Finally, I confess to a certain affection for libertarians (little 'L' libertarian, distinct from the Libertarian Party) that would make most liberal Seattleites write me off. During my college senior inquiry in American Studies, I came under the sway of arguments favoring a strain of anarchy that was not to be equated with violence but rather with the peaceful abolition of (or practically speaking, reduction of) government.
The problem with a large, powerful government is that the hand that gives can also take away, and government monopoly often means none of the competition that promotes excellence and innovation. An example from my childhood: My parents opted to buy their own health insurance — through what turned out to be a mismanaged HMO — rather than continue to use the free but in their estimation shoddy services provided by military medicine, even though they could barely afford the expense.
The impracticality of the libertarian position gets to me, however. Where government has always played a strong role (education, welfare, scientific research, cultural heritage and history, the arts, etc.), voluntarism would have to step in to fill the void. And that would take nothing short of a full-scale societal revolution (again, of the non-violent sort). When it comes down to it, I'm not convinced people will take care of each other (through social services) and address the things that matter (such as global warming) on a voluntary basis. So I vote with the Democrats.
My libertarian sympathies probably explain the interest in Marcia McCraw. Gone are the days of politicians who profess to being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, as she does. I'd like to think it could work, however, and that we'll see more of it. Yes, even here in the liberal cocoon.
Article comments
1 - Glenn Contrarian
Lisa -
Greetings from Kitsap County across the water!
You're not the only Dem who voted for Marcia McCraw. I did too (and convinced my wife and mother-in-law to do so)...and I was an alternate state delegate for Hillary (to show my liberal street cred, as it were).
In my experience, a liberal is substantially more likely to vote for a Republican than conservatives are to vote for Democrats - and this is evinced by the tendency of Republican administrations to be more dogmatic in their nominations than Democrats. That, and I'm sure you're well aware of the conservative tendency to see things as us-vs-them, and how well the cons tend to stick together even when all the evidence and provable facts are against them.
Whereas we liberals, as you well know by our shared voting choice, are much more likely to try to 'get along' with each other, to work with others, to reach a consensus agreeable to all. Don't you think?
2 - Glenn Contrarian
Oh yeah -
IMO to call The Stranger a "dependably lefty weekly"...is sorta like calling Ichiro a 'pretty good baseball player'.... The Stranger is so far left that to them, Ellen DeGeneres is a political twin to Charlton Heston...
...yeah, I like the magazine, too....
3 - Baronius
Such a great city.
You're right about its preening liberalism. There are more leftward places, but I don't think I've ever been anywhere that was so vocal about it. Of course, if Seattle thought that monarchy was hip, they'd build a throne.
4 - Lisa Albers
Glenn Contrarian:
Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you, at least anecdotally, though I have no hard data to suggest that Republicans aren't as likely to switch teams, as it were, as Democrats are. Funny comment about the Stranger. I find them somewhat libertarian-minded on some subjects, such as the porn industry, so I'm not sure that fits the far-left Seattle nanny state mold.