Brian Shields filed a thoughtful objection to my post on the The Libertarian Mind, which says in part:
Complementing this, here's an excerpt from a long post (worth reading in its entirety) from Third Party Watch:
The rest of that post discusses the differences (and similarities) between those who want to build a successful Libertarian Party and those who want to infect society with a more Libertarian philosophy; Steve Gordon, the author, points out that this is essentially the distinction between Libertarian Reformers and Radicals.
Here's where I come down on that (recalling for truth-in-advertising purposes that I am a member of the Libertarian Reform Caucus):
As a parent, a teacher, and (now) a blogger, my first priority is instilling the principles of personal responsibility, limited government, and the greatest possible personal/economic freedom in my children, my students, and my readers. There are all sorts of ways to make positive changes to society outside the political process, and if successful those changes will do more to change that society than winning any number of elections.
On the other hand, as a voter, a taxpayer, a citizen, and a political observer, that process of viral social change is glacially slow and can be wiped out in an eye-blink by an effective politician. FDR's New Deal, followed by LBJ's Great Society, fundamentally altered the way that Americans look at the role of government to such an extent that even eight years of Ronald Reagan barely made a dent in the expansion of Statist power, much less started to roll it back. Put in other terms: the Reagan Doctrine trumped the Brezhnev Doctrine in foreign policy, but got steamrollered by welfare-state capitalism. That's why Michael Lind could make the case just two years ago that
And a large part of the defeat of Libertarianism has to do with the mismatched Reagan-era alliance between Libertarians and Social Conservatives in the Republican Party. Libertarians fought for control of the soul of the Republican Party and lost.
Ironically, however, winning control of the Republican Party has turned out to be a pyrrhic victory for the Social Conservatives, whose tax-and-spend, regulate-and-rule policies have turned out to be the mirror-image of the worst Statist Liberal Progressive Democrats, and are threatening to drive the GOP back into a semi-permanent minority party status for what might be decades. That is certainly the case in Delaware.
But for double irony: there isn't an effective Libertarian Party available at either the State or National levels to capitalize on this GOP disintegration.
Why is that? I think it's because most Libertarians don't have either (a) the slightest understanding of what a modern political party is and does, or (b) the slightest inclination to do the work necessary to become one. I substantiate (a) by returning to Third Party Watch for a Libertarian's definition of what a political party is and does:
Libertarians and other third-party-wannabes make the mistake of thinking that political parties are chiefly about candidates and elections. But they are also fundamentally about selling not just an ideological framework, but also the credibility of the party in bringing home tax dollars and political patronage. How does a Congressman get re-elected? By keeping his constituents as fat and happy at the Federal trough as possible. As the Executive Assistant for Homeland Security in South Carolina once told me, "A new fire truck for the folks in the Governor's home county funded by DHS may not cause Al Qaeda to lose any sleep, but for the Governor it's very definitely a homeland security issue--HIS homeland and HIS security."
But since Libertarians by definition want to eliminate or at least radically reduce the amount of DC bacon available, an effective Libertarian Party almost seems to be an oxymoron.
Unless... we can duplicate the feat that Bill Buckley pulled off all those years ago for the Republicans. In the late 1950s and 1960s, Buckley's conservative movement successfully argued that Libertarian freedoms had to be tempered by some sort of traditional moral framework (hence the Social Cons) or liberty would simply become license.
Now let's go back to one of Brian Shields' really pungent observations in his refutation of my original post:
I think his first two paragraphs here are dead-on (although I don't know what he means by "safety"). But I take issue with his conclusion. I think a functional Libertarian Party has to move to the social left in terms of non-discrimination and civil rights, but has to convince its fellow-travelers that (a) government is not always the best guarantor of civil rights and that (b) there is no inconsistency between civil rights and fiscal restraint. I think we have to peel away the non-discrimination and civil rights left from the welfare-state capitalism left in order to build a new coalition.
All of which is easier said than done, not the least because over the past thirty years Libertarianism in America has been equated with Rightist Libertarianism and not Leftist Libertarianism.
But here I pull an observation from futurist and reform Libertarian David Brin:
Brin believes that in order to build a new Libertarian consensus, we have to move both the party and ideology in new directions.
Defining those directions is the challenge for everyone with Libertarian or libertarian leanings.
Your dream of a Libertarian society is just that, a dream. Reality is that if you want Libertarianism to take hold, you have to find a way to work with the other two parties to squeeze your ideas in.
As a third party, the most effective way to get what you want is to work as the third leg for government to stabilize on. Republicans go one way, Democrats go the other, Libertarians can bridge the gap, and create true partisanship.
Complementing this, here's an excerpt from a long post (worth reading in its entirety) from Third Party Watch:
Changing the mindset of an entire country is a bit more of a daunting task than to simply win elections. While the percentages are still being debated by historians, it’s clear that a quite sizable number of Americans opposed the Revolutionary War at a time many consider to be the most libertarian period in American history. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that there were 900,000 Loyalists out of a population of 2,500,000 colonists in 1776. Of the remainder, while the numbers may be disputed, it is clear that some supported the Revolution and others were either neutral or undecided.
Like most political groupings, libertarians are a minority. Even Republicans and Democrats are minorities within the American electoral system. Using Cato’s data, one might expect that 15% of the voters are actually ideologically libertarian.
It’s rather doubtful that there has ever been an ideological libertarian majority in any jurisdiction where a Libertarian Party candidate has won election or reelection to public office. However, (depending upon how the question is asked), 44-59% of people describe themselves in a way which might allow them to vote for a Libertarian Party candidate.
In many cases, an LP politician can tap into a greater voter pool by working with the local electoral demographics, as opposed to preaching a general libertarian message. For example, imagine a hypothetical district where opposition to a new publicly-financed sports arena, support of a local medical marijuana bill and opposition to the new school bond are highly popular issues. A candidate who focuses on these issues has a greater chance of success than one who focuses on certain hardcore ideological issues which hold little public support.
It simply isn’t necessary for a majority of Americans to be libertarian for them to pull the Libertarian Party lever on Election Day. Looking at the numbers, this seems to be a much simpler project than to convert a majority of Americans into becoming ideological libertarians. [Emphasis added]
The rest of that post discusses the differences (and similarities) between those who want to build a successful Libertarian Party and those who want to infect society with a more Libertarian philosophy; Steve Gordon, the author, points out that this is essentially the distinction between Libertarian Reformers and Radicals.
Here's where I come down on that (recalling for truth-in-advertising purposes that I am a member of the Libertarian Reform Caucus):
As a parent, a teacher, and (now) a blogger, my first priority is instilling the principles of personal responsibility, limited government, and the greatest possible personal/economic freedom in my children, my students, and my readers. There are all sorts of ways to make positive changes to society outside the political process, and if successful those changes will do more to change that society than winning any number of elections.
On the other hand, as a voter, a taxpayer, a citizen, and a political observer, that process of viral social change is glacially slow and can be wiped out in an eye-blink by an effective politician. FDR's New Deal, followed by LBJ's Great Society, fundamentally altered the way that Americans look at the role of government to such an extent that even eight years of Ronald Reagan barely made a dent in the expansion of Statist power, much less started to roll it back. Put in other terms: the Reagan Doctrine trumped the Brezhnev Doctrine in foreign policy, but got steamrollered by welfare-state capitalism. That's why Michael Lind could make the case just two years ago that
The libertarian moment has passed. It will not come again, and its defeat as a force in US politics will change the definitions of right, left and centre not just in the US but also, the world.
And a large part of the defeat of Libertarianism has to do with the mismatched Reagan-era alliance between Libertarians and Social Conservatives in the Republican Party. Libertarians fought for control of the soul of the Republican Party and lost.
Ironically, however, winning control of the Republican Party has turned out to be a pyrrhic victory for the Social Conservatives, whose tax-and-spend, regulate-and-rule policies have turned out to be the mirror-image of the worst Statist Liberal Progressive Democrats, and are threatening to drive the GOP back into a semi-permanent minority party status for what might be decades. That is certainly the case in Delaware.
But for double irony: there isn't an effective Libertarian Party available at either the State or National levels to capitalize on this GOP disintegration.
Why is that? I think it's because most Libertarians don't have either (a) the slightest understanding of what a modern political party is and does, or (b) the slightest inclination to do the work necessary to become one. I substantiate (a) by returning to Third Party Watch for a Libertarian's definition of what a political party is and does:
It’s first important to establish the importance of outreach and education within Libertarian Party circles. Without outreach—especially at a local level—it’s difficult to recruit, train and organize the vital infrastructure of any political party. Someone has to pass out literature, organize events, maintain the local database, manage precincts and districts, run county parties, recruit local candidates and then fill their campaign staffs, and so on. It is the outreach gurus who accomplish this most valuable of work.
Libertarians and other third-party-wannabes make the mistake of thinking that political parties are chiefly about candidates and elections. But they are also fundamentally about selling not just an ideological framework, but also the credibility of the party in bringing home tax dollars and political patronage. How does a Congressman get re-elected? By keeping his constituents as fat and happy at the Federal trough as possible. As the Executive Assistant for Homeland Security in South Carolina once told me, "A new fire truck for the folks in the Governor's home county funded by DHS may not cause Al Qaeda to lose any sleep, but for the Governor it's very definitely a homeland security issue--HIS homeland and HIS security."
But since Libertarians by definition want to eliminate or at least radically reduce the amount of DC bacon available, an effective Libertarian Party almost seems to be an oxymoron.
Unless... we can duplicate the feat that Bill Buckley pulled off all those years ago for the Republicans. In the late 1950s and 1960s, Buckley's conservative movement successfully argued that Libertarian freedoms had to be tempered by some sort of traditional moral framework (hence the Social Cons) or liberty would simply become license.
Now let's go back to one of Brian Shields' really pungent observations in his refutation of my original post:
Stop me if I'm wrong, but Libertarians believe in Gay Rights, Environment protection, and safety. All common Democrat themes.
Libertarians believe in core conservative values that republican's haven't quite adhered to lately, and personal responsibility, another republican trait.
How the party can gain marketshare in voters is appealing to all sides.
I think his first two paragraphs here are dead-on (although I don't know what he means by "safety"). But I take issue with his conclusion. I think a functional Libertarian Party has to move to the social left in terms of non-discrimination and civil rights, but has to convince its fellow-travelers that (a) government is not always the best guarantor of civil rights and that (b) there is no inconsistency between civil rights and fiscal restraint. I think we have to peel away the non-discrimination and civil rights left from the welfare-state capitalism left in order to build a new coalition.
All of which is easier said than done, not the least because over the past thirty years Libertarianism in America has been equated with Rightist Libertarianism and not Leftist Libertarianism.
But here I pull an observation from futurist and reform Libertarian David Brin:
Listen to most Americans, from liberal to conservative, when they declaim their political foes. More often than not, they will speak in terms of how much power the other bastards are trying to accumulate. To the Sierra Club, it is some rapacious monopoly, using money to clutch after too much influence, eager to despoil our grandchildren's inheritance. To businessmen it is regulatory agencies, or unions, or some other rapacious monopoly, exerting undue leverage over the machinery of society. In either case, the complaints have something in common. A deep-set, almost mythical fear of tyrannical authority stokes the furnace of their passion....
Why, then, do citizens put up with so much government? Or so much wealth controlled by a few families? Or media managed by a few broadcasters and pundits?...
One possible reason is that, beyond suspicion of authority, Americans share other beliefs, as well. These would include pluralism, fairness, charity and pragmatism. They tend to be suspicious of pat dogmas. Moreover, they are cynically aware that many of their fellow citizens would dearly love to set up cheating little satrapies, even dynasties, if given the chance. A government of legislatures, judges, numerous bureaucrats and innumerable lawyers may be cumbersome and irritating, but it is profoundly preferable to the pattern which has dominated nearly all of human history... rule by privileged, inherited aristocracies.
In other words, the result of all this ambivalence and give-and-take is a sloppy concoction hated by ideological purists of every stripe. It is a messy, ad-hoc consensus, one that keeps changing with the times.
Consensus... a difficult, irritating word for those who believe that human culture is a problem with simple, straightforward solutions.
Brin believes that in order to build a new Libertarian consensus, we have to move both the party and ideology in new directions.
Defining those directions is the challenge for everyone with Libertarian or libertarian leanings.
Comments
Ok. let's build a party. When's the next meeting?