This is part of my Christian libertarianism series, which is a description of my beliefs. I do not claim to speak for all Christians, all libertarians, or all Christian libertarians. In previous articles I explained how:
- My libertarian beliefs are compatible with a biblical worldview
- Why I believe in minarchy (small government) rather than anarchy (no government)
- Why I appreciate Ayn Rand but cannot be an Objectivist
- Why I am not a Libertarian Party member
Today I will discuss why I cannot in good conscience join the Democratic Party.
In my last article, I explained why I believe the Libertarian Party (LP) is not a serious political party. If the LP isn’t the answer, maybe I can have an impact in one of the major political parties. Let’s look at the Democratic party. At a surface the Democratic party appears more congruent with libertarian values than the Republican party is. The Constitutional Conservative explains:
There are three areas to conservatism (or liberalism, if you prefer):
- Foreign Policy
- Social Policy
- Fiscal Policy
Libertarians will generally be liberal on foreign policy (isolationist, anti-military, many are anti-Israel, etc), and liberal on social policy (legalize drugs and so on), while conservative fiscally (return to gold standard, etc).
Foreign policy
Our own Colin Elliott has written an article explaining that libertarian policy is not isolationist, but is rather based on the non-aggression principle. The Democratic party may sometimes support policies that coincide with libertarian values, but this does not indicate any real agreement in principle. You might think that a libertarian would be eager to vote for Barack Obama, a candidate who has steadfastly voiced opposition to the war in Iraq. You would be wrong: Obama objects to the war in Iraq, but he’s no friend to libertarians. Just this past Monday (July 14) he vowed to send 10,000 additional troops to Afghanistan while reducing the troop levels in Iraq. Democratic foreign policy is unacceptable to a libertarian.
Social policy
This is the tricky one. As a libertarian, I support liberal social policy. That is, I can agree with legalizing drugs, permitting gay marriage, and so forth. However, as a Christian I cannot condone those same activities. I’m not advocating sin, I just want the government to get out of people’s lives. So although I sometimes agree with the policies the Democratic party advocates, I can’t agree with their reasons for advocating them. I can’t associate with an organization that asks me to accept sin as a legitimate lifestyle.
Today, on behalf of Democrats across America, we join together in celebrating the contributions that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans and their families make to our society and reaffirm our Party’s commitment to promoting full equality under the law for every American.
As leaders of the Democratic Party, we stand proudly with the LGBT community and commit ourselves to working together to build an America that is truly inclusive. Every American has the right to live in dignity, with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law.
Sure, I agree that everyone should have “full equality under the law,” but I cannot agree with the implicit assumption that Americans must accept the homosexual lifestyle as morally acceptable in order to have an “inclusive” society. I can advocate full equality under the law while also speaking out against sin.
Oh, and the Democratic party’s support for abortion rights doesn’t help much.
Fiscal policy
This is an easy one. Democrats typically favor increasing the scope of government programs, a more progressive income tax, and all manner of wealth redistribution programs. No principled libertarian can support Democratic fiscal policy.
To sum up
So, while libertarianism might appear to match with Democratic values, on closer inspection it is a poor fit. Libertarian principles are at odds with Democratic values in foreign policy and fiscal policy. On social policy, the Democratic party’s policies are often congruent with libertarian principles, but the underlying Democratic agenda is antithetical to biblical values. As a Christian libertarian, I disagree with the Democrats about foreign policy, fiscal policy, and social policy. Three strikes, you’re out.
A lot, and I mean a lot of people cannot grasp their head around these two points. I think it is because, we fundamentally like to have two choices which we presume are all or nothing, black and white answers:
1. drugs are bad, should be illegal, are terrible, are the devil
2. drugs are good, should be legal, are awesome, getting high is great
But there are plenty of nuances in this argument. One is perfectly consistent to say:
3. drugs are bad, should be legal, are terrible, are the devil
I have determined that part of the problem is that most pundits, politicians and commentators on politics tend to look at things from a consequentialist - policy-first view. This is the essence of your statement about the democrat’s and libertarian’s seemingly similar policy positions.
Many of these people have very little in the way of consistent, immutable principles and look at policies by themselves based on how they affect in the immediate and concrete. I don’t blame them, this is basically common sense. But it is going to lead to a tough case to defend in discussion. It is also going to make a principled view (right or wrong) seem strange and bizarre.
Your argument especially on gay marriage is weak. While I can understand how someone can say I wish to repeal drug bans and have that be consistent with libertarian principles but to say the same about gay marriage is another thing altogether. Currently there is no penalty for those who wish to form homosexual partnerships and it seems to me the libertarian approach would be to oppose only bans to the relationship not as your logic would require the introduction of gay marriage into law as a form of legally defined marriage which has never been the case. Everyone is equal under the law in being able to marry a member of the opposite sex. This is based in nature and what has always been considered normal human sexuality. What your logic would introduce would not be a hands off libertarian approach but instead leads to the liberal solution in which the government is required to enforce tolerance and acceptance of the idea of gay marriage something that is abnormal from a physical mating perspective by scientific without the consideration of religion. One does not have to believe in God to understand proper human mating.
“You might think that a libertarian would be eager to vote for Barack Obama, a candidate who has steadfastly voiced opposition to the war in Iraq. You would be wrong: Obama objects to the war in Iraq, but he’s no friend to libertarians. Just this past Monday (July 14) he vowed to send 10,000 additional troops to Afghanistan while reducing the troop levels in Iraq. Democratic foreign policy is unacceptable to a libertarian.”
I would like to add something else about an Obama administration’s foreign policy. When it comes to foreign policy, the single most important factor to look at are a president’s advisers. Who, might you ask, are the Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers? Well, one of them is Zbigniew Brzezinski. To be fair, he is not the chief adviser - Samantha Power is. But here is some interesting information about Brzezinski’s admitted connection with al Qaeda (A.K.A Mujahideen) from historycommons.org:
In an interview, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Adviser, admits that it was US policy to support radical Islamists to undermine Russia. He admits that US covert action drew Russia into starting the Afghan war in 1979. Asked if he has regrets about this, he responds, “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.” Then he is asked if he regrets “having given arms and advice to future terrorists,” and he responds, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?” The interviewer then says, “Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.” But Brzezinski responds, “Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam….” [Le Nouvel Observateur (Paris), 1/15/1998]
Below is a link to photo of Brzezinski with Osama bin Laden taken in 1979.
http://flickr.com/photos/44709936@N00/68772733/
Enjoyed this. I am right with you, but I am a member of the LP…..16 years now. Hope to meet you at a LP convention sometime. Barry
Mael, you’re right of course. The best libertarian position is to have the government get out the marriage business entirely, not to have the government change the definition of marriage. But I’m pragmatic. We’re never going to convince the public that the government should mind its own business and stop issuing marriage licenses. A more pragmatic solution, given the expectations in our society, is for the government to move toward a position where it doesn’t define marriage, it just recognizes and documents the people who consider themselves married. In Texas, the government is already halfway there, because it recognizes common-law marriages.
bdively, thanks for reading. I’m not a member of the LP so you won’t likely see me at a convention, but I am considering voting for Bob Barr.
Libertarians will generally be liberal on foreign policy (isolationist, anti-military, many are anti-Israel, etc)
I acknowledge that’s the view of some libertarians but disagree that it is general or that it is libertarian.
Libertarians accept that governments have a role, and most agree that includes helping preserve private property and protect individuals from coercion. A criminal justice system that fairly tries and puts those who would coerce others behind bars is usually seen as a legitimate government function.
It follows that we expect the government to act when we see someone being murdered, robbed or raped, in addition to whatever assistance we might choose to provide ourselves.
Why then should we not have the same expectation simply because those being murdered, robbed or raped are across a national border? Why is national sovereignty so sacred that we should wash our hands of such coercion?
I know the argument that taxpayers in one country should not be providing welfare to people in another. To that I say, taxpayers should not generally be providing welfare to people in their own country. But I am not talking about building wells or schools, I am talking about coercion of individuals, the very thing that libertarians oppose.
I believe is it anti-libertarian to promote the kind of isolationism that opposes halting the Taliban from returning Afghanistan to the stone age and reducing women to chattels.
BTW, I’m involved in a libertarian party in Australia.
DavidLeyonhjelm wrote:
I agree with you. Right and wrong aren’t contingent on national borders. That’s why my views have been shifting toward a more centralized government. I’m not sure that a bunch of national governments can adequately enforce justice globally. One world government may be the only answer.
Good for you. I’m not too aware of Australian politics. Is there a big libertarian movement?
One world government may be the only answer.
It’s not. Dividing government up into little pieces is the best option. It can be less convenient at times, but the risk of excessive government power is reduced.
Is there a big libertarian movement?
No, most Australians think the government is there to save them from their own silliness. Our support may be lower than the Libertarian Party’s, but it’s growing.
It’s not what I want to discuss (but since you quoted us, we’ll rebut a bit), but you’re right — it’s exactly why Libertarians *are* liberal on social/foreign policy issues (something other Libertarians seek to deny).
They don’t agree with the *motives* of the Democrats, but the end result of legislation is the same. Nobody cares *why* a law is passed legalizing prostitution, the result is we have to live with it.
Legalized drugs/prostitution *is* a liberal concept, even if you don’t agree on the *why*. Since Libertarians support the concept, they’re liberal socially (even while disagreeing on motives).
Obama/Democrats aren’t far enough left for Libertarians either on foreign policy — Libertarians are actually *more* liberal than Democrats. Motives may be different, but policy is the same.
As a side note, you’re quite right in the LP is a joke, and you’re also right in working within the two major parties to make change — both foreign concepts to many people.
You’ve said Libertarians are liberal socially (while disagreeing with motives), and it’s unlikely we’ll disagree on the conservative nature of Libertarian fiscal policy, so on to our real question…
OK, we’ve been watching these articles for a while, and they all sound the same … non-aggressive, defensive only, only if a threat exists, blah blah blah.
That all sounds good in the ivory tower of theory, but it’s utterly useless in the real world — President Bush considered Saddam a threat, so under Libertarian philosophy he was justified in taking action. Yet we haven’t heard any of the Libertarians here defend his actions, even though it’s in perfect alignment with Libertarianism and taking action only when a threat exists.
Obviously, the disagreement isn’t on *principle*, but *application*. So help us understand what exactly do you view as a threat? Consider the following hypothetical situation with someone who has threatened you in the past with a gun — when do they become a threat justifying action?
1. They’re outside your house.
2. They knock on your door.
3. They break in your house.
4. They speak threateningly.
5. They walk down the hall toward your bedroom.
6. They point the gun at you.
7. They fire and miss.
8. They shoot your wife.
Repeat the exercise with the person with a knife instead of a gun.
When (if ever) is action justified? Some say never, others at #7 or #8, others earlier. Some would say preemptive action is acceptable, others not. What is your opinion? At what point does a threat exist?
Answering that question will yield quite a bit of insight into your foreign policy ideas.
“President Bush considered Saddam a threat, so under Libertarian philosophy he was justified in taking action. Yet we haven’t heard any of the Libertarians here defend his actions, even though it’s in perfect alignment with Libertarianism and taking action only when a threat exists.”
You’re wrong in assuming that Bush’s war was “in perfect alignment with Libertarianism.” It didn’t matter what Bush was saying; it mattered where the evidence was pointing. And, as I argued on 10/03/06 on my blog, the evidence overwhelming refuted Bush’s claims: Saddam, even if he had WMDs, was not a threat to the United States. Nor, do I believe, was he much of a threat to his Middle Eastern neighbors.
Thanks for commenting, CC. You raise some good questions, and I’ll try to respond as best I can. I can speak only for myself, and I don’t intend to speak for all libertarians.
Well, the labels don’t matter so much. If our only labels are liberal and conservative, then yes, libertarians and Democrats are both socially liberal. My guess is that most nonchristian libertarians actually agree that many of these things–legalized drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage–are good and right. As a Christian libertarian, I disagree. These things are detestable to God and I do not support them.
But even nonchristian libertarians have fundamental disagreements with Democratic policy. For example, Democrats typically favor affirmative action policies. Libertarians don’t support such policies, even if they do agree in racial equality.
I’d say the average nonchristian libertarian agrees more with the Democratic party than the Republican party on social policy. That doesn’t indicate any real agreement or loyalty to the Democrats, though. If libertarians are leaning more toward Obama than McCain in 2008, it’s probably related more to his opposition to the war in Iraq than to social policy.
That’s quite true. Libertarian foreign policy does permit taking action against legitimate threats. I believe that preemptive strikes are permissive and even necessary. There’s no need to wait for the other guy to lob a missile at you first.
So when Bush decided to invade Iraq, I thought he was justified in taking action. I did have misgivings, especially because Saddam Hussein allowed the weapons inspectors back in and was letting them do their job. But part of the President’s job is to protect the United States, so I expect him to act against threats.
The problem is that Saddam Hussein was a paper tiger. He had no WMDs or active WMD programs. The Iraqi military was in disarray. Iraq had no missiles capable of threatening the United States, and no WMD warheads to mount on them anyway. There was no threat. Now, I’m not expecting the President to be omniscient, but there isn’t room for mistakes on a decision of this magnitude. Tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars are at stake.
I’m willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt about his intentions, but a lot of people think he deliberately distorted the evidence to drum up support for an imperialist war. I don’t think so, I think he was genuinely deceived by faulty interpretation of intelligence data.
Also, in case anybody missed it, a few weeks ago the US military moved 550 tons of Iraqi yellowcake uranium to Canada. The yellowcake uranium is all from pre-1991, and the UN weapons inspectors knew all about it. It wasn’t part of an active weapos program. The mainstream media declined to report the story, and nobody seems to be asking questions. Probably because the story is embarrassing to both liberals and conservatives: embarrassing to liberals because it makes Saddam look like he was up to something, and embarrassing to conservatives because it reminds everybody that there were no WMDs.
Huh. If Iraq had 550 tons of this stuff, do you really suppose Saddam was trying to buy more of it from Niger? Maybe he forgot he already had some. I’ll try to write up an article about the yellowcake sometime this week.
Bush saw a threat, and acted in defense. That’s *exactly* Libertarian philosophy. Perfectly and 100%.
First, that’s your *opinion*, but more importantly your disagreement is there was no threat — not that action isn’t warranted when a threat exists — which is *exactly* what we said:
Obviously, the disagreement isn’t on *principle*, but *application*. So help us understand what exactly do you view as a threat?
Thanks for proving our point perfectly — we knew someone would
Agree.
As to Iraq, you’ve got so much right I’d have to quote virtually all of it (although we’ll disagree a bit).
One interesting thing, we know Saddam *had* WMD’s (since he used ‘em), the question isn’t why wern’t they found, the question is where did they go?
“Thanks for proving our point perfectly — we knew someone would.”
I’m not trying to be mean, but your argument is incredibly jumbled and I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say.