Our local paper, the Greenfield Recorder, had recently published an op-ed piece advocating a libertarian approach to the pandemic. This was my op-ed published a short while after.
It was refreshing to read John Blasiak’s My Turn a while back, and to see all the dialog he stirred up. It advocated, as many probably know, a pure Libertarian approach to the problem. The Libertarians stress individual responsibility and rights with minimal government intervention. (Like they don’t want the government telling them whether or not they can use marijuana, have an abortion, or own a gun.) They harken back to thoughts such as those expressed in our own Emerson’s essay on Self Reliance.
Here’s what I really like about Libertarians — they are genuinely interested in what they believe is best for the people of this country. You might argue with their vision, but their concern is the best life for the individuals in our country.
The Recorder has a lot of My Turn essays supporting a Progressive agenda. Universal health care, college education for all, things like that.
Here’s what I really like about Progressives — they are genuinely interested in what they believe is best for the people of this country. You might argue with their vision, but their concern is the best life for the individuals in our country.
Both groups want a government by the people, for the people. Not one bought and sold by the interests of the super rich.
You know what I don’t like about the Republicans and the Democrats? Ideally they might echo Libertarian or Progressives views, but they don’t. Both parties are dependent on the wealthy donors who support their elections. We are where we are today through a sequence of alternating Democrat and Republican administrations that serve those donors.
Consider health care. Millions are winding up uninsured as they lose their jobs during this pandemic. Why? Even though we elected a president, Obama, in large part because he promised to fix health care, and even though the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, we’re still stuck with the big business of group insurance and the world’s most lucrative, for the health providers, medical system in the world.
Obama recognized the value in either a Libertarian or Progressive approach. He didn’t care if we went to individual free market insurance (Libertarian where everyone buys their own in a free market, like we do with say car insurance) or nationalized health (Progressive like maybe Medicare for all). Either would be better. But of course, Congress didn’t do either and instead got the health insurance lobbyists to write up legislation that sort of promised the insurance companies wouldn’t be as cruel as they used to be, but they’d still be in charge, and still make plenty of money with which to fund elections.
Note that a laid off individual today would still have their insurance if they had bought their own individual insurance (Libertarian) or were covered by government insurance (Progressive).
I would love to see a Congress filled with Libertarians and Progressives, debating the best way to run our government, reaching compromises based on competing views of what is best for the people. Without their main priority being who will fund their next election.
Ranked choice voting can take us there. Make it OK to have Libertarian and Progressive candidates. To hear their voices in the debates (neither Gary Johnson, Libertarian, or Bernie Sanders, Progressive, were heard in the last presidential debates). To be able to freely vote for either without feeling as if the vote was “wasted.”
Represent Us is one organization fighting for ranked choice voting.
