please don’t try to cloud the issue.)

If you care to do the research, just go looking through the Senate voting records. Pick a weapons system and look at the party affliation of the people voting no.

@Eyer8

On a side note, how do you feel about Clinton with regard to these three broad issues (Social liberalism, fiscal conservatism and national defense)?

Clinton was a liberal until the mid-term elections of 1994 took the house and senate away from him. Being a pragmatist, he moved to the center after that.

Specifically…

Social liberalism: Out of reach for him after 1994 so he didn’t push what he might have wanted to do for fear of not being re-elected. If you recall his first term, gays in the military and national health care were the first two big initiatives.

Fiscal conservatism: Clinton deserves credit here. Given the American demand for services, Clinton realized that a tax increase was necessary. Of course, he didn’t have 9/11 and the aftermath to deal with. Which leads to…

National Defense: Clinton negatively affected the military by using it too much as a peacekeeping force, yet not wanting to make it bigger. He was also pretty much reviled as a “Commander In Chief”.

The bottom line on Clinton for me is that he was smart enough to realize what he could accomplish and what he couldn’t. Through his tax increase and the fortune of not having a catastrophe to deal with, he came to office with a defecit and left with a surplus. He deserves credit for that.

[audreyayn]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

Something like this?

My god, it’s eaten a child–!

If I wind up a libertarian, I shall be very snappish.

[Mockingbird]

@Evil One

Social liberalism: Out of reach for him after 1994 so he didn’t push what he might have wanted to do for fear of not being re-elected. If you recall his first term, gays in the military and national health care were the first two big initiatives.

And he weaseled out and created a half assed policy that still allowed gays and lesbians to be removed from service based on their sexual identity.

Yeah… his “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a pile of shit and remains so.

[John_Mace]

@SteveG1

Something strikes me as very strange here. For all the pitting and figting we do, despite the way we are often at each other’s throats, we all seem to want many (or most of) the same things.

I’ve noticed that, too. It’s funny how often some posters will say something like “Wow, I’m surprised I agree with you on this”, since whenever it happens, I always want to rattle off about 20 issues that I’m positive the two of us would agree on.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@An Arky

Personally, what I’d like to see is actually a reduction of programs (across the board) and just having very strong basics…health care, Social Security, education, infrastructure. Fuck foreign aid (except for debt relief and disaster aid), farm subsidies and other such drivel.

1. Assuming that you advocate universal health care, you understand that your plan would probably call for a massive increase in government spending even when spending reductions are factored in, right? (Though, it may also result in a reduction of aggregate health care spending, since a huge share of the US health care bureaucracy is basically devoted to getting somebody else to pay the bills. <Ref krug042905>)

2. Total economic and military aid in FY2000 was $17 billion. Total outlays were $1789 bill, so that’s less than 1% of total spending. A good portion of that ($6.1 billion) went to Israel and Egypt. (Interestingly, the number 1 recipient of economic (not military) aid was Colombia, at $1 billion. Remember the War on Drugs?)

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Liberal

Ron Paul is pretty good.

Let’s talk about Ron Paul, Republican and libertarian Congressman from Texas.

He served in the House from 1976-1984, before losing the primary race for the Senate to Phil Gramm; his House seat was won by Tom Delay. He ran for President under the Libertarian banner and received 0.47% of the popular vote in 1988; in 1996 he won another seat in the House, raising money from his nationwide network of Libertarians, gold bugs and subscribers to his newsletter. He was a big supporter of term limits, the abolition of the income tax and a return to the gold standard.

Ron also wants to repeal federal anti-drug and prostitution laws (huh) and supports no role for the US overseas. He advocated a $150 billion cut in defense spending and the abolition of the Department of Education.

The Almanac of American Politics said that, “…he has reached a point that he is probably the least dependable and persuadable Republican in the House…”, and “…some liberals have begun to praise him.”

He resides in a safe seat.

[Ludovic]

@Evil One

If you care to do the research, just go looking through the Senate voting records. Pick a weapons system and look at the party affliation of the people voting no.

Even if that’s true, you seem to be under the impression that lots of shiny weapons = strong defense. We might have an even more capable defense establishment than we do today if we weren’t in the habit of turning away people for illogical reasons, underpaying them, and making strategic combat decisions primarily for political purposes rather than military usefulness.

Whereas it remains to be shown that, for instance, even the most expensive missile defense program and fighter-bomber research will be better than simply a whole lot of MAD and a whole slew of A-10’s.

And even if the programs are financially and militarily advisable, you have to look at control of Congress. Republicans have controlled more houses of Congress in the past 25 years for longer than the Democrats. I’d bet that a lot of the opposition to military programs from Democrats comes from the fact that the money will not be spent in their districts. This has the twin effect of shoring up Republican support in their district and making the Democrats seem “weak on defense”.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Also, for all the whining about Clinton and the military, let’s not forget that US military spending continued to dominate the rest of the world.

In 2001, the US spent some $400 billion on defense.

Q: How does that compare to Russia?
A: Russia defense spending was $60 billion, a little over 1/8th.

Q: What about North Korea?
A: $1.3 billion, less than 1% of the US.

China? $42 billion, about 1/10th.

Furthermore, the US spent a greater share of GDP on the military than any other Western European country.

[John_Mace]

But we have to have a strong military because we have so many enemies to fight against. And the more we fight, the more enemies we create, which means we need an even bigger military…

[XT]

@Measure for Measure

Also, for all the whining about Clinton and the military, let’s not forget that US military spending continued to dominate the rest of the world.

Not I. I think in retrospect Clinton was probably right in cashing in on the 'peace dividend…I think it helped spark the whole 90’s thing in fact.

@Measure for Measure

Furthermore, the US spent a greater share of GDP on the military than any other Western European country.

And what did all that money buy us??? lol, well, for one thing it bought us an effective military that is actually useful outside of the US…something you’d be hard pressed to say for most of those ‘other Western European’ countries. They have been cashing in on their own ‘peace dividend’ for quite a while now, floating all those lovely social programs and other goodies their citizens love. Maybe thats good…if one assumes they will never actually need an effective military again (or if one assumes the US will always be there and will continue to spend the money they won’t). Perhaps thats a good bet. Maybe the US should do something similar and just trust to…er…well, maybe the Chinese will step up someday with an effective military that can actually be used outside their borders. Its going to be quite a while…and I’m unsure its such a good thing either, but hey…its something, right?

(BTW, I can sympathize that perhaps you aren’t best pleased with the way the US is currently using its military…and to a degree I agree with that position. However, its foolish to not look at the world military dynamic and see that Western Europe isn’t pulling their weight…and if they aren’t there really aren’t too many other folks out there the US can trust to do so. So…its kind of on us to do it if no one else trustworthy will).

@Ludovic

Even if that’s true, you seem to be under the impression that lots of shiny weapons = strong defense. We might have an even more capable defense establishment than we do today if we weren’t in the habit of turning away people for illogical reasons, underpaying them, and making strategic combat decisions primarily for political purposes rather than military usefulness.

Maybe…but then again, maybe those ‘shiny weapons’ are force multipliers that make the US’s military light years ahead of anyone else’s in terms of actual capability? Just a thought.

To address the actual OP:

@Gangster Octopus

You know, the one that is full of religious extremists or social engineers? The one that doesn’t lie and resort to dirty tricks? Where th fucking hell is the party that is touch with the peole and not the powerful minorities that pull the strings? Where is the party that represents me, the fiscal conservative and the social liberal? I know that fucking constituency is out there, so why can’t we get a voice in the political arena, on the talk shows and in the backrooms of power?

I don’t think such a beast exists outside of the third parties…and perhaps that such a beast CAN exist in the US dominated by the current two party system. To answer the question honestly though…the Libertarian party probably meets most of the requirements for ‘fiscal conservative’ and ‘social liberal’ (if we aren’t talking about massive social engineering type projects but true social liberalism). I also think there is a big constituency out there for this platform…which I think the Republicans attempted and to a certain degree captured (since we HAVE that two party system and third parties are considered spoilers). The Republicans are distasteful to me because they bring in all that quasi-religious crappola however…but I suppose they are closer to what you are getting at than the democrats are and since we are trapped in an either or choice (or you can do what I did and throw away your vote I suppose…most folks don’t even know who Badnarik was after all).

@Excalibre

Where’s my party, that’s genuinely progressive rather than the GOP-lite that I’m having to vote for? Sort of like the Greens, only with less college-student idealism and more sense of what will practically work in running a country. I want us to move more towards the mainstream of the civilized world, along the lines of Canada or Western Europe. Where’s my damn party?

Unlike the OP’s ‘party’ which exists but will never be a factor, your party actually exists and is a factor in politics…its in Europe. Go, er, east my son…the promissed land awaits. Or, check out the US Socialist party…though like with the Libertarians you will be relagated to being a ‘spoiler’. Still, there are a few on this board (Brainglutton comes to mind) who can point you in the right direction to check em out (there are a few factions of the socialist party in the US IIRC).

-XT

[Sam_Stone]

@Measure for Measure

He probably calls himself a social liberal, because every item on your list can be characterized as addressing economic issues.

Just trying to be helpful…

And you think economic issues have nothing to do with liberty?

Let me ask you: If George Bush came out and said that everyone was going to be issued travel cards, and would need permission from the state to travel from city to city, would you think that social liberals would oppose that? Would it violate the constitution? I believe your answer would be “Yes, and yes”.

Now, how about we don’t do that, but we institute a gasoline tax to discourage travel? Oh, but we’ll give special exemptions to the ‘right’ kind of people and businesses. Same result, but this one’s okay because it’s only ‘economic’?

In Chile under Pinochet, they had a ‘free press’. But newsprint was taxed so high that no one could afford to print newspapers. Of course, the papers that toed the party line were given special tax breaks because they were ‘necessary’. How is this any different than simply closing down newspapers that don’t say what you want them to say?

To me, the fundamental disconnect that people who call themselves ‘left libertarians’ have is that they don’t see economic issues as being fundamentally about Liberty at all. They’ll fight tooth and nail to allow someone to burn a flag, but shrug when the government institutes a special tax to punish people who don’t behave the ‘right way’, or even just add taxes to people’s lives that force them to work extra days of their lives to feed the beast.

Some of them are even incoherent. Here’s a fun thing to do - talk to a ‘socially liberal’ Democrat about drug legalization. Often, you’ll get complete agreement that drugs should be legalized, that people should be able to smoke pot or even take hard drugs if they want. Because that’s the ‘socially liberal’ position. But then you say, “Oh, that’s great. So you advocate abolishing the FDA then? No more prescription drugs?” Suddenly you get, “Oh, no! We need to protect the people!” Which is exactly the argument the drug warriors use to support marijuana laws.

To me, if you’re socially liberal, that means you believe that the government has no right to run people’s lives. But too often, ‘social liberals’ tend to oppose only the restrictions on liberty that Republicans like. They’ve got no problem telling you how to run your life in myriad other ways.

[Measure_for_Measure]

xtisme makes some good points. I was marshalling facts to destroy the hypothesis that, “Clinton was weak on the military.” Nonsense. When the US spends 4% of GDP on defense, relative to 2-3% in Europe and 5% in Russia, that’s not evidence of “weakness”.

What is the proper amount for the US to spend? That, I submit, is a difficult question that would involve detailed study and tough-minded analysis. Here are 2 conflicting opinions of mine.

a) Today, the US is indeed, “the necessary hegemon”.

b) Today, the US has sufficient military might to win any war without foreign help, but not enough to secure any peace. To do so would require either greater international cooperation than the GWB wants or a peacetime draft.

[Sam_Stone]

@Measure for Measure

Not to be snarky, but Sam’s list gives us pretty good insight into the mind of a Market Fundamentalist.

When the government intervenes, MFs talk or think about freedom, or possibly hassle or inconvenience.

A more conventional framework evaluates such proposals on the basis of their consequences.

Really? Would you then consider yourself a ‘speech fundamentalist’? Or an ‘abortion fundamentalist’? Are people who support the second amendment ‘gun fundamentalists’?

It seems to me that when it comes to the kinds of freedoms Liberals support, they can be very fundamentalist. They certainly wouldn’t tolerate a ‘consequentialist’ approach to discussions about banning speech, or preventing abortions.

It’s all about who’s ox is being gored, isn’t it?

[Measure_for_Measure]

Sam
I believe that J.S. Mill discussed some of these issues in his essay, On Liberty, voted one of the most harmful books of the 19th and 20th century by the Conservative Op Human Events. (Others included Origin of the Species, Descent of Man and The Kinsey Report).

Look, obviously there is a qualitative distinction between forbidding a behavior and discouraging it. True, placing a $20 per gallon tax on gasoline tends towards the punitive edge of the spectrum. Mill’s somewhat arbitrary way of dealing with the problem follows:

Taxes infringe on liberty. Nonetheless, the state must raise revenue for the purposes of providing certain public goods. Therefore, it may make sense to place greater taxes on certain undesireable activities (like drinking) than on other more beneficial ones (like working).

There is a tax rate (on alcohol or some other dubious endeavour) which maximizes tax revenue. Taxes should not be placed above that point, according to Mill, since in such a range they become punitive and an unacceptable curb on Liberty.

-------- Some of them are even incoherent. Here’s a fun thing to do - talk to a ‘socially liberal’ Democrat about drug legalization. Often, you’ll get complete agreement that drugs should be legalized, that people should be able to smoke pot or even take hard drugs if they want. Because that’s the ‘socially liberal’ position. But then you say, “Oh, that’s great. So you advocate abolishing the FDA then? No more prescription drugs?” Suddenly you get, “Oh, no! We need to protect the people!” Which is exactly the argument the drug warriors use to support marijuana laws.

Again, I advocate a cost/benefit approach, understanding that such a method involves subjectivities. Rather than basing policy on abstract notions of liberty, I prefer to ground it on a fact-based analysis.

[Measure_for_Measure]

I did not invent the term, “Market Fundamentalist”. Nonetheless, I have to commend Sam for spotting that particular piece of pure rhetoric on my part. (Good work! )

It seems to me that when it comes to the kinds of freedoms Liberals support, they can be very fundamentalist. They certainly wouldn’t tolerate a ‘consequentialist’ approach to discussions about banning speech, or preventing abortions.

This is actually a pretty substantive point. I’d say that Republicans have become less empirical since the 1970s, while the Democrats have become more so especially since the late 1980s. But let me get back to you on this.

[Sam_Stone]

@Measure for Measure

Sam
Look, obviously there is a qualitative distinction between forbidding a behavior and discouraging it.

if you tax something above the point that someone is capable of paying, the effect is identical. And in economic theory, there is ALWAYS someone ‘on the margin’.

Taxes infringe on liberty. Nonetheless, the state must raise revenue for the purposes of providing certain public goods.

Sure. And Libertarians generally have no problem with paying taxes that go towards funding their share of the operation of the country. To do less is to be a parasite. They may argue that the country is over-managed, that government is too big, etc., but at some level some government is necessary, and taxes must be raised. Most Libertarians would advocate a state small enough that it could pay for itself with excise taxes or sales taxes, and do away with the income tax.

But here comes the big disconnect:

Therefore, it may make sense to place greater taxes on certain undesireable activities (like drinking) than on other more beneficial ones (like working).

And there it is. You’ve just casually moved from, “You must pay for what you use” to, "The government should be in the business of social engineering - using punishments and rewards to manipulate the population and force people to behave the ‘right’ ways.

This is the antithesis of social liberalism in the classic sense. Liberalism starts from the premise that you are sovereign over your own body and the fruits of your creation, so long as you pay your own way. NO ONE ELSE has a right to determine what’s good or bad for me, and to compel me to behave in a way that I wouldn’t choose for myself if I were free to do so.

There is a tax rate (on alcohol or some other dubious endeavour) which maximizes tax revenue. Taxes should not be placed above that point, according to Mill, since in such a range they become punitive and an unacceptable curb on Liberty.

Takes rates can be punitive and still raise more revenue. Tobacco taxes are popular precisely because demand for tobacco is relatively inelastic and therefore revenue can reliably be raised by raising tobacco tax rates. But it would be bizarre to claim that this tax isn’t ‘punitive’.

A punitive tax is any tax that is applied selectively to punish behaviour. It’s that simple. Whether or not it raises revenue is irrelevant.

Punitive taxes are anathema to Libertarians.

Again, I advocate a cost/benefit approach, understanding that such a method involves subjectivities. Rather than basing policy on abstract notions of liberty, I prefer to ground it on a fact-based analysis.

But you don’t apply that same approach to other issues of Liberty, do you? Again, you wouldn’t accept a cost-benefit approach to issues of speech, or free assembly, or religion, or abortion, or equal rights.

To a Libertarian, the ‘pragmatic’ taxation you are trying to justify is just a way to ignore the fact that you are in the business of sifting through the population and assigning ‘good’ and ‘bad’ labels to people, and then using the heavy hand of government to punish and reward them accordingly. No one should have the right to do that, so long as those people are not coercing others to support their lifestyle.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Sam Stone

And you think economic issues have nothing to do with liberty?

Oh, it absolutely does. For example, if I’m cold and hungry and want to build myself a structure somewhere, but you tell me that you own all the land around these parts and I may not erect a shelter to keep myself protected from the elements, because only you have the right to use that land, then your economic policies are infringing on my liberty.

I wouldn’t say that you’re a market fundamentalist: I’d say you’ve got an unearned reverence for property rights, a reverence that tends to dash other rights to pieces. Get rid of that reverence, and we’d agree on a lot more issues.

Daniel

[XT]

@Sam Stone

This is the antithesis of social liberalism in the classic sense. Liberalism starts from the premise that you are sovereign over your own body and the fruits of your creation, so long as you pay your own way. NO ONE ELSE has a right to determine what’s good or bad for me, and to compel me to behave in a way that I wouldn’t choose for myself if I were free to do so.

Well put Sam. Its interesting to see folks who claim to be ‘liberals’ who don’t see this. As an adult citizen the choices should be mine, and I should not be unduely punished by the government for my behaviors. Now…the MARKET might punish me for smoking or drinking excessively by increasing my health insurance, and the government might punish me for breaking the law by drinking or using drugs while driving…but it shouldn’t punish me economically by taxing me extra for my behavior (especially knowing its just a revenue source as its unlikely to actually change my behavior).

-XT

[Neurotik]

@Sam Stone

And there it is. You’ve just casually moved from, “You must pay for what you use” to, "The government should be in the business of social engineering - using punishments and rewards to manipulate the population and force people to behave the ‘right’ ways.

While I agree with you on general social engineering (vice taxes, etc.) what about externalities and various other market distortions? Certain activities have a cost that is not borne by the person who does that activity, but rather by society as a whole. An example might be air pollution generated by a car vs an SUV. Legalized gambling (in terms of casinos) tend to bring an increase in crime, so then perhaps it becomes fair for the casino to pay an extra tax to compensate for the social costs it is inflicting on the community.

[XT]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Oh, it absolutely does. For example, if I’m cold and hungry and want to build myself a structure somewhere, but you tell me that you own all the land around these parts and I may not erect a shelter to keep myself protected from the elements, because only you have the right to use that land, then your economic policies are infringing on my liberty.

Only if I agree with you that there is no such thing as private property, or that your need trumps my own…brothers keeper and all that. You have no right to demand the use of my house, my car, my bank account…just because you perceive the need or that by my owing said house, car, bank account somehow infringes on your liberty.

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I wouldn’t say that you’re a market fundamentalist: I’d say you’ve got an unearned reverence for property rights, a reverence that tends to dash other rights to pieces. Get rid of that reverence, and we’d agree on a lot more issues.

Unearned reverence for property rights? I’d say you are a fundamentalist of another sort then. We’ll just have to fundamentally agree to disagree if you think that having individual property rights ‘tends to dash other rights to pieces’…myself, I think individual property rights is fundamental to all those other rights. Sam can of course speak for himself (and better than I), but this is a fundamental issue which means that we won’t be agreeing on a lot more issues if its necessary to give this up. Its like saying if I could only give up all that free speech non-sense and agree that the government should have final say in whats printed we could all just get along. Not going to happen.

-XT