Reason Event: Libertarians and Conservatives: Can This Marriage Be Saved?

Nick Gillespie | February 18, 2005

On February 23 (next Wednesday), America's Future Foundation is hosting a roundtable forum titled "Conservatives and Libertarians: Can This Marriage Be Saved?"

More info:

During the Cold War era, conservatives and libertarians united around hostility toward communism and liberalism. The National Review's Frank Meyer called this union "fusionism," and argued that it wasn't just a marriage of convenience, but a union based on the deep compatibility of liberty and tradition. Increasingly, however, that ideological marriage has been punctuated by long, sustained spats: over war, gay marriage, stem-cell research, and a host of other issues. Just another rocky patch, or is it time for a divorce?

Arguing to keep the marriage together will be W. James Antle III of The American Conservative and Jeremy Lott of the Cato Institute. Amy Mitchell of The American Spectator and Nick Gillespie of Reason will take the side of divorce.

The event will take place on Wednesday, February 23rd, at the Fund for American Studies (1706 New Hampshire Ave. NW). Drinks will begin at 7:00 p.m., with dinner and discussion following at 7:30.

To RSVP and for more information, go here.

Comments

|2.19.05 @ 3:51PM|#

Near as I can tell, given the Presidential canidate your party put up this last election the split has already occured. I hate to see this happen but it has. I joined the Libertarian party in 1980...only to see it drift over to the "Progressive" side of the Democrat party during the nineties. Finally, disgusted, I went with the party that I felt best represented me and believe me that is not the party of Clinton.

|2.19.05 @ 4:57PM|#

After having spent the last decade voting for Republicans, I favor divorce. What have the Republicans/Conservatives ever done for libertarians, unless you define liberty in terms of taxation? Even at that, how meaningful are tax cuts when government spending continues to increase? (And, I'm sorry, but military spending is government spending.)

The only liberties I've ever seen increased during a Republican administration are the liberties of police and government agencies to be monitoring the activities of the citizenry.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

|2.19.05 @ 5:46PM|#

Well, I never went in for the conservative-libertarian marriage, anyway. Frankly, I didn't have much use for conservatives before the liberals started working especially hard to alienate me and I actually encountered a few conservatives with libertarian leanings. They're just not all that powerful within the Republican party.

I mean, it would be nice if there were a secular, tolerant, freedom-loving, small-government party significant in American politics, but that's not the case. Maybe in 20 years, if the drug war-doubting, non-homophobic, civil liberties-minded cohort gets in charge.

|2.19.05 @ 5:47PM|#

The best argument the Republicans seem to have is that the Democrats would have been worse. While the republicans have consistently used the rhetoric of the libertarians, they have also consistently been much worse spenders than the democrats over the last two decades. I think there was one or two years since they have been in power (right after the contract with America) that they have actually been able to restrain themselves.

About the only thing they are good for is as outsiders screaming bloody murder when the democrats are in power. With a republican majority, no one has any incentive to act as watchdog.

M.J. Taylor|2.19.05 @ 6:12PM|#

Given the seeming conservative agenda for a huge big brother government, it is well past time for a divorce.

And unless the debaters were just randomly given positions to argue, I'm surprised to see Cato on the side of keeping a no longer useful alliance together.

M.J. Taylor
Editor
from Reason to Freedom

|2.19.05 @ 7:09PM|#

As I've argued elsewhere, I suspect that what we're talking about when we talk about divorce is the Bush Administration.

Let's look at the Contract With America:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

Libertarians don't agree 100% on anything, but, generally speaking, I don't think there are many libertarians who would find it difficult to support these intitiatives in priciple. Surely, some will argue with the ultimate effectiveness of this platform, but it seemed to me at the time that the Republican agenda at the time was defined by these intitives, and as a Libertarian, I had no problem supporting it.

I would argue that prior to the Contract, the Bush the Elder Administration could be typified by its committment to free trade, a betrayal of conservative tax principles and its commitment to internationalism and the Powell Doctrine. It was Bush the Elder's betrayal of Tax Doctrine that drove me to change my party registration to libertarian, but as for the rest of the program, as a Libertarian, I had no problem supporting the rest of Bush the Elder's agenda.

Going back farther, the Reagan Revolution was a libertarian revolution as far as I was concerned. Reagan's achievements in foreign policy--given what happened afterwards--seems to have made a lot of people forget his achievements in domestic policy. Sure, the tax cuts were great--God bless him for that--but his tilts at deregulation were heroic. Never mind the end of the oil "crisis", what about firing the Air Traffic Controllers? His deregulation of the Airline Industry made Airline travel possible for millions of people and businesses. Prior to Reagan, if you were a trucker, you needed a license to carry goods between one specific MSA and another, and you had to get one of a limited number of a limited number of licenses that were distributed by a federal agency staffed by members of the Teamsters Union!

Oh yeah, and let's not forget about Reagan's pragmatic foreign policy...

...like Shultz and Kirkpatrick or not, being "conservative" during the Reagan era meant that, at least, we weren't sending hundreds of thousands of American troops into Central and South America--a libertarian outcome for sure.

George W. Bush's Administration is an utter and complete betrayal of all these basic "conservative" and libertarian principles. When the conservative Republicans come back to the principles of Reagan, Bush the Elder and Gingrich, I suspect they'll find plenty of libertarians there to greet them with open arms.

Yeah, I know, Bush the Younger, according to my definition, is somewhere to the left of Bill Clinton in that Clinton, at least, had a pragmatic foreign policy. That is to say, the Bush Administration hasn't just betrayed libertarian ideals, it's betrayed the basic tenets of "conservative" policy as well. Once Bush is gone, and the Defense Moms go back to their Soccer, the Republicans will have another shot at us.

...Let's hope some libertarian minded, Republican members somehow materialize in congress before then so that libertarian support will have someone in place with whom such support can resonate. ...Because, right now, being a libertarian looking for a libertarian minded Republican in Congress is like being a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.

|2.19.05 @ 7:16PM|#

P.S. Sorry 'bout the spillover, but thread spillover happens--Jack Kemp was not a big government conservative.

|2.19.05 @ 7:21PM|#

"SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public"

This one is really funny. I was a Placeholder on the Hill when I was in college - meaning, I got paid to stand in line to get a seat in committee hearings, and give up my place in the line to the lobbyist/lawyer who bought my company's services.

When the Republicans took over, things started to get weird. They'd change the locatiton and time of committe hearings with no notice (though we knew how to track them down). They also started to hold "public hearings" in basement rooms of the Capitol that nobody had ever heard of, in rooms that had 2-3 seats available for the public, and even early in the morning, before the Capitol opened to the public!

This crap was bad enough on its own, but to see that "principle" laid out as one of the Republican leadership's vows like that...wow.

|2.19.05 @ 7:26PM|#

joe,

Did you go to George Washington University?

|2.19.05 @ 9:06PM|#

Going back farther, the Reagan Revolution was a libertarian revolution as far as I was concerned.

Wanna tell us what was libertarian about his escalation of the War on Drugs?

Again, you appear to be defining "liberty" by the conventional conservative sense of "economic liberty". Reagan's record on personal liberties was nothing to brag about.

His deregulation of the Airline Industry made Airline travel possible for millions of people and businesses.

Um, no. The ADA (Airline Deregulation Act) was signed into law by Jimmy Carter July 28, 1978.

Sure, the tax cuts were great--God bless him for that

I hate to break this to you, but spending went up during the Reagan administration.

You seem to think that simply because the money isn't taken out of the citizen's pockets directly by taxation, there isn't a penalty for government spending to the citizen. You might want to consider that borrowed money still comes from the private sector, and money that's being taken out of the economy by government is money not available to be used for something else. See "opportunity cost". Whether government takes the money out of the economy by taxing or borrowing, it still takes it out.

I'll give you that Reagan was an improvement over Bush I & II, and even Clinton, but that's a low hurdle to jump.

As per the Contract with America - sure that's something libertarians could get behind. In fact I know lots of Conservatives and Liberals that could get behind those things as well.

Now, how much of it has actually been implemented? Big talking (as usual), but none of it has come to fruition (as usual). That is the whole problem. The Republicans talk a great libertarian sounding game, but how much ever materializes, how much has your average Joe Citizen's liberties been augmented? I've yet to see it happen.

|2.19.05 @ 9:39PM|#

Pig,

Has everyone forgotten Stockman already? You do realize that the Democrats dominated the House and that Reagan made a conscious decision, in a pinch, to kill the USSR rather than...

Anyway, the point of my comment was in regards to the libertarian/conservative marriage/divorce.

Since 1980, being conservative meant 1) let's cut marginal tax rates 2) let's keep spending down 3) let's support free trade 4) a pragmatic foreign policy. All four of those issues resonate with libertarian voters.

...I suspect all of the Republicans in power since 1980 have betrayed one of these principles at one time or another--George W. Bush has betrayed them all. This total betrayal has left Republican leaning libertarians with no reason to support the Republican Party whatsoever.

...The point isn't that Republicans are suddenly going to empty the nation's prisons of drug offenders or embrace frontal nudity on broadcast television now that the Security Moms have dropped their Soccer Balls and picked up M-16s. The point is that there is no obvious reason for any libertarian to continue to support the Republican Party any longer, and that's because we no longer have anything in common with the Republican Party.

I suspect that once George W. Bush is gone, the conservatives will go back to supporting cuts in tax rates, trying to keep domestic spending down, pushing free trade and objecting to squandering the lives of American troops on foreigners. When that happens, maybe we'll reconcile.

...but until then, my vote's up for grabs.

Ruthless|2.19.05 @ 9:59PM|#

If gay marriage can be banned, this one should have been a cinch.

|2.19.05 @ 10:46PM|#

Ken,

Yup. You?

stress|2.19.05 @ 11:09PM|#

Divorce!

|2.19.05 @ 11:10PM|#

...Well you can't be all bad then!

I didn't attend GW, but I spent a lot of time over there--back in the late eighties. There were these girls in the dorm and...some of those dorm "rooms" had like three or four bedrooms in them.

...Anyway, I used to "keep an office" at the Red Lion...and I used to go to a lot of parties in the area--SAE over there had some great ones.

...Of course, DC was the last place to raise the drinkin' age to 21--I was all of 19 and 20 back then; I have very fond memories of the place, of course, I'm from D.C. originally. Someday I'll go home.

|2.20.05 @ 1:19AM|#

Divorce.

When it comes to many issues important to libertarians, including the war on drugs, marriage, civil liberties, to name a few, there are probably more commonalities with liberal dems than republicans. I think that if there is to be an alliance, the libertarians would be better served (as would the American people...) by an alliance with liberals and/or democrats.

|2.20.05 @ 1:28AM|#

"Jack Kemp was not a big government conservative."?

Yes, he was. He was not a big *tax* conservative. The whole idea of his version of supply side economics is that if you cut taxes and restored the gold standard, you wouldn't have to cut government spending. The tax cuts would generate so much economic activity that government revenues would actually increase, etc. This is very different from the idea of using tax cuts to "starve the beast."

D Allen|2.20.05 @ 3:06AM|#

> "I think that if there is to be an alliance, the libertarians would be better served (as would the American people...) by an alliance with liberals and/or democrats."

Ugh. I'm no big fan of the neocon Hannity-O'Reilly axis, but I can't even stomach the word "alliance" when I imagine the likes of Michael Moore, Paul Krugman, Ralph Nader, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, etc, and the garden variety Hollywood limousine celebrities, 'Rock The Vote' MTV singers/rappers, environuts, and Ivory Tower college professors. No thanks.

James Anderson Merritt|2.20.05 @ 4:32AM|#

There's no true marriage between libertarians and conservatives, unless you're drinking the Kool-Aid offered by the likes of Jonah Goldberg and his fellow GOP opinion drovers (which probably has that date-rape drug in it -- beware!).

The key question is, if you want to be left alone to do your own thing, are you willing to let other people alone to do THEIR own thing -- assuming that none of you is actually hurting anybody? If so, you may be a libertarian, and if so, you can't keep voting for the two-party system.

As predicted, George W. Bush has touted his slim margin of victory as a mandate of historical proportions, to stay the neocon-inspired course of Pax Americana and spreading "democracy" at gunpoint -- not to mention escalation of the "Wars" on Terror, Drugs and Domestic Civil Rights.

What needed to happen in 2004 was for all libertarian-minded voters to declare that their votes were NOT for sale to the least objectionable candidate. An excellent way to do that, would have been to vote for the Libertarian presidential candidate. There was NO chance Badnarik could have won with ONLY the libertarian-minded voters behind him. Still, if all of the libertarian-minded voters had voted for him, the total would have been large enough to 1) deny Mr. Bush the mandate he is now claiming; 2) ensure that libertarian voices would have been heard in the major media until at least 2006 and beyond.

How many times must libertarian-minded voters be betrayed before they realize that they will only exert significant influence by refusing to fall for politics-as-usual? It is necessary to demonstrate that 1) there IS a libertarian voting bloc; and 2) that a politician or political party cannot buy the votes of that bloc by making empty promises that are forgotten immediately after election day.

Only if major party candidates think that they will lose elections by not making and keeping promises to libertarian voters, will libertarians ever achieve significant political influence. After 25 years of observing libertarian political campaigns, I am convinced of that. Credible refutations entertained...

|2.20.05 @ 6:14AM|#

I don't forsee that American society will become significantly more free between now and say, the end of my life. It is difficult to imagine any really major changes.

To be entirely honest, I'm not too awfully exercised about this, as I believe Americans already enjoy about as much freedom as people actually have any use for, and are very fortunate at that.

My biggest and only real public policy concerns relate to preserving the society we have...and it while it is difficult to take childish and paranoid fantasies about the religious Right seriously, I won't ever underestimate the dangers posed by the devout Left - Establishment or Radical.

About the only major change in the balance of government to freedom during my adult life was the advent of affirmative action, and similar mandates throughout American public life. Who would you say was - and continues to be - responsible for THAT?

Nobody is going to make drugs legal...and nobody is going to make abortion illegal.

Democrats are going to make gay marriage legal IF they acquire a commanding enough grip to ride out public opposition...but then, under the same circumstances, they would almost certainly make guns illegal.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. I don't forsee I will want to marry a man any time during the rest of my life, and if I decided that the love of a man was my destiny, nothing would have stopped me from moving in with the guy since before most of you were born, and now-a-days acquiring all the legal incidents of a marrige might be about as much trouble as getting all the paperwork on your first car.

Although I don't own a gun (never have) I can easly imagine deciding I wanted to, at almost any time in my future.

Warren|2.20.05 @ 11:05AM|#

The Libertarian Party's existence (however flawed you may find it) is the direct result of the Republican Party's utter betrayal of libertarian principals. For the past 30 years (and longer) the Reps have been spewing the rhetoric of, federalism, freedom, and fiscal responsibility when out of power only to erect an elitist, oppressive, and prodigal theocracy when in power.

DIVORCE! DIVORCE! DIVORCE!

If all the principled supporters of the Republican Party would cease being the willing tools of corruption, we might actually make some progress in restoring nobility to this country.

|2.20.05 @ 11:50AM|#

Am I the only American who continues to cherish certain principles (legal marijuana, limited government spending, noncoercive sexual freedom, state defense against theocratic militants, and more) while rejecting others (gay-bashing, corporate welfare, banning of pornography, and more). Does that make me a libertarian or a conservative?

The left, having hijacked the Democrat party, has become unabashedly antiamerican and pro-Islamist, while attempting to hoodwink the electorate through such "centrist" candidates as Kerry and Hillary. I would hope that libertarians and conservatives are united in opposing this danger to both liberty and the Constitution. But that is only a hope, not something on which I can count.

|2.20.05 @ 11:58AM|#

Local flavor may make a difference in peoples opinions. Here in my comfortable Denver suburb I have no expectation of a post-Bush reversion. The local R's seem to want more of Bush not less.

Based upon my little corner of the world divorce has been earned, and will be demanded not by libertarians but by the conservatives who now direct criticism at libertarians who question the administration's policies. Conservatives have come to regard libertarians as a nuisance group who need to shut up and follow.

|2.20.05 @ 2:09PM|#

The problem with this debate is that we're asking whether we should grudgingly support, as a lesser evil, whatever doofus the GOP nominates. That's the wrong question to ask. We need to get involved in the process. Identify the good Republicans (or, now and then, maverick Democrats) in the primary and go knock on doors for one of them. I've done it before and I'll do it again. Get some good people nominated so on every ballot there's at least one race where you don't have to hold your nose.

Of course, if there is no good candidate on the ballot then we can have the eternal debate over whether we vote for lesser evil (usually GOP), principle (usually LP), or divided gov't (nowadays that means Dem at the federal level). But it would be far better to avoid that debate entirely by getting a decent candidate nominated by a major party or identifying and supporting an LP candidate who truly has a shot. (The second option will be much rarer than the first, but a pleasure when it occurs.)

I realize that we'll rarely get a major party to nominate a purist libertarian, but I think most of us (whether we'll admit it or not) would be quite happy with a candidate who supports a gov't significantly smaller than the status quo, even if he doesn't support the purist libertarian ideal. But such candidates won't appear out of thin air. We have to fund them and work on their campaigns. I've done it before and I'll do it again.

When we do something positive like that we eliminate the need for this eternal debate.

|2.20.05 @ 2:13PM|#

Oh, and I hasten to add that when there's no good major party candidate and the race isn't expected to be close, why not support an articulate and serious LP candidate? I'm not saying that you should support the blue-skinned druid campaigning on a platform of bringing back the gold standard and blowing up UN headquarters. But if there should happen to be an articulate and polished LP candidate who can project a moderate image, why not support that person with more than just a vote?

If the race isn't close then there's no risk, and if the candidate isn't a nut then you won't lose any self-respect.

|2.20.05 @ 2:25PM|#

"To be entirely honest, I'm not too awfully exercised about this, as I believe Americans already enjoy about as much freedom as people actually have any use for, and are very fortunate at that."

You know what Andrew, I'll be the judge of how much freedom I have "use for," mmmkay? If you think you currently have enough freedom, that's fine. But don't pretend to be the judge for the rest of us.

|2.20.05 @ 3:29PM|#

thoreau

when you have two-thirds or three-quarters of what you desire, and those gains are insecure, isn't a stretegy that places a priority on conserving what you have simply rational? unglamorous surely...but rational.

The religious conservatives themselves don't seriously expect to alter American public life or popular culture - they mostly think in terms of a conservative (small-c) and defensive strategy - and they are right. The ambitions of the Left on the other hand, are unlimited and quite serious.

Here is a thought problem: if in one package, you could obtain two things 1.) a certain amount of ceremonial public religiosity - most of which you have already "endured" your entire life - references to "God" and the Ten Commandments in sundry public contexts 2.) an end to Affirmative Action...

would you bite?

Yeah yeah, I know...that isn't on the table, and it isn't THAT simple - but like any kind of thought experiment this prepares you for the KIND of choices you need to make when your Movement comprises 1.5% of the electorate, if that. Obviously, you don't win anything without allies.

Religious conservatives, nativists and neo-cons...

or feminists, race-pleaders, tree-huggers and public-sector employee unions?

Like I said...a no-brainer.

|2.20.05 @ 4:01PM|#

Andrew, your hypothetical question may very well encapsulate the compromises that need to be made when the candidates on the ballot are all distasteful to a libertarian. But I'm trying to pull a Captain Kirk and find a solution that's outside the box: Identify the good people and work to get them on the ballot, so that in the general election we don't once again have the no-win choice between a bad Republican, a worse Democrat, and an un-noticed (by the media) protest vote for a kook.

(For those who don't get the reference, recall that in one of the Star Trek movies there was a no-win training simulation designed to test the character of a Star Fleet officer. Kirk was the only officer who had ever found a winning solution, because he reprogrammed the simulation so he'd have better options.)

Now, I realize that few Republicans will win a primary on a purist libertarian platform. All I've suggested is supporting somebody who favors smaller government (in relative terms, not absolute terms) and has a more tolerant social attitude.

Is that really such an unrealistic demand?

And yes, I know, libertarians (at least the hard-core ones) are only 1% of the electorate (give or take, probably take). Well, in primaries for state legislative office, a handful of volunteers can make a difference. In the next election cycle, I pledge to do whatever I can to support a decent candidate for state legislative office in the primaries.

And while the purist libertarians might only be 1%, "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" seems to please a decent number of swing voters.

Is my proposal really so radical? Are you really convinced that the only tenable political stance is unwavering support for the GOP status quo?

The worst that can happen is that on a few Saturday mornings I'll knock on some doors, hand out some fliers, meet some people, and have the satisfaction of doing a good deed. The best that can happen is that I help elect a Republican who is a sincere (but not necessarily hard-core) fiscal conservative and has a socially tolerant attitude.

Is that really such a pipe dream on my part?

|2.20.05 @ 4:10PM|#

Two other things:

1) Some people here would say that my goal is far too modest. Andrew would say I'm being unrealistic. That tells me I'm probably right on track.

2) Andrew, I'm glad you think that Americans have as much freedom as we need. How about if we ask some non-violent drug offenders if they agree with you? I'm sure they'd be happy to respond as soon as their cell-mate is done raping them.

|2.20.05 @ 4:33PM|#

Religious conservatives, nativists and neo-cons...

I still categorize neocons with the left. The only reason they're being tolerated by the other conservatives is because so many of the brick and morter conservatives are a) afraid of another attack and b) convinced that the War on Terror is a culture war. That doesn't mean the neoconservatives will be on the right forever.

...There has been a vacum in foreign policy on the left for decades--if it wasn't that so much of the left identifies itself with opposition to the Vietnam War, I think the left would have already embraced the neocons. Actually, as memory of Vietnam fades, I suspect the left probably will embrace the neocons.

|2.20.05 @ 5:08PM|#

Oh thoreau

cry me a river about non-violent drug offenders, most of whom wouldmhave done hard time for the offenses they were convicted of if they had encountered the criminal justice system in Canada, Holland or Afghanistan...or anywhere else on earth.

It is also illegal in America to own an Uzi or a couple of hand-grenades - thoreau, do you chew your nails, and lose sleep at night, resisting the temptation?

So why did you NEED to court state time growing pot plants on the back forty you bought outside Bakersfield, or stashing a quarter-ton in your basement?

If a guy knowingly risks five-to-ten importing African parakeets, ivory or mid-east artifacts...do you really give a shit, just because you might favor different legislative choices? Who cares about Al Capone? I don't.

|2.20.05 @ 5:13PM|#

I believe Andrew just said "Remember, Afghanistan is much worse."

Such high standards we have here!

Seriously, though, Andrew, if you believe that we libertarians are such cry-babies, and if you believe that even modest steps in the right direction are unreasonable wishes (notice that nowhere in my proposal for moderate Republicans did I say a word about drug legalization, even though personally I care a lot about it), why even bother wasting time on us?

I'm not saying this place should be an echo chamber, but if your main point is that we're all so unreasonable in our goals, why do you hang out with us?

Finally, for a guy who thinks that we libertarians are so unreasonable, I find it interesting that I'm one of your favorite targets. I consider myself fairly moderate by the standards of this forum.

|2.20.05 @ 6:35PM|#

thoreau

It is a compliment that I engage with you - I hope you accept it as such.

To take some points randomly. ANYONE who breaks a rule - even an unjust and ill-conceived rule - that you elect to follow is obtaining an unjust advantage over you. This goes for pot=farmers or income-tax cheats. The drug-dealer I knew the best was a guy I met at treatment. He was a likeable middle-aged fellow, who probably shoud have owned a string of car-washes...and his principle concern was that he was in treatment to duck a DUI, and the bills weren't being collected, because his business associate Tattoo Dan was taking a vacation on the County.
Northern California is full of "non-violent" drug offenders like him...and they can take care of themselves, far as I'm interested - they get their unearned advantage, and take personal responsibility for the risks they assume.

Libertarians could make a difference hanging around with conservative/Republicans. A good example would be immigration - most Republican office-holders favor liberalization, most conservative intellectuals favor restriction. Libs could weigh in on the margin. (You won't be needed for drug reform - the National Review has got it covered).

Meantime you give the Democrats way too much credit for things they haven't earned: where are THEY on drug reform, to compare to the National Review?; is the pacifist/isolationist foreign policy - when it isn't Marxist anti-American boilerplate - anything more than a vague, emotional trigger-flinch? (is it much MORE than that in your case?); Democrats with enough power to pass gay marriage are apt to think Patriot isn't such a bad idea...provided it's applied to Hate Crimes, and our next exercise in building democracy should be in the Congo, or somewhere else it would do America little or no good.

Why let on to the kids that the Dems are a bunch of good guys, for positions they haven't even dared to advocate publicly? At least I'm not giving Republicans credit for anything they haven't at least rhetorically championed.

|2.20.05 @ 8:17PM|#

thoreau

In one sense, I don't much have to worry about the future of the Republican Party...the future is ALWAYS ours, in the sense that any generational cohort reaching age 40 to 50 starts pulling 60% Republican, at least. The kids who swear by Chomsky in the coffee-shops today will be pulling down mortgages, paying taxes and worrying about schools and street crime, and the safety and respect of the USA in the world, someday.

But what a WAY for them to become Republicans...when they are more worried about whether their kids score porn on the 'Net or drugs in the locker-room, than whether the world gets a taste of consensual government, or the free market gets to show a little more of what it can do. I have to wait for everyone to get tired and middle-aged, cause every time some guy who might have strayed off the PC plantation expresses his doubts, he gets to hear from you - perhaps a respected and credible source - that the party od eco-fanatics, feminists and public-sector employees are the "good guys" (progessives?) and the Republicans are theocrats, racists and homo-killing bigots...and then, when he decides that THAT is the way he's going to vote anyway, what will he think of his choice?

|2.20.05 @ 9:10PM|#

Ken,
I'd have to disagree that the neo-cons will leave the Republican party. Parties are constantly shifting coalitions. The civil rights era brought over the Dixicrats as a permanent group into the Republican fold and they haven't left. Republicans are pulling over a lot of socially conservative democrats into their tent to. Republicans are becoming more statist as they have their hands on the controls.

Andrew,
I hate to break it to you, but so freakin what if some of NR advocates drug legalization. I haven't seen any actual policy that demonstrates that Republicans in office do. Quite the contrary, they are trying to interfere with states that legalized it for medicinal use. Neither side gives a rat's patoot about civil liberties. Just today in the Corner, they were decrying the government not being able to tap phones at will or ask to see papers. The fact that red-meat conservatives like those at NR consider the goverment to be "the good guys" means that it would probably be better for both sides if there was a divorce. They don't want our moderating voice and we shouldn't give our tacit approval and enable these bigger government policies.

Yeah it sucks that the Democrats are hard core statists as well, but at least they NEED to change their policies because they aren't popular. They KNOW they have to go in a different direction to get more popular support. The Republicans know they can stay with the status quo and win elections (or so they think, if they scare off their libertarians, they won't be). At the very least, we need a seperation, to let them know that we're not going to be taken for granted and that we CAN make an electoral difference.

Either that or sane libertarians need to form a new party. How about the Federalists?

|2.20.05 @ 9:27PM|#

Andrew-

First of all, thank-you for the compliment.

Second, fwiw, on domestic policy I'm actually starting to think that the difference between Dems and the GOP is smaller than I originally thought it was.

(On foreign policy, well, we've crossed swords on that too many times. We each know where the other one stands, and I don't see many agreements in the near future. I will grant that the Dems are nothing to cheer about on foreign policy. While I may not like the invasion of Iraq, I wouldn't be a big fan of intervening in Haiti (yet again), Liberia, Congo, or wherever else the Dems decide to play Global Social Worker.)

Here's what holds me back from declaring the GOP the Lesser Evil:

First, my strongest sympathies remain with the people in the Democratic coalition. It's why I get more angry about zoning (drives up the cost of housing for the poor) than about taxes (though I'm no fan there). It's why I get more angry about drug prohibition (fuels street crime and sends us down the slippery slope toward a police state) than about political correctness (though I'm no fan of it). And so forth.

Now, that's not to say I'm a fan of the Democratic policies, but my strongest sympathies remain with the Dems' voters.

Next, the policies: On social issues, well, we all know what I think about the GOP's authoritarian streak. I freely grant that PC is a form of authoritarianism, but I guess it all depends on how pervasive one believes each party's worst traits are and which poison you prefer the least and whatnot. So we know where I stand there and why I stand that way, even if we might disagree on the merits.

On economics: If the GOP's only sin was that they fell short of Libertopia I'd switch my registration to GOP in a heartbeat. The problem is that they are business conservatives, not market conservatives. A business conservative and market conservative both have the same opening line: "Hi, I'd like less regulation, please." The difference is what they say after that.

Market conservative: "That's all. I'll be fine if you leave me alone."

Business conservative: "Say, if you could add a nice thick slice of pork to my order that would be great. And how about a side order of regulation for my competitors?"

Finally, take a couple of hot-button issues with economic aspects:

Social Security: If Bush proposes a means test to reduce expenditures plus tax incentives (including payroll tax deductions) to encourage more individual investment in IRA's I'll be thrilled. It isn't libertopian, but it's a nice step in the right direction. The problem is that everything I'm hearing indicates the private accounts will fall under heavy gov't management, more management than IRA's currently fall under. That seems a huge step backward to me. It starts off good, since money will be invested in private accounts that yield higher returns. But with those higher returns come volatility, and rather than giving individuals maximum flexibility to manage that volatility, it sounds like a bureaucracy will be in charge. Bureaucracies tend to exacerbate negative effects of volatile markets by slowing corrective responses.

If I'm wrong about this, and Bush proposes something closer to my desires, I'll declare him the greatest President (on domestic policy, anyway) since that guy in the first quarter of the 20th century who oversaw the last reduction in federal spending (measured in real terms). Anybody remember his name?


School vouchers: Unlike some libertarians, I don't see school vouchers as a small step in the right direction. I see them as a step in the wrong direction, because they will lead to greater micromanagement of private schools. Nothing scares me more than the thought of Catholic schools (of which I am a proud alumnus) going down the same road as private universities (which are bound by all sorts of red tape due to financial aid and research grants and whatnot).

Yes, American private universities are among the best in the world, but they are still bloated and wasteful. And much of that is due to federal regulations attached to financial aid. I teach in the evenings at a private, for-profit photography school (I teach optics). The strings attached to financial aid have led to some truly bizarre practices.


Anyway, these issues are just examples. If the GOP's only sin were that they weren't good enough I could forgive them. The problem is that on economic issues they are frequently just as bad, only in a different way.

|2.21.05 @ 1:37AM|#

Ken,

"...as memory of Vietnam fades, I suspect the left probably will embrace the neocons."

What's your logic on this one? Somehow I'm not seeing it. I see the Democrats becoming increasingly more like Europe on foreign policy -- just as soon as they can jam it through our congress.

I shan't go into tirades now about European foreign policy. Or Bush foreign policy either.


Divorce libertarians from conservatives? Hmm. So that must mean libertarians are going celibate, right? Because I can't imagine getting hitched with the democrats either. I'm not a libertarian because I wanted to support the republicans or the democrats. I want to support a libertarian.

In the last election I supported the lesser evil. After the election I was struck by the obvious: evil is evil. In principle, I think I should either support a libertarian (assuming one is on the ballot, that isn't a buffoon), or else go on strike. I think, if there isn't a worthwhile candidate to vote for, I should inform the major parties that I'm on strike until they put someone worth voting for on the ballot.

I expect my one lone voice in the woods shall amount to less than a whisper. But at least I won't wake up the day after voting with a hang over, wondering "why did I vote for THAT fool, anyway?"

Democracy is a funny thing. It means you can vote for whoever you want. And if you ask again "but what *is* democracy?", you find yourself lost at sea. See, I can vote for whoever I want. There were only two people with any real chance of being president last time around. But just think, you can vote for whoever you want.

Somehow democracy is ringing hollow to me of late....

|2.21.05 @ 2:50AM|#

well thoreau

if the reason you lean Democrat is sentiment - sort of in the same way I guy might have a favorite band because that was the year he first got laid...hm, the first year I got laid I was a Marxist, and disco was IT. I am so glad that times can change!

Which Democrat voters do you like best? The trial attorneys, the public sector employees (the teachers?), the greivance-inspired minorities or the tony Volvo liberals? Who are you going to marry?

Republicans and conservatives can profit by having libertarians around - I'm persuaded of that. Whether libertarians can profit from hanging around conservatives? I can only say what any guy would say under the circumstances..."It's a good offer...you should take it."

|2.21.05 @ 4:04AM|#

In one sense, I don't much have to worry about the future of the Republican Party...the future is ALWAYS ours, in the sense that any generational cohort reaching age 40 to 50 starts pulling 60% Republican, at least.

Hmmm. That would apparently make me the Republican's target audience.

Funny, but seeing what the Bush administration has wrought, and the direction of the Republican party in general, I find myself moving in the opposite direction. And judging from the recent commentary from such long-time conservatives as Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts, Don Devine and Joe Sobran, I'm apparently not alone in that respect, either.

I'd say unless the Republican party starts making some course corrections in a hurry, it wouldn't be wise for you to be counting your chickens before they hatch.

|2.21.05 @ 9:30AM|#

Thoreau--

For what little its worth, I agree with you that the only realistic course for libertarians is to work within the existing national parties to find moderate candidates who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. They are out there.

What libertarians really need to do is to develop a voting score sheet, just like other major interest groups do, and publicize the scores. Armed with information on candidates, libertarians can make their votes meaningful. Perhaps Cato does this.

|2.21.05 @ 11:32AM|#

Which Democrat voters do you like best? The trial attorneys, the public sector employees (the teachers?), the greivance-inspired minorities or the tony Volvo liberals? Who are you going to marry?

You forgot a few. Union goons, for example. Although there is no doubt overlap between public sector and union goon . . .

|2.21.05 @ 11:51AM|#

Which Democrat voters do you like best? The trial attorneys, the public sector employees (the teachers?), the greivance-inspired minorities or the tony Volvo liberals? Who are you going to marry?

Those are the only people voting Democrat?

I'm no fan of the trial lawyers and public sector unions. And I admit that the tony Volvo liberals can be pretty annoying. But not all of the minorities are voting Dem because of grievances. Some are voting Dem because they perceive hostility (real or imagined) from the other side. Same for poor voters: Not all of them are convinced that a handout is the only way to go, but when only one side is talking about their situation, and the other side is (perceived as) talking about the woes of the upper class, whom do you think they'll vote for?


Ron-

A guide for fiscally conservative/socially liberal voters might be nice. It might also be useful for more people than just the 1% who can be considered hard-core libertarians.

I still think that the LP, with intelligent strategy, could play an important part in American politics (as spoilers, plus electing some people here and there). I also think that fiscally conservative and socially liberal moderates from the major parties have a part to play.

|2.21.05 @ 12:27PM|#

It hardly makes sense to believe, in a contemporary contest, that poor voters - or voters whose principal basis for political participation is a sense of injury and threat - are going to vote in an enlightened fashion. There is nothing wrong with a political party receiving most of its plurality from middle-class and upper-class voters.
The pastiche of fear, envy, resentment and special pleading served up by the Democrats is antithetical to statesmanship.
Only an adolesent believes the "right" political direction requires the endorsemant of the Poor, or even Larry Lunchbox.

Pig...the "security state" is the default of continental European societies, and there is likely no provision of Patriot you take exception to which hasn't always been the unchallenged common practice of your social democracies.

|2.21.05 @ 12:32PM|#

"What's your logic on this one? Somehow I'm not seeing it. I see the Democrats becoming increasingly more like Europe on foreign policy -- just as soon as they can jam it through our congress."

Since 1980, at least, The left's foreign policy has been a reaction to pragmatism on the right.

Sanctions, for instance, were typically a bone thrown to the left on the way to doing whatever it was that we were going to do--we tried sanctions, they didn't work, now we have to take care of business. It was also the left, typically, that wanted to use trade as leverage to influence the internal politics of other countries. For a long time, for instance, they insisted that we approve MFN status for China on an annual basis.

The right may have argued in public that trade with China would promote Democracy, but their real premise was, essentially, that trade with China was good for the American economy--deal with it. Sure, it would be great if China became a Democracy, but that was, at most, a secondary concern.

Much of that pragmatism was easier to swallow during the Cold War; during the Cold War, the right had us cozy up with all kinds of nasty Dictators all over the world. Neoconservatives, despite the forced grins you see when our diplomats take pictures with rulers from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, wouldn't have us repeat that strategy.

...That is to say, they want to use US foreign policy to affect the internal politics of other countries--just like liberals before 9/11. It's just that, generally speaking, before 9/11, liberals marketed themselves as being against using force.

So, I would argue that if the desire to affect the internal politics of other countries has, traditionally, been a characteristic of the left, then people who want to use the military to affect the internal politics of other countries will probably gravitate to the left over time.

Many Baby-Boomer liberals tend to think of the willingness to use force as the line that divides liberals and conservatives--I suspect that, for many of them, that's just a vestige of their, mostly cultural, attachments to opposition to the Vietnam War.

...and nothing more.

|2.21.05 @ 3:03PM|#

But not all of the minorities are voting Dem because of grievances. Some are voting Dem because they perceive hostility (real or imagined) from the other side.

My hispanic mother-in-law votes Democrat reflexively. She does so, to the best I can tell, due to a combination of mild paranoia combined with mild collectivist tendencies. In any case, she isn't going to join the Libertarian Party anytime soon. She is also a little confused about politics, for example she credited Clinton with California's "Three Strikes" law, IIRC something that Republican gov Pete Wilson signed. She supports "Three Strikes", but if she understood that a Republican signed it she might change her opinion . . .

Rousseau like noble savage ideas usually don't stand up when you are well aquanted with the savages . . .

|2.21.05 @ 4:07PM|#

"I still think that the LP, with intelligent strategy, could play an important part in American politics (as spoilers, plus electing some people here and there). I also think that fiscally conservative and socially liberal moderates from the major parties have a part to play."

Thoreau: I respectfully disagree. I've been following the LP, at a distance, for 25 years, and I see no indication whatsoever that it is going to become a significant "player" in American politics. If libertarians are ever going to be taken seriously, they are going to have to work within the existing two-party system, unless one of the major parties simply collapses (like the Federalists). This may seem difficult, but other interest groups seem to be quite adept at influencing either political party when necessary.

It seems to me that it's not the number of votes, but the unity of the voting bloc, that is the key to political power. Libertarians need to single out a handful of issues that are not being advocated adequately at present (we don't need to spend resources on the already well-financed gun lobby, for example). Then we need to pursue them relentlessly. Let's target some federal laws for extinction and fight until it happens. For balance, let's go after a few that are favored by liberals and some that are favored by conservatives. There are plenty to chose from. Make the major parties compete for our votes. With an electorate as closely divided as the U.S.', this shouldn't be too difficult.

My message to libertarians: Don't get mad, form a lobby!

|2.21.05 @ 5:19PM|#

I have a suggestion for the libertarian lobby's first legislative effort: A law banning unfunded federal mandates on state and local governments, including schools. That should be enough to chew on for the next decade or so.

|2.21.05 @ 10:56PM|#

The libertarian/conservative alliance was never about ideological affinity. Modern conservatism and libertarianism both came into existence during the pinnacle of liberal hegemony, post-WW2. Game theory would suggest that, during a period when one of the two major parties is ascendant, a minor party can maximize its impact by joining itself to the opposition.

In the current climate, the 50/50 nation, the rules change, and the best way for libertarians to make a mark is to rent yourself out, one election at a time, to the higher bidder among the two parties.

|2.22.05 @ 12:13AM|#

Ken, I sort of see your logic now. Though somehow, I still find it hard to imagine the democrats overcoming their self-effacing pacifism. If only the republicans offered a rational counter stance...but I'm dreaming.

Ron, I kind of like your idea. I just wonder if we could actually weild that kind of coherence out of a bunch of libertarians.

The libertarain party has always impressed me as being akin to Deism 200 years ago -- a self-defeating proposition. :) How's that for cynicism?

I mean, somehow I've always felt there was a fundamental weakness in our political tack. I recall a movie about the Civil War, where a southerner looks at Union schools built in Kansas and says to the effect "See, that's why we're going to loose sooner or later. They believe that everybody should think and live like they do. We just want to be left alone to live as we want."

That isn't a defense of the Confederacy. My point is that the Union position was, philosophically, on the offensive, while the Confederate position countered with a basically passive defense -- not a good way to win in the long haul.

I've yet to see a good way around this problem. We may *actually* have the moral high ground, but somehow it doesn't seem to play that way in the public arena.

|2.22.05 @ 12:53AM|#

As a group of voters (or contributors) libertarians have no significance to either party. Their importance - such as it is - would be for the 'cloring" they might supply for either party to appeal to a much more dilute but larger cohort of voters who might view the libertarian position as extreme, but still a little sympathetic and romantic.

Probably this goes a bit deeper with the GOP, as that party has always held some brief for free-market economics...although they admittedly won't break a neck for it.

With Democrats, the only use for libertarians seems to be right around election time, where they serve the meme pitched at swing and "independent" undecides of "See - even thoughtful conservatives are put off by the EXTREMISM of the GOP candidate".

It is amusing that this travesty requires and assumes the confusion among the general public between libertarians and conservatives. Libertarians are only useful to the Democrats insofar as they are mistaken for conservatives ("thoughtful" conservatives).

|2.22.05 @ 12:51PM|#

"I mean, somehow I've always felt there was a fundamental weakness in our political tack. "

Pragmatist: You've hit the nail squarely on the head. It has always been a harder sell to convince people to oppose government activism on their behalf, on the principal that a government can just as easily act against their interests once the precedent is established. I have a faint (very faint) hope that liberals will start to figure this out now that they are clearly losing political traction in this country. To some extent this has happened with a resurgence in liberal support for federalism, but in that case the goal is often simply to support state government intervention where the feds won't do it, or are doing it in a way that liberals don't like. Conservatives who were once avid states' rights supporters find themselves singing a different tune now.

I have heard it argued that the reason there was no establishment of religion under the Constitution, was not because many of the founders were non-Christian deists (only a few were), but because enough people realized that if government could interfere in religion for "good" purposes, it could also do so for "bad" purposes. The multiplicity of religious denominations in America helped create the climate for that result. I take some encouragement from this example.

As I said before, I think libertarians need to pick their battles and stick with them. Assuming that the goals are realistic, the resulting effort to gain political support for a specific policy will help remove the "extreme" label which has dogged libertarianism from the beginning. I think Cato has the right idea in this regard, but I assume they are nonprofit and have to avoid lobbying for specific laws.