David Weigel brings us another chapter in the debate over who is more libertarian between Republican and Democrat candidates. He lays out an opening slice of bread with these first two paragraphs at Reason:
“Could you give me some reasons why libertarians might want to vote for you?”
I could tell my question startled Connecticut Democrat Ned Lamont, who’s running against Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), the war hawk and culture nanny par excellence. We were standing in Lamont’s room at the Washington Hilton, the site of the Campaign for America’s Future 2006 conference. (Someone missed an opportunity for synergy by not booking the American Values suite.) As long as I was a hurdle for the candidate to jump before he could meet some people with checkbooks, I figured I could rope him into the “Libertarian Democrats” debate.
He closed by laying this slice of bread on top of the sandwich:
This isn’t a simple election. Some of the Clinton party’s candidates, like Virginia’s, actually deserve the “Libertarian Democrat” moniker. In Connecticut, where a Democrat’s going to win anyway, the pro-privacy, anti-war, pork-bashing Lamont would clearly make a better senator than Joe Lieberman. In the short term, libertarians could be satisfied””even more so than liberals””with a Democratic Congress that rolled back anti-privacy laws and acquainted Bush with his veto pen. But the Democrats are the Democrats. Even when they’re railing against NSA wiretapping, they’re wishing they could be passing higher taxes and entitlement payouts.
It might be in libertarians’ best interest to ally with Democrats for this election. If they do, they could see short-term progress that would never come out of the. Inevitably, they’ll find out something they have in common with liberals. They’ll be let down.
You’ll have to read the article to find the meat and cheese (or peanut butter and jelly, if you prefer) of this complicated political sandwich.