Mike Gravel, FDR, and the Libertarian Party

Mike Gravel has recently announced that he is no longer seeking the Democratic Nomination for the Presidency. He is now seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination for the Presidency.

In an email announcing his new presidential bid, he explained his rationale: "The fact is, the Democratic Party is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism -- all of which I find anathema to my views."

Where to begin? First off, the Libertarian Party was founded to oppose FDR'ism and all its evils. FDR's New Deal was the start of big government that the LP was founded to oppose. If it were not for the introduction of so many government-sponsored redistribution and economic intervention programs that came about from there, the LP may have never come about to challenge them. Beginning his candidacy for the LP nomination by invoking FDR is perhaps the best way to summarize the futility of this campaign.

Let me list just a few of Gravel’s positions that are inconsistent with the LP platform:

• Universal health care
• Government sponsored "[p]arent education" (I'm unsure what this entails, but I'm scared by it)
• Universal pre-kindergarten
• Maintaining social security
• "[M]onitoring the flow of immigrants into our country"
• "Parity in health insurance and access to specialized family health care services" (which I can only assume is government sponsored)
  

Second, I would say that the Democratic Party is more the party of FDR today than it was a decade ago. Many references are made to the expansion of government power intervening in peoples' lives. Hillary Clinton has even tried to contrast this election as Hoover v. Roosevelt Round 2. FDR was popular for his support of big government both domestically and abroad. The Democratic Party is doing the same thing today. Ultimately, this should indicate that Gravel is doubtfully seeking the nomination out of a principled belief in any philosophy or need for change, but rather is doing so for the sake of power and fame like most politicians.

But is there any silver lining to this dark cloud? Gravel has in the past spoke out in favor of Reason Magazine (which is very libertarian) and called himself libertarian (even though I disagree with this). He is a very strong social libertarian and he does support the Fair Tax. What's more, his decision to switch to the LP is an indication that the Party Party is growing significantly.

In the end, as a registered member of the Libertarian Party who cast his first vote for Michael Badnarik in 2004, my gut reaction is to feel insulted by Mr. Gravel’s actions. I am glad that politicians like Gravel take the LP seriously enough to seek its support. However, I would rather such support come from someone who has more in line with the LP’s platform than merely an opposition to Bush and Iraq. The onus is on Gravel to convince big "L" Libertarians like myself that we should take him seriously.

The Penn Dems are actually sponsoring a talk by Mike Gravel at Penn on April 9th . I for one plan to attend and ask this question: As a registered member of the Libertarian Party who plans to volunteer at the National LP Convention in Denver, I have to ask, why should I not consider your run for my Party to be a waste of my time?