Blah, blah, blah

I heard this on CNN last night, but someone convinced me that the anchor must have just misspoken. Alas, though, it is true. Mike Gravel, presidential candidate from Alaska, has jumped the Democrat ship and landed in the Libertarian sinkhole.

“I’m joining the Libertarian Party because it is a party that combines a commitment to freedom and peace that can’t be found in the two major parties that control the government and politics of America. My libertarian views, as well as my strong stance against war, the military industrial complex and American imperialism, seem not to be tolerated by Democratic Party elites who are out of touch with the average American; elites that reject the empowerment of American citizens I offered to the Democratic Party at the beginning of this presidential campaign with the National Initiative for Democracy.”

Does Gravel not know that the libertarian party of the United States is the capitalist party? It wants to end all taxes, extend neoliberal trade and stop social programs (refer to Ron Paul). The party doesn’t support the war because it doesn’t support any government spending.

Gravel, on the other hand, wants a national universal single-payer nonprofit health care system.

And he opposes neoliberal free trade: “Any discussion of immigration must include NAFTA and the concept of ‘free trade.’ The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been a disaster for the working class of both the U.S. and Mexico and a boon to the international corporate interests.”

Outside the United States, libertarianism includes radical left anarchism. So Gravel could mean libertarian in the anarchist sense — for democracy and against capitalism.

His National Initiative would give citizens the right to pass legislation through “national initiatives.” That’s the most democratic proposal I’ve seen from any of the major party presidential candidates.

Perhaps, his only libertarian — in the U.S. sense — position is the “Fair Tax” program that would eliminate the IRS and replace income tax with a national sales tax on new products and services. Sales taxes are regressive because they place the greatest burden on low income families. Corporations and the affluent would only benefit from this tax system. Not the working class and the middle class.

Gravel is inconsistent.

Update: I should clarify. As two people have pointed out in the comments section, libertarians do oppose NAFTA, but unlike Gravel, they oppose it because it has too many environmental and labor regulations:

The problem with Nafta is not that it will allow U.S. businesses to move to “low-wage” Mexico (they can do that now!). The problem is not that Mexico might be able to escape U.S. union, wage, and environmental regulations. The problem is that the United States is going to suffer even more of these regulations as imposed by the supra-sovereign North American Commissions. –Murray N. Rothbard at LewRockwell.com

Unlike libertarians, Gravel says he opposes NAFTA AND free trade because of their effects on the working class (not big businesses). He calls for “fair trade” — not free trade.

Moreover, he left the democratic party because it is “no longer the party of FDR.” Any U.S. libertarian lovers of FDR? Doubtful. The New Deal measures of FDR were government-funded social programs that yielded many societal benefits, but U.S. libertarians would undoubtedly oppose such government spending, welfare measures and protection of labor unions.

I liked Gravel enough, so it is sad to see him off his rocker [rocking chair].