Via Mickey Kaus, I see that Kos is now calling himself a Libertarian Democrat. What does that mean?

The Libertarian Democrat understands that there is a third danger to personal liberty — the corporation. The Libertarian Dem understands that corporations, left unchecked, can be huge dangers to our personal liberties.

Libertarian Dems are not hostile to government like traditional libertarians. But unlike the liberal Democrats of old times (now all but extinct), the Libertarian Dem doesn’t believe government is the solution for everything. But it sure as heck is effective in checking the power of corporations.

In other words, government can protect our liberties from those who would infringe upon them — corporations and other individuals.

So in practical terms, what does a Libertarian Dem look like? A Libertarian Dem rejects government efforts to intrude in our bedrooms and churches. A Libertarian Dem rejects government “Big Brother” efforts, such as the NSA spying of tens of millions of Americans. A Libertarian Dem rejects efforts to strip away rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights — from the First Amendment to the 10th. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.

So far, this isn’t much different than what a traditional libertarian believes. Here is where it begins to differ (and it shouldn’t).

A Libertarian Dem believes that true liberty requires freedom of movement — we need roads and public transportation to give people freedom to travel wherever they might want. A Libertarian Dem believes that we should have the freedom to enjoy the outdoor without getting poisoned; that corporate polluters infringe on our rights and should be checked. A Libertarian Dem believes that people should have the freedom to make a living without being unduly exploited by employers. A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives, so strong crime and poverty prevention programs can create a safe environment for the pursuit of happiness. A Libertarian Dem gets that no one is truly free if they fear for their health, so social net programs are important to allow individuals to continue to live happily into their old age. Same with health care. And so on.

The core Democratic values of fairness, opportunity, and investing in our nation and people very much speak to the concept of personal liberties — an open society where success is predicated on the merit of our ideas and efforts, unduly burdened by the government, corporate America, or other individuals. And rather than always get in the way, government can facilitate this.

Of course, this also means that government isn’t always the solution to the nation’s problems. There are times when business-government partnerships can be extremely effective (such as job retraining efforts for displaced workers). There are times when government really should butt out (like a great deal of small-business regulation). Our first proposed solution to a problem facing our nation shouldn’t be more regulation, more government programs, more bureaucracy.

The key here isn’t universal liberty from government intrusion, but policies that maximize individual freedom, and who can protect those individual freedoms best from those who would infringe.

I am very much a Libertarian Dem, and this is exactly what my next book will be about. It’s progressivism for a new century. And that’s what this new breed of Democrat is building in the Mountain West and Virginia and Ohio.

Now pardon my cynical nature, but after spending two weeks listening to foreign nations at the UN, I’ve learned the devil is always in the details.

Take Kos and his position on the 2nd amendment, for instance. It’s easy to say you’re pro-2nd amendment. John Kerry said he was for the 2nd amendment, even though he never voted for a pro-gun piece of legislation in the Senate. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojovich says he’s pro-gun… depending on where in Illinois he’s speaking.

I’ve talked to plenty of pro-gun Democrats (including some who ARE office holders), but I still believe that it’s going to be an uphill climb for a pro-gun, “libertarian” Democrat to run for office.

As for Kos, look at what he said about another “libertarian Democrat” back in 2002.

I actually genuinely like Zell, even if I don’t care much for his politics.

But, Miller then rants about those within the party that want to move leftward…

I’m not sure how moving the party to the left would “narrow” it. The opposite can also be said: that by moving the party rightward, you are making liberals feel almost unwelcome. So I think Zell is being silly.

The party attempted a move to the right, it failed, it’s time to try something new. That doesn’t mean the party changes affiliation to the Greens overnight, but it has to become a true opposition party, and moving rightward with Zell is clearly not the answer.

Hmmm….

Jim: Hooray! For a while I wondered if I was the last of the OnTapbloggers. Now all we need is to put out an APB for Marshall.

Cam nails something that had been nagging at me for a while. Kos uses the term “libertarian” as a modifier for a Democrat, without having much that even approaches the traditional libertarian view - i.e., “go away, government, leave me alone and stop taxing me.”

Kos’ definition of “libertarian” Dems means that the Democrat wants to shut down NSA monitoring of domestic calls, more spending on roads (which as we all know often translates into pork), that thinks corporate polluters should be punished (who doesn’t? How many libertarians want to abolish the EPA and repeal all dumping restrictions?) that supports “poverty prevention programs” (what are those? Redistribution of wealth?) government-run health care programs, and government-run job training programs.

In other words, it’s pretty much your standard-issue Democrat.

As for Kos’ earlier liking of Zell, I think it’s becoming increasingly clear that when you look hard at Kos, his writings, and the views of his most ardent followers… there’s not much of a ”there” there. What Kos wants more than policy victories is electoral victories. He and his crowd are defined by what they’re against. They hate Bush. They want Democrats to win races. That’s about it. If being as far out as a Green Party is what it takes to win, they like that. If being closer to the center like Mark Warner is what it takes to win, they like that. If they have to claim to be “libertarian Democrats”, they like that.

It’s easy, and tempting, to let yourself define political success as your party winning races. But that’s pretty thin gruel sometimes. It’s tougher, but more substantive and rewarding, to say, “I have policy priorities I want to achieve; I want to see like-minded lawmakers elected.”