Positive Liberty

There’s been much talk about whether libertarians should ally themselves with Democrats—talk that predates, but seems to have climaxed in, Kos’ recent article at Cato Unbound. As a libertarian who has almost always voted Republican, I thought I’d offer some reflections.

First, I have long thought that the entire idea of “fusionism” in the Republican party was profoundly flawed from the outset. The fact that Frank Meyer was forced to employ the oxymoron “libertarian conservative” when making his case is indiciation enough. Libertarianism is not a conservative political philosophy. It’s a variety of liberalism. Older, classical liberalism, that is—a liberalism that pre-dates the French Revolution. The family of liberalism was born in the English Civil War, and it continued throughout the American Revolution, when “liberal” meant a basically humanist philosophy focusing on limited government and individual liberty, in economic as well as other matters. Liberalism’s basic goal was the liberation of the individual from restraints that prevented him from flourishing and pursuing his chosen destiny (or the destiny he believed God had chosen for him). These restraints were virtually always imposed by government. It was when the French Revolution came along that liberalism broke in two, with one group contending (understandably) that merely getting government out of the way would not liberate individuals: society had been so profoundly warped over the centuries, that it, too, would need to be cahnged, and even wealth redistributed, to accomplish the liberal goal. Thomas Paine, who had started out as a classical liberal in the older sense (and even pointed out the flaw in the later liberalism when he carefully distinguished between government and society in Common Sense) was the most prominent example of one who adopted this new attitude. Others followed, eventually culminating in Marxism. This view became dominant in American politics in the Progressive Era, and that is (an extremely brief and undetailed explanation of) why American liberals are anti-market. It is because they have rejected the ancestral liberal belief that markets liberate individuals. Libetarians retain that belief. But both of us are, ultimately, liberals. (The best article on this is John Dewey’s “The Future of Liberalism.” Much as I detest Dewey.)

Conservatism, by contrast, is no respecter of persons. Its primary concern is with order: the health and stability of what they call “society as a whole.” The ultimate conservative goal is for each person to know his or her place in society. Liberation and capitalism are disruptive to social order, and allow individuals to choose their own places in society. This is a reason why, for example, conservative intellectuals like the late Russell Kirk persist in emphasizing the “restraint” of the American Revolution, or in minimizing the philosophical foundations of that war, or of the Declaration of Independence. Other conservative leaders, like Robert Bork, directly attack the Declaration and its philosophy for just these reasons. Conservatism is fundamentally anti-free market.

Fusionism, of course, arose as a result of the Cold War, and it prevailed only because of the Goldwater and Reagan campaigns. The Republican party became infused with a libertarianism that it had not really seen since the days of Reconstruction (and then only in rare stars like Charles Sumner). That is why there are today so many Republicans who embrace libertarian values of individual freedom and limited government, and would be shocked to find that their homes in the Republican party were built on quicksand. In fact, they are being shocked, right now. Yet since 1996, the Republican party has been warring against the Goldwater legacy. I complained about this in college, when I pointed out that not a single Goldwater Republican was allowed to address that year’s GOP convention. Instead, we had a string of such moderates as Colin Powell, Susan Molinari, and, of course, Bob Dole, who told us that “the great traditions” of America were “God, family, honor, duty, country”—but not freedom. Duty (the opposite of freedom) was on the list, but not freedom. These, Dole said, were the only things on which he would never compromise. Ever since that year, the party has been purging itself of libertarianism. But no need to dwell on the pain of this obvious fact. The simple truth is that fusionism was inherently unstable, was a temporary response to the Cold War, and is now falling apart as opposing magnets always do.

So should we join with Democrats? No. Although the Republican party has flagrantly betrayed its vows to the free market time and time and time again, the Democrats have shown no such infidelity to their anti-market principles. They continue to be wedded to the basic notion that society must be changed by government ub a perverse attempt to liberate individuals—an error that conflates two basically different definitions of “power”: governmental power (which is based on force) and economic power (which is not). So long as they continue confusing these two different principles, modern liberals cannot be more effective voices for liberty. Kos himself falls into this trap even while trying to woo libertarians—when he says that corporations are “too powerful.” Many other blogs have called him out on this basic error. Corporate power, insofar as it is a genuine concern, always proceeds from government, through some corporate-government alliance. Eminent domain abuse is only the most obvious example of that. Insofar as it is not a genuine concern, corporate “power” proceeds only from the wealth of a corporation, which is a function of the voluntary transactions in the marketplace. Antitrust persections, for example, are often aimed at businesses that have exercised no coercion at all, but are being attacked for their very “bigness,” which is simply a result of that business’ success at satisfying consumers.

Arnold Kling’s offer to experiment with the Democrats is intriguing, but at risk of being called a purist, I must protest. First, he asks for much too little. Although it would be nice to see Democrats support school choice—which they certainly will not do—this would be too moderate a step to allow even the possibility of considering alliance with modern liberals. It concedes the legitimacy of government-sponsored, government-controlled education. Although I strongly support school choice, it’s such a mild reform that even many libertarians do not support it. To approach libertarians, modern liberals would have to show some beginning understanding of the distinction between economic power and political power. Second, he gives too much. To “experiment” with socialized medicine is to literally put at risk the lives of Americans. Kling writes too smoothly of “experiment in which four or five diverse states adopt single-payer health care.” States have no legitimate right to “experiment” with the lives of their people. I’d accept some sort of trade in the spirit of Kling’s offer, but we would need to demand more, and we would need to give less.

Talk of change at the ballot box is obviously premature for libertarians. The most we can hope for is a come-outer movement: a cry to Republicans who are really libertarians to leave the party. The time for that may be ripe. It’s hard to gague the mood of a party. But when I speak to Republican groups (which is often) they are very angry about their party’s embrace of big government. I myself finally left the Republican party on Tuesday, after perhaps 10 years of registering Republican. And, had it not been for his views (vel non) on the war, I would have voted for Kerry in the last election.

Yet most Republican-based libertarians seem reluctant to adopt the name libertarian, and the reason is that America has drifted so far from its libertarian founding principles that it is unreasonable to expect political change from any party at this point, including the embarrassing Libertarian party. Our nation has suffered more than a century of profound anti-market miseducation, and is today suffused with an anti-liberty mindset. Reform can come only after basic work is done in teaching people about the market, property rights, and the principles of individualism. Take this as my bow to our modern liberal cousins, if you like: true revolution requires social change first.

Update: I agree entirely with Zen Politics about the virtues of gridlock. I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer; when I said I would have voted for Kerry this time around, it was precisely because I would prefer gridlock.

Trackback URI |