The Point of Liberaltarianism
At NRO, Jonah Goldberg writes:
[It] seems to me that the stimulus debate clearly puts the lie to the idea that liberals and libertarians can see eye to eye on the large questions of political economy, at least for the foreseeable future. The first principles simply aren’t aligned.
and John Hood adds:
The principles of liberty and virtue are certainly in tension within the broadly construed Right, but the principles of liberty and egalitarianism would be perpetually at war within a reconstructed Left. The current struggle against bailout/stimulus mania has been a clarifying moment, it seems to me. In the social-democrat future that the American Left wants, the private sphere must give way as costs are socialized and power is centralized.
As a Rawlsekian, I’m more sympathetic to Will Wilkinson’s take:
I’ll let Brink speak for himself, but I’m not that interested in short-term partisan politics. I’m interested in a much longer-term project. I want to help create the possibility of a popular political identity that takes the value of human liberty, in all its aspects, really seriously. As I see it, this project involves an attempt to reunify the separate strands of the American liberal tradition.
As Will goes on to argue, the actions of the Democratic Party are basically immaterial to this longer-term project, which is
an ongoing project to change who talks to whom, to freshen the stale dialectic of American politics, and to create new possibilities for American political identity.
Hood and Goldberg add an interesting, implicit semantic wrinkle, namely: how liberal is American liberalism? The enthusiastic embrace of the “progressive” label has a clarifying function, insofar as we can identify the social democratic tendency with self-described progressives. The social democratic project privileges political life over private life, and it is communitarian rather than individualistic. My sense is that many on the American left are hoping to move in this direction for lots of different reasons — an effort to draw on the European precedent, sentimental solidarity politics, a religiously-informed sensibility, the lessons of minority movements, etc. In contrast, America also has a liberal left, certainly since the encounter with totalitarianism led to a recasting of civil liberties and civil rights (as David Ciepley has argued — I always cite this guy). Think of this as Castro-not-hating Barbara Ehrenreich on the one hand and Castro-hating Brad DeLong on the other hand.
How is it that DeLong, who found Ehrenreich’s argument in “When Government Gets Mean” reprehensibly stupid, and Ehrenreich find themselves on the same side? This is one of those “incompletely theorized agreements.” On nine issues out of ten, the two will agree on a policy question while agreeing to disagree about why they agree on it. That’s how coalitions work. The liberaltarian idea, as I understand, is to start rethinking coalitions that appear to be natural because they’ve been in place for so long.
Long before the liberaltarian project, the movement conservative project — fusionism — tried to reconcile similarly contradictory tendencies. Southern conservatism was historically aligned with a certain kind of statism: federal aid that didn’t interfere with the internal social practices of the segregationist South were welcomed by Southern political elites as well as by the poor white majority. A new fusionist critique acted to complicate this seemingly “natural” alliance between federal power and local white supremacy. Though conservatives eventually rejected the politics of white supremacy in the South, it took a while because a kind of libertarian conviction stood against the threat of an integrationist federal police state — of course, this conveniently helped conservatives shatter the old New Deal coalition. This is a stylized portrait of what happened that misses a lot of important subtleties, but the point is that no coalition is “natural” — we tell stories about what our interests are and who shares them, and every now and again someone comes along with a better story. The liberaltarians are offering a better story.
I’m on the political right, but I think liberaltarianism is a healthy, constructive development. If social democracy comes roaring back, as I think is very likely, a renewed liberaltarian liberalism could become the new center or even the new right — this was roughly the case in Cold War Europe. I’m more sanguine about this prospect than some conservatives because, like David Brooks, I think that the big challenges we face are what he calls the macro threats that need to be tackled through some kind of collective action:
These voters don’t believe government can lift their standard of living or lead a moral revival. They want a federal government that will focus on a few macro threats — terrorism, health care costs, energy, entitlement debt and immigration — and stay out of the intimate realms of life. They want a night watchman government that patrols the neighborhood without entering their homes.
This is not liberalism, which inserts itself into the crannies of life. It’s not conservatism, suspicious of federal power. It’s a gimlet-eyed federalism — strong government with sharply defined tasks.
For conservatives, I tend to think of this as a good middle-series projection.
Wow. I’m a militantly atheistic New Deal liberal, and I think I agree with this post. I don’t know what that makes me anymore. Maybe I should read it again. :)
— Paul Fidalgo · Feb 13, 04:47 AM · #
Liberaltarianism is a fraud on the part of liberals and a delusion on the part of libritarians. By the time libritarians figure this out, it won’t matter anymore.
— bmcburney · Feb 13, 07:14 AM · #
“…strong government with sharply defined tasks…”
LOL. Good luck with that. Power always wants more power. A strong government can’t but help look for crannies as it expands. “Here Mr. Bully, you can break my left arm, but not my right because that actually matters.” There is your strong government with sharply defined tasks.
— JB · Feb 13, 08:24 AM · #
Saying that the government should act only on “macro threats” is to say nothing at all. All the old debates can be recast as arguments about whether a given threat is “macro” enough. For example, liberals will argue that gay marriage absolutely falls within the “intimate realms of life,” while (social) conservatives will argue that gay marriage poses a macro threat to the institution of marriage. Meet the new debate, same as the old debate.
The “macro threat” framework doesn’t provide any reason to take specific positions on the issues. What it does do is give an illusory justification for why the government needs to act on your preexisting policy preferences. Notice that the things Brooks identifies as macro threats are precisely the things Brooks has been been harping on for years. I don’t think it takes a cynic to be skeptical about which way the causation is running in that definition.
— salacious · Feb 13, 09:05 AM · #
The problem with liberaltarianism is that it promises to not regulate only those aspects of life where the liberaltarians like the freely chosen outcome. Conservative fusionism at least has a bias against the government being the best solution to <your cause here>. Kos, of the Daily Kos, endorsed liberaltarianism as just so (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/7/131550/7297).
Fusionism laughs at the progressive’s lament “capitalism is not a social policy.” F’ing right – most of life, business, family, and charity occurs outside of any government approved “social policy.” Those signed on to the Liberaltarian project haven’t convinced me they are anywhere near this position.
— Jack Diederich · Feb 13, 01:28 PM · #
The problem with liberaltarianism is that it promises to not regulate only those aspects of life where the liberaltarians like the freely chosen outcome.
I agree with Jack……liberaltariansm is bullshytt unless it divorces itself from the socons.
Give up trying to force dictatorial social mores and taboos on other citizens and we might believe this is a conservative rennaissance…..and that you actually believe in the freedom of the individual…..otherwise this just more gimped rationalization for a Failed Schizophrenic Paradigm.
You forget, it is your incredible shrinking base that is intelligence-challenged….the rest of us not so much.
— matoko_chan · Feb 13, 03:02 PM · #
I mean…give it up already.
You won’t lose the socons… they have nowhere else to go. Witness their deathless allegiance over the prolife issues they have been scammed on all these decades. Just tell them the truth.
You lost, and you will lose forevah unless you stop trying to impose religious values on other citizens that don’t share them.
— matoko_chan · Feb 13, 03:16 PM · #
I want to help create the possibility of a popular political identity that takes the value of human liberty
I agree with Will too.
But….Reihan, you must acknowledge that liberaltarianism is founded on a lie.
You simply cannot promote individual liberty in the economic marketplace while restricting individual liberty in the socio-cultural marketplace.
You fail.
— matoko_chan · Feb 13, 03:29 PM · #
I’m actually interested in another puzzle much more than the (supposed) contradictions of liberaltarianism — what accounts for commenters who take on a bullying and hectoring tone? To what end?
— Reihan · Feb 13, 05:31 PM · #
With the exception of motoko, GREAT COMMENTS! Good thought-provoking, high-brow article, too.
Motoko is instructive of what non-intellectual skimming of Libertarianism attracts, and thus my ambivalence-leaning-against it position. The liberaltarian (actually capital “L” liberal) is bellicose anti-something, as are other single-issue Libertarians, like dopers, racists, pro-aborts, anti-marriage/militant gay, and other fringe elements leaning strongly anarchist. As a conservative I will NEVER embrace such a political vehicle, for any reason, and as part of the 40+% evangelical bloc of the once conservative GOP (and the main instrument of their rise to power) I say they are NOT going to just “go along ‘cause there is no where else to go”, just ask Juan Amnesty McVain about how that worked for him.
There is NO non-ideological conservatism, and Libertarianism, as espoused by its skimming majority, is anti[overarching]-ideology. It is every-man-for-himself(upon which no army/police force can be built to fulfill what is arguably the only mandate of a democratic government), each man do what he judges right in his own eyes (“and the Devil take the hindmost”), and free markets unfettered – by national interest first – is arguably what has gotten this country entangled in its present international-sized mess.
— J David · Feb 13, 10:21 PM · #
Well, Reihan, most likely it is just what Dr. Cochran said, and I’m a f’ckin’ a**hole.
Also I’m sick to death of the lies.
Social conservatism is deeply, profoundly, anti-liberal, and anti-humanist.
Why can’t you just frickin’ say that?
J David…
Thing 1— the market wasn’t free.
It was conditioned under conservative leadership to expect welfare handouts and jiggering the prime.
Thing 2— the 40percenters Sailer and I reference are the 40% of the bellcurve left of the mean but above the 10% tail of functional retardation. Your evangelical base is at 28% and fallin’, last I looked.
— matoko_chan · Feb 13, 10:34 PM · #
Libertarians have a serious numbers problem.
Ideological Democratic[socialists]are authoritarian EXCEPT on anything touching behavioral morality. To extend Big Gov’t controls over a liberty-minded populace they buy up Constitutionally-protected rights(the Constitution specifically gives its reason for existence as protection from gov’t) with assurances of providing freebies and protections they have never – anywhere it’s been tried – been able to provide. Professed Libertarian philosophical precepts are anathema to an ideological “Progressive” authoritarian Democrat.
Conservative Republicans are pro-law enforcement, they are pro-life, they are pro-protection of traditional marriage/family(from which civilization itself springs), anti-public porn(which kills civilizations), and believe equitable laws and their just enforcement are “teachers” and guides to socially edifying behaviors. They are obviously pro-Constitution, which Democrats emphatically are not.
The Libertarian skimmers mindset only barely overlaps either of these, while the complexities of “free market” libertarian philosophies touch the minds and lives of very few people in ways they themselves could define them. The supporters of the Libertarian Party, then, are found in slim margins, in fringes of those abandoning the two dominant parties. While the heavy-duty pointy-headed thinkers in economics – and universities – and the wingnuts and anarchist-leaning populist-intending intently imagine their ideas are big and broad and thus must soon catch fire among the masses, they won’t.
After alienating most ideological Democrats (and their sheeple, parasite followers) and most Republicans -especially conservatives – as resembling the hallmark identifiers of social progressives… There are very few left in the margins to vote Libertarian. The last election, where they thought the fire had started, proved in the end to be a fizzle.
— J David · Feb 13, 10:57 PM · #
Reihan—if I can hazard to guess, it’s some combination of outrage and “outrage”. Allow me to explain. If you haven’t read Marc Ambinder’s new feature about outrage, I highly recommend you do. His point is that some outrage is legitimate, and some (call it “outrage”) is a strategic tool. The commenters here are in fact disgusted by one another; but they also each see themselves as more able to withstand the negativity than the average person. So if they can stand it longer than the other guys, they may drive away rival commenters of different ideologies, which would count as winning.
— Dan Miller · Feb 13, 11:50 PM · #
My personal outrage is the simple fact that social conservatism is deeply, profoundly, irrevocably illiberal.
I’d just like someone, anyone, to acknowledge that instead of spinning like doomsday tops.
— matoko_chan · Feb 14, 03:16 PM · #
The reality of course is that we already live in the social democratic future. The mix is a bit different than Europe but in most major respects it’s not very different. Clearly such differences as exist are going to narrow substantially or completely disappear over the next eight years (yes he’s almost certainly going to be a two termer). Equally clearly the GOP is floundering around trying to figure out its future direction. The odds are if history repeats itself is that it will move right and continue to be marginalized until the light bulb comes on and then a shift back to the center will ensue. Of course that center will have shifted somewhat as happened in 1952 but that will become the new reality.
— John · Feb 16, 03:46 PM · #
— J David · Feb 13, 05:57 PM · #
This posting is where the conservative base and it’s political arm the GOP are located basically. It’s also a measure of the problem the GOP is going to have in avoiding marginalization. J. David like most of the the base is blissfully unaware of this propped up as they are by objective punditry from the likes of Kristol, Steyn, Lowry. There is no way other than continued electoral disappointment that is going to disabuse them of these notions so it’s going to be a long winter. Basically I’m giving up on any serious Republican revival for at least eight years.
— John · Feb 16, 03:54 PM · #
“Long before the liberaltarian project, the movement conservative project — fusionism — tried to reconcile similarly contradictory tendencies. Southern conservatism was historically aligned with a certain kind of statism”
That’s a bit glib and superficial. The Rockefeller wing of the GOP, the Republicans from the North-East, were and are significantly more statist than the Southerners.
— Mike DeSoto · Feb 17, 07:09 PM · #