An argument for libertarian Democrats proves gridlock is the best solution.

I’ll try to be brief (for once) and state that Bill Reed’s Reaction Essay to Kos’ Lead Essay is pure partisan cheerleading that no libertarian should give more than a casual read, much like you might temporarily turn on Rush Limbaugh just to hear what drum conservative pundits will be beating since you know you won’t be hearing good analysis.

For example, Bill credits Democrats only for the late-90’s (projected) budget surpluses, the reduction in the federal workforce and restraint in federal spending.  It’s good that someone has already pointed out the obvious so I don’t have to:

No, the dot-com boom, the “peace dividend” and — most importantly — gridlock did that. Libertarians cannot of course “vote” for a stock market bubble or to re-win the Cold War, but we can vote for gridlock.

Bill talks a big game about Democrats being fiscally prudent and living within their means, which sounds good but in reality doesn’t promise smaller government at all.  It just promises that your taxes will go up quicker as they enact their socialist/communist economic programs.  Remember, before Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 Hillary was getting fired up about Universal Health Care.  Can anyone say with a straight face that had Democrats retained control of Congress until 1996, 98 or 2000 that we wouldn’t have Universal Health Care?

Bill plays up all the cards that the minority party plays . . . let’s get rid of earmarks, let’s redraw Congressional districts to lessen the incumbent advantage, etc.  Did I miss something about 1992-1994 that would have prevented Democrats from enacting such policies then?  Were the Democrats prevented from pushing such measures during the time they controlled Congress because of mind control?

No, what we’re hearing now about cleaning things up is what we always hear from the minority party, and this time just like prior times there is no reason whatsoever to believe it is anything more than what it has been in the past, a political ploy.  Why?  Because to believe that either party would exact such laws you would have to believe that there were principles involved beyond obtaining and securing power.

Take, for example, gay marriage.  When federal legislation was proposed by Republicans, suddenly Democrats were all about the federalism!  Let the states handle it!  There is no need for federal legislation!  What is that I hear . . . Democrats returning to the principles of federalism?  Hells no!  Just trying to find a way to salvage a political cause while ignoring as best they could the cursed irony of being bitten by the “principle” of centralized federal power they had pushed for years . . . when they were in power.

Dammit, I said I would try to be brief, so I’m going to pull up here, but much like Kos’ article I expect Reed’s article to fail the libertarian partisan hackery sniff test by a wide margin.  If Cato puts on a really, really honest Democrat, it would be the shortest responsive essay ever, and it would say “Vote Democrat ’cause our track record is better regarding civil liberties and (sometimes) free trade.”  That’s it.  No BS arguments about all the change Democrat leadership would bring, no BS about “New” Democrats, no BS about smaller government, and certainly no BS about how Democrats and libertarians are ideologically compatible.   You want to sell that snake oil?  Then do the legwork first.  Win on an anti-war platform (which would draw in a fair number of libertarian voters anyway and if you can’t do that why the hell would we trust you to be competent about anything else?) then redraw the Congressional districts, really prove that Democrats (and not gridlock) are committed to scaling back government . . . do the legwork, then we’ll talk.