Labels can be a handy shorthand way of describing ourselves or our positions, but they often confuse more than enlighten.

Suppose I described hypothetical liberal Senator who has spoken out strongly against NSA spying on Americans and has called for an less U.S. military intervention around the world. Say this same person has called for ending the so-called "war on drugs," supported restoring voting rights to felons, and wants to end most mandatory sentencing for non-violent criminals.

The unnamed liberal liberal Senator described above is Rand Paul.

So yeah, a label can be a handy shorthand, but sometimes shorthand is hard to read.

That he apparently holds a few liberal views is purely accidental.

But the irony is that he holds some views that are more "liberal" than most Democrats. The point of the post was about labels. Because someone is described as "liberal" or "conservative" doesn't mean it's safe to assume you know their position on all issues.

2 dimensional. I believe the three dimensional map(as used by the Political Compass) makes more sense. Instead of grading on just a left/right scale, they also have authoritarian/libertarian scale.

Rand is more libertarian leaning than many dems making him appear more liberal. The NSA issue is a libertarian leaning issue that has support from both right and left

most of us here have known that about Rand for a long time.

into Libertariansm which is RW corporate fascism.

Damn, I never thought I'd be in a position where I'm defending Rand Paul, but describing Libertarianism as corporate fascism is the same kind of breathless hyperbole as describing Obama's executive order on immigration as "fascism."

I have no patience with any "ism" that puts ideology above pragmatism. But one thing you have to give the Libertarians is that their ideology is far more consistent than most traditional establishment conservatives.

Mainstream Republicans call for "small government." They don't believe that it is government's role to provide what most of us consider to be a basic social safety net, or to use government as a tool to protect the environment or protect consumers from corporate abuse. Ok, that's small government.

But they also want to insert their small government into our private lives in regulating drug use or sexual practices. They want their small government to mandate the promotion of religion in public schools. The applaud their small government listening in on our private conversations, and they support spending a trillion dollars a year on our small-government military and endless wars.

Libertarians confuse everybody because generally when they say they want small government they actually mean it across the board. Get government out of the social services business, but also get government out of our private lives. (Abortion is the only issue I can think of at the moment where many Libertarians are inconsistent in their position.)

And by the way, you might want to check out what "corporate fascist" Rand Paul has said about ending taxpayer subsidies to giant corporations. It's a lot stronger than what I've heard from most mainstream Democrats. If you oppose welfare and you're consistent, you also oppose corporate welfare. Ralph Nader says Rand Paul would be a better choice for president that Hillary Clinton for just that reason. I don't agree with Nader on that, but what he says about Libertarianism should be must reading for anyone who wants to dismiss it as "corporate fascism."

Ralph Nader on Rand Paul

Last edited Mon Jan 19, 2015, 10:49 PM - Edit history (2)

I wouldnt trust a Libertarian Paul on ANYTHING. Why do u think they are suddenly pro-life? TO get the social cons vote. They are snakes in the grass which goes with greed and corruption.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers
...............................................

Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:

“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
“We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
“We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
“We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
“We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
“We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
“We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
In other words, the agenda of the Koch brothers is not only to defund Obamacare. The agenda of the Koch brothers is to repeal every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 80 years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country.

It is clear that the Koch brothers and other right wing billionaires are calling the shots and are pulling the strings of the Republican Party.

And because of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, they now have the power to spend an unlimited amount of money to buy the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the next President of the United States.

If they are allowed to hijack the American political process to defund Obamacare they will be back for more.

Tomorrow it will be Social Security, ending Medicare as we know it, repealing the minimum wage. It seems to me that the Koch brothers will not be content until they get everything they believe they are entitled to.

Our great nation can no longer be hijacked by right-wing billionaires like the Koch brothers.

For the sake of our children and our grandchildren, for the sake of our economy, we have got to let democracy prevail.

Well, if it's fair to quote "a few excerpts" from the Libertarian Party platform of 35 years ago, here are a few excerpts from the current Libertarian Party platform --

1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.

1.2 Expression and Communication
We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.3 Privacy
Libertarians advocate individual privacy and government transparency. We are committed to ending government’s practice of spying on everyone. We support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, property, and communications. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records.

1.4 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

1.5 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

-------------------

Yes, these are cherry picked parts of their platform. The Libertarian party remains opposed to welfare, Social Security, Medicare and national health care, business and environmental regulation and gun control. It's economic platform is about as progressive as Herbert Hoover. Putting them in power would be a disaster for America. But in the long term, as the old "God, Guns and Gays" Republican party ages itself out of relevance, the Libertarian message will be a much greater challenge to those of us who do believe that government can be a tool a free people use to benefit the people as a whole.

And our response to that challenge needs to be a little better than "fuck Rand Paul."

(note to OP -- sorry for hijacking your thread, I'll stop now.)

Which is completely horrifying to most of the racist Republican base. But it makes sense for the corporate fascists. They love anything that can lowere their labor costs which is an unlimited labor force which will work for slave wages. The Libertarians cant pull the wool over my eyes. Been dealing with them for 20 yrs on a local level. They are pure evil.

Fuck Rand Paul.

*Fuck Rand Paul.

I am done being a Democrat that is for sure, at least until Congress repeals Citizens United, makes campaign financing public, and starts representing the people, instead of the rich.

Some people will not even glance at a point of view if they thinks a liberal holds that view. My views were not chosen to fit into a certain label, however the Democratic Party in general comes closer than others in sharing the same views. That's why I'm a Democrat.

“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.” John Kennedy

You're a liberal, my friend, and so am I.

I had forgotten that this part was in there:

their civil rights and their civil liberties

In spite of the fact that a solid slice of the US electorate are Liberal,
it somehow ends up that,
precious few people in our Government
are Liberal.

There's just no money in Liberal,
like there is,
in all things "Corporate".

I'm not a big fan of labels either but I think it does help sometimes to clarify what one is for and what one is against. It sounds to me (if I may be so bold) that you adhere to a lot of traditional liberal values. I think that's a really good thing.

I believe every economy is a mixed economy, with some elements of capitalism and some of socialism. I believe the USA can benefit from a lot more socialism and a lot less pure capitalism. I'm far left of center in this country. It might make me a moderate in Western Europe.

I hear you about labels. I also think it's good to self-assess. There's pretty much nothing about conservatism in the USA that I now like. Or libertarianism, except for reducing the defense budget. I don't like the moderation in the democratic party. I don't believe the third way corporatist stuff is the correct way the democratic party should be heading.

I'm also a humanist, so I guess it's fair to say I believe in socialism with a human face.

Thanks for getting me to think more about this kind of stuff. In terms of conservatism, I tell others that I'm actually more conservative than the republican party because I do believe in not running up huge deficits in order to finance the military-industrial complex.

Also i believe the government should stay out of women's bodies. The right wing aspects in this nation, I believe drag us down enormously. I do believe in putting an optimistic face forward. I think far too many in the democratic party today, and among the left, are too defeatist. Very little good comes from defeatism. Though I do appreciate a lot of the trenchant analysis that come from radicals and leftist scholars.

Democratic socialist is just fine.

And Rand Paul is in no way, shape or form a liberal, no matter what he says he believes. Geez.

We need them. I hope you continue speaking your views here at DU. And especially locally in your community and among friends and acquaintances.

I don't speak about it to any one because it is personal beliefs and the world seems to be at each others throats about just about everything now .

I used to be careful where and to whom I stated such but no more. I say it immediately, as soon as I'm asked, and I say it proudly. My kids described themselves as socialists and I'm fine with that, too.

That's the way we can win. It starts by telling people your views. Most of the genuine progress we've made in our country, and will continue making, arises from leftists.

Norman Goldman, which you can hear on WCPT (through online radio app), often makes this point that the labels are what keep Americans separated, because when you go, issue through issue, most Americans agree, but when you label yourself, many will just turn away. If you stop with the labels you have much more chance of other Americans listening.

By all means tell them that you don't care if the label doesn't accurately describe you.

But positively asserting that it doesn't is a very different thing.

There's no liberal purity test to administer (except the eye of the beholder) so it seems like an issue of (self-)identity... I personally find the term fairly repulsive since it was co-opted by the likes of Milton Friedman (a self-described "classical liberal&quot , and it retains that flavor in parliamentary democracies where capital-L Liberal parties are typically laissez-faire capitalists above all. (Even in America, it seems to mean "basically satisfied with the status quo but seeking modest reforms or attention to an issue that affects them personally", but on FOX I guess it means anyone between Pol Pot and Mother Theresa.)

The odds of anyone here agreeing on all those or with some official "liberal" position is almost nil.

I'm far left on some topics, centrist on others, and even slightly right on a comparitive few.

Like the mythical "true Scotsman" there is no "true Liberal"

We all think for ourselves.

Now, the right has Rush to do it's thinking for them, so there are probably true conservatives.

not ashamed of the historical legacy of liberal and makes it clear that I'm no coward when it comes to fighting the fascism transforming our nation.

There are lines that need to be drawn, a political Mason-Dixon line, North and South, East and West.

Saying you don't like labels ultimately renders you blown around like a weather vane.

Conservative and liberal, not so hard to understand.

The worst is the "socially liberal, economically conservative" Democrat. That is just a Republican who is embarrassed by tea baggers.

Not every side is equal. Take a side and fight for it.

You'll get nothing and nowhere trying to abstract yourself "above the fray".

That's exactly what Obama tried doing and failed, cost massive apathy at mid-terms.

At some point you have to declare who and what you are using well understood nomenclature.

Explain how the acceptably progressive members have any hope of winning a national election. Or is that not important?

let them go vote for Republicans if they want Goldman Sachs, Monsanto and Aetna writing public policy.

As far as national elections, Hillary will lose for her corporate purity.

That seems to be OK for centrists whose conservatism is closely aligned with Republicans except on a few social wedge issues.