Lib Dems
A reader notes some progress at Kos, of all places:
It’s no secret that I look to the Mountain West for the future of the Democratic Party, people like Brian Schweitzer and Jon Tester. But I also look to candidates like Jim Webb in Virginia and Paul Hackett in Ohio.
And what is the common thread amongst these candidates?
They are all Libertarian Democrats.
…
So in practical terms, what does a Libertarian Dem look like? A Libertarian Dem rejects government efforts to intrude in our bedrooms and churches. A Libertarian Dem rejects government “Big Brother” efforts, such as the NSA spying of tens of millions of Americans. A Libertarian Dem rejects efforts to strip away rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights — from the First Amendment to the 10th. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.
If you read the comments, quite a few of the Kossacks are pro-gun. I found this surprising and interesting. But, and let me be clear, if Kos is getting it, its impact must be growing to the point that it can’t be ignored. Regardless, I salute these types.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. In light of recent posts here at SayUncle that are sympathetic to the lefties, you’re probably wondering where the real SayUncle is and who is it taking over his blog being all sympathetic with the lefites. But I assure you, it’s still me and, no, I’m not off my meds.
But bear with me while I divulge another dark secret. See, I’ve been looking to the 2008 Presidential Elections and the possible candidates. And guess who I like? Well, Russ Feingold of all people. I figure any candidate that opposes the assault weapons ban, opposes the PATRIOT Act and said:
The Second Amendment raises interesting questions about a constitutional interpretation. I read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to keep and bear arms as opposed to only a collective right. Individual Americans have a constitutional right to own and use guns. And there are a number of actions that legislatures should not take in my view to restrict gun ownership.
The modern Supreme Court has only heard one case interpreting the Second Amendment. That case is U.S. v. Miller. It was heard back in 1939. And the court indicated that it saw the right to bear arms as a collective right.
In a second case, in U.S. v. Emerson, the court denied cert and let stand the lower court opinion that upheld the statute banning gun possession by individuals subject to a restraining order against a second amendment challenge.
The appeals court viewed the right to bear arms as an individual right. The Supreme Court declined to review the Appeals Court decision.
is at least worth consideration. He (1) accepts that the second amendment enumerates an individual right and (2) is familiar with the case law. I think that’s a good thing. Also, his website says:
-Senator Feingold believes that the United States Constitution guarantees American citizens the right to keep and bear arms. As a Wisconsin State Senator, Senator Feingold co-sponsored and helped to write a constitutional amendment to ensure this right.
-Senator Feingold has consistently opposed proposals to ban handguns.
-In 1993, Senator Feingold voted to stop a licensing fee increase for people who sell guns.
-In 1998, Senator Feingold voted to prevent back door gun licensing and to prevent the creation of a government master list of gun owners.
-In Summer of 2002, Senator Feingold voted to allow airline pilots to carry firearms in the cockpits of airplanes.
-In Fall of 2002, Senator Feingold voted to let off-duty and retired police officers carry a gun outside their jurisdiction.
-In the April 2003 election, Senator Feingold was pleased to vote for a statewide referendum, which guaranteed Wisconsinites the right to hunt, fish and trap.
No mention of his opposition to the Assault Weapons Ban.
It’s a pity he has that abysmal incumbent protection act err Campaign Finance Reform as part of his checkered past. And he did support the assault weapons ban the first time around. So, it could be risky.
What will be more interesting is if he gets the nomination, watching the NRA squirm. Based on the current trends, I’d say Feingold is more pro-gun than anyone the Republicans would field. And who do you think the NRA would endorse?
Update: Meanwhile, real libertarians are not impressed.
June 8th, 2006 at 8:42 am
Here in Virginia, the NRA endorses Democrats somewhat frequently. (They endorsed the Democrat for Attorney General, if I remember correctly.–errr, maybe that was the VCDL.) But, of course, this is Virginia, and (most of) our Democrats could probably pass as Republicans elsewhere.
June 8th, 2006 at 10:05 am
I think a genuinely pro-gun democrat would get the nod over a Bush or a McCain who is a C candidate at the best. Someone with a consistent pro-gun history is different from a “pro-gun” candidate with a Kerry background. NRA just wants people to walk the walk.
Also, with Feingold as president, there is no effect on the senate chairmanships, which is really the big prize in all of this. We dont want a Ted Kennedy judiciary committee chairman.
June 8th, 2006 at 10:07 am
A libertarian dem might nominate some interesting SCOTUS pics. I could really see a Kozinski nomination. Though maybe a Tribe (which wouldnt really be that bad considering his change of heart on the 2nd).
June 8th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Oh and Kos is crazy. All of the “protect us from evil corporations” talk shows that it is just socialism waving a gun and calling itself libertarianism. When I see environmental regulation and health care all I see is government enforced takings of private property.
Fuck that.
June 8th, 2006 at 10:16 am
This revelation does seem odd. It always seemed to me that you held Campaign Finance Reform against Feingold much more than that. But this is that rare territory where we agree. Feingold is my early favorite, too. Which means, of course, that he’s doomed. 🙂
I do agree, too, that the best strategy for the Democrats is to give up on the idea of winning back the South, and to focus instead on the Great Lakes and the Mountain West. The South is too far gone into Dobsonville to be worth going after any time soon. Until the real conservatives in the South finally tire of constantly taking it up the chute from the Religious Right, it’s going to continue to be that way in the South.
June 8th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Beerslurpy:
I respectfully disagree. Individual rights are far more important than corporate interests, and like it or not, the only effective way of protecting the former from abuse by the latter is through government.
And on the environmental stuff, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. There’s simply no possible libertarian solution to problems like pollution and environmental abuse.
Further, nobody says Feingold is a libertarian. He’s a liberal Democrat with libertarian leanings. It’s an important distinction. It means he recognizes and defends individual rights, but not to the extent that he wholly ignores the greater good.
June 8th, 2006 at 11:13 am
When Democrats start picking up the guns themselves, instead of having government do it for them, I get very worried.
As for using government to protect individuals from corporations, it doesn’t work like that. Governments are the source of corporations’ power. If a corporation is exploiting you, it’s because the government which enabled it has too much power.
June 8th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
A most excellent point.
June 8th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Michael:
Governments are the source of corporations’ power
That’s completely asinine. Are you seriously arguing that without a government, nothing like corporations would exist?
If a corporation is exploiting you, it’s because the government which enabled it has too much power.
Uhh, no, it’s because the government which enabled it has allowed the corporation to retain too much power. But by all means, do enlighten me concerning how, in Libertarian Fantasy Land(tm), the “invisible hand of the market” would prevent businesses and those with the most money from unfairly exploiting those with the least.
June 8th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
That’s completely asinine. Are you seriously arguing that without a government, nothing like corporations would exist?
It is not asinine at all, and that is exactly what he is saying. If you are truly interested in learning and not just looking for people you can insult, read: The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand by Kevin Carson.
June 8th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Call me gullible, but I maintain that McCain-Feingold is a prime case study in the Law of Unintended Consequences.
June 8th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
I support Feingold as well for many of the same reasons that you do. Gun control, IMHO, has never been a liberal issue, but more of a centrist issue. DiFi isn’t really a liberal, but a conservative Democrat. If you look at liberal blogs, few of them support gun controls and the ones that do aren’t all that passionate about it (i.e. I’ve never seen a Sayuncle of gun control blog). The San Francisco Handgun ban really didn’t win by much as propositions in San Francisco go and I know a lot of people who are far left who voted against it.
June 8th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
David:
So the correct solution to the robber baron problem was that the government should have lessened its regulation of said barons? Color me confused.
Of course, the obvious way to prove me wrong about all of this is to point me to someplace (anyplace!) where this has ever actually worked for any length of time.
And in any case, I’m not aware that I’ve insulted anyone here. Certainly not intentionally.
June 8th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
If Feingold is willing to negate the first amendment, which he did, he is willing to negate the one that protects it.
Speaking for votes is not the equivalent of acting in pursuit of power. You have confused the two.
June 8th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Feingold is a senator from wisconsin. Being anti-gun there is political suicide. I wouldn’t trust him if he were president.
June 8th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
tgirsh, I didnt bother speling this out for you because I (wrongly) assumed it was common knowledge that 99 percent of the harms corporations inflict upon private individuals is due to government granted monopolies and protections.
All sorts of governmental regulation(including environmental) are an enormous handout to giant corporations. Yes, really. They raise the cost of doing business for all businesses, which is a giant sword to the guts of the small competitors. Why do you think pharmaceuticals arent clamoring to do away with the FDA? Because the FDA protects them from competition by adding millions of dollars and many years to the cost of developing even the simplest drug.
Do you see halliburton fighting to destroy the EPA? No, of course not. Small competitors dont have an army of compliance specialists handle the paperwork and the waiting for projects.
Do you see gun stores fighting to destroy the FFL system? No, because it forces gun owners to give them money every time they buy a gun.
See where this is going? The government goes around creating artificial barriers to doing things. This naturally slants the playing field in favor of those with more time and money- usually established players. It doesnt NOT represent the government protecting us from corpoerations- it represents government protecting corporations from other corporations.
June 9th, 2006 at 7:59 am
Would that be the Russ Feingold who voted in 2004 for Ted Kennedy’s amendment to the Lawful Commerce Bill that would have banned 30-30 ammunition as ‘Armor-piercing’?
June 14th, 2006 at 12:29 am
beerslurpy:
And yet you still haven’t given me a single example of where your alternative has ever worked.
I guess I didn’t realize that Standard Oil was a government-created monopoly.
October 13th, 2006 at 9:50 am
[…] A while back, Kos did a bit on Libertarian Democrats. I said: If you read the comments, quite a few of the Kossacks are pro-gun. I found this surprising and interesting. But, and let me be clear, if Kos is getting it, its impact must be growing to the point that it can’t be ignored. Regardless, I salute these types. […]