| « | Jihad == Self-Defense? |
»
|
|
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Toward A New Libertarianism Part 1: Where Did We Go Wrong?
After this post appeared, your Curmudgeon received several plaintive inquiries from like-minded persons: they're disgusted with the Democrats, and disillusioned by the behavior of the Republicans, but they're repelled by the fringy stances of the Libertarians, particularly as regards war and foreign policy. These folks, whom the Advocates for Self-Government would call "politically homeless," are in fact the persons the liberty movement has been trying to enlist for some time. The great irony of their existence is that they probably determine the outcome of every election held in these United States, and will for the foreseeable future...but no currently functioning party can reel them in.
Because of some of their off-axis policy positions, libertarianism (as commonly understood) and the Libertarian Party have been thrust out of the circle of acceptable discourse. More respect is granted to the softer forms of socialism. From one perspective, this is very unfortunate, as what the nation needs most is a rebirth of the love of individual liberty that was present in its Founders. From another, it was inevitable, and perhaps not so bad after all.
The question that matters most to those of us eager to see the libertarian spirit of America renewed is whether libertarian thought has been rejected on its merits, or whether it's been rejected because it's been perverted by admixture with evil. If the former, we who retain libertarian sympathies might as well give up now and spare ourselves any further heartache. But if the latter, then not surrender but purification and reorientation are indicated.
An acquaintance from Free Republic once said to your Curmudgeon, "If you pour a cup of wine into a barrel of sewage, it remains a barrel of sewage, but if you pour a cup of sewage into a barrel of wine, it becomes a barrel of sewage." Is there sewage in the libertarian barrel? How shall we fill a new barrel with wholesome ideas and protect it from being contaminated in the same fashion?
Your Curmudgeon would suggest that we start by examining those ideas that have garnered the quickest and most reflexive rejections of libertarian thought:
- Isolationism and pacifism in foreign policy;
- Open borders;
- Uncritical embrace of abortion, same-sex marriage, and general sexual deviance;
- A complete end to the War on Drugs;
- A complete end to the entire regulatory apparatus of the state.
Items 1 and 2 account for the greatest number of dismissals of libertarian thought. At this point in history, almost no one would countenance the flip dismissal of the borders, or of the need to maintain a mighty armed force and use it as necessary to protect American interests. Even persons opposed to the War on Terror would recoil from the doctrine that American armed power ought never to be used except in defense of American soil.
Item 3 causes many persons to prefer to style themselves conservatives. They might not advocate legal measures against all abortion, or against homosexual conduct, but they'd prefer not to associate with persons who apparently feel that such things are just dandy. In any case, it is unsustainable to say that one is morally opposed to abortion yet unwilling to see it regulated to any extent -- and quite a number of libertarian activists would tell you that even partial-birth abortion ought to be completely legal, right up to the instant of birth. As for homosexuality and the endorsement thereof, while most conservatives would agree that private homosex between consenting adults ought not to be outlawed, they'd bridle at the suggestion that there's nothing wrong with "intergenerational sex," or with homosexual advocacy toward the young and partially formed.
Popular attitudes toward the War on Drugs are currently in flux. Many a movement conservative has come to see this cure for the nation's drug problems as far worse than the disease; the writers at National Review have led the way in this regard. However, that has not opened the public's mind to a complete repeal of drug prohibition, nor to the complete dismantling of the Office of Drug Control Policy. The typical American distinguishes among the various illicit drugs: some are tolerably mild, while others are intolerably powerful. This might not be completely in harmony with the principle of self-ownership, according to which a man has a perfect right to shoot himself full of whatever he pleases without being answerable to anyone. Yet it is the prevailing sentiment.
Finally for this brief survey, most Americans disbelieve that private mechanisms could wholly replace state regulation in the maintenance of public health and safety. This is in part because the regulatory bureaucracies are very well entrenched; the oldest has counted nearly a century. But it's also because of a number of interconnectedness problems, much like those that have made isolationism an unsustainable stance. 300 million Americans, dealing with one another in a market that supports billions of transactions per year, can affect one another's lives for good or for ill without knowing they've done so. The unarticulated awareness of this fact makes it difficult for many to feel good about ripping away the regulatory mechanisms that purport to protect us from this or that, even when, as is frequently observable, they don't work at all.
The typical libertarian reaction to being rejected, for the above reasons or any others, is to say to oneself, "Well, I know I'm right and they're wrong. It doesn't matter if they disagree; eventually reality will set in." This is pure ideological arrogance. Moreover, it ignores one of the most obvious postulates of persuasion:
Of course, as your Curmudgeon said to a fellow blogger not too much earlier today, the Latin roots of "obvious" mean overlooked.
The United States is the most successful society in the history of the world. Even its poor people are rich by world standards, and its well-to-do are wealthy beyond outsiders' ability to comprehend it. The contemporaneity of our stunning success with our Brobdingnagian governments leads many persons to believe that the Omnipotent State was instrumental in our getting to where we are today. It doesn't matter that this is demonstrably untrue; what matters is that, for the typical American, it's a very hard correlation to unpack. He who is reasonably satisfied with the status quo will not lightly entertain suggestions that it be dismantled.
Recognition of this truth has caused some libertarian activists to turn to incrementalist approaches: reductions in the tax rate, education vouchers, gradual decriminalization of the softer drugs, the promotion of private alternatives to governmental services, and so on. This is a constructive direction for political action. But it does not address the more fundamental problem that libertarianism as currently espoused by its most vocal advocates is a radical prescription.
To revitalize the liberty movement as a movement -- that is, as a body of adherents to a set of coherent principles from which consistent policy positions can be derived -- it will be necessary to "deradicalize" it. Certain aspects of libertarian thinking will have to be flensed away -- not disguised or temporarily suppressed, but rejected outright as wrong turnings finally recognized as such, though they were originally well intended.
Just as have the conservatives, we're going to have to admit that, by attempting to derive all our positions from a set of principles of limited applicability, on several subjects we've gone badly wrong.
But will doing so deprive us of the biggest attraction and greatest comfort libertarianism has to offer: its doctrinal simplicity? Perhaps...and perhaps not.
More anon.
Comments
<i>Recognition of this truth has caused some libertarian activists to turn to incrementalist approaches: reductions in the tax rate, education vouchers, gradual decriminalization of the softer drugs, the promotion of private alternatives to governmental services, and so on. This is a constructive direction for political action. But it does not address the more fundamental problem that libertarianism as currently espoused by its most vocal advocates is a radical prescription.</i>
But then so too is our current situation rooted in radicalism, of a different sort.... liberalism. Which in turn is exactly why incrementalism is of such value… You’re never going to be able to get from one end of the spectrum to the other, all at a go.
Add to that, there’s a lot of nonsense wrapped up in both varieties of radicalism… the decriminalization of drugs, for example, that only the radicals will EVER sign onto.
As such, the world will never radical libertarianism in it’s pure, radical form implimented. I submit, however, that both ends would be far better off if we were to merely return to the unadulterated form of the Constitution… both in terms of the rights of citizens....note the use of that word well… and the purview of government. I suggest at that point, we’d have far less to argue about for a couple hundred years.
Posted by Bithead on 04/22/2006 at 11:33 PMAt this point in history, almost no one would countenance the flip dismissal [...] of the need to maintain a mighty armed force and use it as necessary to protect American interests.
I’d dispute this. The results of the last Presidential election indicate pretty clearly that almost half of all American voters would not merely tolerate such a thing, but demand it.
Even strict Constitutional libertarianism does not necessarily imply pacifism (the way it does the legalization of all intoxicants and the elimination of the overwhelming majority of regulatory bureaucracy)...the LP is radically pacifist for purely historical reasons.
But it’s rather disingenuous to say that “almost no one” supports pacifism when only 18 months ago almost half the electorate cast ballots for a party that not only embraces the extremist anti-war fringe, but counts on them for the lion’s share of their activism and recruiting.
Much as folks like you and I may hate to face it, the fact remains that the roll-over-and-die crowd remains too large to ignore, and likely will continue to do so in the future. One is compelled to wonder just how many liberty-minded folk end up voting for Democrats because their views on foreign policy are as important to them as ours are to us...and are precisely opposite ours.
Posted by Matt on 04/23/2006 at 09:43 PMI’m one of the politically homeless. I realize no party will ever be exactly what I’m looking for, but these days I know what I don’t want, and that is anymore government fiddling with my private affairs, my paychecks, and my family.
Taxes are too darn high. I feel like we’ll never get ahead at this rate. Right now my husband and I are paying enough to support whole ‘nother family. I know we’re not alone. It’s too much, and I’m sick and tired of it. It doesn’t even pay for me to work full-time anymore, that’s just my efforts going into some bureaucratic machine to be wasted and spoiled.
I get tired of hearing, “death and taxes...” when I say that. I can accept some taxes, but this is too much.
Posted by Heather on 04/24/2006 at 11:33 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
