Libertarians vs. Communitarians

Occasional Reason contributor Fred Turner has a thoughtful and interesting essay on Tech Central Station in which he argues that the real division in American politics is now libertarian vs. communitarian. A snippet:

More interesting than taking one side or the other would be exploring how the debate itself might throw up excellent new ideas, solutions to old problems, and creative opportunities for cultural and political leadership. Perhaps we should look for a candidate in future presidential primaries and elections to attempt to seize one side of the debate and to define his opponents as on the other side. Will either or both of the major parties begin to split? If one party collapses altogether, as is possible for the Democrats, will the other fission into two in order to fit our two-party paradigm? We live in interesting times.

Comments

[Andrew]

I don't guess anyone here is down with the touchy-feely communitarian agenda...the liberals only glom on it when thy're playing defense, and this season they fell like they're winning.

Personally, it gives me the creeps.

[dragoon]

What is with the "All your base are belong to us" reference? I cracked up when I came to that. Yes, a catch phrase from a badly translated Japanese game is a good way to express the changing political trends.

[Dan]

This leaves out the other positions: free market/closed mind and free mind/closed market. These seem to be the predominant political positions taken today, and perhaps forever

How is that the current political split? The two main "closed mind" forces in American politics today are the religious right and the academic left; both are hostile to free markets. Furthermore, neither of the major political parties fits either the "free market/closed mind" or "free mind/closed market" labels.

Furthermore, it is not possible to be "free mind" without being "free market", as "closed market" by definition involves the assumption that there's a Right and a Wrong and it's other people's job to tell YOU which is which. It is similarly impossible to be "free market" without being "free mind"; a market in which lots of stuff is banned because it's Just Not Right to Do It is not a free market.

[Ira Weatheral]

Great article!

[Russ D]

A good essay, even though I tended to disagree with it as it went on.

He quotes Virginia Postrel as framing the sides as "free markets and free minds on one side, and closed markets and closed minds -- both left and right -- on the other. "

This leaves out the other positions: free market/closed mind and free mind/closed market. These seem to be the predominant political positions taken today, and perhaps forever. With thought, it is obvious that they are self-contradictory, but that hasn't ruined us (yet). Why else would, praphrasing Turner, coherency in position be considered "odd"?

[cdunlea]

Those pinko Communitarian rat bastards! Kill a Communitarian for Christ!

[joe]

The level of bullshit in the second 'graph was so deep, I couldn't finish. I think the idea of such a realignment is interesting, but this writer is obviously dishonest that I'll wait to read it from someone who won't ruin the theory for me.

[Informed Leftist]

I agree. I couldn't read the title even, but I know it was complete right-wing bullshit.

[Rick Barton]

From the Turner piece:
For libertarians:

The nature of virtue itself is one of the issues that is to be decided by the free process of the marketplace of ideas...freedom is the prerequisite for virtue.

Right, and to the extent individuals appraisal of what is virtuous is offended they can choose to, depending on how important they consider the offences, take action via the myriad mechanisms of voluntary association.

Of the communitarian "party" position, Turner says:

Thus a society (not necessarily the state) should preempt the free market and provide the basic security from want and illness that is the ground of virtue.

We should all be so lucky as to have those who hold such a dim view of the market believe in non-statist welfare state alternatives. But, Turner's postulation contains an error because; all non- statist solutions are "free market". Non-statist operations that don't have to have profit as their main concern still depend on voluntary patronage.

Also, what is meant by: "basic security from want and illness is the ground of virtue.",? The only way to defend this is statement is by the observation that crime does indeed tend to fall as prosperity and opportunity increase. This is a good reason to keep government small.

It is very important that to note that; "communitarian" considerations are always advanced as an excuse by those who want something from the government.

Political awareness made a considerable advance with the wide spread understanding of the "unintended consequences" of government policies. The next advance might well be the wide spread understanding of; concealed intended consequences of government policies.

[David Tomlin]

The article is tedious, rambling, and unconvincing.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, "terror" is an abstraction, not an enemy that can actually be defeated. The "war on terror" can never end and so can have no "aftermath". I guess the phrase will eventually fade away, but not in our lifetimes.

The major issues in American politics are still left-right.

The left wants the state to grow rapidly, with more progressive taxes. The right wants it to grow less rapidly, with less progressive taxes.

The right wants an aggressive, unilateralist foreign policy that's mainly about security. The left wants an aggressive, multilateralist foreign policy that's mainly about humanitarianism.

[David Tomlin]

. . . crime does indeed tend to fall as prosperity and opportunity increase.

Does it? Crime in the U.S. was at record lows for most of the 1930s, and rose rapidly during the boom years of the 50s.

[Rick Barton]

David,

The data for homicide, at least, does not seem to corroborate your contention:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm

I'll see if I can find more.

[David Tomlin]

Crime, including homicide, fell sharply after Prohibition was repealed in 1933. It went from a record high to a record low in about two years, and remained low for the rest of the thirties.

The graph you link is a bit crude, making the peak and sharp decline appear to be a few years later than in reality.

[thoreau]

I have my own realignment theory:

The GOP is building a nice pork machine. Spending discipline has gone out the window. And with the pending Boomer retirement, and elderly people's disproportionate proclivity to vote, the GOP will continue more boondoggles along the lines of the Medicare bill.

The Democrats, meanwhile, are allegedly culturally liberal (not exactly the same as civil libertarians) and hence have a youth appeal. They are also in thrall to unions. So the young workers who will be taxed up the wazoo for the Boomer retirement will be Democrats.

For a while fiscal conservatives will stay with the GOP, but eventually disgust with the GOP, coupled with rising Democratic sentiments against massive spending on the Boomer retirement, will cause some of them to bolt the GOP. (This will require the retirement of the current Democratic leadership during the Boomer retirement, and the rise of Democrats who represent disenchanted young workers.)

A lot of big business will stay with the GOP, but some corporations are welfare queens every bit as much as the elderly, farmers, and AFDC recipients. So some of the business vote will remain GOP, but more principled fiscal conservatives will find common cause with the changing Democratic party.

Crazy? Maybe. But what if in 1959 I'd told you that a scion of New England would sweep the South running as a Republican in 2000? You'd say I'm crazy.

(Insert caveat that I'm NOT predicting the Dems will become good enough fiscal conservatives to satisfy libertarian purists, but they might move in a better direction while the GOP moves in a worse direction, if intergenerational transfers of wealth become the defining economic issue of US politics in the next few decades.)

[Rick Barton]

David,

Yeah, I was thinking that the crime rate drop was probably attributable to the ending of prohibition.