Interesting piece by Kos over at Cato: The Case for the Libertarian Democrat. I’m curious to see what you make of it.
Two thoughts I had were:
1) Where do issues like the government’s responsibility to provide a social safety net fall into the “Libertarian Democrat” paradigm? What about socialized or universal healthcare? Interestingly, of the people I know who come from countries with socialized/universal healthcare, access to healthcare is regarded as a right (a sentiment, btw, with which I agree—surely healthcare should be regarded as the most fundamental of rights, as making use of all others is contingent upon life and health); can L.D.s regard healthcare as a basic right and thusly support socialized or universal healthcare?
2) It’s curious that none of the Dems that Kos cites as examples of trailblazing L.D.s are women. (Nor, to my knowledge, are any of them gay or men of color.) And, since Kos mentions Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, I couldn’t help but be reminded of this post where I contrasted Ezra’s and Kos’ assessments of Schweitzer nearly a year and a half ago. Are the L.D.s appealing because they have a "jes' folks" factor and appeal to that infamous American streak of fiery independence and personal liberty, or are they appealing because they’re “real guys”? A combination of both? Is part of the L.D. paradigm rooted in an imagery that depends particular brand of masculinity, or is strictly rooted in the underlying principles Kos lays out? Can a woman, or an openly gay man, be as effective as an L.D.? Or are we just cowboying-up the Dems?
Anyway, what do you think?
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus