The Rise Of The New Libertarianism
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, LibertarianWashington Times has an article about the growing number of “Celebertarians” and how they’re just one indication of a growing third way movement in this country.
Comedian Drew Carey can be seen on a series of funny-but-not-kidding Internet-TV episodes sponsored by the Reason Foundation, a Los Angeles-based think tank. So far, Mr. Carey has recommended the privatization of highways as a solution for metropolitan traffic congestion and criticized the federal crackdown on medical marijuana.Mr. Carey joins the libertarian fold along with the illusionist-comedians Penn & Teller and HBO talk-show host Bill Maher, who has called himself a libertarian for several years.
It’s not at all clear, to be sure, that the latter understands what the term means.
The acclaimed playwright-intellectual Tom Stoppard most certainly does: Describing himself as a “timid libertarian” in a recent interview with Time magazine, he complained bitterly of the nanny-state intrusiveness of the British government.
Ouch. What’s with the jab at Maher? Kind of unnecessary, but this is the Washington Times after all.
So why is this happening? Well, as I’ve pointed out in the past, we’re seeing a third way emerge that’s focused on being socially liberal but fiscally conservative. And yes, that’s essentially what people are deeming libertarianism these days. That’s not exactly correct, but it’s close enough.
Those two ideas make a lot of sense to people, including rich Hollywood types who want to be left alone and keep more of the money they make. It also makes sense to the growing number of technologically savvy folks who can fact check Dems and Repubs’ statements, call BS on them within minutes and post it on Digg for hundreds of thousands to see.
However, articles like this speculate that we’re not going to see a viable third way any time soon, and I tend to agree. Not when politicians like Ron Paul are running as elephants and dashing any hopes of a credible third party run.
And to that point, Politico reports that Dems and Repubs are still looking to capture the 19% who voted for Perot in ‘92, but they’re not having much luck:
Though Perot has been off the stage for a decade, strategists in both parties recognize that his supporters remain a key bloc and that voters’ dissatisfaction at the end of the administration of the second President Bush has echoes of the mood when his father was booted from office.What’s more, neither party has geared up to focus on pet issues of the Perot crowd: opposition to immigration, unfettered trade and foreign wars.
It’s a policy mix that one of the main students of the Perot movement, College of William & Mary political scientist Ron Rapoport, refers to as “economic nationalism.â€
“I just don’t know how effective the Republicans will be at dealing with this issue and capturing this constituency as a constituency,†said Rapoport, who has tracked hundreds of Perot activists since 1992.
Not when the Republicans are so in bed with the religious right. The party is being torn in half and the Republicans are going to have to choose a side eventually. It has always been a marriage of convenience and maybe it’s about time for Republicans to embrace libertarianism for real and leave the social conservatives to try and form their own party. They’ll probably vote together at some point anyway.
And still more on how celebrities are contributing to the rise of a new libertarianism…
Libertarian economist Tyler Cowen of George Mason University says the new breed of Swiftian commentary found on shows such as “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report,” though not explicitly libertarian, also has contributed to the current libertarian moment. [...]And, while Republicans in the wake of George W. Bush have no claim on coolness, it’s simply not tenable these days to spare liberal Democrats from the scalpel of satire.
“The Democrats aren’t that strong on new ideas,” Mr. Cowen says. “It’s not like the ’60s, when they seemed cool. They seem tired to me now. I feel like their big plan is to raise our taxes. Culturally, it’s just not that exciting.”
Indeed. Dems could win the Oval Office, but if they want to engage the hearts and minds of this new voting block and have any hopes of getting a majority in the House or the Senate, they better start thinking about how they’re going to pull it off without these vital swing voters.
I guess we’ll see…
This entry was posted on Saturday, November 24th, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election, Libertarian. 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.
November 24th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
I think they threw that dig at Maher because he really isn’t a libertarian (he supports big government…)
November 24th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Interesting article. I think Dr. Paul will actually help the Libertarian movement by spotlighting the fact that the party is serious and there are a lot of us (yes, I am one). I don’t have a problem with him running on the Rep ticket, the Libertarians are a logical split off the more authoritarian Reps. If he doesn’t win the Rep nomination I think he’ll continue his decades of work towards promoting a more socially liberal and fiscally conservative America to a much bigger audience than ever possible before.
November 24th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
It’s suddenly very cool to be libertarian.
Just one quibble. I think Ron Paul’s Republican run is by far a net positive for libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. If he takes the popularity he’s gained in the Republican primary and runs Libertarian, he will pull huge numbers of new voters to the LP.
Even if he doesn’t run third party, large numbers of his supporters will suddenly find themselves in search of a candidate they can stomach. Many will find their new home in the LP. It’s one thing to simply vote for the lessor of two evils. It’s quite another thing to settle for the giant douche bag or the turd sandwhich after losing one’s dream candidate.
Ironically, only if Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, could it possibly be bad for the LP.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Maher is a nice guy, has some good ideas at foreign policy. He sees that the problem with this country is a corrupt government, but thinks the solution is throwing more money at those corrupt politicians. He calls himself a libertarian because he thinks gays should be married and more importantly he wants pot legalized.
November 24th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Damn straight Ron is a net gain for libertarianism, by miles. Our problem has always been that we seem immature, mainly because of our representation on TV. I can think of nothing better than a 72 year old grandfather, from a rather strict Christian family explaining freedom to the masses. This young Deist could think of a no better representative. Even his interpretation of Christianity is music to my ears. I want to see evangelicals ratify this quality of Christianity and Conservatism because that will be a much bigger gain for society than anything that has to do with libertarianism. There are many Christians in this country, and though I might take exception to their book, although it is part of my culture, it is at least good to see a moral example of what at least I think Christianity should be. It is not going anywhere, and in this manifestation it would be most beneficial to society and the individual.
November 24th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Justin, great topic of discussion. I guess I would consider myself one of these “Neo-Libertarians” but my guess is that even if there is a new “third-partyish, neo-Libertarianism” taking root that within this new joint consciousness there still exists divisions about important issues such as government entitlement programs and economic philosophies.
Is it possible that a large portion of the American electorate wants change but is at a loss to say where or when that change is going to come? For example, I consider myself an extremely-left leaning liberal but I don’t necessarily identify myself with the traditional Libertarian point-of-view. I’m in agreement on some things with Libertarians but we have less in common rather than more. So while I like Ron Paul’s anti-Iraq war stance and protection of American’s freedoms and privacy I don’t agree with him at all on things such as Social Security or Abortion and other things. So what does that make me? a Neo-Libertarian/Green-party leaning neo-third-party wonderer? And what about other Americans that know America needs big changes but they don’t see either of the two-parties Dems or Repubs representing their ideals?
What party can come into existence that represents the new lost American electorate? Considering that the existing two parties seem more and more hidebound and incapable of leading a new American consciousness.
November 24th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
The jab at Maher is well deserved. Maher doesn’t understand libertarianism. He’s actually just a civil libertarian who supports a welfare state and central economic planning. He doesn’t support economic liberty.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
I’ve never believed true “Libertarianism” to be any more viable than true Communism. There is always the bugaboo of human nature to screw with the ideal.
A form of collectivism and government are necessary to keep the crazy few from ruining things for the more sane majority.
There was a time when the Federal Government seemed the correct place to fulfill that role. No longer. The Feds have amassed too much in State’s assets and power and are unable to represent the people in governance the way “We The People” require.
SO, even though I don’t adhere to the full version of Libertarianism, I agree that what is needed in this stage of the game is a draw down of Federal power, back into the Sates, as well as a draw down of our military power, back into our country.
This need for retraction is why Ron Paul has my support.
If I can go to the State Capital here in Oregon and argue logging issues, for example, I am that much closer to solving what I consider “the problems”.
It really is time to get government, be it Left or Right leaning, closer to home.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Ron Paul doesn’t need to run as a third party candidate, when he’s leading the Republican field in fourth quarter fundraising, and has more volunteers than all of the other candidates put together.
November 25th, 2007 at 6:04 am
The Republican Party is already making its decision. The GOP is choosing the “fiscally conservative/socially tolerant” route with Giuliani. Rudy Giuliani is libertarian lite. And he’s been leading in all the Republican polls all year long. There’s nothing short of a pop-up of his past prostate cancer right now, that would knock him off of the top. He’s going to be the GOP nominee.
This upsets not only leftists and Democrats who see a Republican who is socially tolerant as a great threat to them for Nov. ‘08, but it greatly upsets the Libertarian Party partisans too. Those who advocate a 3rd party route for the libertarian movement, will be undercut by a successful libertarian lite candidate like Rudy.
Thus, we see foaming at the mouth vitriol coming from two sides at Rudy: Mad Leftists and Radical Libertarians.
Libertarians for Giuliani:
http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
November 25th, 2007 at 11:51 am
“Not when the Republicans are so in bed with the religious right. The party is being torn in half and the Republicans are going to have to choose a side eventually. It has always been a marriage of convenience and maybe it’s about time for Republicans to embrace libertarianism for real and leave the social conservatives to try and form their own party. They’ll probably vote together at some point anyway.”
I don’t know what cave you’ve been living in, but the Republicans have made a choice. The choice is “social conservatism” aka Puritanicalism, big government, xenophobia and imperialism. They made that choice at least a decade ago and haven’t waiver from it since that time. If libertarians ever vote the same as present day Republicans, then they aren’t libertarians.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
What Eric Donderdo and many other Republicans/ lite libertarians don’t understand is that, the people who are supporting Ron Paul are the people who have the power to swing this election, not the other way around. The Republican Party would be wise to recognize this because if Ron isn’t the nominee, you’re going to see the Democratic nominee walked into the white house with a majority in the house and the senate. Dondero also seems to have a certain hatred for Ron Paul and a demonstrated bloodlust for middle easterners. It comes to no surprise he’s behind Ghoooliani.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Scott from Oregon comes closest to what I believe, which is that there is no consistency within the labels of “Democratic,” “Republican,” and “Libertarian.” For myself, my philosophy is “Two from column A, none from column B, and one from column C.”
For instance, is it liberal or conservative to agree with the idea of privatizing highways? It’s conservative (libertarian) to believe that privatizing roads will further cut government obligations to a particular, favored segment of the population — in this case, those with enough money to afford personal transportation. It’s liberal (environmentalist) to believe it would reduce the number of polluting and energy-gobbling private autos on the road in favor of public transit (particularly if part of the deal were that public buses were permitted to travel these roads for free or for lower fees).
Fortunately, there are certain things on which, I think, almost all of us can agree. One example is the unholy alliance between elected officials, regulators, and corporations, whose money talks louder than our votes. This is the heart and soul of fascism, and I have to believe very few of us are in favor of that.
Now that the Internet is so pervasive, maybe it’s finally time for some direct democracy, voting online (assuming there is some way of auditing this), along with some better social research on issues and some more and better debate — like this. With direct democracy, we would not necessarily have to align ourselves with party labels which ofttimes do not fit very comfortably. Then we could even begin looking at other progressive alternatives, such as proportional voting.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Aaron, turn on the news tonight. Go to Drudge. Go to any news site.
Paris is burning. And it’s MUSLIM Youth who are rampaging and setting the fires.
I take it that that matters little to you. Let France burn down, ‘eh? Not your problem right?
Ron Paul’s view on foreign policy would let the Radical Muslims do the exact same thing here in the US.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Craig Bolton, you’re stuck in the ’80s Dude. What you describe is the 1980s Republican Party under Reagan, when the Religous Right ruled. I was active in the GOP back then, and believe me it was very unfriendly territory for libertarians. They wouldn’t hardly even let us in the door.
But today they roll out the red carpet for us. Libertarian Republicans in States like Florida and Michigan practically run the GOP. Hell, strike that. In Michigan LIBERTARIANS DO RUN THE GOP. Saul Anuzis, a hardcore libertarian, is MI State GOP Chair. Someone like Anuzis would have NEVER been elected State GOP Chair 15 years ago.
Libertarian Republicans thanks to the efforts of the Republican Liberty Caucus, have made enormous strides. The Party has never been more libertarian than today.
And Giuliani’s nomination will just be the crowning achievement.
http://www.rlc.org