Liberaltarianism in a Liberal Age

By Mark Thompson | Related entries in Conservatism, Liberalism, Libertarian

Robert Stacy McCain has a scathing post that seeks to permanently douse the concept of a left-libertarian coalition ever being a real possibility, which includes this little bit:

As a political impulse, the sort of libertarianism that scoffs at creationism and traditional marriage wields limited influence, because it appeals chiefly to a dissenting sect of the intelligentsia. It’s a sort of free-market heresy of progressivism, with no significant popular following nor any real prospect of gaining one, because most Ordinary Americans who strongly believe in economic freedom are deeply traditionalist. And most anti-traditionalists — the feminists, the gay militants, the “world peace” utopians — are deeply committed to the statist economic vision of the Democratic Party.

Yikes. Now, of course, McCain is being somewhat hyperbolic in his characterization of the coalition of the political Left. But in many ways there is a fair amount of truth to McCain’s fundamental point, which is that the response of the political Left to the economic crisis has dramatically undermined the basis for any theoretical coalition of “liberaltarians.” To be sure, McCain thinks that the entire concept of such an alliance is a “luxury” that never had any chance at success, but the more pertinent issue is the role of the economic crisis in exploiting the divide between liberalism and libertarianism/classical liberalism. This is a particularly difficult truth for me, as I have repeatedly gone on record predicting that “libertarians,” broadly defined, are likely to continue their recent trend towards the Democratic Party in terms of their voting habits. Heck, I even put my money (and daughter’s toys) on the line by making a bet to this effect with John Schwenkler.

One of the things that has happened in the early days of the Obama Administration has been some fairly good (but by no means great) steps in the direction of restoring civil liberties and reigning in executive power. While this is something libertarians such as me have absolutely cheered, the reality is that these issues were a major part of what was pushing libertarianism to the left in recent years. As victories have been earned on those fronts, the entire basis for that move leftward is getting removed (although history tells us that we’re not about to see a complete restoration of civil liberties and balance of power anytime soon, either).

To be sure, really good bases remain for a left-libertarian coalition on certain specific issues, especially the War on Drugs. And I still fully agree with the great FA Hayek, whose opus Road to Serfdom describes many of those we now call liberals as essentially misled classical liberals (that we now call libertarians). And that says nothing of his essay “Why I Am Not a Conservative” – still relevant nearly half a century later.

So I still think that, at some point in time, progressives and libertarians will be reunited within a political coalition separate and distinct from conservatives. But at a minimum the progressive response to the financial crisis, with its finger-pointing for the crisis almost solely at deregulation and its use of the stimulus bill as a means for implementing all sorts of pet projects that have little to do with stimulus even under a Keynesian analysis, has brought the economic divide between liberals and libertarians to the forefront in a way unseen for decades.

To be sure, I think conservatives – especially conservative politicians – have played a role in the whole situation, both by saddling us with massive debt in the name of the War on Terror and by repeatedly (and falsely) campaigning on the idea of Obama as a socialist (and thereby turning an unwinnable election into a de facto referendum on socialism). But the fact is that the political Left, led by Congress, is now using this opportunity to implement wide-reaching policies that are anathema to libertarianism.

Simply put, it appears that liberals and Progressives, at least the influential ones, have once again taken up the mantle that regulation is always (or almost always) good, and so is just about any form of non-military government spending. As Virginia Postrel notes discussing the refusal of influential progressives to concern themselves with the effects of the abysmal, horrible, no good Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act:

Unfortunately, once you are ideologically committed to the idea of regulation, you can’t say that a given regulation is bad–or, worse, that maybe doing nothing new would have been the best course.

And this is the problem the rebirth of dogmatic support for regulation has created for any liberaltarian coalition. Rather than consider ways of achieving liberal ends (which are usually shared by liberals and libertarians alike) that may have incorporated libertarian thinking or were at the very least highly targeted, progressive politicians have been choosing extraordinarily broad and intrusive means of achieving those ends. This is not to say that those politicians ever really cared what libertarians thought; only that this route of action has undermined any possibility of a significant percentage of libertarians (again broadly defined as fiscally conservative and socially liberal) becoming intermediate-to-long-term members of the Dem coaltion.

All that said, Will Wilkinson is no doubt correct that all this talk of a left-libertarian political coalition misses the entire point of “liberaltarianism,” which is not properly understood as being about coalition-building:

I think Obama and the Democrats are already in the process of screwing it up. The romance of transformative hope is going to wear off pretty quick as all-but-uncontested Democratic policy deepens and lengthens the recession. There’s a lot of culturally and psychologically liberal people out there who are, and are going to be, interested in a liberalism that actually works. I want to use this time of ferment to work on developing the missing option in American politics: an authentically liberal governing philosophy that understands that limited government, free markets, a culture of tolerance, and a sound social safety net are the best means to better lives.

One of the major reasons I continue to support the concept of “liberaltarianism” is that ultimately I think it can only serve to increase the pathetic influence of libertarianism on American politics, turning libertarians into true political free agents that must be pandered to, year in and year out (if you use the broad “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” definition, we’re large enough a group to be worth pandering to). Just as importantly, it promises to improve libertarianism itself by encouraging a purer form of classical liberalism that is not, as Wilkinson says, “pretty well shot through with conservative reflexes bred by the long Cold War alliance between libertarians and the right.” Or as Reihan Salam notes in a sentence that speaks particularly well to me: “The liberaltarian idea, as I understand, is to start rethinking coalitions that appear to be natural because they’ve been in place for so long.”

Cross-posted at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen.


This entry was posted on Friday, February 13th, 2009 and is filed under Conservatism, Liberalism, 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.

5 Responses to “Liberaltarianism in a Liberal Age”

  1. Liberaltarianism in a Liberal Age | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen Says:

    [...] Cross-posted. This entry is part 1 of 1 in the series The Future of Libertarianism Tags | Liberalism, Libertarianism, US Politics [...]

  2. mw Says:

    “One of the major reasons I continue to support the concept of “liberaltarianism” is that ultimately I think it can only serve to increase the pathetic influence of libertarianism on American politics, turning libertarians into true political free agents that must be pandered to, year in and year out (if you use the broad “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” definition, we’re large enough a group to be worth pandering to).” – MT

    Great post. This is a theme I’ve been mining for a while. In one sense, it is the central concept of my blog. Your unstated premise, is that the permanent minority of libertarianish “social liberals, economic conservatives” must vote as a recognizable block in order to acquire the political clout to be an attractive target of the kind of policy pandering you allude to in this post. Which brings you to the classic libertarian “cat herding” problem. At this point, I am afraid I have to quote myself:

    “Libertarian organization is going to have to look different than traditional politics, after all, it is something we will have to be able to accomplish while sitting in the hot-tub. What is needed, is an organizing principle. Ideally, a principle that is so obvious, so logical, and so clear-cut, that no leadership is needed, no parties are needed, no candidates are needed, and no infrastructure is needed. Ideally it is this easy: You think about the principle, and you know how to vote. That organizing principle exists. It is Divided Government. It is absolutely clear-cut and easy to understand. Divided Government is documented by Niskanen et.al. to work in a practical real-world manner to restrain the growth of the state. As a voting strategy it can be implemented immediately. More importantly, it can collectively be implemented individually as we sit in our hot tubs and ponder the sorry state of the world. Whatever the percentage of the electorate that libertarians represent, whether it is 9% or 20%, if they vote as a block for divided government, they immediately become the brokers of an evenly split partisan electorate. They arguably become the single most most potent voting block in the country, specifically because they are willing to vote either Democratic or Republican as a block. Specifically because they are not fused to one party or the other.”

    It seems a no-brainer to me, that libertarian principles will always point to opposition of either major political party if that party controls both the legislative and executive branch. That is where the greatest threat to liberty resides, whether it is Republicans from 2000-2006 or Democrats now.

  3. Nick Benjamin Says:

    Proggressives have little reason to work for a Libertarian-Progressive coalition.

    In electoral terms Libertarians seem to divided into two camps. One always votes for the GOP, the other always votes for divided government.

    The divided government folks already know which way they’ll vote in 2010. GOP. Ergo courting them is stupid. They won’t vote for us. Besides it’s hard to avoid the feeling that they are actually Conservatives with a rebellious streak. Obama changed a lot of the Bush policies they hated on the very first day, and a few weeks later pushed a tax cut through Congress. But the divided government folks are up in arms because it also funds a lot of pre-existing government programs.

    There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with the stimulus package. But ya’all are declaring the end of the coalition after a single bill. We don’t mind being coalition partners, but it’s pretty clear you don’t actually want a coalition with non-libertarians. You want a libertarian majority.

    I have plenty of problems with other members of the left-wing coalition. But I ain’t going to post on my blog that one bill signals the death knell of the coalition. You win some you lose some. If I did that I’d have bolted to the Green Party years ago. And then left them because they put up with anti-GM Food wackoes.

  4. Andrew MacRae Says:

    MW.

    I disagree with your comments that merely voting for divided government is a successful strategy to staunch the hemorrhaging of our rights. If you want candidates to pander to you in ad spots and marketing efforts then you will achieve success; however, if your goal is to actually impact legislation – then there is no way to achieve that except by organization. Legislators do not pass laws for individuals – they look for organizations – PACs, unions, industry, etc.

    I realize how enormous this task is, but I do believe it is possible.

  5. mw Says:

    @Andrew,
    I shy away from using the word “strategy” – preferring “heuristic” or “tactic” – basically – because I agree with you. Voting for divided government is not a cure, it is more like a tourniquet to be applied in the hope of living long enough for a cure to arrive. In other posts I’ve used the phrase “The divided vote stands down when the libertarian/limited government vote stands up.”

    Keep working at it. Somebody needs to. You go for help. I’ll stay here and keep pressure on the wound.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: