Cobb

In my romantic world, the Democrats would control legislatures, the Greens/Reformer/Civil Libertarians would control courts, the Republicans/Authoritarian Libertarians would control the executive and foreign policy.

You're not a Republican. You're a Platonist.

Does that mean I have to rename myself and my blog into some greek historian whose name ends in 'us'?

Hey, what about us Left Libertarians who leave our anarchist, laisez faire, Ayn Randian sensibilities at the curb and recognize that a social safety net and limited government regulation are necesary for maintaining a healthy and viable commonwealth?

In my romantic world, the Democrats would control legislatures, the Greens/Reformer/Civil Libertarians would control courts, the Republicans/Authoritarian Libertarians would control the executive and foreign policy.

In many ways this statement fits nicely into an argumant in favor of proportional representation.

The question is what would left libertarians do about the multinational conglomerates? Some not like the fact of General Electric, Boeing and Citibank etc in the Fortune 100 as these massive global corporations. No extraordinary safety net is going to be forthcoming if they find it convenient to relocate to the Netherlands or Germany. That's not my great fear, actually. I'd be a great deal more interested to see how libertarians would deal with the insurance industry. Nobody seems to be able to. I suspect the answers are within those corporate offices - that is such companies know exactly what net costs of equivalent benefits are to their employees across continents. Since they have to pay them everywhere, why not change the American insurance schemes towards a global standard?

I think there is a certain amount of safety that we shouldn't expect, and a certain amount that we should in this safety net. For example, why should I be required to have $100,000 of property & casualty insurance on my automobile and pay $200 a month in my redlined neighborhood, when I'm more likely to shot by a gangbanger than wreck my car?

I know this sounds controversial but I think that class should be taken into consideration in the insurance business. That is to say that insurance coverage of all sorts should be means tested by income. People with the most to lose should have the most to pay, and people with low incomes should not be expected to get rich quick via fraud nor subsidize the safety of the wealthy through high premiums. That means Tiny Tim cannot get a new prosthetic leg nor a liver transplant, but it does mean Bob Cratchit doesn't have $700 COBRA payments.

As a globalist I think we should be prepared to support an internal third world. In a certain sense, it's already happening. The poor are getting poorer - they are starting to resemble those in the real second and third worlds. But I see some on the left as promising what cannot be delivered and destabilizing the lower middle classes. I see some on the right saying 'let them eat freedom' and that doesn't cut it either.

The American Dream is going to have to be loosened up. We cannot continue to pull economies out of our hats. That means more Americans are going to have to live by the economic rules of the cold cruel world or else we will be forced, ultimately, to use our military in an exploitive fashion. If our politics raise expectations to the point that janitors will riot if they don't get $40,000 jobs with full benefits, then we have lost it.

So I'm all for a safety net, but I think it is inevitable that we will need to accomodate ourselves to living with a pacified underclass.

Ok, I understand you don't like the label, but you do say you're a Republican and you also say that you don't like many of things the Republican party does and you don't like the involvement of the Christian Right with the party. That's ruling out a lot of Republicanism to be a Republican. I guess the question now is, what is this Republicanism to which you subscribe?

Does that mean I have to rename myself and my blog into some greek historian whose name ends in 'us'?

It would help. Naming yourself for a Chaos deity would be better, but neither is absolutely necessary. :-)

I need to email you, man. See, I think you see the Republican Party as a vehicle rather than something you're a member of. I remember you said I'd be welcome to post serious topics there and you have NO IDEA how moch consideration I've given that though.

I read the comment thread about Project 21 on Vision Circle and though we see eye to eye on so much, well, I feel the need to understand why you think you can accomplish what you want to as a Republican Black man.

Because I don't see that party welcoming, or even accepting the expression of, any non-neocon concepts. In fact, I see the party and its leaders and its true-believers as active enemies.

The first time you posted to P6 you said rather than saving suicide liberals it would be better to move the right closer to the center. I said you can't change people's minds when they think they're winning as they are.

i reject the idea that honor is confered upon blackfolks by membership in a conservative cabal of any sort. rather the reverse is the case in a truly representative democracy.

And I choose not to confer honor on them until they become honorable in my eyes.

I've been talking to myself in my car in answer to these questions. The most concise thing I could come up with is this: there is bipartisan legislation that benefits blacks, so there is a great deal the republicans actually do in congress that contributes to african american success. in the end it's that you can read a cereal box and tell how much niacin you are getting, not whether or not 12 republicans voted for the program or 50.

secondly, according to the christian science monitor's poll, i am geopolitically neocon, and those are pretty damned good questions for an automatic poll. i suppose i could consider myself a 'riordan republican' if that help illuminate things. he's a moderate. i've always liked teddy roosevelt.

it's not that i don't like the label just all the simple-minded implications. one of the reasons i put together my list of litmus questions is because i think that's the appropriate way to deal with issues.

i'm perfectly comfortable being a republican as a provocative thing. but i'm not invested in that so much.

i do see the republican party as a vehicle. it is a functional vehicle and the democratic party is not.

there are a couple of other arguments i would lightly raise.

a. the presumptions against being a black republican force me to think harder about my choices. that's a good thing.

b. the old school / talented tenth objective of race raising is class oriented. the republican party is better suited to the class interests of middle, upper middle class and upper class blacks. class interests should predominate over race interests.

c. a segregated republican party harbors racists. only powerful blacks can and will expunge them properly.

Hmmm...according to that CSMonitor test, I'm a liberal and the way they present, I don't feel bad about it.

Liberals…

Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
Oppose American imperialism
Support international law, alliances, and agreements
Encourage US participation in the UN
Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor