Are you radical enough to be a moderate? (A weird endorsement)

The Libertarian party is a piss-poor vehicle for civil-libertarian ideals because "Libertarian" has come to mean "Ayn Randian economic libertarian", which is another way of saying crackpot who doesn't want to pay taxes and casts an almost religious value on his property rights as owner of land stolen from someone else.

But libertarian thinking is not all about money. I am a radical civil libertarian (think ACLU) and an economic pragmatist. I like owning my own stuff (meager as it is), but would be comfortable with any macro-economic scheme that maximizes prosperity. I have always voted the straight Democratic ticket because they have a better track record on liberty, and specifically civil-liberties.

I believe in the First Amendment. Every word of it. I has become rare to meet anyone who really supports it. One any given day, half of GD is threads boosting some violation of civil liberties or another. (On a conservative site that goes up to 90%... I am a Democrat for a reason.)

It tickles me when people get outraged because the Democratic party doesn't speak for them. I have to wonder how conventional a person's politics would have to be for them to have any reasonable expectation that a viable political party could speak for them. God knows no viable political party will ever speak for me, at least not in this lifetime.

Since no viable political candidate is going to endorse my political views, my ideals, or even share my religious viewpoint (none), I am a pure pragmatist. My radicalism and alienation from conventional contemporary social thought make me--ironically--a political moderate, by DU definitions.

The reason I am comfortable with Hillary Clinton is that I am so outside the mainstream that to me Kucinich and Clinton are ideologically almost indistinguishable. Neither Clinton nor Kucinich will really support the First Amendment in public, any more than they will declare themselves atheists. And I appauld that! If they talked like me they would lose 50 states and it would make the national climate more perilous for free-thinkers.

They will, however, both appoint judges willing to make unpopular rulings in tepid support of the First Amendment and other liberties, and no Republican will do that.

My desire is not that somebody speak for me, but that I retain the ability to speak for myself. I'm a single issue voter, and the issue is that America not go all-the-way fascist. I believe that a national candidate who espoused my views would hasten fascism, not forestall it. And I always vote accordingly, in line with my understanding of history and practical politics. My cold, practical judgment (which I recognize is fallible) is that Clinton offers the most reliable path to victory. I don't like her, but why should I have to like anyone? I can always turn off the TV.

If events convince me that Mike Gravel has a better chance of winning I will switch to Gravel in a heart beat. In terms of my core convictions, every Dem in the field is better than the alternative.
________________________

A few things I will never hear a viable politician endorse, though I think all are mandated by any rigorous understanding of the implications of the Bill of Rights. (All but the last are conventional ACLU-style views, embraced by scholars but politically radioactive):

Elimination of all references to religion in tax policy. Elimination of all criminalization of expressive works of any kind. (If the creation of a work involves criminal conduct then that criminal conduct is sanction-able, but a record of conduct cannot be.) Elimination of every recognition of political parties in law. Elimination of sanctions of symbols in an otherwise non-criminal context. (Like burning a flag or a cross on your own property.) Elimination of the adversarial concept of criminal justice. (Prosecutors, being state agents, should be as impartial as judges. And defendants should be able to present any case they want without many of the restrictions that properly bind the prosecution. The individual vs. the state is never a "fair fight" and should stop being treated as such. One example: Prosecutors should have no role in voir dire. The judge can make sure the defendant's brother doesn't end up on the jury. Beyond that, what business does the prosecution have challenging any citizen for his fitness to serve on the jury?) And so on...

It will take me a while to parse out where you would stand on any particular issue; but at least you try to approach
things with a rational argument.

And, your position is very radical indeed. How do you manage not to get run out of town and job on a rail?

arendt

I grew up when there was more comfort with the ACLU approach, including when the narrow, specific results were repugnant. (No point in rights to protect non-objectionable behavior)

Justice Douglas and such.

It seemed so sensible in the 1960s-1970s, but has so few supporters now.

"Card carrying memebers"... as Bush 41 once said.