Here's an argument that
libertarians are just conservatives who want even less government effort to advance equality than Republicans:
I liked Chris Beam’s NY Mag article on libertarians, but I want to quibble with this:
Yet libertarianism is more internally consistent than the Democratic or Republican platforms. There’s no inherent reason that free-marketers and social conservatives should be allied under the Republican umbrella, except that it makes for a powerful coalition.
People, especially people who are libertarians, say this all the time. But we should consider the possibility that the market in political ideas works is that there’s a reason you typically find conservative and progressive political coalitions aligned in this particular way. And if you look at American history, you see that in 1964 when we had a libertarian presidential candidate the main constituency for his views turned out to be white supremacists in the deep south. Libertarian principles, as Rand Paul had occasion to remind us during the 2010 midterm campaign, prohibit the Civil Rights Act as an infringement on the liberty of racist business proprietors. Similarly, libertarians and social conservatives are united in opposition to an Employment Non-Discrimination Act for gays and lesbians and to measures like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that seek to curb discrimination against women.
And this is generally how politics goes in most countries. You have a dominant socio-cultural group allied with the bulk of the business community, and you have a more diffuse “left” coalition of reformers associated with labor unions and minority groups. There’s nothing “inconsistent” about organizing politics this way.
Granted, there are libertarians who don't. in fact, think like that, but so far they are losing the internal battle for a consistent set of views among libertarians. They are hobbled by their fundamental premise to not have any set principles except as little government as possible.
Image via Wikipedia
I agree with your premise to a degree, but would add that I'm skeptical of the movement's chances of ever becoming a mainstream party simply because there are too many libertarians out there who aren't interested in running the lives of everyone else. They, rather, simply want to be left alone. I fall into the latter category.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean I propose little or no government, but that I have no interest, for example, in having government oversee the social aspects of its citizens' lives. Many Republicans can't seem to grasp this concept.
From the little I know about the libertarian movement as a whole, it would seem it has failed to come to terms with the divergent groups who claim its mantle. I'm being simplistic, but those include: a) individuals that hate all government; b) those that see libertarianism as a way to embrace some sort of neo-racism without the stigma of being identified as a member of a modern-day White Citizens Council; c) and those that believe less intrusive government can overall benefit society.
-and then there's Mike Gravel.
ReplyDelete