U.S. Democratic Party adopts some libertarian positions post-Ed Clark 1980?

Ed Clark received 900,000+ votes in the 1980 presidential election for just over 1% of the total. And this was a high water mark for the modern Libertarian Party for quite a number of years, at least in the United States.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1980

And libertarian ideas do have some appeal. What if the Democratic Party consciously made an effort to incorporate some of these in a more left, liberal, even anti-corporate fashion?

* Clark's running mate in 1980 was David Koch. Yes, the well-known super-backer of conservative causes David Koch.
 
Last edited:
Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson ran on the Libertarian ticket in 2012 and received 1,275,000+ votes for just under 1% of the total.
 
Ed Clark received 900,000+ votes in the 1980 presidential election for just over 1% of the total. And this was a high water mark for the modern Libertarian Party for quite a number of years, at least in the United States.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1980

And libertarian ideas do have some appeal. What if the Democratic Party consciously made an effort to incorporate some of these in a more left, liberal, even anti-corporate fashion?

They would prove themselves incompetent even by 1980s Democratic Party standards and probably lead to even less electoral success.

Purposefully incorporating the trapping of fringe ideologies to appeal people who couldn't be bothered to vote for one of three (don't forget John Anderson!) mainstream candidates in 1980 carries very high risk with very little possibility of reward. Depending on what specific ideas they try to incorporate, they run the risk of almost certainly alienating one of the many disparate factions in the Democratic coalition.
 
Libertarian Democrats aren't unheard of... But I'm not sure who would be the spearhead of this movement... OTL Eugene McCarthy and Mike Gravel had connections to libertarian organizations. In any case I doubt that Libertarians will be any more successful in the Democratic Party than they have been in the GOP.
 
This would signal massive turn to the right of whole USA.
This is ASB, I mean this would make Republican a crypto Royalist party possibility.
How do you actually push major party to push for policies which are anti-establishment, anti- bureaucratic in nature.
Whole democracy runs exactly opposite to libertarian policy. Concentration of benefits, regulatory capture and special interest is name of game.
Democracy is inherently progressive in nature. Right wing is left wing only 20 years left behind.

If Democrats are Libertarian then Republicans are National Socialist?
 
It'll have to be the "socially liberal, economically conservative" type. Perhaps Jerry Brown before he became full-on Moonbeam is elected president and shapes a different New Democratic ideology?
 
There is vastly more libertarian overlap with the Republican party than the Democrats. It's either going to be stuff many supported anyway (reducing defense spending) or so politically dubious regardless of its technical merit (drug legalization), that no one will touch it. So yeah, this is ASB.
 
This would signal massive turn to the right of whole USA.
This is ASB, I mean this would make Republican a crypto Royalist party possibility.
How do you actually push major party to push for policies which are anti-establishment, anti- bureaucratic in nature.
Whole democracy runs exactly opposite to libertarian policy. Concentration of benefits, regulatory capture and special interest is name of game.
Democracy is inherently progressive in nature. Right wing is left wing only 20 years left behind.

If Democrats are Libertarian then Republicans are National Socialist?
Why would that have to be? I suspect you are projecting the modern party system backwards into the past. In 1980 John B. Anderson only just broke with the party over Reagans conservatism. Had Bush, at the time a moderate, won the nomination he wouldn't have left at all. In 1980 there were many conservative Democrats both southern and otherwise and plenty of Rockefeller Republicans who voted more or less the same as mainline democrats.

Not to mention that the Libertarian movement is a bit more complex than you seem to be making out. There have been left leaning libertarians within the movement for a long time. It wasn't really until 1988 when Ron Paul defeated Native American Activist Russell Means for the LP nomination that the current ideology began to be solidified.
 
I mean, the Democratic Party would basically cherry-pick the best ideas (in their view).

For example, President Clinton advocated for and I think successfully passed the V-chip as putting more power in the hands of parents. That way, each couple or single parent could decide for themselves whether they wanted their kids watching violent cable shows. And if anyone else can think of additional examples from Clinton, please include them.
 
I mean, the Democratic Party would basically cherry-pick the best ideas (in their view).

For example, President Clinton advocated for and I think successfully passed the V-chip as putting more power in the hands of parents. That way, each couple or single parent could decide for themselves whether they wanted their kids watching violent cable shows.

Many self-proclaimed libertarians staunchly opposed the V-chip bill.
 
"The era of big government is over."

That's true. However, Clinton was also rather socially conservative, with his opposition to gay marriage. I think if libertarianism ever emerges in the Democratic Party, it would be more socially liberal IMO.
 
I think that OTL's New Democrats could be seen as a more moderate form of this, though it's not a perfect one-to-one fit. While they weren't doctrinaire libertarians by a long shot, they were very much about cribbing parts of the GOP's economic platform (i.e. the parts that share the most overlap with the libertarians) and melding them with their liberal, middle-class suburban social platform (which, again, has more in common with the libertarians than the GOP's Christian Right social platform does, albeit with major differences on issues like gun control and certain regulations).

I don't think Ed Clark's candidacy is the best POD for this, though. A better one might be a paleoconservative takeover of the GOP in the '90s led by the likes of Pat Buchanan, combining a reactionary social agenda with an interventionist, protectionist economic policy. This could cause the Democrats to move more towards overt libertarianism (albeit left-libertarianism) as they seek to define themselves in opposition to the GOP.
 
That's true. However, Clinton was also rather socially conservative, with his opposition to gay marriage. I think if libertarianism ever emerges in the Democratic Party, it would be more socially liberal IMO.

Clinton was opposed to gay marriage, but so were the majority of the American public at the time his presidency ended (57% opposed compared to 35% for it in 2001). DOMA (which Clinton's administration considered nothing more than "gay-baiting") had a veto-proof majority and Clinton had to compromise on his goal of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military (with "don't ask, don't tell") because of congressional and institutional pressure against openly gay servicemen and women in the early 1990s.
 
Purposefully incorporating the trapping of fringe ideologies to appeal people who couldn't be bothered to vote for one of three (don't forget John Anderson!) mainstream candidates in 1980 carries very high risk with very little possibility of reward. Depending on what specific ideas they try to incorporate, they run the risk of almost certainly alienating one of the many disparate factions in the Democratic coalition.

Er, yeah, this.

It's possible to push the Democrats in a more "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" direction-- Jerry Brown is an obvious candidate here-- but for the Democratic Party to actively draw inspiration from a fringe party? ... Why?
 
Even left-libertarianism (which is just "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" in contrast to right-libertarianism which has roots in conservatives who want a very limited govt and roots in anarcho-capitalism) is anathema to the Democrat party. It would be much easier for the republican party to adopt it since their moderates aren't that different from them.
 
To me, libertarianism is a big fat part of the modern GOP.

Ideally, the Democrats could have seen this coming and contested for these votes. More so than they did in OTL and built a bigger centrist coalition.
 
Alright, Republican Jack Kemp talked a lot about entrepreneurship and enterprise zones. 80% of new businesses fail. Yes, 8 out of 10. That's the baseline statistic. And I think it's irresponsible not to tell people this. So, a Democratic member of Congress could host a public forum, say with three people who have started businesses which failed or which they ended and two people who started businesses which worked out. Now, this is not exactly the odds, but you don't want the one person who started a successful business to feel so alone, right? And the people who started failed businesses definitely deserve praise for bravery and honesty. Sometimes a business is technically making money, but the owner is working such long hours that it's just not worth it. And perhaps some of the advice would include testing the main idea in a real market as cheaply as you can, running the business out of your home or car if you can, perhaps waiting on hiring a CPA till you get your first employee, etc.

And Democrats could also point out that most of the 'regulation' Republicans love to talk about are ticky-tack state and local regulations.

That is, the Democrats could beat the Republicans on these issues without even half trying.
 
Last edited:
Top