The South(paws) Will Rise Again
[posted by Kn@ppster]
Jim’s been poking at the fabric of this phenomenon called “liberaltarianism” a bit, and he’s not alone. Libertarian ideas are picking up advocates on the Left, and “southpaw libertarians” are becoming an increasingly credible force in the libertarian movement.
Why? Well, a guest post on someone else’s blog isn’t the place to rehash or revise 200-odd years of political history, but I do have some quick thoughts:
Any history of the libertarian movement is going to have to start on the Left. Yes, I know that we have a long record of decrying the “Left-Right political spectrum” as inadequately descriptive, but it’s still there and it’s still used. Advocates of laissez faire sat on the left side of the aisle in the French pre-revolutionary and revolutionary governments. Anarchists contested control of the First International with the Marxists. 19th century American libertarians and anarchists allied themselves, to a large degree, with Left-anarchists and Left labor movements.
The first real period of identification of American libertarians with the Right was between the world wars — and that identification was specifically with the isolationist, often near-anarchist, “Old Right,” the ruins of which lie next to the USS Arizona beneath Pearl Harbor. Ever since, the association has been tenuous, tumultuous and periodic. Not to mention — in my opinion, of course — unjustified.
Libertarianism is a movement apart … but it’s going to identify with other movements, and other movements are going to identify with it, on the basis of two simple criteria:
1. Radical movements oppose the party in power. It’s just that simple. If they didn’t oppose the Establishment, they’d be part of the Establishment. And since the present Establishment is generally regarded as “Right-wing,” its opposition is going to be regarded as “Left-wing.” Libertarians are embracing (as they should) the label.
2. Former Establishments in exile want to return to power. This makes them more willing to consider new ideas, or reconsider old ones long abandoned (or at least given short shrift). Left factions dominated the American Establishment for 70 years. They want to dominate that Establishment again. They need allies, and they need winning ideas. Thus, they are looking back to their own “classical liberal” past, and to the inheritors of the mantle of “classical liberalism” in American politics … the libertarians … for inspiration.
Both of which, of course, smack of grandiose “theories of history.” There are other, simpler explanations for the resurgent phenomenon of “left-libertarianism.”
For example, self-designated libertarian spokespersons who have never associated themselves closely with “the Right” have felt more free to take the lead in criticizing the “Right-wing Establishment” than “conservatarians,” and the movement is therefore taking on the flavor of those criticisms. Similarly, Lefties who were “progressive civil libertarians” — an opposition of sorts within their own faction — back in the days of Left ascendancy now have the high ground versus the “mainstream” Lefties who lost power when talking about how to regain power.
Okay, it’s getting long and needs to be cut off. Now, tear it apart.
Comment by Rich Puchalsky —
June 6, 2006 @ 11:49 am
”Thus, they are looking back to their own “classical liberal” past, and to the inheritors of the mantle of “classical liberalism” in American politics … the libertarians … for inspiration.”
This is one those bits of self-congratulatory U.S.-libertarianism that doesn’t wear as well when not preached to the choir. The heirs of classical liberalism are modern liberals. Modern liberalism was always implicit in the writings of prominent ”classical liberals”, who often tended to write approvingly about types of governmental programs that contemporary libertarians scorn, and had nothing like the ideological framework of contemporary libertarians.
Contemporary U.S. libertarianism just doesn’t have a very long ideological lineage. The attempts to graft it onto classical liberalism are similar to the attempts to say that the U.S. was founded as a Christian (i.e., fundamentalist) nation.
Comment by Barry —
June 6, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
”The first real period of identification of American libertarians with the Right was between the world wars — and that identification was specifically with the isolationist, often near-anarchist, “Old Right,” …”
Near-anarchist? Let’s see - liked government money, like to use government force to help with uppity unions/minorities/etc. Admired Hitler/Mussolini’s solutions to running a country well (not Godwin - this is history).
Nah, don’t think so. One could be isolationist for a principle reason that war leads to a stronger state, but that’s far from the only reason.
Comment by Leonard —
June 6, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
Rich, that’s nonsense. The left as a historical phenomenon was the party of change, of tearing down the Old Regime; of abolishing privilege and enforced class structure. It was very successful; many of its aims were achieved. It evolved, particularly under the influence of Marx. It split, several times. Modern liberals are the inheritors of part of that split, including many of its more popular policies; modern libertarians, another part. Neither is the sole rightful heir of anything.
It’s true that modern libertarians have a much sharper ideological framework than, say, Jefferson. Much lies between us and him, including the development of modern economics, the theory of evolution, and a historical record of many failures of highly centralized systems. If we had no refinements resulting from all that, we’d be sadly wanting as intellectuals.
But to say that we cannot trace our thought back to many political thinkers of the enlightenment is just ridiculous. To take one example, what about the Bill of Rights?
Comment by Jim Henley —
June 6, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
That would not cover, say, Alfred J Nock or Robert Frost, to name two prominent interwar Right-Isolationists. I don’t think Mencken ever expressed any admiration for Hitler or Mussolini either, though I could be wrong there.
There were some isolationists who minimized the iniquities of the Axis regimes in the interests of pooh-poohing the case for war, but I don’t think you’ll find many of the Old Right advocating the adoption of fascist policies in the United States.
Comment by Jesse Walker —
June 6, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
It helps to remember that ”Old Right” is a libertarian term of art invented after the fact. It does not include everyone on the American right between the world wars; and not everyone it includes considered themselves right-wing at the time.
In other words, the phrase can be misleading. But it can be useful, too, some of the time.
Comment by Leonard —
June 6, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
Knappster, what libertarian ideas do you think are picking up popularity in the left? There’s several issues I can think of, where there’s concordance. I.e., peace, civil liberties, perhaps abortion. But these things are not new; both the left and libertarians have been propounding them through my lifetime. Perhaps there’s more emphasis on them vs our differences now, because the left has joined us in opposition. But I’m having a hard time seeing much change in the left.
I’m also not sensing much change in the libertarians. Do you? I suppose peace might be gaining popularity among libertarians, and good on that. I hope it is. War is the health of the state, etc.
Your post reminds me a bit of Jim’s last week, talking around the issue. I’m as open minded about this as most people, but I want something to bite down on. How is it that libertarians can make any positive change within the democratic system, left, or not? Having Hillary Clinton in opposition seems to help us zero.
Is it a matter of us libertarians somehow convincing intellectuals like Rich, Barry, Nell, or Kieran to support some bits of libertarianism not currently part of their beliefs? If so, which ones? And how do we convince them? And even if we do, how does that change the political results of the masses of ignorants voting?
Is it a matter of them convincing us? If so, about what? Get ’em up. Now’s the time. Convince me.
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
June 6, 2006 @ 10:02 pm
IIRC Rich, Barry, and Kieran (dunno about Nell) already support ending the War on Drugs. This is very much a minority position in the American left (and right), and what libertarians can do is help supply them with arguments to persuade their fellows. I think that this strategy has already started to show signs of life — plenty of elite opinion-makers in both parties don’t hesitate to show their skepticism of the War on Drugs. Whether it will carry the day is still an open question, but it’s not hopeless.
Comment by buermann —
June 6, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
Leonard: ”what libertarian ideas … are picking up popularity in the left”
The Conservative Nanny State? If that’s not taking some libertarian ideas to heart it at least is inspired by libertarian rhetoric, which is a start. Instead of the ”libertarians are republicans who smoke pot” vitriol I see too much of we might start an actual discussion, at least.
Comment by Gary Farber —
June 7, 2006 @ 12:34 am
”…IIRC Rich, Barry, and Kieran (dunno about Nell) already support ending the War on Drugs. This is very much a minority position in the American left (and right)….”
Is it? I suppose that given the lack of an agreed-upon definition of who constitutes ”the American left,” it’s tough to argue, but do you perchance have any polling results or other specific indicators to point to?
(I’d say that it’s needless to say that I oppose the War on (Some) Drugs, and always have, but I don’t actually delude myself that everyone Carefully Studies My Body Of Work.)
Personally, while my politics — or rather, policy stances — are a bit eclectic, and tend to go a la carte, I’m not far from being a liberal, who likes a lot of libertarian ideas, but doesn’t like libertarian ideas as a be-all and end-all or as the only set of values I value. So in many cases when libertarian values come into conflict with other values I also hold (stuff like feeding the hungry, seeing that everyone has adequate medical care — what one might to some degree call socialistic values, save that I’m not particularly attached to any given methodoly, and I also have distinct limits on those values not being the only set I hold, either), I come up extremely short as measured by anyone who is remotely a doctrinaire libertarian (or socialist).
Which is why I don’t claim to be either a libertarian or a socialist.
I dunno what one calls that, precisely. It’s not precisely ”middle of the road,” either, since both sets of values are pretty important to me; just not as trumps in every case (obviously).
Comment by Rich Puchalsky —
June 7, 2006 @ 7:22 am
”Is it a matter of them convincing us? If so, about what? Get ’em up. Now’s the time. Convince me.”
My recommendations are still in comments here. Nicholas made the usual criticism about arrogance and smugness, but I prefer to describe it as realism. Someone else will do the ”we all love each other, so now let’s promise you the moon and get you nothing” bit that the Republicans have used. There are certain projects, such as the dismantling of the War on Drugs, that a) match liberal goals (i.e. help urban minorities), b) match libertarian goals, c) are doable if there is indeed widespread rejection of the Republican party together with the coming to the fore of a new group of radicalized Democratic politicians.
Comment by Barry —
June 7, 2006 @ 7:48 am
I see Democratic Party support for the War on Drugs as being driven by pressure from the GOP. It’s the fear of being seen as ’soft on drugs/crime/welfare n*ggers/etc.’, which the GOP has been *successfully* exploiting since the implementation of the Southern Strategy. Take away that pressure, and the priority would drop, along with the primacy of harsh punishment as the starting and ending point.
Comment by Barry —
June 7, 2006 @ 7:58 am
Leonard: ”Is it a matter of us libertarians somehow convincing intellectuals like Rich, Barry, Nell, or Kieran to support some bits of libertarianism not currently part of their beliefs? If so, which ones? And how do we convince them? And even if we do, how does that change the political results of the masses of ignorants voting?”
I think that it’s best to start with establishing an accuratethe baseline. What have libertarianism accomplished in league with the GOP? Some de-regulation, of some corporate activities. Some. Devolution from the federal government to the states (which, BTW, is not nec. a libertarian goal) - only accomplished for things favorable to the right. War on Drugs - vastly increased. Destruction of constitutional rights - increased. Irresponsible fiscal policy - increased. Government subsidies to the ’deserving’ rich - no danger there. Government secrecy - increased.
In the end, the alliance with the GOP has accomplished not that much for libertarians. Frankly, I’m not sure if libertarians have had any influence, aside from providing a propaganda corps. And even there, how does that power compare to the propaganda power of the Religious Right?
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
June 7, 2006 @ 10:55 am
Hi Gary: when I last looked up the Pew polls on attitudes towards drugs, in the neighborhood of 80% of the population were in favor of the War on Drugs, with large majorities of voters in both parties in favor. Opposition to legalizing marijuana split strikingly across gender lines — men were more in favor of legalization, and women less. This polarization was strongest among blacks; black women are the most strongly against legalization, and black men the most strongly in favor.
Anecdotally, it’s common for pundits in both parties to bash the War on Drugs. I can’t remember specific names on this point, though.
Comment by Barry —
June 7, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
The differences in the WoD would be the zealousness of pursuit, harshness of penalties, and violation of rights. Marijuana possession as a midemeanor is different from a felony+civil forfeiture+massive surveillance.
Search warrants obtained upon good cause are different from routine no-knocks.