Re: Liberaltarianism, Again
Mark: I understand where you’re coming from here, but I’m not entirely convinced. Libertarians are already largely on the same page as liberals on social and foreign policy issues – sometimes they’re even a page ahead, but still in the same book. When it comes to issues like gay rights, abortion, or nation-building, a fairly significant portion of the libertarian intellectual diaspora is quite at home with contemporary liberalism. This is also why libertarians, despite their ongoing and still-tenuous relationship with the right, tend to focus on economics.
I suspect that libertarians would love the right to come around on matters of militarism and the national security state. But liberals really aren’t guiltless in this arena either. Indeed, the last two liberal administrations – Bill Clinton and the current Obama government – have been fairly militaristic themselves. The neoliberal Clinton days were hardly libertarian ones on matters of civil liberties or foreign policy, and the Obama administration has hardly lifted a finger to change the course of the national security state set by its predecessor.
All that aside, if libertarians hope to forge an alliance with the left, they are nonetheless facing a much steeper climb on matters of economics and the basic premise of governance than they are on social and foreign policy issues. On these issues – despite what a number of their elected officials end up doing once in office – a pretty significant portion of Democratic voters are already on board – largely anti-war, pro-choice, pro gay rights, and so forth. Where the significant divide occurs is on questions of economics, central planning, organized labor (especially in the public sector – which reminds me I have another Mark Thompson post to respond to) and so on and so forth.
Libertarians may have bones to pick aplenty with the right, but they are as often as not the same bones to be picked with elected Democrats (as opposed to theoretical Democrats, or Democrats on the campaign trail…). Libertarian economics and the basic assumption of what government is around to do in the first place will continue to be much larger hurdles separating liberals and libertarians in the foreseeable future.
Also, it strikes me that the national security state and government intrusion into the economy are actually two sides of the same coin. Libertarians have cause for concern on both fronts, but I remain unconvinced that the former outweighs the latter in practical terms.
*sorry about that typo – I blame lack of sleep…
“Libertarians are already largely on the same page as liberals on economic…issues.”
“…if libertarians hope to forge an alliance with the left, they are nonetheless facing a much steeper climb on matters of economics….”
Your two statements seem contradictory. I suspect your second statement more accurately reflects the differences between Libertarians and liberals/left.Report
@Bob, Fixed.Report
A very interesting discussion at Reason. I like the Brink Lindsey essay, a lot, but I don’t see it as in anyway foreshadowing a political realignment.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/12/where-do-libertarians-belong/Report
In particular, at that link Jonah Goldberg states something I’ve been trying to get at:
“And yet, as a matter of practical politics, Lindsey would have libertarian spokesmen and advocates alienate conservatives in the hope that this would earn credibility with liberals. It seems far more likely that liberals would pocket libertarian attacks on the right—of the sort found in Lindsey’s essay—while continuing to ignore libertarian arguments on economics and other key areas of public policy. Left-wing environmentalists will not suddenly embrace property rights because libertarians vilify the Christian Right. But the Christian Right may well stop listening to libertarians if they all started talking the way Lindsey does here.”Report
For me, much of the problem has very much to do with the Republican response to the Bush years.
Note: This isn’t exactly blaming Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and the like. This is explicitly blaming their most ardent supporters… so none of that “he didn’t run as a Fiscal Conservative” crap.
When Bush signed the Farm Bill and supported the Steel Tariffs, I did a great deal of complaining about it… and every single defense took the form of “oh, well, you must be complaining about this from the left!” and went from there. After a few moments hammering out “no, I care about these things because I support such things as Fiscal Responsibility and Free Trade”, the responses got all confused. The most conservative guy won, after all… the alternatives would be worse… why would you complain about that?
Politics is the art of the possible, after all.
Then 9/11 happened and everybody went apeshit. You couldn’t complain about Fiscal Conservative issues when people were trying to kill our spouses, our The Children. Why, even *QUESTIONING* Bush is giving AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY. We need to present a united front. For The Children.
After the 2004 elections, the phrase “PERMANENT REPUBLICAN MAJORITY!” got bandied about and, at least at Redstate, fiscal conservatives were treated as extraneous. Great to have you in the tent and all but, really, the Hawks care about our spouses and our The Children that our enemies are trying to kill RIGHT NOW AS WE TYPE and the Social Conservatives care about Deeply Moral Issues and you fiscal conservatives only seem to care about filthy lucre and the cares of this world so… thanks for being in the tent but be quiet because Real Conservatives are talking. (Full disclosure: I have been banned from Redstate.)
Where the L/libertarians overlap most with C/conservatives is with the Fiscal Conservatives.
The Republican Party and their mouthpieces (and their grass roots) may, in theory, provide a decent home for libertarians.
2002-2006 provides an “in practice” reason for why “liberaltarianism” is a pleasant enough mirage to chase for a few election cycles.
Libertarians have no reason to believe that “the right” has found Jesus (or whatever the equivalent might be called for that godless group of cosmotarians).
At this point, it seems to me that there are only two reasons that a libertarian might have to vote Republican rather than third party:
1) Throwing a bum out
2) Hoping for gridlock
Ideological compatibility has been pretty much demonstrated to not exist. In practice, anyway.Report
“When Bush signed the Farm Bill and supported the Steel Tariffs,…..”
I don’t know anybody on the Right unaffiliated with the Bush Administration who supported those things.Report
@Koz, so I guess the Republican-majority Congress that passed both was actually full of secret closet Democrats?Report
Or farm-state or steel producing state pols of both parties.Report
@Koz, right, so you admit that plenty of people on the right unaffiliated with the Bush II Administration supported those things.Report
Yeah, I guess I do. What I really meant was people on the mainstream Right unaffiliated with the GWB Administration or the Congressional GOP Establishment.Report