Plus if I am going to make vote of conscience for someone who can’t win, I still want that vote to have some purpose — showing support for building an institution or movement, and that left Nader out of the equation, since as an independent candidate a vote for him only supports his own cult-of-personality rather than contributing to anything lasting. There were reasons to support him in 2000, but not this year.

Unfortunately our system is designed to always polarize around two centrist choices. If we ever want real multi-party democracy we need substantial changes to the underlying system — first and foremost, instant runoff voting, and proportional representation in Congress, along with reforms to the debates and media access. How we ever get that when the major parties control the machine and have no incentive to fix it, I have no idea. I suppose the only answer is a groundswell of public sentiment that leaves them no choice.

Uhh, what? “center-left” != “center-right”. Yes, Obama is clearly center-left on economics. Ask Brian Moore, Gloria LaRiva, or Monica Moorehead if Obama’s really a socialist. They’ll tell you Obama’s a socialist as surely as Ron Paul will tell you John McCain is an anarcho-capitalist.

Oh those wacky radical leftists with their belief that oil companies and millionaires should pay more so we can give a tax cut to the middle and working classes. It isn’t “radical” to support small adjustments to the inner workings of progressive tax policies that have been in place for decades. You may want the country to move to a flat tax, but right or wrong, *that* is the more radical option of the two.

>does he not also oppose gay marriage?

Unfortunately he doesn’t go all the way to marriage, this is true. As I said, compromise. But he does believe in using civil unions to provide virtual legal equality — McCain does not and Palin *certainly* does not — and few people believe he would actually *oppose* full marriage rights if the case was put before him, he simply believes the country isn’t ready to accept it and isn’t working for it.

>What other social issues are there, except for abortion, that the President really matters on?

Well, abortion is a pretty important thing to “except”. And ultimately the president is important on virtually all social issues for the same reason he is on the abortion issue: Supreme Court nominations. Of course “social issues” do also impact priorities and policies in other areas as well. Should the government fund stem-cell research, etc.

>What about the Fairness Doctrine?

While I might oppose giving it too much reach, I am not perfectly opposed to the general spirit of the Fairness Doctrine, especially where it applies to entities broadcasting with government-granted monopoly use of a piece of the public magnetic spectrum. In any case, Obama does not support its reinstatement.

>n doing away with the union’s secret ballot?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/15/fact-check-update-would-obama-take-away-right-to-secret-ballot-for-unions/

I don’t see much wrong with what I see so far. Sounds like another case of taking a statement that is literally true but twisting it into bizzaro world. Rove 101. Sorta like how teaching kids to avoid sexual predators is the same thing as sex ed?

>Do you really think a leftist like Obama is not willing to violate civil liberties?

I think he will be magnitudes better than McCain, yes.

>What about all of the massive spending / government growth he is proposing?

You’re still dropping the “left” from “center-left” and “left-libertarian”. I don’t oppose all such plans, I view them — given the system we have — as necessary evils required to correct the failures of corporate mercantilism and allodial capitalism.

Jon, come on. You think Barack Obama is center right on economics? Now I can’t, in any way make a case for John McCain. But I can most assuredly make a case against Barack Obama. I just don’t understand how somebody as intelligent as you can not see that Obama is an leftwing radical when it comes to economics. As for social issues, does he not also oppose gay marriage? What other social issues are there, except for abortion, that the President really matters on? I can understand the “having a beer” part. The guy is certainly personable, but the presidency of the United States is much more important. Heck I would have a beer with Hillary. I’d probably smoke dope with her, but I don’t want her running the country.
What about the Fairness Doctrine? How about his ideas on doing away with the union’s secret ballot? Do you really think a leftist like Obama is not willing to violate civil liberties? What about all of the massive spending/ government growth he is proposing?
Seriously, I just don’t get it.

JR,
Yeah, it is pretty sad what has been going on with the LP. Of course I *always* thought the LP tipped too far to the right, but there used to be at least enough balance to keep alive my hope that it might be reformed. But the thing with tipping one direction is that gravity’s working for that direction.

I probably would have voted for Gravel had the LP nominated him, in fact officially I think I did renew my membership when I made a ballot access donation in Gravel’s name. Though you’re right, he’s not really an intellectual left-libertarian either — but he would have been by far the closest to one I’ve ever seen run.

Milstead befuddles me. I sorta agree with him in theory, but then the particulars he comes out with seem … I don’t know … tone-deaf or something. I guess… I think there’s an upper-left vacuum to be filled in the place where hardcore liberal-tarian progressives meet hardcore left-libertarians. But he seems to want to create a mushy-moderate version of that … which is pretty much where the better Democrats already are, so what’s the point?

Although I will not be voting for Obama, I understand where you are coming from and I will say this….your post is probably one of the more intelligent articles that I have read in the last little while that adequately explains the point of view coming from a left-libertarian position. Our party is being overun by right-wing boortzians and is being left by the radical-left. Your intellectual presence is sorely missed within the LPTN. For me though, the geolibertarian positions might just be a tad left of myself. Mabey Milstead will start up his “upper-left quadrant” party that he is always going on about. Mr. Gravel was as left as it was going to get in Denver, but I am not sure that he has an understanding of Hayek or of some of the nuances of left-libertarianism. I spoke with Mike and his family and thanked him for having the courage to throw his hat in the ring.