Socialist and Libertarian Alliance?

[donttread]

I recently read this article in Foreign Policy: Socialists and Libertarians Need an Alliance Against the Establishment:LINK

The article argues in favor of an alliance between socialists and libertarians on foreign policy. Specifically, on reducing the extravagant spending on foreign militarism. This will allow socialists and libertarians more wiggle room to compromise on their domestic differences over economics. The massive savings from reducing "national security" spending will allow socialists to strengthen entitlement programs while allowing libertarians to pursue tax relief and deficit reduction. It's a win-win situation for both sides. The same logic would apply to spending on the US police state, specifically, the regressive drug war, which has cost taxpayers about $1 trillion in direct revenues, to say nothing of all the indirect costs that come with ruining millions of lives needlessly. I think this is a good, practical idea and the perfect example of a reasonable compromise between two sides that don't agree on everything.

I'd rather see the LP have an alliance at the state level with the greens.

[Captdon]

He’s just biding his time until he can gain power, that’s when he puts REAL socialism, teh ebil kind, into action.

The idea that Sanders isn't a socialist is hard to fathom. Everything he says is socialistic. He and Warren both.

[Green Arrow]

The idea that Sanders isn't a socialist is hard to fathom. Everything he says is socialistic. He and Warren both.

He’s a democratic socialist. Warren is unknown.

[Chris]

@Ethereal, I have long favored and proposed such an alliance, the trouble is I don’t think it can ever happen. Exhibits A and B:

Because they are opposites. Libertarianism entails small, limited government; socialism, central planning. Libertarianism respects private property; socialism does not. Libertarianism is based on individualism; socialism, collectivism. On and on.

[Ethereal]

I think it's a neat idea! I mean honestly I think that people may be defining these terms pretty generously these days (I mean if we're suggesting that Bernie Sanders is an authentic socialist and Rand Paul and authentic libertarian, for example), but no matter how you define them, an anti-war right-left alliance seems like something that's plausible here, at least in theory. It's something I witnessed happen to some extent, in fact, in the 2000s when the Iraq War was considered the major and defining issue of the day.

Still, I think it's tough to really excite people about the issue of militarism in today's context wherein nearly all of the troops that we had stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan and such have been brought home. If you look at the polls, foreign policy currently ranks among the lowest-priority issues that people plan to vote on in the upcoming midterm elections. People are more driven by domestic issues like health care and gun policy and immigration policy right now when it comes to their politics. Save for a situation wherein another all-out war presents itself as a clear and imminent danger, like the prospect of invading Iraq did beginning in 2002, it's difficult to foresee a situation wherein foreign policy would interest the average American more than domestic issues. Even I'm more interested in domestic policies right now, to tell you the truth. I mean, honestly, right now I'm actually more concerned about the prospect of us withdrawing our small measure of military support for the Kurds in Syria and about aggressions that we're indirectly supporting (like Saudi Arabia's brutalization of Yemen) than I am about the prospect of us getting properly involved in something like another Iraq War. And therein lies the challenge of forging such an alliance in the current historical context: how do you get people to see an address of American imperialism as a priority issue that necessitates such an alliance at a time like this?

We have to make the connection between domestic and foreign policy more obvious.

Specifically, we have to demonstrate how spending on foreign policy is detracting from domestic issues.

Every dollar spent on maintaining a bloated and corrupt overseas empire is one less dollar we have to spend on things that matter most to Americans.

Putting it in terms of pure dollars and cents is something that I believe will resonant with average Americans.

[Chris]

I'd rather see the LP have an alliance at the state level with the greens.

I was reading last night how Badnarik and the Greens put together an alliance back in '04. Can't find much detail though.

[Ethereal]

@Ethereal, I have long favored and proposed such an alliance, the trouble is I don’t think it can ever happen. Exhibits A and B:

There will always be holdouts, but I don't think they're necessarily representative of what a broad libertarian movement would look like.

[Chris]

We have to make the connection between domestic and foreign policy more obvious.

Specifically, we have to demonstrate how spending on foreign policy is detracting from domestic issues.

Every dollar spent on maintaining a bloated and corrupt overseas empire is one less dollar we have to spend on things that matter most to Americans.

Putting it in terms of pure dollars and cents is something that I believe will resonant with average Americans.

That was Rothbard's angle back in the 60s, to leverage common anti-war sentiments. The New Left also adopted libertarian ideas on the domestic front. It failed. You can read about it here: https://mises.org/library/new-left-w...t-it-collapsed.

[Green Arrow]

There will always be holdouts, but I don't think they're necessarily representative of what a broad libertarian movement would look like.

The issue I have is 90% of the libertarians I have encountered in my life (and I’ve encountered a lot) think socialism and socialists are of the devil and want nothing to do with us. It’s beyond the point of considering it, they actively try to find reasons for it not to work instead of finding reasons it can.

[Chris]

The idea that Sanders isn't a socialist is hard to fathom. Everything he says is socialistic. He and Warren both.

Democratic socialism and social democracy are thin veneers over core socialism.


Warren, though, it's hard to tell what she is, 1/1024th something or other.