Libertarians and the Democratic Party
Jason Kuznicki on Jun 19th 2006
My thoughts on the latest political fad, below the fold.
The Republicans now in power believe, as best I can tell, that government has few legitimate non-defense functions, and therefore they have very little incentive either to try to make sure it performs those functions well or to try to build up public confidence in the possibility of effective, efficient government programs. However, they do not seem particularly interested in getting rid of those parts of government whose functions they don’t seem to believe in, and so they allow programs to continue in existence without particularly caring how efficient they are.
Democrats, by contrast, have an incentive to make sure that government does work, and that people believe that it can work. (I’m not trying to argue that we always act on this incentive; only that it exists, and that it explains why Democrats have a much better recent track record on these issues.)
I think that this difference between the Democratic and Republican parties presents libertarians with an interesting choice. On the one hand, I imagine that they would be much more in sympathy with Republicans’ views about the legitimate role of government; and would regard the Democratic view that government has more legitimate roles to play with suspicion. On the other hand, since Republicans are, as I said, apparently uninterested in doing away with those parts of government that they don’t see any point to, there might be something to be said for supporting the party whose positions give them a standing incentive to actually scrutinize government programs and make them more effective.
I can’t say I agree with her characterization of the Republican Party. The controlling principle among Republicans seems to be expediency. Their range-of-the-moment thinking happily justifies increased social spending — because they are “compassionate.” But then it also declares that there’s no more pork left to trim — because they are trying to get elected. But then they ignore proper fiscal managment — because, well, we don’t really care about that stuff anyway, since government shouldn’t be doing it.
If there’s any other principle buried in this mess, I certainly can’t see it.
While this is undeniably a bad thing, it takes quite a delicate balancing act to tell us that the Democrats want a leaner, meaner, more effective government — even while the Democratic Party promises ever-greater social services, too. This hasn’t stopped a number of writers, both libertarians and Democrats, from proposing a strategic alliance all the same. (Heck, Belle Waring was saying it almost two years ago, as was Lew Rockwell.)
I am tempted to say that all of this only becomes possible because of how badly the Republicans have let down the libertarian wing of their party. The Bush administration, for example, was demonstrably unserious about privatizing Social Security; as Hilzoy rightly notes, we never once saw any concrete proposal towart that end. But here’s where libertarians are going to frighten the Democrats away: We mean all this stuff. We’d like to privatize Social Security. Not only would we, personally, be happier on some abstract ideological scale, but we’re also convinced that privatizing Social Security would make you better off, and that a private savings system would help people save more effectively for retirement, too.
And then we can start talking about Medicare. And about the horribly distorted, semi-public, semi-private system of health insurance under which the rest of us suffer. And, my new left-winged comrades, during this entire, probably decades-long process, we’ll also be dismantling the War on Drugs, right?
Uh, right?
Hilzoy recognizes these problems; she writes:
One way to think of it is this: suppose that a libertarian does not believe that a program like, say, providing health care to the indigent should exist. Presumably, she believes this not because she wants poor people to have untreated illnesses; I imagine that if libertarians could cure all poor people’s illnesses by waving a magic wand, they would. Rather, they are worried about things like: the proliferation of government programs, and with them, government powers; the tendency of government programs not to vanish by themselves once they have served their purpose, but to hang around restricting people’s freedom needlessly; and the tax burden those programs require.
Given a choice between a party that favors this program, but that is likely to do a better job of making it run efficiently, and a party that does not favor it, but will not cut it, which should a libertarian choose? I do not think that this is an easy call; and if the two parties were hypothetical, there would be a lot of room for skepticism about my claim that the first will tend to run it more efficiently. However, in the actual world, in which Democrats reduce the size of government while Republicans expand it, and Democrats spend a lot of time actually working on improving efficiency while Republicans do not, I think that if I were a libertarian, I would probably favor the first party.
A program that is run by people who do not believe in its central purpose does not, after all, just stop doing anything. If it is kept around in order to provide jobs and contracts to party loyalists, it does that, thereby distorting the market, while also maintaining its various powers, regulations, and so forth, and continuing to require taxpayer support. A party that runs programs that way would seem to me to get a lot of (what a libertarian would, I think, see as) the disadvantages of government action without the corresponding upside — actually treating the indigent.
I think she nails it here — rather than privatizing elements of the federal government, which would require spending political capital, the GOP has opted to neglect and cronyize those agencies it doesn’t much care about. The result is the worst of both worlds. And, because all three branches are effectively in one party’s hands, there’s scant critical oversight of the process. If Democrats controlled Congress, they might very well fix all of this. Maybe they’d just be doing it for their own selfish electoral motives, but the net result could still be a win for the country.
Now for the cold water, via Jim Henley:
Reading liberal bloggers did a lot to cure me of my rightist stereotypes of “the America-hating left.” Probably Hesiod gets more credit than anyone. During the runup to the Iraq War he was mouthy and sarcastic and too quick to consign broad swathes of the country to the category of “Moron-Americans.” But his anguish that the war augured sorrow for his country was palpable. The emotional context was unmistakably, for lack of a better term, “pro-American.” I’ll happily admit it was an eye-opener. It helped me recognize that my disdain for liberal patriotism was facile and unworthy.
But you know what? I’m not being asked to elect liberal bloggers. I’m being asked to elect Democratic politicians. So yes, I would like to have some confidence that said politicians will, as Jesse Walker put it, “Be good on the issues where the left is supposed to be good.” Because the official Democratic Party has been nothing short of pusillanimous on peace and civil liberties in the Bush II era. When it comes to torture and tyranny, it’s better to put the reins of power in the hands of cowardly enablers than unabashed enthusiasts, but that makes a pathetic rallying cry.
The single strongest reason for libertarians to vote Democratic in any election is simply to divide the government. The Bush II years have been an object lesson in how bad it can be when one party controls both Congress and the Presidency. So long as no party really represents us, we libertarians need to throw as much sand as possible in the gears of the state. Nothing more and nothing less. This will mean exercising discipline — yes, voting as a bloc whenever possible — and voting to prevent any one party or faction from becoming too powerful. We ought not to forget that Democrats would happily complete the socialization of American health care, if only they were in the majority, and that, on other issues important to us, they have often been weak at best.
(Hilzoy’s follow-up post is another take on the notion that property rights are socially constructed. I said what I cared to say in the comments to that post, but I trust that no one else here wants to revisit that topic just yet.)
Filed in The Bureau |
[…] Jason Kuznicki […]
That’s a terribly weak reason.
I’ll bet you $1000 dollars against $20 that your individual vote will have no effect whatsover on whether or not government is divided.
Your vote will also have no effect on whether or not libertarians vote as a bloc.
I wouldn’t be so sure, John. First of all, I think it’s fairly clear that divided government is a relatively good thing, when compared with the one-party rule we have right now. Second, people of a libertarian political bent are around 20% of the population. If they were a bit more disciplined, they could be the kingmakers.
I know it’s a bit of a speculation, but I don’t think it’s a “terribly weak” one.
Primarily in reply to John T,
How is Hilzoy’s argument much different than a “lesser of two evils” voting decision? I suspect that a great many voters in the 2004 election entered the booth with this attitude.
My take:
- I tend to view small “l” libertarians in the USA as an amorphous group that do not even self-identify themselves as libertarian, but whose views on civil liberties, economic rights and the role of government would be catagorized as “libertarian leaning” given a neutral, issues based poll. Pew Research Center published some results in April this year indicating that 9% of the respondants fell into this catagory, based upon a six question survey (three questions on civil and three questions on economic rights.) This 9% figure is meaninful when you consider that this poll identified 42% as amibivalant, 18% liberal, and 15% conservative.
- While the potential numbers are large; unlike liberals, conservatives, or any voting minority group, there is no cohesive force or organization that coordinates large scale libertarian voter registration and pushes them towards any given party. Indeed, two of the most famous libertarians I can think of operating in todays media are the wingnutty Neil Boortz and the hack John Stossel. Not good. This normally results in a (very) rough split of the libertarian vote in most elections, depending on individual candidate appeal and whether the libertarian in question places more value on civil or economic liberties.
- In the 2006 and 2008 elections, the Republicans will be fighting against a big voter backlash, and libertarians will probably be swept up into voting Democrat, like a whole lot of normally moderate/independant voters.
- While we can point to smoking bans or nanny state food police, I think it is either willfully ignorant or hackishly partisan to suggest that Rebublicans win on civil liberties. Repebulicans have been able to suck libertarian into their sphere with the notion that their party stands for small government and strong property rights, but I don’t think the historical evidence backs them up. Looking at growth in goverment spending over the last 40 years, Republicans have done no better, and in several presidencies significantly worse, than Democrats. Indeed, I think the era of most responsible government was the Clinton/Gingrich era. A rather strong argument for split government.
- The 2006 elections will give libertarians the opportunity to vote Dem and recover the balance in goverment, and then give them two years to reassess before the 2008 election cycle. And I think this should be a consistant message coming from the libertarian bloggers
Jason:
Are you mad?
Misanthrope:
And of those supposed libertarians 80% favor increasing the minimum wage. It’s right there in the survey results. According to the authors Keeler and Smith these 9% “consistently oppose an active government in both the economic and the conservative spheres”. Give me a break.
You guys are dreaming.
Jason,
And what does any of that have to do with your individual vote - the only one you get to cast?
John T,
Context is pretty critical to interpreting poll data. You sited a figure, but failed to put the relevant data into play: yes 80% of these supposed libertarians favored raising minimum wage, but compare it to the rest of the results! Its entirely consistant: 86% of those polled favored raising it. Predictably, the lower percentages were conservatives and libertarians, then ambivalents, then liberals and populists. Which makes perfect sense. You The poll was not designed to deteremine who ought ot run off and join the LP-USA, but to better explain the terrain of American politics beyond the right-left, lib-con terminology.
What I really don’t understand is your questions (paraphrase): one vote doesn’t make any difference” comments. No kidding. Same goes for a conservative, liberal, whatever. The point of the discussion seems more about what direction libertarain oriented voters ought to, o will, go in upcoming elections.
Sure, it makes perfect sense to say 9% of the population consistently oppose active government when 80% of them favor increasing minimum wage. Obviously.
The controlling principle among Republicans seems to be expediency.
No, the controlling principle among Republicans is staying in power at the national level. They learned a long time ago that, if they really followed through with their rhetoric about smaller government, that wouldn’t go over well with the electorate. The electorate might say that they believe in a smaller federal government (more on that later) but they don’t really mean it. That should be obvious. Neither Reagan nor Bush I nor Bush II reduced government spending–even government spending that was not directly related to “defense” activities–and Reagan had a Republican senate for the first six years of his administration, and Bush II has had a Republican Congress during his entire administration.
People want their welfare. And the federal government–even under Republicans–is going to give it to them. To stay in power. So the Republicans can dole out more welfare goodies, some to the people, but more than a bit to their corporate benefactors.
Regarding libertarians, from what I have seen, the people who claim to be “small-l” libertarians have made their peace with the religio-Taliban Christian conservatives who comprise the tail that wags the Republican party dog. Why? Because most of the “small-l” libertarians are not really libertarian–certainly not in the social sense, and very little in the fiscal sense. They just want the Federal Government to keep its hands off their guns. I’ve seen it too often among self-described libertarians. They will go along with the religio-Taliban Christian conservatives because the RTCCs believe the same, and the Democratic party has obtained a reputation as being anti-gun-rights.
It really is as simple as that. I would not expect many “small-l” libertarians to vote Democratic any time soon.
Regarding libertarians, from what I have seen, the people who claim to be “small-l” libertarians have made their peace with the religio-Taliban Christian conservatives who comprise the tail that wags the Republican party dog.
I beg your pardon.
Small-l libertarians are deeply divided here. A number of them have done just as you say. But then there are others who have not.
I’m one of them, as are the others at this site. None of us are firm supporters or affiliates of the Libertarian Party, and we may only occasionally vote for its candidates. Yet we are all libertarians, and we have all been deeply critical of the Republicans for betraying libertarian principles. The same is true of a great many others, including many in our blogroll (start with Unqualified Offerings, for instance; from there, go to Coyote Blog, Tom Palmer, Marginal Revolution, then Liberty and Power…).
Please, spend some time reading these sites. And reconsider, because you’re terribly mistaken here.
John T,
Don’t want to address the substance at all, just repeated the 9% thing? Its not the pollers who alledge that that the respondants consistantly oppose active gov, its the pollees who, shock, appear to have entirely human contradictory positions. By the logic of your argument, I have to dismiss or significantly reduce the 15% evaluated as conservative because nearly half of them do not favor greater abortion restrictions. The poll data shows that those evaluated as libertarian are statisitically less likely to support minimum wage increases than a liberal, populist, or the overall respondant. This makes sense, and supports the evaulation of libertarian percentage.
Sorry to double post, but I failed to discuss Raj’s comments:
Raj, I have to agree with Jason. I think your broad brush dismissal of small “l” libertarians goes way beyond being an over-generalization, and proceeds into just plain wrong territory. I think the pro-gun generalization has a kernal of truth for active Libertarian Party members, but I do not see it reflected in either the libertarian blogosphere or published writings of the small “l”s. A perusal of well known libertarian bloggers reveals Second Ammendment discussions to be rare. They are deeply concerned, and write extensively about, a broad array of government intrusion, civil rights issues, property rights, etc. To add to Jason’s list, Nobody’s Business , The Agitator (Radley Balko), and Cato Online.
Look, even liberal detractors seeking to parody/strawman libertarianism don’t use your gun example, because good parody should have a core element of truth. They use things like “libertarians are Conservatives who like porn.” Or “liberals want a Mommy state to take care of them, conservatives want a Daddy state to tell them what to do, and libertarians want a divorce from from Momy and Daddy so they can stay up late and eat icecream.” (It was funnier when I read it months ago, I am sure I have screwed it up a bit.) Or “libertarianism is philosphy for thirteen year-olds.” But my absolute favorite libertarian parody is the one PZ Myers has posted more than once, the theoretical conversation between a libertarian and a liberal driving in a car, bearing down on a lake. Priceless. What’s missing? Gun parody.