A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Yesterday's post clearly struck a nerve with several of you, both libertarian and non-libertarian. I'd like to engage in a bit of follow-up to clarify a thing or two.
First, regarding my comment that libertarians have never amounted to anything as a political movement. I intended this to be a distinction, but perhaps I should've given it more emphasis. Instead, I'd argue libertarians have amounted to a great deal as a policy movement. Where political movements demand tent-construction and coalition-building to achieve a critical mass of votes from the electorate, movements designed simply to win a particular policy argument within a legislative or legal arena have more to do with the intellectual and historical strength of the argument advanced. Here, libertarians have thrived.
A perfect example is about to come down from the Supreme Court, within the health care policy space where I work. It was libertarians like Randy Barnett, and libertarians alone, who advanced the (much-mocked) argument that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, something even many conservative Republicans didn't believe at the time.
Yet time and again, we see libertarians function as their own worst enemies when it comes to building support for ideas, forming factional lines which prevent them from working with other people of like mind on a significant portion of their policy views, often because of cultural divides over hot button social issues.
These cultural differences have lead some libertarians into ill-thought alliances with the left - the short-lived liberaltarian movement was an example of this, but so are the voting patterns of many in the libertarian movement. Much as I respect my friends at Reason, I am still aghast at the number of them and their colleagues who voted for and ardently supported Barack Obama in 2008. These libertarian commentators pronounced McCain-Palin as due for punishment for "eight years of military adventurism, unfettered executive power, and disregard for civil liberties" as representing "a southern-centered party based on social division and cultural resentment", one "in thrall to troglodytes".
Here's a general rule of thumb: if your votes over the past decade were for Ralph Nader, John Kerry, and Barack Obama - as more than one of those prominent libertarians admitted - stop fooling yourself about which tent you're in.
I once had a conversation with a fairly prominent urban libertarian who went on a lengthy discourse about how the future of the right in America depended on the Republican Party finally getting its act together and rejecting the "Bible-thumping fetus-obsessed" in order to achieve political victory. I let him go on for a bit before pointing out the error of his calculations, from my perspective - that in fact, without the support of the faith and freedom folks, the Republican Party would've gone the way of the Whigs, that Ron Paul himself has been a strong and consistently pro-life leader in the Congress, and that if he'd like to see how a fiscally conservative pro-choicer would do at the box office, he should use the Gary Johnson campaign as a barometer.
Libertarians are often absolutely correct about the direction of policy because they alone are willing to ask the right questions - questions such as, "should government even be doing this thing?" - whether or not they have the right answers. Those who I work with in the activist movements at the state level are also often socially conservative themselves, or at least traditionalist "leave us alone" types, and therefore are more pragmatic about cooperating with conservatives to achieve policy change. My hope is that more of these individuals will rise through the ranks to prominence within the libertarian movement. Without that happening, I suspect it will remain limited by this unfortunate factionalism, and instead, the more pragmatic types will stick to what they've been doing: trying to win arguments within the Republican Party, not outside of it.
- Comment (60)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Can you tell this to the Libertarians who keep shrieking at me that I'm killing the Republican party by caring about social issues?
Getting really sick of always being lectured about how "nobody cares" about social issues, so SoCons need to shut up for the good of the party. Really sticks in my craw when the same folks then whine about how they're attacked for their views.
Dec '11
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Social cons have even less reason to be part of the republican party than libertarians do.
If you want a real answer, social issues liberal or conservative issues are generally on the outs right now. Upsetting the social apple cart is unpopular liberal or conservative presently.
Aug '10
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Foxfier
Getting really sick of always being lectured about how "nobody cares" about social issues, so SoCons need to shut up for the good of the party. Really sticks in my craw when the same folks then whine about how they're attacked for their views.
As well it should stick in your craw. This is why everybody needs a beer.
Edited on June 17, 2012 at 12:44amApr '12
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Bull. The Republicans are the not-pro-abort party. Are they perfect? No. Not even close. But they don't exile me for realizing that morality is the bedrock economics is built on.
*edit* And yes, I think "which party doesn't define X group of humans as non-persons" is a pretty dang important part of "morality." The folks willing to say "that human is not a person" are willing to selectively define less important things for their benefit.
Edited on June 17, 2012 at 12:08amNov '11
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
As far as I'm concerned, the sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll, the snotty attitude, of a place like Reason is just a gimmick. Glenn Beck's weird conspiracy theories are also -- I hope! -- just a gimmick. But both gimmicks have actually led to more people reading dusty old farts like Hayek. Why complain?
This is an interesting take, I'll have to consider this possibility. Let me give an example of why I view Reason as unserious, in many ways:
"Gaggle of religious fanatics and crackpots"? They haven't harmed any of our allies? Give me a break.
I frequently find myself reading a Reason article, nodding along, and then some unnecessary pejoratives and overly broad statements start appearing, and I stop and go somewhere else.
Jan '11
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Well said, Midge. A few points:
- It's a universal political fallacy to think one's ideology would be ascendant if only it were purged of those people. For libertarians, that they're social conservatives; for social conservatives, they're libertarians. Unsurprisingly, these judgments are almost always wrong. Coalitions exist for a reason and -- dissatisfying as they are to all parties -- are necessary to building majorities.
- The Fusionist Alliance nearly broke in 2008. As much as conservatives felt angry and frustrated by the Bush Administration, libertarians felt it more so. Moreoever, while libertarians found little to like in Senator McCain (like conservatives), they found little else to like in Governor Palin. Shameful as the 2008 Reason staff endorsements are -- thoroughly shameful, if you ask this libertarian -- they're not surprising.
- That's why it's remarkable how strong the Alliance is today. For all the ink spilled on it, Liberaltarianism foundered almost the moment Obama started pushing policy. Relatedly, the Tea Party has provided a vehicle for the Alliance outside of the Republican party. And, whatever you think of him otherwise, you have to thank Rep. Paul for his decision to keep libertarians in the larger conservative environment.
Edited on June 17, 2012 at 12:46amJan '11
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Duane Oyen: My experience with self-described libertarians, and newly-minted Ron Paulites is that they have been disproportionately hostile to religion because of the moral restrictions perceived.
Generally, I have found some (Michael Lebeit) to be very articulate and principled, with most of the rest more like isolationist stoners, to coin a phrase. · 6 hours ago
I'm a Christian [Catholic, specifically] with a libertarian-like streak [minarchist to be specific again].
I find it somewhat easy to hold morally Christian views and simultaneously realize that those views are not for everyone and that God will be the judge.
That said, I do have some problems with a generalized perversion in organized religion [by the fallible men who claim moral authority] and do feel that many Christians are naive to believe that the Almighty intervenes in common everyday affairs simply because a 'prayer' was said as though it was a petition to Santa Claus instead of how I believe prayer was designed to be: a way of giving thanks and the strength to overcome temptation as well as the capacity to forgive those who had done us wrong.
My hostility is that some religious people prefer legislation of morality.
Jan '11
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Foxfier
Bull. The Republicans are the not-pro-abort party. Are they perfect? No. Not even close. But they don't exile me for realizing that morality is the bedrock economics is built on.
Without discounting the moral seriousness of abortion, this is mistaken. Abortion is a major plank of the Republican party, but it is neither its essential doctrine, nor should it be.
For what it's worth, about a third of libertarians are pro-life -- as are both Rep. Paul and Sen. Paul -- and Reason has done some good work on making it clear that being pro-life in no way disqualifies or distracts from one's being a libertarian.
Jul '10
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Libertarians are anarchists who lack ambition.
Aug '10
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Mothership_Greg
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
As far as I'm concerned, the sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll, the snotty attitude, of a place like Reason is just a gimmick.
This is an interesting take, I'll have to consider this possibility. Let me give an example of why I view Reason as unserious, in many ways...
Well, yeah, gimmicks do have a tendency to be cheap shots that don't make a ton of sense when you think about them seriously.
LowcountryJoe
...and do feel that many Christians are naive to believe that the Almighty intervenes in common everyday affairs simply because a 'prayer' was said as though it was a petition to Santa Claus instead of how I believe prayer was designed to be...
Amen. If I had to believe in Santa-Claus prayer, I wouldn't just not believe in God, I'd actively hate Him (as several people I know who were taught to believe in Santa-Claus prayer actually do).
We're supposed to pray about the little things, too, but not because God is a cosmic vending machine.
Aug '10
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Tom Meyer
Abortion is a major plank of the Republican party, but it is neither its essential doctrine, nor should it be.
I think you can make a good case why abortion should be essential doctrine. We're supposed to have the right to life, after all... That said,
Tom Meyer
For what it's worth, about a third of libertarians are pro-life -- as are both Rep. Paul and Sen. Paul -- and Reason has done some good work on making it clear that being pro-life in no way disqualifies or distracts from one's being a libertarian.
is a point well worth making. Repeatedly among social conservatives.
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
The flamboyant stoners get a lot of attention, but I think another reason many libertarians find social issues uninteresting is because they themselves lead unusually humdrum personal lives. It's harder to take a vice seriously when it doesn't interest you much to begin with. · 6 hours ago
Actually, I think the social issues are fascinating. I just don't think that the ideal ends are achieved through state action but, rather, through strong voluntary associations such as families, churches, etc. The bigger the state, the weaker these institutions.
Edited on June 17, 2012 at 2:21amApr '12
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Tom Meyer
For what it's worth, about a third of libertarians are pro-life
Problem being that every libertarian I have spoken to that says they're pro-life, save two, have actually been "personally opposed" in practice. (Those two were Catholics who basically said: "Um, duh all humans are people and should be legally treated as such. It's philosophically insane to not take that as a starting point.")
Even Ron Paul has come out as saying that what measure a man isn't a federal matter, which is pretty dang crazy if you believe that all humans are people. Imagine a state announcing that all animals born in the US of voting age have a vote in national elections for a notion of how crazy it is.
Apr '12
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Another thing that comes to mind:
"Free trade" and "free flow of labor," with "voluntary contracts."
Countries are voluntary associations -- if you don't like the US laws, leave; we don't have laws stopping you, assuming you're not willing to work to change what you don't like-- that set standards for employment, etc. Doesn't stop Libertarians (note caps) from cheerleading breaking of the laws if they do not personally like the form of the associations take. Group choices are never going to be perfect, but that doesn't mean I get to opt out when the game goes a way I don't like.
Kinda calls back to what I've heard of Ms. Rand in relation to marriages.
The old line about "if you don't like slavery, don't own a slave" comes to mind.
Aug '10
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
It's harder to take a vice seriously when it doesn't interest you much to begin with.
Actually, I think the social issues are fascinating...
I do, too. What I meant was something more like this:
The fear of being overwhelmed by vice if there aren't laws to stop you is an extremely human fear. There's a sense in which a more libertarian attitude towards vice regulation should be frightening to people, especially to those who seriously struggle with mastering their vices.
Now, one reason why a person might not struggle much against a given vice is because he's content to succumb to that vice. But another reason is because he's less prone to that vice to begin with, so successfully resisting it takes less struggle. Either personality trait makes a libertarian attitude toward that vice less frightening, but for opposing reasons.
For example, my husband might be more temperamentally prone to libertarianism than average because his even-keeled, optimistic nature means he's less overwhelmed by his vices than many of us the rest of us are.
Edited on June 17, 2012 at 5:54amApr '12
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Now, one reason why a person might not struggle much against a given vice is because he's content to succumb to that vice. But another reason is because he's less prone to that vice to begin with, so successfully resisting it takes less struggle.
Reminds me of talks about Church doctrine-- nobody bothers to make a rule against something before it's a problem.
Aug '10
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Foxfier
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Now, one reason why a person might not struggle much against a given vice is because he's content to succumb to that vice. But another reason is because he's less prone to that vice to begin with, so successfully resisting it takes less struggle.
Reminds me of talks about Church doctrine-- nobody bothers to make a rule against something before it's a problem.
Yep.
And then for still others of a libertarian bent (that would include me), the one thing we're consistently more pessimistic about than our own ability to manage our vices ourselves is the government's ability to manage our vices for us.
Depending on your point of view, libertarianism attracts people with such extreme variations in personality because, well, it really is a crazy-magnet, or because it really does reflect unifying principles on which even widely differing temperaments can agree. Possibly both :-)
Apr '12
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Pardon me while I fail to believe that you, MFR, are insane enough to question if the "vice" of open murder of adults, theft of made property, etc are beyond gov't control.
Issue comes when it's something that's either not seen as an issue or that is an issue that's not wished to be enforced, be it slavery or abortion. (Both of which I've seen defended libertarians of some stripe in the last month.)
May '10
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Not to distract from the main discussion, but...
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
LowcountryJoe
...and do feel that many Christians are naive to believe that the Almighty intervenes in common everyday affairs simply because a 'prayer' was said as though it was a petition to Santa Claus instead of how I believe prayer was designed to be...
Amen. If I had to believe in Santa-Claus prayer, I wouldn't just not believe in God, I'd actively hate Him (as several people I know who were taught to believe in Santa-Claus prayer actually do).
We're supposed to pray about the little things, too, but not because God is a cosmic vending machine.
No, God is not a cosmic vending machine (great imagery). But there are moments in the Bible when someone asks for something very specific and God grants their request.
And requests needn't be great expressions of love unified with God's own designs for Him to answer. A prayer can be like a toddler asking his mother for candy. It might be a silly, menial request. And the candy might not be good for the kid. But Love often smiles upon such things.
Aug '10
Re: A Few More Thoughts on Libertarians and Tents
Not beyond government control, obviously.
Just that, as problematic as self-control is for many of us, it is still less problematic than government control, particularly for more minor vices.
That the government can enforce laws against the major vices as well as it does has a lot to do with the fact that, imperfect as our self-control may be, we can at least sort of succeed at keeping ourselves from the major vices most of the time. If we didn't, what police force on earth would be powerful enough to tame us?