What does the term “Democrat” mean anymore? Not much! Nothing coherent at least. The netroots are trying to fix that, and in this article I add my two cents by endorsing and expanding on the concept of the “Libertarian Democrat”.

Netroots Democrats are debating how to re-define the term “Democrat”, to make the term more meaningful in modern times, to provide more coherence to Democratic principles. Link and analysis provided below.

PROBLEM: What does the Democratic Party stand for? Can we redefine ourselves in a way that better encapsulates the things most of us stand for? The answer is YES we can.

Dems are still stinging from the generation-long caricature drawn by the Republicans. Out of the many silly caricatures put forth by the Republicans, one resonates with me and so many other Dems: What does the Democratic Party stand FOR?

Our Democratic leadership have failed the Party as regards coming up with an effective definition of what it means to be a Democrat.

Dems have wanted for 25 years, since the Reagan Revolution at least, to come up with a way to redefine themselves in terms of what they stand for. The effort has been unsuccessful. For example, I can tell you why I myself am a Democrat, but I cannot tell you in a succinct way why you should be a Democrat.

The oldest failed redefinition attempt: “Progressives”. For at least 25 years I’ve been hearing Democrats refer to themselves by the old term “progressive” in an attempt to use a label that means more than “Democrat”. But Progressive is a euthemism for “liberal”, and it’s best not to refer to yourself as a liberal nowadays.

Idea for an effective positive redefinition that encapsulates what Democrats stand FOR:

Use the term “Libertarian Democrat”, because it encapsulates Democratic positions and provides the philosophy to bind those positions together

The following is my restatement of the meaning of the term “Libertarian Democrat”, followed by some quotes from some published material about the term, and concluding with some more discussion from my perspective.

The term “Libertarian Democrat” means the belief that, as a prime directive, the government exists to protect personal liberty from all enemies foreign and domestic, with an obligation to our fellow man to provide some form of social safety net.

Let’s break it down: The “Libertarian” part of the phrase resonates with the idea of personal liberty and freedom from tyranny.

The “Democrat” part of the phrase acknowledges a moral obligation to our fellow man, as well as acknowledges our Constitutional obligation to “promote the general welfare”. Here’s a quote:

See the Preamble to the US Constitution:
As you will plainly see, we have an obligation to look out for our fellow man to some extent.

Preamble to the US Constitution from the US Senate website

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Three competing special interest groups that must be balanced

The Libertarian Dem sees three major categories of interest group, and the requirements of all three must somehow be balanced in a way compatible with the prime directive: Government, the masses, and business.

The Libertarian Dem views the government as being capable of acting as a referee among the competing interests of business and the people, and also capable of providing the social safety net.

The starting place in the debate over the term “Libertarian Democrat” as a redefinition

See the quotes below from the first major piece to grab attention, about the concept of the Libertarian Democrat, followed by the RadMod’s views on the concept.

Libertarian Democrat proposal explained

Traditional “libertarianism” holds that government is evil and thus must be minimized. Any and all government intrusion is bad. While practical libertarians (as opposed to those who waste their votes on the Libertarian Party) have traditionally aligned themselves with the Republicans, it’s clear that the modern GOP has no qualms about trampling on personal liberties. Heck, it’s become their raison d’ etre.

The problem with this form of libertarianism is that it assumes that only two forces can infringe on liberty — the government and other individuals.

The Libertarian Democrat understands that there is a third danger to personal liberty — the corporation. The Libertarian Dem understands that corporations, left unchecked, can be huge dangers to our personal liberties.

Libertarian Dems are not hostile to government like traditional libertarians. But unlike the liberal Democrats of old times (now all but extinct), the Libertarian Dem doesn’t believe government is the solution for everything. But it sure as heck is effective in checking the power of corporations.

In other words, government can protect our liberties from those who would infringe upon them — corporations and other individuals.

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.

RadMod’s view of “Libertarian Democrat” as a re-definition of Democrat:

I like the way in which the term encapsulates my own view of the role of government and how power should be balanced in the the USA. I agree that government exists to protect personal liberty, and that there exists a moral obligation to provide a social safety net for the common good.

Libertarian Democrat is a term that seems moderate in tone. Pro personal freedom, and pro safety net.

As we drill down to the dirty details of daily decision making, we have to have political arguments about how to respect the prime directive while addressing challenges and problems.

A few examples of political issues and how the Libertarian Democrat viewpoint might address them.

DEFENSE

Everyone believes in a strong national defense, despite the nonsense passed off by the Republican Party’s spokesmen. The debate is really about which programs to fund this year - are we gonna fund THE most expensive and speculative black box program, or the SECOND most expensive program? Except for the Iraq war debacle, you can’t hardly get a thin dime between Republicans and Democrats on national defense issues, all things considered, and that won’t change. As far as me personally, I’m an honorably discharged veteran with roots back to the Revolution, and I was pro-Iraq war at the start because I believed the lies about WMDs, and I’m as hawkish as any Republican when I think the security of the USA is at stake.

ENVIRONMENT

It is desireable to personal liberty that we have clean drinking water and that we therefore forbid business from polluting our drinking water. We must make use of the power of government to impose regulations and enforce penalites for violations. This requires some level of taxation, and political debate about how much regulation and how severe the penalites should be. We can all agree that business should not have the right to pollute our drinking water. The government can be a referee between the needs of business and the needs of the people as regards clean water.

BUSINESS

Consistent with the need to promote the general welfare, government can impose reasonable regulation on businesses. The exact nature of the regulations can be debated politically. But the concept is to promote the general welfare using such powers as are available by Constitution. The primary means by which the government regulates business is the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

• * Financial disclosure laws to protect investors
• * Tax regulations
• * Environmental and safety regulations
• * Wage and hour laws
• * Benefit protections to prevent and deter fraud
• * Workmens compensation laws
• * Discrimination laws

PERSONAL LIBERTIES

The prime directive requires maximum personal liberty. That’s why the USA was founded.

• * Guns: The Constitution protects our right to own guns. We can debate the amount of regulation we are willing to tolerate. But Libertarian Dems will resist any attempt to generally ban guns as unConstitutional. I agree with this Democrat from DailyKos, who advocates for guns being allowed in more places rather than restricted. After all, criminals will carry guns regardless of the laws, and armed citizens can stop criminals. When guns are banned from places (like malls), criminals feel safer.
• * Reproductive freedom - birth control: Libertarian Dems support the freedom to use artificial birth control.
• * Reproductive freedom - abortion: Libertarian Dems support a balance in favor of the rights of the mother at least until viability. Those who favor outlawing all abortion balance rights in favor of the baby. The only way to resolve the debate is through Constitutional Amendment.
• * Sexual expression: Libertarian Dems support the freedom of consenting adults to express themselves sexually. There is no basis in the Constitution for denying such freedom.
• * Religion: No one is debating banning religion. Libertarian Dems believe the government should be religion-neutral. We are debating the role of religion in government merely because the forces of theocracy are trying to get government too involved in promoting religion, and the pro-freedom forces are trying to stop these efforts. Historically, religious domination of government is not conducive to personal liberty.
• * Privacy: Generally, Libertarian Dems are much more skeptical of government monitoring of our activities than are the majority conservative party. Historically, the more invasive government becomes, the more freedom ends up being limited. We must resist the urge of Government to control us and watch our every move. We must achieve balance. Libertarian Dems are nervous about the degree to which the ruling party trusts Big Brother.
• * Free speech generally: On non-sexual topics, there is little attempt to suppress freedom of speech in the USA by any party. We hear about attempts to prevent protests at events, and about efforts to ban individual protests in particular places. But there is not a movement to ban free speech generally. Just about everyone seems to be happy to permit the free flow of non-violent political ideas.
• * Intoxicants: Much like the abortion debate, people across the political spectrum have radically different positions. Any political party that professes to love freedom is going to run into an incoherence on the issue of intoxicants. No major political party can endorse the regulation of intoxicant usage rather than the prohibition of same. However, the rank and file Libertarian Democrat would probably tend to be a person who is uncomfortable with the crime surrounding the black market in intoxicants, and might support trying a different approach, an approach that starves the criminal element of its profits. But the nation is unprepared for a libertarian anti-prohibition position. However, in fighting the war on terror, it might be worth a shot to try regulation rather than prohibition, in order to keep money out of the hands of terrorists and put money into the hands of legitimate businesspeople [this assumes that the government is correct when it tells us that drug smuggling finances terrorisim].

That’s enough for now. You get the picture. I will probably continue to flesh-out this list over time.