That is the title of this latest entry at The Art of the Possible, a libertarian/liberal fusionist website for deep discussion on the sometimes colliding, sometimes overlapping world views.
In this latest entry, Jim Henley of Unqualified Offerings fame, submits a good piece about his political journey, his views, his views of libertarianism as it relates to liberalism as well as to politics in general. Overall, I'd say he's spot on and very realistic.
The journey starts in the aftermath of 9/11:
Back then I thought of myself as a man of “the Right,” though not a “conservative,” and pitched my arguments against promiscuous war, untrammelled security prerogatives and nationalism in “right-wing” terms, trying to explain how militarism, hegemony and torture contravene libertarian and conservative principles of limited government, humility and prudence.That didn’t go so well.
Over time I came to think of myself as a man of “the Left” broadly considered. You could say this was due to events, not just Iraq and Gitmo but Terri Schiavo and gay marriage and all the right-wing “nanny-statism” of Bush-era Republicanism making clear that libertarianism and “small-government conservatism” have even less purchase on the “Right” than I thought they did years ago, when I never thought they had much to start.
He continues by stating the obvious:
Liberals and libertarians are not equal in any measure.
In terms of numbers, institutional infrastructure, organizational capacity and political energy, “libertarianism” hardly rises to the level of junior partner in any fusionism.
Very true...sadly enough. I personally would never pretend otherwise. And, as Henley points out, this is true regardless of how you define libertarianism....whether narrowly as strict anarcho-capitalist types like the Lew Rockwell Rothbardian group, or broadly (like me) as the more big tent and more loosely joined Cato/Reason types (glossed over for expediency as "economically conservative and socially liberal". The former is useless to liberalism while provoking even more useless fighting and the latter being unified, still too small at about 10% of the electorate and ultimately mutually inconvenient to either side due to the practicality, as Matthew Yglesias has pointed out, for the Dem leadership of catering to a small group that is at odds with about half of their agenda and risks angering and alienating its own base to win them over...something they obviously cannot do. Same on the GOP side.
the Democratic Party is becoming more populist economically, not less. Meanwhile the Republican Party is becoming more militarist and moralistic.
IOW, a double dead end for the Status Quo factions with little to gain and a lot to lose by searching out this small swing vote.
And as seen from the libertarian side, it's even less pleasant:
A “libertarian” who works on behalf of the Republican Party, formally or informally, will be helping to involve the country in longer and newer wars, and will be enabling retrograde policies toward pregnant women, gay people, recreational-drug consumers and people implicated, rightly or wrongly, in “terrorism” broadly defined. The “libertarian” who takes up the cause of upper-case Democrats will be working toward higher marginal tax rates, nationalized health care and broader regulation of finance and industry. There is no use pretending otherwise.
Tell me about it, Jimmy. *Sigh*
So, Henley draws his grand conclusion and I can't say I disagree. So what use are libertarians, politically, to liberals?...or conservatives for that matter? After all, we libertarians are simply not going to get exactly what we want any time soon and we aren't going to become liberals or conservatives any time sooner.
Says Henley rather insightfully: (emphasis mine)
I think libertarians are, rather, the court jesters of politics. I mean that in a good way. We whisper to Caesar that that he is mortal. We caper about, turning ourselves blue if necessary, reminding everyone that government power is inescapably violent and inescapably self-interested. You’re probably not going to care, but we’re going to make you actively decide not to care. And sometimes, maybe you’ll care after all. As a class, we can be stupendously silly people, believing and saying the most absurd things. But our rulers are silly people too, in different and more malignant ways. And as fools, we have the freedom to say so.
IOW, I guess the use will remain what it has always been: a small group of disloyal and non-partisan people whose words and views put subtle tugs and shoves on the mainstream consciousness and whose small successes materialize through the two party system when one side is bad enough to inspire the other to fight a libertarian-backed battle or two every once and a while. We saw in the 60s counter-culture and antiwar protests, in the late 70s and early 80s with some of Reagan's ideas, again in the mid 90s with the battle over Hillary-care and the '94 revolution and we see it again now against the Bush era. Where it will sway next is up to the stupidity of our two parties when one chooses to push the limits of stupidity just a bit too far and the libertarians will be there to help push back...at least for the moment.
Henley responds
(#90770)with a follow-up to the original post. In it he responds to two comments made by Ka1igu1a at the Freedom Democrats posting of this diary.
Henley responds at length to some of Kal's assertions about the future and future composition of the GOP and the Dems. Worth a read. Very interesting.
I dunno, John, libertarianism ties in with US populism
(#90662)on a lot of levels -- suspicion of government, laissez-faire economics, respect for individual competence, etc. The silent majority definitely tends to prefer economic conservatism & social liberalism (though with several NIMBY exceptions of course). The main thing that sets libertarianism apart is the attempt by many of its theorists to impose the "free market" as a cookie cutter solution to problems traditionally handled by gov't on some level. American populism, by contrast, lumps industrialists & "robber barons" together with big, intrusive government as a set of forces likely as not to roll right over the little people.
Wisely, in my view given that no market is "free" in the sense that all buyers & sellers are created equal -- some of us are more constrained by the law than others (thanks to rent seeking) while others are more constrained by finances & negotiating power.
In other words, libertarianism would be tapping into the mainstream of American political thought, except that people aren't really buying the idea that businessmen have the solution to all of their problems.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
That's a strange view of populsim to me
(#90675)or at least strange as libertarians tend to mean it.
A free market, broadly defined, has nothing to do with equality of buyers of sellers but a an equal freedom of all buyers and sellers to search and meet their needs and desires...or those of others (for personal gain)....so long as the natural rights of the individual are not infringed upon...IOW, no force or fraud or injury.
And no one is saying that business have all the answers. That's not the point at all. The point is that we, as individuals cooperating in society, under the rule of law that repsects and protects the individuals natural rights, tend to reach far more desirable results than when we force through a collective decision for everyone that go beyond the scope of protecting the individual. As a general rule of thumb, I think it's right.
- reply
parentI think your rule of thumb is right too, and
(#90678)would guess most Americans would agree. But then they look at the Frankenstein nightmare of partially regulated, partially privatized systems controlling health care (or electric power wholesaling under Enron) and see that an unguarded laissez-faire approach can be disastrous.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentThose examples
(#90679)are not the fault of anything resembling a free market. It's one of those common attribution errors that really annoys me.
- reply
parent"... anything resembling a free market."
(#90688)EDIT: So I post, then note below that you accept as obvious that there's no such thing as a free market without qualification, which renders the first part of what I'd written tedious.
But the second part might still be worth posing: if we accept that the free market is a kind of regulative ideal for economic (and--maybe--social) arrangements, and that this ideal is formed by abstraction from what we see as good (useful, profitable, conducive to a good life, or good lives, whatever), aren't people right to view with suspicion a political program that takes its bearings from an abstraction? I ask because it seems like libertarians are wont to poo-poo the wisdom of the masses, to wonder why they can't see the manifest virtues of their politics*, but I rarely see a charitable accounting of why that might be.
*I have in mind particularly Will Wilkinson's almost self-parodying comparison of libertarianism to architectural modernism.
Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
parentWill Wilkinson is not a libertarian.
(#90701)He's a liberal. I think that's what he calls himself - and he's perfectly right to do so.
He's a liberal who knows enough about economics to notice the frequent occasions when a free market improves the welfare of worse off folk.
I.e., he's about as "libertarian" as Tyler Cowen. Or, dare I say it, Cass Sunstein.
I.e., not a libertarian at all.
And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
- reply
parentCass Sunstein
(#90721)What the heck is 'paternalistic libertarianism' anyway?
You been readin that stuff at volokh?
- reply
parentBad name for a not so bad idea
(#90726)His ideas won't satisfy purist libertarians, or libertarians whose primary complaint is the size of their tax bill. But for the "get off my back" libertarians, having opt outs defuses a lot of the objections to big government.
- reply
parentOpt outs sound libertarianistic
(#90727)But this doesn't:
by knowing how people think, we can design choice environments that make it easier for people to choose what is best for themselves, their families, and their society.
I read a couple of Sunstein's posts but didn't get much out of them. i.e. I didn't immediately see how these two components would be rectified.
- reply
parentYes, "knowing how people think"
(#90732)and "easier for people to choose" both have an unfortunate 1984-ish ring to them. But I don't think he meant it that way.
The way I interpreted it, he feels that on any given issue (for example health care or retirement) many people either want social-democratic type programs, or don't care. The idea was that the programs are set up for those who want them, and that they also get the "don't cares" by default. Others can opt out.
Of course the hard part is deciding what fair opt out conditions are. In a big govt program like nat'l health care you can divide the money three ways: (a) the part you pay to cover the less fortunate, (b) the part you pay to cover yourself, and (c) the part the more fortunate pay to cover you. I think at a minimum the opter-outers should get back part (b).
- reply
parentRe the theoretical underpinnings
(#90761)I see the Sunstein book draws on the work of Tversky + Kahneman.
There's a debate with those guys on one end and Step[hen Pinker and Gerd gigerenzer on the other.
The latter camp disputes that people are as poor reasoners as the heuristics + biases camp suggests. Evolutionary psychologists typically think we're better at probabilistic reasoning and more adaptive to our uncertain environment.
The dispute strikes me as often one of emphasis and rhetorical flourishes, but there's also serious disagreement over how to interpret the probability calculus.
E.g. Gigerenzer claims that one can't assign probabilities to single events but only to events placed in relation to a reference class. He + pinker seem to think that most of the alleged biases and examples of poor reasoning drawn on by Sunstein's co-author and Tversky + Kahneman concern assigning single event probabilities. I can imagine Pinker + Gigerenzer disputing that such data constitutes evidence that people need to have their 'choice structures' ordered for them.
I don't have a feel for the specifics tho. Perhaps I'll have a chance to take a look.
- reply
parentCowen is also very libertarian.
(#90720)I read his site almost everyday. No question there either.
I'm not sure if you say this about Tyler and Will because they don't fit your sterotype of a libertarian or because you're privy to some info I don't have.
I think it's the former and in that case, I think you need to rework your stereotype.
- reply
parentI don't think it's about a stereotype, exactly,
(#90724)I think it's about just what 'counts' as libertarian. I imagine the Lew Rockwell winglet is more to his ideological tastes.
Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
parentPerhaps.
(#90730)The Lew Rockwell wing is also libertarian....just different...more strict, more "pure", less compromising.
This is what Henley talks about in his post when says libertarians narrowly and broadly defined.
- reply
parentIf Wilkinson calls himself a liberal
(#90719)it's in the classical sense. I do as well sometimes....I say I'm classical liberal, a "true liberal" or a free market liberal.
My views are very, very similar to Will's.
- reply
parentI don't read the guy often
(#90709)... but I'm pretty sure he (also) self-identifies as libertarian. Under the circumstances, that's good enough for me. If you want to fight some kind of border skirmish to ensure that he & the whole Reason-ite clique are not counted among the True Libertarians, by all means commence--but I don't have a dog in that fight.
Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
parentWell, of course you don't.
(#90711)Last I heard, you were hot for Obama.
But I wonder what John thinks.
And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
- reply
parent"[H]ot for Obama?"
(#90713)You must have me confused with someone else. Or you're being dismissive. Or you're just making fun.
But yeah, I also wonder what John thinks.
Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
parentWhat I think about what?
(#90718)If you want to know about Will Wilkinson, he IS a libertarian. No question. He says it, he knows it, I say it, I know it.
But if wanted to know if I was "hot for Obama", no I'm not. But I still prefer him to McCain because of foreign policy....which is where the president has the fewest buffers to screw things up. And on that matter, I prefer Obama's stances.
Depending on my mood in the Fall, I'll either vote Obama or may vote third party or just write in Mickey Mouse. Hehehe.
Lower Federal offices and state offices are a crap shoot, it depends on circumstances.
- reply
parentSorry for the obscurity.
(#90723)I was wondering about your take on vinteuil's attempt to read Wilkinson and Cowen out of libertarianism. In retrospect, given the first sentence of the diary, it's not much of a surprise that you don't agree with that attempt, but it never hurts to ask.
And believe me--living in PA as I do, the very very last thing I want to talk about right now is anything having to do with the election.
Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
parentfellow PA guy here
(#90729)I know what you mean.
:)
- reply
parentFrom where?
(#90741)Just curious, I'm from PA too. Southern Lancaster County.
Chuck Norris recently returned from the Virgin Islands. Now they are just called 'The Islands'.
- reply
parentnortheast
(#90751)around Scranton and the poconos.
- reply
parentThe one plus in my neck of the woods
(#90735)... is that there's a comically ugly primary fight among Republicans for the 5th congressional district. The ads, I'm telling you--the most over-the-top parody couldn't do them justice.
Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
parentI've been to a couple of IHS seminars,
(#90677)and the mantra is very definitely that the "free market" is a solution to every conceivable social ill, except maybe war.
And yes, for a market to be "free" buyers & sellers have to be equal before the law, as well as generally equal in their ability to opt for alternative choices. Rent-seeking, as I said, makes the first kind of equality impossible, while all kinds of economic & market behavior tend to militate against the second type. There's no free lunch; there's also no free market. Sorry.
Anyhow my main point was just this: there's very little daylight between libertarianism & everyday American populism; the latter is willing to consider intelligent government solutions to otherwise intractable problems (accumulation of capital & consequent deterioration of democratic rights, for example). The former isn't. Unfortunately, of course, American populism has been known to endorse all kinds of not-so-intelligent interventions as well.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentTherein lies the struggle
(#90681)exactly. so join the fight. LOL.
no duh. :)
It's a matter of degrees, not absolutes.
- reply
parentFair enough. Like I said, my contact with
(#90682)official libertarianism has given me the impression that it's too one-note fanatical about free market solutions (i.e. unwilling to consider or endorse government solutions when called for). But otherwise has a great deal of common sense appeal to real people who aren't already invested in Washington flim flam.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentCredit Where Credit is Due
(#90607)Henley didn't come up with that title on his own. It's from an old Stealer's Wheel Song, "Stuck in the MIddle with You".
Vid to follow. Warning. British dentistry on display.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
It is interesting to See How Much Music Video's Have Changed
(#90627)....over time.
From a hip but rough film showcasing of the talent to...well, to something much more video and slick.
And Harley, you really are on top of music, aren't you? I know you're a writer, but maybe in your heart of hearts, you're really a lyricist.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- reply
parentWorse.
(#90656)I always wanted to be a DJ. Went to Harvard and spent all my time in a basement playing music at WHRB. Told my parents I had a new career path all planned out. They were surprisingly supportive, at least to my face. Then I talked to someone in the business who told me the best way to break in was to get in my car, drive toward the Midwest, and look for radio towers. And then get used to moving every three years.
I changed career paths again shortly thereafter.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
parentI just saw this writer's joke at the Great Orange Satan
(#90657)The joke goes: "Did you hear about the (demeaning ethic stereotype here) actress? She was so dumb, she boinked the WRITER.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/4/20/0714/69872/50#c50
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parent