An essay in the New Republic by Brink Lindsey, vp for research at the Cato Institute (summarized in this Washington Post column), asks whether libertarians would be better off aligning with liberals rather than conservatives. The issue: conservatives want to impose big government on our personal lives to serve a reactionary morals agenda, while liberals want to turn back the clock on globalization, lower taxes, workplace flexibility and modest business deregulation. Excerpt:
Would libertarians be more comfortable in the company of Democrats? On moral questions-abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research-clearly they would. But on economic issues, the answer is less obvious. For just as Republicans want government to restore traditional values, so Democrats want government to bring back the economic order that existed before globalization. As Lindsey puts it in his New Republic essay, Republicans want to go home to the United States of the 1950s while Democrats want to work there.
If Democrats can get over this nostalgia, there's a chance that liberaltarianism could work.
But don't hold your breath waiting for liberal Democrats to embrace freedom from government in the economic sphere anytime soon. Rising star Barack Obama cut his teeth in the Illinois legislature fighting (sadly, with success), at big labor's behest, to block even modest reform of government overtime mandates, insisting that the jobs for which businesses are forced to pay an hourly rate (rather than a salary), despite what management or even the workers themselves might want, must remain unchanged from the era of the Great Depression.
More. Linday's full New Republic essay is posted on Cato's website, here.
Still more. As Daniel Drezner asks about the Democrat-controlled Congress, "Is there any step towards economic liberalization that they won't block?" (hat tip: Instapundit)
13 Comments for “Libertarians and Liberals.”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Steve, I think you mean big labor’s behest, not their bequest.
Yes, thanks Richard.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If the Republican party would return to traditional, constitutional conservatism, there would be no need for libertarians to think about whether to align with the Democrats. The reason many of us who are constitutional conservatives are holding our noses and voting for Democrats right now is that the Republican party has abandoned the three principles of traditional conservatism — individual liberty, small government and fiscal sanity.
BTW, Obama lived in my neighborhood when I was in Chicago, and I worked on his first campaign for the State Senate. I don’t agree with all of his positions, but he is smart, knowledgable, thoughtful and decent. I’d take him over our current disaster of a President in a heartbeat.
posted by Raot on
Libertarians who are really consistent in their principles shouldn’t be allying with either liberals or conservatives. Libertarians who argue over which of two ill-defined but non-libertarian camps they should be allying with are underscoring their own lack of principle and irrelevance. It’s telling that the seventh sentence of that Washington Post article identifies Brink Lindsey as a conservative.
posted by Carl on
Stephen, did you get to see the new episode of Cold Case? About the gay cops? I think you’d like it. You should write about it. Just a beautiful hour of TV.
posted by raj on
Lindsey’s thought that libertarians might align with liberal Democrats instead of conservative Republicans has been pretty much dismissed both in liberal venues and in libertarian venues. Examples here, here and here, and there have been others.
What is interesting is that Lindsey of the Cato Institute would pen such an article at this point in time. Is it because some self-styled libertarians are apprehensive that their movement–such as it is–has become too closely aligned with a Republican party that is increasingly viewed as being increasingly closely aligned with the theocrats on social matters, and, other than for tax deferments (which Republicans sold as tax cuts), little more than statists on economic matters, and that may damage their movement? As far as I’m concerned, by aligning themselves with the Republican party, libertarians have pretty much shown the emptiness of their philosophy–such as it is.
That libertarians were little more than Republicans in sheeps’ clothing became apparent to me about a decade ago, when we received a fund-raising letter from Ron Paul. Paul had been the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for president (I had voted for him, as a protest vote, of course). It turned out that Paul was writing as a Republican Representative from Texas. And the fund-raising letter was on behalf of–of all people–Republican senator Jesse Helms, who was and is as un-libertarian as they come. I’ve been pretty much dismissive of libertarians and the Libertarian party ever since.
posted by CLS on
Will Democrats rush to accept free markets no. But apparently neither will the Republicans these days.
So what are the choices. A libertarian can try to work with Democrats and get them to stand up for the principles they proclaim on civil liberties and foreign policy. And try to convert them to some free market reforms.
Or they can work with the Rupublicans and try to get them to adopt some free market reforms and change their view to support civili liberties and a pro-peace foreign policy.
As I see the Republicans are really bad on two of the three and pretty awful on the third. The Democrats are week and two of the three and really bad on the third. I think that puts the Democrats ahead. If the Republicans were really good on economics and bad on the other two I?d say it was judgment call between the two. But the last 6 years of Republican rule have been a disaster on economics. Even Clinton did better.
posted by ETJB on
Neither major political party is likely to become a Libertarian Party, although their are libertarian groups for both parties; Republicanh Liberty Caucus and the Democratic Freedom Caucus.
posted by Audrey on
So what you are saying, raj, is that one time, eighteen years ago, Ron Paul said something nice about Jesse Helms, so no more Libertarian Party for you. That makes perfect sense.
posted by Alex on
Will Democrats rush to accept free markets no. But apparently neither will the Republicans these days.
I have yet to hear any Democrat advocate a centrally planned economy, the opposite of a free market. They do seem to on the position that a unfettered economy simply benefits the few at the top of the economy at the expense of everyone else.
Meanwhile, the Republicans, still cling to the idea that if we make rich richer the poor will benefit.
Even Adam Smith (reportedly) knew the social dangers of a completly unfettered market to create and oligarchy.
posted by raj on
Audrey | December 7, 2006, 11:28am |
Maybe it’s just me, but 18 years ago, when Paul ran for president on the LP ticket, is a bit longer than “about a decade ago,” which is when I said we received Paul’s fund-raising letter for Jesse Helms.
posted by dr on
Drezner could at least have the honesty to wait for the democrats to actually take office, before he begins to blame them for things the White House unilaterally does.
Why have 80% of the pundits forgotten that the newly elected congress-critters don’t take office on the morning of the 8th?
posted by dalea on
Actually I do not think a centrally planed economy is the opposite of a free market. In fact, it appears that it is possible to have both a large degree of central planing, a large welfare state and a vibrantly competitive market. The Nordic countries do this.
What the opposite of a free market is, to my mind, a system filled with petty entitlements. With government grants of privilege and advantage. Like patents. Where the system is rigged hither and yon at all levels by all sorts of governmental entities. Perhaps we should discuss just what corporate welfare is.
posted by ETJB on
Ron Paul basically agrees with the religious right (i.e. Helms) on things like abortion and gay rights.