« Success in Falluja | Main | Jews and Obama » Our Nonlibertarian Future25 Mar 2008 01:13 pm John Sides takes a look at the evidence that libertarianism is the future of American politics and finds it wanting. The evidence, as I see it, just points to the public shifting somewhat to the left -- demanding somewhat more public spending, plus growing more friendly to both libertarian and non-libertarian aspects of things like the gay rights movement's demand for equality irrespective of sexual orientation. Comments (25)
The better version of this argument is that the future conservative party in the United States may lean a lot more libertarian than the recent Bush-led GOP, particularly if it is in the opposition for an extended period. 
I think it might be fair to say that the political spectrum is shifting back to the left, and properly so. In 2000, I considered myself to be moderately liberal, though more of a centrist. In the subsequent years, I have found that my political beliefs have changed little, but how they are classified by others has changed much. Today, I am a left-leaning liberal with no sense of moderation whatsoever. Why? Because I oppose the senseless and needless war in Iraq (add to that being an Army officer, and it makes me real popular), I support scaling back corporate welfare, I support responsible social programs and balanced budgets. I think the free market works to an extent, but only with reasonable regulations to ensure that government isn't needed to bail out individual investors and financial institutions. Call it bleeding-heart liberalism, if you will, but I'd be happy to see us moving in that direction.
tenkss
In the rest of the world libertarianism is not associated with the right but with the left. In the US the concept got tied to the idea that the free market's invisible hand voodoo would answer all questions. Of course, all questions do get answered, its just that the answers don't always solve the problems.
Utterly, fallacious to use REPUBLICAN Ron Paul as the libertarian standard-bearer. Well, absent Paul the movement looks really sad. Perhaps next time they could use some proper ferret-loving anti-social from California? It's so goddamned easy to say "both sides screw up", too (See Nader). About as easy as advocating limited government when you're a healthy, employed young white man (so yes, I am tempted). I do like Reason, though (and Welch). Now that CATO has sold their soul it's nice to have them around.
Well, Obama is a little more libertarian than most Democrats, but he's essentially a regular, bleeding heart liberal. And maybe the Republicans will sound more libertarian as an opposition party - but I guess that just depends on which Republicans survive the November elections. But they will have no power, so it doesn't really matter who they pander to or don't pander to. So it will just be a liberal leftward movement in the near future. How long that will last depends on Obama's administration. If he is perceived as a great success, America will continue moving left. Of course, America has to move very far left just to reach the global civilized center. But if Obama isn't perceived as a great success, American voters will go right back to electing macho idiot football coaches to run the country into the ground.
non-libertarian aspects of things like the gay rights movement's demand for equality irrespective of sexual orientation. You must not read Andrew Sullivan. Gay rights are entirely consistent with libertarian preference for maximized personal freedom.
You must not read Andrew Sullivan. You must not read Matthew Yglesias: more friendly to both libertarian and non-libertarian aspects of things like the gay rights movement's demand for equality irrespective of sexual orientation. But yes, it's nice to know that right-libertarianism is there for gay rights, until the political party that runs on relentlessly bashing the filthy homos offers more tax cuts.
"Utterly, fallacious to use REPUBLICAN Ron Paul as the libertarian standard-bearer." The terminal weakness of a political party that has never exercised power is the impossible purity test. No human is ever as pure as the ideology... unless they win. Ron Paul is a libertarian who recognized that he needed major party affiliation to get his foot in the door. He is as good a standard bearer as anyone living, and even a demigod like Lysander Spooner would have recognized him as a fellow traveler. What Ron Paul has shown is that there's a limited market for the (L)ibertarian message, about 5% of participating voters.
One issue here is that the Randians and minarchists behind the US Libertarian party have twisted libertarianism into something that doesn't have a lot in common with its European origins. Having gone from Proudhon to Paul, there's not much left of the pro-labor mutualism that's typical of the Europe's libertarian socialists. There's likely a much larger market for left libertarian ideas in the US. It's somewhat telling that left libs have to call themselves anarchists because the right has made libertarian such a dirty word. The fact that the green party is philosophically geolibertarian in the tradition of Bookchin is often overlooked. I've long held that in the US the Greens are more in line with what libertarianism is supposed to be than the Libertarians are.
the future conservative party in the United States may lean a lot more libertarian than the recent Bush-led GOP, particularly if it is in the opposition for an extended period. We're kidding ourselves if we think there is no 'market' for some aspects of libertarianism ('some aspects' being the key phrase). There is and always will be (well, for a long time at least) a very rich vein of those aspects in the very American bedrock. Democrats - if they're smart - ought to realize this, and I get the feeling that both Obama and Edwards do kind of grok it, within their situational constraints (I hope it goes without saying that what I mean is not about specific precepts of Rothbard-Corpro-Libertarianism).
"In 2000, I considered myself to be moderately liberal, though more of a centrist. In the subsequent years, I have found that my political beliefs have changed little, but how they are classified by others has changed much. Today, I am a left-leaning liberal with no sense of moderation whatsoever." Preach it, brother! I voted to reelect Ronald Reagan in the first presidential election in which I was old enough to vote. Looking at at that time, I am more aware of his failings than I was, but I would probably vote the same way. I considered myself a somewhat right-of-center moderate. My positions haven't substantially changed, but nowadays I am considered a way radical lefty. I find this hysterical, since back in the day my lefty friends thought I was borderline reactionary. I refuse to change my self-identification. I still regard myself as a somewhat right-of-center moderate. The difference is that nowadays people like myself are called "Democrats".
There is one common belief that both many libertarians - especially of the Reason variety - and the Democratic Party share. I discuss that part of the article here.
As a libertarian, I'll say that the main problem with the libertarian movement is that many self proclaimed libertarians don't really care about the philosophy, they just have a habit or lifestyle that falls outside mainstream social norms. Druggies, prostitution enthusiasts, and white supremacists gravitate towards libertarianism because it is the only political philosophy that tolerates them. This creates the mistaken impression that libertarianism is centered around drug-fueled hedonism rather than individual rights and economic freedom.
This entire concept of left vs right is just false. Left vs Right provides a dualistic nature to something which has more directions. The political chart moves also up and down. In fact, it moves up and down more than it moves left or right. People talk about how they fall into certain areas 1 year, then another the next, it's not left or right movement, it's up and down movement. Up of course is libertarian, down is authoritarian. Each and every issue is made up of not just 1 question, but 2 by default. The first question is the question which is ignored and supressed by the media(the bias). It's not a left or right bias that the media has, it's a bias towards down. So, the first question of every issue is and always shall be - "Is this a proper role for government". If the answer is yes, then by default you move down, not left or right. If you answer no, you move up, not left or right. If the 1st answer is yes, this is a proper role of government, then the 2nd answer becomes - what does government do. And that is when you get into the left vs right area. And if the 1st answer is no, then it becomes a state, local or personal choice and is on a lower level. What is happening today is that we are steadily moving down. Both sides of the mainstream/establishment parties agree on 1 thing, they should be in control over the issue, not you. They all agree that the answer to the 1st question is yes. And of course, to answer the first question, you must look at the constitution. Because that is what answers the first question. So you can talk about the differences like 1 guy wants to give $1000 to this guy, and the other guys plan is to give $500 to this guy, and $500 to this other guy, or whatever. But to do so is to ignore that both sides really only asked that you give them control, and they thank you very much for it. If you can't understand the above principles, then you are simply playing politics, and trying to grab power. Which is what the majority of politicians these days do, and why they have such a low approval rating.
I see 3 major trends: First is against are interventionism, which benefits both the left and libertarians and cuts against interventionist strains of liberal internationalism that are common among more centerist liberals and the neoconservative line that's dominant in conservative circles these days. Second is increased social liberalism, which obviously benefits both libertarians and liberals. On economics, I don't see a strong trend either way. Government funded healthcare is about as close now as it was in 1992 and the left isn't going to refight welfare reform any time soon, and while taxes may rebound, they probably won't get up to their peak Clinton administration levels. The big losers are the neocons and other breeds of big government conservative, who have ran the GOP into the ground pretty effectively over the last 5 years or so. Anybody who was effective in constrasting themselves with the current dominant aspects of the GOP is benefiting now. The one trend that does appear to be cutting against both the left and libertarians is that while interventionism has taken it's knocks, the security state is still going strong and support for it has increased substantially in both parties. It's not as bad as immediately after 9-11, but still much worse in both parties than it was in the '90s.
This entire concept of left vs right is just false. Even as the PoliticalCompass says I'm in the same quadrant as Gandhi, those here think of me as the anti-Christ (when I'm lucky). Not only that, but one of the more detailed surveys floating around had those with a more rightward perspective scoring up to 100. It gave me a 22 score. Our host got a 20. Yet, I'm his mortal enemy.
I get so angry at anyone who doesn't support Ron Paul.
Re: while taxes may rebound, they probably won't get up to their peak Clinton administration levels. The payroll tax probably will go up (for people who make more than the salary cap), since that's about the only way (in combination with some other measures) to adequetely fund Social Security. Re: the security state is still going strong and support for it has increased substantially in both parties. I doubt we'll see outright repeal of the Patriot Act, or RealID or any other major post 9-11 measures (most likely change: the new about-to-be-implemented passports for Canada rule-- I'm betting it proves impossible to do because of the sheer volume of border traffic and the delays will piss off too many people, including people and corporations with a lot of money.) However, many of the new rules will end up being watered down and greatly relaxed, provided no other terror attacks take place in this country.
European libertarians tend to be leftists, American libertarians tend to be rightists. This goes back to the early 1800's. There is also a distinction between "small-l libertarians" and "big-L" Libertarians like Ron Paul. There is also a distinction between "minarchists" (limited-state types) and anarchists. There's also a distinction between "Extropians", "Transhumanists", and "radical Transhumanists". I represent the latter - and since I'm the only one I'm aware of, "represent" is being disingenuous. Matt doesn't know any one of these from any other and never has, despite having been told of this constantly here. But he never reads the comments, so he stays ignorant. There has never been a chance that "libertarianism" of any variety was ever going to be followed by more than five or ten percent of the population, tops - and more likely one to three percent. Transhumanism will never be supported by more than one hundredth of one percent of the population, if that. So why Matt feels the need to drag up libertarianism for a post now and again is beyond me. Just to demonstrate his ignorance again, I guess.
The libertarian (with a little 'l') position seems to be becoming more and more common as an ideological framing. To use less loaded words, libertarianism provides a common 'default position' and/or value-base as a starting point policy debates. This is my personal view point, though it also seems good in a larger context for progressives, non-insane conservatives. Designing and justifying policy positions from a libertarian starting point is broadly persuasive, especially to 'western independent' types. For example, you think non-bank banks (or anything else) needs to be regulated, provide a convincing argument why. Note that big 'L' Libertarians would not even consider such an argument, but there are plenty of libertarian leaning (I call little 'l') folks who are not so ideologically blinded. However, they aren't likely to be swayed by arguments coming from leftist direction (not that anyone these days actually makes such arguments).
Today I saw a bumper sticker that said "Don't Blame Dammit, I Voted For Ron Paul!". So true, so true. I wonder where I can get one?
Today I saw a bumper sticker that said "Don't Blame Me Dammit, I Voted For Ron Paul!". So true, so true. I wonder where I can get one?
The Smallest Political Quiz is a fine starting point. I find that many folks have more little "l" libertarian leanings than they believed. The other day I had my step-son take the quiz, as he is soon to vote for the first time and was considering himself a liberal. It turned out that he was up high in the centrist region and only slightly to the left -- one notch from being in the libertarian box. This discovery was eye-opening to him, and he's now open to listening to Ron Paul's views, since he too can almost wear a tin-foil hat. When I was 18-years-old my father gave me Atlas Shrugged and said I needed to read it.... :-)
Comments closed April 08, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Utterly, fallacious to use REPUBLICAN Ron Paul as the libertarian standard-bearer. The left's message has been the equivalent of offering more bread and circuses to the masses. The right's message just offers more circuses.
Posted by mike c | March 24, 2008 2:54 PM