Justin Amash: Unclear on the concept(s) or just unclear

Last week, Independent Political Report ran a piece about former Michigan Congresscritter Justin Amash's announcement that he was removing himself from consideration for the 2024 Libertarian Party presidential nod. (Some people tried to push him for that in 2020, shortly after he announced he was no longer a Republican, but he demurred on grounds that might help Trump. Why he thought it would help Trump instead of Biden, I don't know.)

Anyway, in response to a mix of his first paragraph talking about right-libertarianism and his last graf talking about how the Libertarian Party needs to be "Libertarian-lite," I commented:

Innnteresting, starting with his comments on where he aligns within today’s LP factions or branches, while, at the end, he seems to fully endorse “Libertarian-lite,” as in Gary Johnson. Just a bit self-contradictory?

To which, X (a recent anonymous commenter on another blog post here) said:

Perhaps SG is having difficulty grasping this because he equates right libertarianism with extremist posturing. Actually, libertarianism is not intrinsically left or right, so left and right leaning libertarianism is a separate scale from pragmatism vs extreme posturing. Amash unsurprisingly reveals that he’s a right leaning pragmatist within the LP internal debates. That’s exactly where I expected him to be.

To which I replied:

X, it’s not incumbent on me to mind-read Amash if he doesn’t make himself clearer, especially vis-a-vis Libertarian issues of the last couple of years on certain social issues. One could also argue, with small “l” vs capital “L” and the US an outlier in general, that whatever the term might mean, there’s a diff between right-libertarianism and right-Libertarianism. Or that, in the US, right-libertarianism may not be the same as right-libertarianism abroad.

And, this post is follow-up to that.

If I were to try to mind-read Amash, I’d venture that he was trying to distinguish right-libertarians from paleo-libertarians, to use normal political science labels and groupings.

Second, I’ll charitably assume X doesn't think that left-libertarians are a significant portion of the Libertarian Party and ditto for Amash. Left-libertarianism *outside the US* is generally still a non-capitalist, if not even somewhat anti-capitalist, stance. And, it's not even close to a significant portion of small-l libertarianism in the US, "libertarian Greens" of 2020 trying to nominate Jesse the Body Ventura via a back door aside. 

To tie this back to Amash, as an ex-Republican (and per one other commenter on the IPR piece, not a very active Libertarian from 2020 on), he should know that, speaking beyond an LP-only audience, given people who know him as a former Republican, to distinguish carefully.

That said, per point two, per standard political science, yes, libertarianism has a “right” and a “left.” Many Europeans who would be classified as "libertarian" are left-libertarian; even those who are right-libertarian aren't like US libertarians in general, whether LP libertarians or not. In fact, most European libertarians either laugh or sneer at the US version of the political philosophy. (Wikipedia also has a piece on "libertarian socialism," a label I once considered trying to use to describe myself, but, because of US libertarianism, and then the "libertarian Greens" reflecting US libertarianism more than European, I abandoned. Per more recent thought, and reflecting European ideas, "liberal socialism" would fit me somewhat better, but still not perfectly. I may not want to "abolish" capitalism, and I may not be "anti-capitalist," but I do want to be "post-capitalist." Maybe I'm about halfway between the two, but I digress.)

Per point one, paleo-libertarians are clearly socially rightist.

You’re not the first person to say “neither right nor left” or something similar, and I’ve heard that for more than a decade. Nice marketing slogan. But, for marketing slogans to actually sell, they have to be believed by the recipient. And, that slogan has never been believed in these quarters, and for good reason, as listed above.

The Nation and its DSA bromance vis-a-vis the Green Party

I have longly, loudly and repeatedly, for many years, bitched about The Nation's refusal to give any real coverage to the Green Party. Said oversight is not just limited to presidential election seasons, and it is clearly deliberate.

The Democratic Socialists of America? Different story. Now that Bernie Sanders has made it OK for Bernibros to come out of the closet or whatever, they are. And so, the mag has run not just one but two stories, by John Nichols and by Jesse Myerson, puffing the DSA.

And, "puffing" both are.

First, Nichols talks about the DSA's "long, storied tradition."

So, let's look at that tradition.

First, the DSA is NOT a political party. It's merely an activist group. It is arguably the most conservative splinter of the breakup of the old Socialist Party, per its Wikipedia page. While I'm no David Cobb fan, Greens should note the DSA endorsed John Kerry ahead of Cobb in 2008, and Barack Obama ahead of both Cynthia McKinney in 2008 and Jill Stein in 2012. (Of course, the Communist Party USA also endorsed Obama, showing just how far tokenism can go at times.)

Unfortunately, judging by a Facebook group, there's plenty of Greens who have a DSA bromance, too, and not all of them are Berniecrats wearing (for now) Green get-up.

Second, on Myerson's piece? I'm more a socialist than the Berniebros, by and large, and I'm certainly more of a socialist than Bernie himself.

And, re Myerson's breathless reporting on its growth rate? First, that's the old fallacy of appeal to the crowd. Second, the Green Party, though having a disappointing 2016 presidential run, is also growing.

Next, the likes of Maxine Phillips opposing a full-on BDS illustrate, among older members, just how conservative the DSA is.

Speaking of, Nichols in his piece ignores reporting on how perennial Socialist candidate Norman Thomas was long on the CIA payroll, a fact that I am quite sure he knows, especially since he wrote a whole book on the party. World War I-era socialists, even before Wilson Administration persecution, never would have done that.

Some people may claim the DSA is leftist by its voting at this year's convention to leave the Socialist International. Big deal. The Socialist Party USA, which is an actual party as well as an activist group, did that back in 2005. Unlike the DSA, the SPUSA, per Wiki, does not in any way, shape or form collaborate with the Democratic Party. It may not run many candidates, but it runs more than the non-party DSA. It may not be big, but at least until this year's DSA convention, it was at least as big as the DSA.

None of this, though, will ever be reported by The Nation. And, as a result, "none" is what sort of subscription I will ever buy, or money I will ever send.

And, as for Greens? Basically, to riff on a GP name or two above, the DSA is kind of what AccommoGreens like Cobb and Stein would like to make the Green Party — an activist organization to prod Dems left first (remember Dear Leader asking for that, then getting mad when anybody did it), and a political party of the left a distant second.

As for Greens shouting over the DSA having a libertarian sectional at this year's convention? I accept certain elements of libertarian socialism, while noting that not all libertarian socialists are anarchic, that I am definitely not, and that I reject anarchic ideas for the Green Party.

Otherwise, is the DSA "bad"? No. Am I glad it's moving further left? Yes.

But, Greens? For any of you having a Nation-type bromance for the DSA? Again, what presidential candidates have they endorsed?

What would #Hillbots, and Dems in general, say against Socialists?

Picture if, say, the Socialist Party USA instead of the Green Party, were America's leading left-liberl party.

Instead of attacks claiming the Greens are anti-science, we'd have attacks claiming the Socialists are anti-economics.

We know this from the attacks Hillary Clinton and her allies and surrogates launched against non-socialist social democrat lite Bernie Sanders.

See, national Dems are like Goldilocks, always wanting the bed that's "just right." Hillary just practices a more incremental version of this.

Well, first, the GOP, to turn the old Overton Window into a new parable, keep resizing, or to riff on an employment word, downsizing "just right," and national Dems then keep contorting themselves into tighter quarters.

Eventually, to riff on John Nance Garner, that "just right" isn't worth a warm bucket of piss.

Why is Bernie likely to lose the Democratic nomination?

First, yes, Sandernistas, the enthusiasm is good. But, if you're over the age of 30 and think Bernie Sanders is still going to win the Democratic nomination, it's probably time to stop believing in the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, and instead wake up and smell the coffee. More than that, it's time to start thinking seriously about Plan B, after it's even more clear that he won't win, that is, voting Green in the general rather than sitting out.

Not only is he behind on straight delegates, not counting supers, the remaining slate, rather than favoring him, is stacked against him. Only Wisconsin, among remaining primaries, is an "open" one. Large California and two small states are "mixed," allowing for day-of party registration. (And I'll stand by this prediction even if Clinton is right, and not just lowballing her odds on March 22 events.)

And, independent voters have been huge Sanders supporters, as shown above, but, of course, if you can't vote for him in the primary, then you're unable to support him.

So, why IS he going to lose, assuming my analysis about the greater uphill sled he faces for the rest of the way is true? Several reasons, some of them at least partially self-inflicted, or at least self-induced. I'm going to start with those first.

1. Getting a late start into the race. He played footsie with waiting on Elizabeth Warren too long. He should have said: "I need an earlier declaration, either yes or no." If Warren couldn't or wouldn't deliver, he should have declared himself, period.

Personally, I don't think Warren will ever run. So, anybody on the left-hand side of the Democratic party, no matter who wins the general election in 2016, needs to throw their 2020 rose-colored glasses in the trash.

(Sidebar: Warren said some vaguely nice things about Sanders, but never endorsed him. Sandernistas still yearning or hoping for such an endorsement are apparently clueless that the Massachusetts primary has already happened.)

2. Not having a top-level campaign organization. It's not been bad, and probably is no worse than Hillary Clinton's in a number of ways, but it's not great. While Bernie's gotten all those small donations, those aren't necessarily a sign of good staff and they're definitely not necessarily a sign of good Web-savvy staff. In other words, battling an Establishment candidate, he needed as robust a staff as the guy who was successful eight years ago — Dear Leader.

3. Adopting the "socialist" label when he didn't need to — and when he's not one. As I've blogged before, in calling for a British-style National Health Service, and said elsewhere in supporting nationalization rather than bailout of problem banks, I'm more of a socialist than Bernie Sanders is. And, no, corporate welfare, whether for Big Ag or for the military-industrial complex, doesn't count as actual socialism.

Now, the Bernie Sanders of 20 years ago might have been neck-and-neck, and the Bernie of 25 years or more ago would have been ahead of me. But, that's what happens when you're in Congress that long. He could have called himself something like "a new New Dealer," or campaigned on a pledge to "restore the Great Society," and both been more accurate about his actual politics and possibly scared off some Democrats less.

I say "possibly," because there is no guarantee of that, as we start transitioning to elements less under his control.

That said, why put an unnecessary millstone around your own neck? True, the label may have attracted a few people, but it may have scared off more.

4. The "he's not a Democrat" theme. Actually, he is, other than the technicality of the last initial of "I." And, he has been since he first got elected to Congress. He's even participated in Congressional Democratic fundraisers. That hasn't stopped the utter bullshit, uttered by both Democratic professionals and Inside the Beltway pundits, claiming that he's not. That gets back to No. 2, and looks ahead to ...

5. Fighting an Establishment candidate. Hillary Clinton may have claimed she's not a good politician. But she is a well-connected one, as those of us who have bitterly complained about Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Iowa caucus shenanigans and other things know. Per the Clinton Foundation, she's also a well-heeled politician, no matter Bernie's small-donor fundraising prowess. And, she's one that, even by political standards, at least among Democrats, is unafraid to be brazen in her lying. And, again, per the "he's not a Democrat" bullshit, you've got others unafraid to be brazen in lying on her behalf, too.

That said, we're going to do a whiplash transition back to something very much in Sanders' control, and that is ...

6. Running inside the Democratic box. Per the "he is" link, he's long been a Democrat. Per the fact that he refused to call out Clinton for the Honduras coup or Dear Leader himself for the semi-coup in Ukraine, he's long been very much inside the bipartisan foreign policy establishment box. Criticizing coups 60 years ago is nice, but when you focus on GOP coups, and ignore actual or attempted coups by Democratic presidents in the past decade (or 50 years ago — JFK with Bay of Pigs, Diem and Trujillo), you're clearly determined to stay in that box. Being a warhawk-lite, not quite as bloodthirsty as Clinton, further underscores this, as does a debate failure to make a straightforward "I will cut the Defense Department" statement. In turn, things like this are why, even if Sanders had gotten the nomination, I likely would have voted Green again anyway. I wanted a bit more of a domestic policy revolution, and something a lot different in foreign policy. And, related to that, Sandernistas' refusal to face reality about Tulsi Gabbard has become more irritating by the day. (Jewish organizations not part of the Israel-first lobby, like Mondoweiss, have defended Zaid Jilani.)

Beyond that, as things like farm bills and foreign aid show, foreign and domestic policy aren't always inseparable.

I'm not disillusioned. I knew about Sanders' shortcomings months ago, just like I knew about Obama's shortcomings in 2007 and knew before the end of that year that I would vote Green in 2008. That said, an earlier announcement and a campaign staff even better than it is in some ways would have made Sanders last longer as a useful cudgel to beat Democrats over the head.

Could Sanders win the election if he were nominated? Sure. So could the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.

In all of this, I'm not anti-Sanders. I pulled the lever for him here in Texas. It's just that I'm a realist in terms of how I view the two-party box, and also how I see the need to get Sandernistas to sign on to the Plan B of voting Green in the general election.

I might just be a libertarian socialist

There are many more varieties of libertarianism under the stars, Horatio, or Mona Holland or others, than your philosophy hath room for.

Did you know there is green libertarianism? Libertarian socialism? Council communism? Anarcho-syndicalism?

I refer to Wikipedia’s overview of libertarianism.

And, I find that “libertarian socialism” might describe my political stance even better than “social democracy.” In a thumbnail, libertarian socialism believes that a socialist economic system can be established without heavy government lifting, through the actions of trade unions, guilds, councils and other voluntary federations and cooperatives.

The state is (rightly, in my opinion) distrusted as an instrument of capitalism. Most left-libertarian political philosophies, with the exceptions of green libertarianism, focus on labor issues as the key to economic improvement, including the labor theory of value.

So, left-libertarians of the world, UNITE! You have nothing to lose but the chains of rightists spinning myths that theirs is the only actual libertarianism.

I quote Wikipedia:

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who is often considered the father of modern anarchism, coined the phrase “Property is theft> to describe his affinity for the labor theory of value, a socialist value.

Seventeen years (1857) after Proudhon first called himself an anarchist (1840), anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque was the first person to describe himself as a libertarian.[2] In United States because the word "libertarian" is now commonly used by anti-state capitalists, non-authoritarian socialists ot that country often call themselves libertarian socialists to differentiate themselves. In the rest of the world, "libertarian" is a synonym of “anticapitalist.”

We, not you Johnny-come-lately righties, were the FIRST libertarians.

Unfortunately, most Americans, even those who claim to know something about political philosophy, just don’t know what all is out there. (Wiki lists Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn as people who could be characterized as libertarian socialists.)