Curing libertarian political impotence – a prescription for Electile Dysfunction
By mw | Related entries in 2008 Election, Elections, Ideas
Brink Lindsey (not pictured above) of the Cato Institute kicked off the July Cato Unbound series with an essay seeking to locate and describe The Libertarian Center in the American political landscape. He weaves two themes into the essay, the first positing the existence of this libertarian political center, while making the case that it is growing as a natural outcome of American economic abundance:
“American society has become more libertarian because, more than any other country on the planet, it has successfully adapted to the novel conditions of economic abundance. And because of the way this adaptation took place, a broadly defined libertarianism now occupies the center of the American political spectrum.”
This theme is explored more broadly in Lindsey’s recent book The Age of Abundance 
While making the case for the libertarian center, Lindsey does a credible contortionist impression, bending over backwards to make absolutely certain no one would mistake his thesis for the belief that libertarians have or are about to exercise any meaningful political power. It starts with his very first paragraph…
“There is no organized libertarian movement of any significance in American politics. To be sure, libertarian academics and intellectuals occupy some prominent positions and exert real influence on the public debate. But they do not speak on behalf of any politically mobilized mass constituency. Only about 2 percent of Americans describe themselves as libertarian, according to a 2000 Rasmussen poll. And the Libertarian Party is a fringe operation that, at best, occasionally plays the spoiler….”
…continues in the middle, with a twisting, gravity defying move where he pulls his own legs out from under his own argument…
“There are some obvious objections to the idea of a libertarian center. First, as I stated at the outset, there is no libertarian political movement to speak of. Accordingly, there is no organized libertarian-leaning constituency that could ally with either conservatives or liberals to alter the balance of power. Rather, at best libertarianism exists as a diffuse, inchoate set of impulses that operate, not as an independent force, but as tendencies within the left and right and a check on how far each can stray in illiberal directions.”
… and finishes with this definitive rubber-spine capitulation:
“I hope that nothing in this essay has conveyed even a hint of libertarian triumphalism. That would be just plain silly, as even the rosiest of tinted glasses cannot hide Leviathan’s many and egregious blunders and injustices. And in all too many cases, the foreseeable prospects for remedying those blunders and injustices are dim to nonexistent.”
I’ll return to what libertarians can do to begin cutting “Leviathan” down to size, but first I have a quibble about his notion of a Libertarian center…
continued at Divided We Stand United We Fall.
This entry was posted on Monday, July 16th, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election, Elections, Ideas. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
There cannot be a real place in the political center for a radical movement that’s completely out of touch with modern reality. Libertarianism is just communism in the mirror.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
“Libertarianism is just communism in the mirror.” I agree and so did Russell Kirk. He considered Ayn Rand an “inverted marxist.” My father was involved heavily in the conservative movement in the 1950′s-60′s in academia.
Brian Doherty gives a fascinating and impassioned talk about the libertarianism/conservative divergence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiFDYqFzGVA
“We will never end wars until we understand why the garage service should be removed from the police force. That is government.” Words of infinite wisdom.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
“Libertarianism is just communism in the mirror.�
I guess I have to agree . This is absolutely true, in the same sense that:
“Left is just Right in the mirror”
“Freedom is just Slavery in the mirror”
“War is just Peace in the mirror”
“Ignorance is just Strength in the mirror”
The Ministry of Truth has a job for you guys.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:50 am
mw – it is my job and my job alone to reference Orwell around here. My quote was that Ayn Rand was a “inverted marxists” which is to say that pure Objectivism (the philosophical creature of Rand. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)) is inverted marxism – to the extent that it rejects any external source of morality or transcendence or God and relies entirely on a schema of self-interested rationalism. Marxism, of course, does the same, but instead of relying on self-interested rationalism, goes after modes of production and class. So it is not a perfect argument, but it is there.
July 20th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
TwoPears ( or is it tTwoButs?),
Sorry to step on your area of responsibility. I’ll limit my Orwell references in the future. I am still not understanding your perspective here. You agreed with Jim S statement, but seem to be saying libertarianism and communism are polar opposites, which is of course true.
I guess the confusion is in this use of a “mirror” as a metaphor. Is the reflection the same or the opposite? Jim S is clearly dismissing libertarians by saying the are the same as communists, which is nonsense. You are saying they are the opposite (inverted), yet “you agree’… perhaps we should also agree to no more mirror metaphors.
FWIW, I am neither a Libertarian nor an Objectivist. My political views are “libertarian leaning”, which means I have to do some party hopping on an issue by issue basis to get any electoral satisfaction.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
mw – I’ll give you Huxley and, with prior written consent, James Ballard and Malcom Muggeridge on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
I too am libertarian leaning, particular on economic matters, in which I credit libertarianism with general adherence to the Austrian school and a general repulsion with Keynes. On social issues, I am pretty much of a traditionalist and a federalist. This is were I run into some disagreement with libertarianism.
“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” – Ronald Reagan — we can share the Gipper.