At Slate, David Weigel claims that the libertarian Cato Institute may have purged its “liberaltarians” – scholars who advocate an alliance between libertarians and the political left:
The libertarian Cato Institute is parting with two of its most prominent scholars. Brink Lindsey, the institute’s vice president of research and the author of the successful book The Age of Abundance, is departing to take a position at the Kauffman Foundation. Will Wilkinson, a Cato scholar, collaborator with Lindsey, and editor of the online Cato Unbound, is leaving on September 15; he just began blogging politics for the Economist.
I asked for comment on this and was told that the institute does not typically comment on personnel matters. But you have to struggle not to see a political context to this. Lindsey and Wilkinson are among the Cato scholars who most often find common cause with liberals. In 2006, after the GOP lost Congress, Lindsey coined the term “Liberaltarians” to suggest that Libertarians and liberals could work together outside of the conservative movement. Shortly after this, he launched a dinner series where liberals and Libertarians met to discuss big ideas…. In 2009 and 2010, as the libertarian movement moved back into the right’s fold, Lindsey remained iconoclastic….
There are two big problems with Weigel’s insinuation. First, Cato has not changed or even deemphasized any of its positions on those issues where they have long differed with conservatives including the war on drugs, immigration, foreign policy, and others. If they were trying to move “back into the right’s fold,” one would think they would pulled back on these positions at least to some noticeable extent. Yet a quick glance at Cato’s website reveals recent attacks on standard conservative policies on Afghanistan, and the “Ground Zero mosque,” among other issues.
Second, it is strange to claim that Cato got rid of Lindsey for promoting a political alliance with the left at the very time when Lindsey himself recently disavowed that very idea, stating that “it’s clear enough that for now and the foreseeable future, the left is no more viable a home for libertarians than is the right.” If Cato objected to Lindsey’s advocacy of an alliance with the left, one would think they would have purged him back when he was actually advocating it, not after he has repudiated it. Wilkinson does still favor liberaltarianism, but apparently only as a philosophical dialogue. He holds out little if any prospect of an actual political coalition between the two groups.
Both Lindsey and Wilkinson have done much important and valuable work, and Cato is the poorer for losing them. At this point, however, there is no evidence that their departure was caused by a “purge” of liberaltarians intended to bring Cato “back into the right’s fold.”
CONFLICT OF INTEREST WATCH: I am a Cato adjunct scholar (an unpaid position). However, I am not an employee of Cato’s, and have no role in any Cato personnel decisions. In this particular case, I didn’t even know it was going to happen until it became public.
UPDATE: I should add that Lindsey’s most recent position on libertarian political strategy is that they should seek out the “center” and act as a kind of swing vote, cooperating with either liberals or conservatives depending on the issues at stake in any given political moment. This “libertarian centrist” strategy is very similar to ideas that Cato Institute Vice President David Boaz (one of the two most senior leaders at Cato) has advocated for many years (see e.g. here and his latest book, for recent examples). To put it mildly, it would be strange if Cato “purged” Lindsey for being a liberaltarian at the very time that he has shifted away from that view to the sort of approach that the Institute’s most senior writer on political strategy has long advocated.
Costello says:
The very idea of ‘Liberaltarianism’ is absolutely preposterous. The philosophies and policies of the Left and so called “liberals” are absolutely anathema to libertarianism/classical (i.e. genuine) liberalism.
August 24, 2010, 6:20 amWidmerpool says:
And why bother giving the musings of David Weigel any airing at all? Given his past history he is clearly unreliable and is now trying desperately to pull a David Brock, Andrew Sullivan, David Frum, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Ignore him.
August 24, 2010, 8:30 am11-B.2O/B4 says:
Dave Weigel, nuff said.
August 24, 2010, 8:44 amsmitty says:
Also, Weigel has not been cured of knobbery, which while not a crime, bears mention.
August 24, 2010, 8:49 amgrog says:
If they were trying to move “back into the right’s fold,” one would think they would pulled back on these positions at least to some noticeable extent.
This is a weak claim. Issuing position papers or revising platforms or whatnot is hardly needed to signal intent.
Despite Widmerpool’s admonition, it is interesting to compare the tenures of Weigel at Reason (left after an editorial change in direction prompted by Obama’s election) and Frum at AEI (left after attacking some recent insanity on the right).
I’m speculating here, but given that funding for these groups tends to be from relatively small numbers of sponsors, it isn’t difficult to see how influence on that front could be a lot more subtle than “fire Lindsey or else”. Smart fund raisers never let donors get anywhere near that point. (I know, editorial independence, nobody buys a report from AEI, etc. And lobbyists are simply in the business of providing useful information to congress.)
August 24, 2010, 8:51 amJon Rowe says:
You ever hear of the concept of “moving on”? Maybe the new jobs pay more. That would be my guess on why they left.
August 24, 2010, 8:53 amAlex J says:
You’re just as likely to find classical liberal ideas today on the Left as on the Right. Neither side embraces much from Libertarianism.
August 24, 2010, 8:56 amJustin says:
Wilkinson’s cryptic post on his personal webpage, on the other hand, does seem to indicate some sort of anti-liberalteriasm purge.
“I’m glad Conor recognizes the value of the work some of us at Cato have been doing to make productive liberal-libertarian dialogue and collaboration possible. Alas, all good things must come to an end.
Brink Lindsey Joins Kauffman Foundation as Senior Scholar
[clippings from press release]
As for me, my official last day at Cato is September 15. Expect more blogging and sketches.”
As I said, it’s cryptic. And it shows that it wasn’t a midnight decision or that Lindsay isn’t landing on his feet or anything. But it certainly implies that he and Linsday left over liberalterianism, whoever’s choice that was.
August 24, 2010, 9:10 amPassing By says:
Brad DeLong claims to have private information confirming a purge
Hardly a libertarian source, but a liberal who’s been open to a “liberaltarian” alliance in the past
Offered as data … for whatever it’s worth
August 24, 2010, 9:17 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Nothing at all, since (a) there’s no reason to think DeLong would have inside info, and (b) he’s clever/careful enough not to actually make that claim. Note that he doesn’t even cite an anonymous insider; just the passive voice. He could have been told by his pet Siamese cat.
August 24, 2010, 9:24 amKevin R says:
As the NYT says, only because it has not been made illegal yet!
August 24, 2010, 9:34 amJoe says:
Weigel’s insinuation
What “insinuation” are we talking about? Whatever he thinks or suggests is possible is said upfront; I don’t see any sneaky implications.
“Brink” is an interesting first name; sounds like some character in some action film or something.
August 24, 2010, 9:36 amA Criminal says:
The idea of David Wiggle is preposterous.
Semi-OT, since the subject was mentioned here recently and there’s no reason to heed anything by emitted by Wiggle: John Hawks has a post on behavioral economics:
http://johnhawks.net/node/14605
++
Hawks:
Nowhere the rational man
David Sloan Wilson has been posting a series on behavioral economics (“Economics and evolution as different paradigms”). This, broadly speaking, is based on the idea that humans are not rational actors, and the ways that we act irrationally actually matter to the subjects of traditional economics, like markets and
In Wilson’s description, focusing on some recent books, it’s a field that badly needs an infusion of evolution:
August 24, 2010, 9:46 amI have seen a number of preprints from people trying to integrate evolutionary perspectives into behavioral economics. A problem is that they are very simplistic on the evolutionary side, in some of the same ways that evolutionary psychology can be. Humans are not rational actors, but neither are they identical to each other. If the model does not entail explanations for variability, then it’s not going to explain many interesting phenomena.
/Hawks
JRL says:
Sounds more like he is lamenting lack of success in his endeavors.
August 24, 2010, 9:47 amJustin says:
*the value of the work some of us at Cato have been doing to make productive liberal-libertarian dialogue and collaboration possible. Alas, all good things must come to an end.*
Doesn’t seem like he thinks what he’s been doing hasn’t had any success, but as I said, it is cryptic.
August 24, 2010, 9:58 amkrs says:
“But you have to struggle not to see a political context to this.” Given n=2, it shouldn’t be too difficult.
August 24, 2010, 10:01 amPeterM says:
I’m not sure I see the need for so much fuss. Let’s assume that Weigel’s claim is true. So what? If the Cato Institute found the ideas of Lindsey and Wilkinson to be anathema to its core mission, they were right to let them go and Lindsey and Wilkinson should be equally happy that they no longer work for an organization that doesn’t share their values.
August 24, 2010, 10:02 amJoe says:
PeterM says:
Cato probably doesn’t want the admit the claim is true [assuming it is] since it doesn’t want to be labeled as an anti-liberal organization.
August 24, 2010, 10:05 amThales says:
Splitters!
August 24, 2010, 10:08 amDaniel Suraci says:
I don’t find that to be the case among us common (non-scholarly) folk. I find liberals and libertarians have very similar ends in mind; liberals just don’t understand economics, business management, law, human behavior or history. Which explains why there are so many of them in academia.
:)
August 24, 2010, 10:10 amPassing By says:
PeterM –
People care about possible purges for two reasons.
First, they care about the intellectual vitality of an institution (Cato, in this case). So they would find any sign of a drive to impose ‘political correctness’ worrying … PC rots institutions from within.
Second, within the village, it makes juicy gossip.
August 24, 2010, 10:16 amByomtov says:
If the Cato Institute found the ideas of Lindsey and Wilkinson to be anathema to its core mission, they were right to let them go and Lindsey and Wilkinson should be equally happy that they no longer work for an organization that doesn’t share their values.
Well, yes, but that admits that its core mission is basically ideological and political advocacy – as is that of AEI and Heritage – rather than honest, unbiased analysis.
Of course, anyone paying attention knows that anyway, but the fiction is useful to them sometimes.
August 24, 2010, 10:17 amObserver says:
This is particularly silly given that the Cato Institute as a whole is the quintessential liberaltarian institute (to be contrasted with, e.g., the conservato-libertarian American Enterprise Institute or the paleo-libertarian Ludwig Von Mises Institute). On the War on Drugs, admittedly the true libertarian position is at odds with the conservative position. But on issues like immigration, abortion or the desirability of the War in Iraq, it is simply not the case that the libertarian position is the same as the liberal position — these issues just don’t clearly fall on the libertarian/non-libertarian spectrum, and the fact that Cato takes liberal positions on these issues shows that it is not simply a libertarian institution, but really a liberaltarian one.
August 24, 2010, 10:20 amPassing By says:
Also, anybody who reads Brink Lindsey’s recent article in Reason will understand why traditional conservatives might be annoyed with him.
August 24, 2010, 10:22 amJoseph Slater says:
Winner.
August 24, 2010, 10:37 amJim Treacher says:
How is “liberaltarianism” supposed to work, anyway? What, people should be allowed to do as they please, as long as it’s okay with the government?
August 24, 2010, 10:39 amScott says:
I get the sense that Weigel is wielding the proverbial hammer such that everything looks like the proverbial nail. He just got “purged” and so it must, then, be continuing with Lindsey and Wilkinson.
I never much understood the drive behind “liberaltarianism” anyway. The modern-day left has pretty much eradicated all vestiges of libertarianism in favor of an egalitarian paradigm on virtually everything. There’s just not much mindshare there.
August 24, 2010, 10:43 amSkip says:
What do the other Journo-listers think about this?
August 24, 2010, 10:48 amRobert Morris says:
“But on issues like immigration, abortion or the desirability of the War in Iraq, it is simply not the case that the libertarian position is the same as the liberal position — these issues just don’t clearly fall on the libertarian/non-libertarian spectrum, and the fact that Cato takes liberal positions on these issues shows that it is not simply a libertarian institution, but really a liberaltarian one.”
Unlike most people/organizations, CATO tries to be consistent when it comes to their positions on individual freedom and limited government. Whatever you want to call it, I find their approach to be refreshing.
August 24, 2010, 10:50 amfrankcross says:
Observer, I can’t imagine how you think that the liberal position on immigration is not the libertarian one. Assuming you are talking about the government restricting who may or may not be hired by companies.
August 24, 2010, 10:57 amTed says:
The issue is Bush Derangement Syndrome was a FAD.
Liberal/libertarians promoting BDS are so 2000s…
They’re as out-of-date (and unemployable) as hair metal bands in the 1990s…
August 24, 2010, 10:57 amyankee says:
I would not agree with your characterization of the left, but I agree that the prospects for “liberaltarianism” are very bad. Even where liberals and libertarians sort of agree, they take very different perspectives.
The libertarian take on pot is to decriminalize it. The liberal take on pot is to decriminalize it and set up an elaborate regulatory regime purportedly designed to ensure its safety, ban TV ads for it, and slap a hefty tax on it.
The liberal take on gay rights is to decriminalize (already accomplished), give same-sex couples equal legal treatment under the law, ban the government from discriminating, and ban people from discriminating against gays and lesbians in most market transactions. The libertarian take is to decriminalize, give same-sex couples equal treatment under the law, (maybe) ban the government from discriminating, and repeal most private-sector antidiscrimination laws.
The prospects of a libertarian-conservative alliance are also improved by the fact that many libertarians inexplicably turn into hyper-statists when the subject is immigration or what we Americans euphemistically term “defense.”
August 24, 2010, 11:00 amAce says:
“liberaltarian” movement is motivated by personal preference for liberal company and political preference to keep the Rs out of office. Give weight to one or the other as you see fit.
August 24, 2010, 11:00 amDesiderius says:
Our current left is illiberal. The end.
Any alliance between libertarians and the left will either have to wait until that changes or work to bring about that change.
August 24, 2010, 11:26 amRuss Goble says:
I love how it’s always the right who are purging. That the left basically gave these guys the ‘thanks for your vote and feel free to leave your ideas in the business card bowl. Don’t call us, we’ll call you’ treatment. Just another example of projection. The left are always accusing the right of the very things that are standard operating procedure in their own circles.
August 24, 2010, 11:26 amSeriously,WhyBother? says:
Just another post to say that nobody cares about Weigel and his latest career move posing as political analysis.
August 24, 2010, 11:34 amNaySayer35 says:
Perhaps, if Lindsey was forced out, it has nothing to do with his politics and more to do with his astonishing lack of output over the last year and a half.
http://www.cato.org/people/brink-lindsey
Last book: 2007
Last Cato@Liberty blog post: June 2009
Last policy study: February 2009 (before that, March 2004)
Cato-bylined opinion pieces: 2 in July 2010, nothing before that since May 2009)
I doubt that being one of three editors of Cato Unbound was taking up so much time that he couldn’t do anything else. Seems like it’s more likely that rather than a “purging,” there wasn’t much output to justify his salary, and what little output there was was antagonistic to Cato’s mission. Not much need to read the tea leaves for a conspiracy.
August 24, 2010, 11:35 amlgm says:
Regardless of the intentions, the Cato Institute has regained its ideological purity. People whose opinions differ even slightly from orthodoxy have an easy time finding the exit.
August 24, 2010, 11:52 amFederal Dog says:
Is Slate expecting people to credit Weigel?
August 24, 2010, 11:56 amrrr says:
Daniel, this is spectacularly uninformed. Whatever you think “us common (non-scholarly) folk” think (I’m chagrined to find you are the rep), I find it hard to believe that health care reform, bailouts, etc., are something liberals and libertarians have in common. Unless Treacher is right–the similar end is to keep Republicans from being elected. If so, at least admit it.
August 24, 2010, 12:07 pmMike P. says:
I am not a libertarian, but I like libertarians very much. I generally would agree with Lindsey, that libertarians do not fit easily into either party, and should probably pick between the two as they see fit, without ever “settling” into one. But I think that there is at least as much value in libertarian dialouge with the right as with the left.
I will say, however, that I always sort of thought that Lindsey and Wilkinson’s philosophical affinity towards liberals (“modern” rather than classical, of course) was as much cultural as intellectual. This is not a knock on the two, who are obvious very intelligent and well-spoken. But it is hard not to conclude that visceral reaction plays a part in these positions. Most modern liberals are highly educated inhabitants of certain urban communities who are also affluent, not religious, unmarried, and without many children, if any. Most conservatives, meanwhile, aren’t as well educated, are religious, married, and have a relatively large number of children. Lindsey and Willkinson are obviously personally closer to the liberal culture, and feel more comfortable around such folks than around conservatives. These cultures, of course, are rooted in very different philosophies, but they themselves cause a certain reaction. Again, I do not mean this as a criticism of Lindsey or Wilkinson, but just as a possible explanation for the whole “liberaltarian” (who came up with that word?) phenomenon. It would be as true of a liberal in Provo, or a conservative in San Francisco.
August 24, 2010, 12:25 pmDerHahn says:
Predicting the permanent estrangement of various voting blocs from the GOP is the world’s oldest floating parlor game….
August 24, 2010, 12:25 pmThe Rogue Economist says:
There are still left-of-center people working for Cato… last I knew, Julian Sanchez is still working for them, even if his writing is rather shaky and his repertoire rather limited for somebody who is more journalist than scholar.
August 24, 2010, 12:30 pmTim J. says:
The idea tends to be that while liberals want to tell you what insurance to buy, how much salt, fat, and what kinds of fat you can use in cooking, what kinds of lightbulbs you can use, how much water you can use each time you flush, how much carbon you can exhale, and at what point you’ve made enough money and need to have it spread around, conservatives don’t want you to have sex with other men. So the two sides are basically the same, you see.
August 24, 2010, 12:40 pmMario Rizzo says:
As long as David Boaz is at Cato I am not worried about the libertarian position being distorted to appeal to conservatives (or “liberals” for that matter).
August 24, 2010, 12:58 pmDavid Emami says:
Assuming we’re talking limited government rather than anarchocapitalism, there’s nothing unlibertarian per se about having immigration laws, and knowingly helping someone violate the law is itself a crime. Personally I would rather repeal all of the unlibertarian laws that help drive the situation (the welfare state, and labor regulations that artificially increase the cost of labor for those who comply) and then throw the gates wide. But, again unless you advocate abolishing the country as a political entity, there will be borders. The laws about crossing them may be more or less restrictive, but that doesn’t necessarily make them more or less libertarian.
August 24, 2010, 1:02 pmLarryA says:
The standard “If you ain’t liberal you’re conservative” BS.
I read Daniel differently. Liberals and libertarians both want people to get the health care they need and have a strong economy to provide it. Those are the “ends” we all have in mind. Libertarians understand that socialized government health care and corporate bailouts and the regulations that go with them move us in the wrong direction. Liberals don’t.
August 24, 2010, 1:12 pmfrankcross says:
David Emami, that makes no sense to me. I think a true libertarian, recognizing the existence of borders, would want to make their effect as small as possible. Less restrictive would be more libertarian. Consider your argument in the context of free trade. It’s the same, right? But a libertarian would prefer the smallest possible restriction on trade in goods. The same should be true for labor.
August 24, 2010, 1:16 pmDavid Emami says:
Really, what’s needed is a third axis to the libertarian test chart. The traditional one has a Personal Issues axis and an Economic Issues axis. Things like military and immigration policy are pretty much orthogonal to those, however. I can’t think, offhand, of an unbiased name for the axis, but it would help distinguish the Rand/Heinlein-flavored libertarians from the Rothbard-flavored ones.
August 24, 2010, 1:24 pmMark N. says:
I think the current liberal take on it is largely a matter of preemptive defense: the taxation angle makes it a “this is a way to balance our budget” play (esp. in California), and the regulation/etc. angle tries to reassure frightened conservatives that decriminalization won’t lead to everyone doing drugs everywhere all the time.
Liberals of the 60s generation used to take the libertarian position on drugs—just legalize them—but they didn’t get anywhere.
August 24, 2010, 2:07 pmDilan Esper says:
Nothing at all, since (a) there’s no reason to think DeLong would have inside info, and (b) he’s clever/careful enough not to actually make that claim. Note that he doesn’t even cite an anonymous insider; just the passive voice. He could have been told by his pet Siamese cat.
For what it’s worth, I have heard that it was a purge as well and further that it is basically common knowledge in the Washington pundit / think tank community. Cato is funded by people who are a lot more concerned with economic libertarianism (specifically, low taxes for rich people) than social libertarianism, and who want the organization to maintain at least a loose affiliation with movement conservativism. That doesn’t make Cato evil– it still does some very good work– but it does mean that in a tea party election year, they want to ensure their place at the table in movement conservative circles and this move should be seen in this context.
August 24, 2010, 2:13 pmsomebody says:
What drives differences between libertarians in regards to foreign policy and immigration is their understanding of the world as a Hobbesian environment or as a Pollyanna patty-cake game at the UN.
If you think that all countries should be treated as if they are run by market-capitalists from a Westminster tradition of common law and democracy, then liberaltarian defense and immigration policies logically flow. If you see that most of the world is run by illiberal regimes that are inherently hostile to Anglo-Saxon civilization and will use any and all means to undermine it, then a more robust approach to immigration rules and foreign relations applies.
If we base libertarianism on an analysis of how the world actually is, then there can be no illusions about the validity of liberaltarianism: it is a suicidal, nihilistic pact with the genocidal left inside and outside of the Anglosphere.
August 24, 2010, 2:19 pmFederal Dog says:
“Observer, I can’t imagine how you think that the liberal position on immigration is not the libertarian one.”
I can. The latter says let them in. The former says let them in and reward them with housing, food, medical care, education, and a vast array of other benefits paid for by assets forcibly confiscated from other people.
August 24, 2010, 2:26 pmFederal Dog says:
“Most conservatives, meanwhile, aren’t as well educated,”
Exactly how many times has this been disproved?
That was one of the recent headlines about the “moron” tea party people, who, on average, turn out to be more educated than Democrats.
And yet there will always be some poster who unwittingly proves the point again and again and again by mindlessly claiming, despite repeated proof to the contrary — that conservatives are relatively uneducated.
August 24, 2010, 2:33 pmKen Arromdee says:
I would suggest that allowing “free trade” in labor is like partly deregulating an industry (remember when that happened in California?) It’s quite possible that partly making something libertarian can end up making it cause more problems, even if fully making it libertarian improves things.
In other words, libertarians needn’t support free immigration if immigrants
August 24, 2010, 2:34 pm1) use social services provided in a non-libertarian fashion
2) come from countries whose governments are themselves non-libertarian in ways which may encourage immigration and/or increase the negative effects of immigration
3) come from countries which don’t themselves have a libertarian immigration policy
Thorley Winston says:
Winner.
August 24, 2010, 2:44 pmDan Hanson says:
It’s not that simple. When you have a large welfare state with major entitlement programs, immigration becomes a matter of free-riding. Social Security and Medicare work (well, they don’t, but you get the idea) because people are expected to pay a tax their entire working lives to get retirement benefits. To the extent that these systems have any solvency at all, it’s because of citizen contributions over decades. If your country is flooded by people who only have a few years left before retirement and who do not have educations or savings, you have a real problem.
In addition, you have a tax structure where people in the lower tax brackets receive net benefits from the government and pay no effective taxes. Most illegal immigrants, if legalized, would be in these tax brackets. This will cause a net drain on public finances.
Then you have the problem of illiberal influence. If the people flocking into your country are all statists, or religious zealots, you have a growing force against freedom.
In addition, because the U.S. medical system will treat anyone who makes it into an emergency ward, you have a problem with completely open immigration as your immigrants may be showing up simply for medical treatment.
In an ideal libertarian world where everyone earned his own keep and paid for what he uses, immigration would not matter, and in fact open immigration would be an economic good. In a world of government largesse and a large proportion of the world’s population believing in big government control, fully open immigration is a recipe for fiscal and political disaster.
August 24, 2010, 2:45 pmDilan Esper says:
By the way, on this immigration stuff, what is suspicious to me is that you have self-identified libertarians making arguments (free riders, externalities, reciprocity) that they don’t accept, are skeptical of, or argue don’t outweigh the importance of a free market when made about domestic actors such as corporations. That inconsistency is telling.
August 24, 2010, 2:49 pmfrankcross says:
Social services are the argument against immigration, but they really are an argument against social services, not against immigration. Moreover, the studies show that immigrants (even illegals) pay more in taxes than they take in social services, so it’s not really a good argument.
I can’t for the life of me figure how coming from non-libertarian nations matters and the argument that immigrants should be excluded as statists strikes me as both wrong factually (they tend to be entrepreneurial) and very troubling. A libertarian using that argument would be like a libertarian saying that Democrats or at least Socialists should not be allowed to have children because of the relative probability that they will be more statist (research shows that children roughly follow parent’s ideology). Would you take that position?
And I can’t for the life of me see how the immigration policy of the country of emigration should matter.
August 24, 2010, 3:03 pmDavid Emami says:
Except that the issues being pointed out are with regards to government services and government-created market distortions, not the free market. I’m all for totally-unrestricted immigration if it’s coupled with eliminating the welfare state, abolishing the minimum wage, repealing the National Labor Relations Act, etc.
August 24, 2010, 3:05 pmDilan Esper says:
David:
1. You may be, but I interpret at least some of the commenters as saying that they are opposed to increased immigration even if the welfare state were rolled back.
2. I also think your position is a bit of a cop-out– libertarians don’t get their ideal state in domestic politics either, but I’ve never heard one say “I’d oppose this regulation of corporations if we operated in a truly free market, but since we don’t, I begrudgingly support it”.
August 24, 2010, 3:11 pmDesiderius says:
Dilan,
“For what it’s worth, I have heard that it was a purge as well and further that it is basically common knowledge in the Washington pundit / think tank community.”
That’s a very useful take to spread around if one’s aim is to keep liberals in alliance with the illiberal left. The cui that bonos there is pretty clear.
Might want to dig a little deeper if it’s disinterested truth you’re seeking.
August 24, 2010, 3:37 pmKen Arromdee says:
Non-libertarian governments can pursue policies that increase the burden immigration poses on us. Allowing free immigration from Mexico wouldn’t be so much of a burden on the US if Mexico wasn’t so badly mismanaged and didn’t have such high rates of crime, poverty, and social problems that it gets to export.
August 24, 2010, 3:39 pmDilan Esper says:
Desid:
Look, I don’t particularly care if liberals and libertarians (and PLEASE– everyone uses those terms in a certain way– you are like the Arabs who claim they can’t be anti-Semites because Arabs are Semites) ally or do not ally. I am just telling you that it is common knowledge in Washington that the funders of Cato prefer alliances with conservatives, not liberal, and this move arose out of that context.
August 24, 2010, 3:43 pmfrankcross says:
Ken, whether or not the foreign government is libertarian or not, they could still pursue policies that burden us, sending us their losers. But as a matter of practice, this is virtually impossible. Mexico can’t control who emigrates. That’s a voluntary choice. And again the research shows that illegal immigrants in the U.S. are associated with less crime (except for the immigration crimes themselves). And the research also shows that the immigrants are unusually entrepreneurial, the very sort of people Mexico should want to keep home to help their economy.
Your argument would apply on occasion. Like the Mariel boatlift. But that’s the exception and not the current situation.
August 24, 2010, 3:51 pmGuy says:
What about the ACLU?
August 24, 2010, 4:29 pmJK says:
The rigidity of the definition of “liberal” being used by commentators here is silly. Sure there are some liberals who want to regulate fat and provide illegals with social services, just like they’re are “conservatives” that want to round up Muslims in concentration camps and wiretap people with “dangerous ideas.” Obviously those aren’t the people libertarians would be making common cause with.
IMO it’s strategically a poor idea for libertarians to make a semi-permanent alliance with either liberals or conservatives, but to be willing to add support to either side when it makes sense. There’s been a lot of missed opportunities in the last 20 years because libertarians have been unwilling to work with liberals. I’m something of a liberal (although I certainly don’t agree with the majority of supposedly liberal positions presented in this thread), and I would be totally willing to compromise with libertarians. For example I would gladly support cuts in social programs for corresponding cuts to military spending.
I’m sure there are areas where I have irreconcilable differences with libertarians (e.g. public education), but the idea that there are no areas of common cause is silly.
August 24, 2010, 4:57 pmtimb says:
Yeah, whereas destroying civil liberties in the name of war or national security, a bloated defense establishment which feeds Congressman with laundered tax money from defense lobbyists, using the power of the state to keep competitors out of a market place, refusing to allow women the right to determine a pregnancy’s course…these are all small government/libertarian solutions.
In other words, a true libertarian would be as disgusted with the Right’s use of State power as you are of the left.
August 24, 2010, 5:08 pmtimb says:
And the tent continues to shrink. Pay no attention to the guy who worked at Reason, since he doesn’t like Matt Drudge
August 24, 2010, 5:10 pmtimb says:
Or maybe Charlie or David Koch found their views objectionable? David’s on record as saying they pull funding when ‘people take a wrong turn.”
August 24, 2010, 5:13 pmtimb says:
Can the conservatives on this page do anything more than attempt to kill the messenger? An entire movement completely an utterly devoted to the cult of personality and uninterested in ideas. “Who said it” is the most important fact for a conservative blog reader.
Just an amazing devotion to the partisan game of ‘divide and conquer.”
“why that can’t be true, because it was said by x” is not an argument, folks
August 24, 2010, 5:19 pmMatt Welch says:
For the record, Weigel leaving and Obama winning the election are two totally unrelated events, at least from my end of the deal. He would have gone had John McCain won, too.
The only significant editorial change in direction at Reason over the past several years was not prompted not by Obama’s election, but by George W. Bush’s pants-soiling freakout in September 2008 that gave immediate rise to TARP and Bailout Economics. (If you look at our January 2009 edition, which was the first full issue to come out after the crisis hit, it included both a farewell f-you to Bush on the cover and a distantly hopeful [and naive] column by me on Obama.) Basically since that moment we have redoubled our focus on economics.
August 24, 2010, 5:38 pmFederal Dog says:
“just like they’re are “conservatives” that want to round up Muslims in concentration camps”
Which conservatives are advocating this?
August 24, 2010, 5:52 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
I’m all for big tent libertarianism (though a big tent by libertarian standards is a sleeping bag for two), but Wiegel was gung-ho for Obamacare; that’s not a libertarian by any metric.
August 24, 2010, 6:15 pmDavid Emami says:
Now that I’m done cleaning off the soda the above made me spew on my monitor…
One thing that, IMHO, makes libertarian alliances with conservatives smoother than those with liberals, is that for those issues where libertarians and conservatives disagree, the libertarian case can usually be expressed in terms that conservatives will be at least sympathetic to, if not convinced by. Conservatives are pro-capitalism, even if they’re not as pure about it as libertarians. Drug legalization, for example, follows logically from free trade principles, and it’s possible for a libertarian to persuade a conservative on that issue, based on premises that the conservative already holds. The same holds true with most other domestic issues; “it’s my money” and “a man’s home is his castle” strike a chord. This is much less true for differences between liberals and libertarians. How would you present the liberal with a case for, say, legalization of automatic weapons, in terms that already resonate with them?
August 24, 2010, 6:24 pmJK says:
Health care is hardly the archetypal free market good. Why should it be the line beyond which one can no longer be a libertarian if they think government has a role in the market rather than public education or interstate highways? Anyway, IMO the real anathema to libertarianism in health care is belief that the current system is a sufficient approximation of a free market such that the status quo is preferable to any change that increases regulation in any way.
August 24, 2010, 6:49 pmDavid Emami says:
Having the government intervene in the marketplace on behalf of their supporters is something both sides do, not a specifically right-wing thing. What changes is the particular industry (mostly due to what company or industry is important in a politician’s area). Likewise with defense contracts — you won’t find any Democrats from Seattle arguing to cut Boeing’s USAF contracts, for example. On privacy, it’s a matter of which agency — a liberal may champion your privacy and due process rights if the FBI suspects you of being a terrorist, but not if the IRS thinks you owe taxes. As for abortion, I don’t want the government banning it, but I don’t want it funding it or facilitating it either.
So, as I see it, while there are unlibertarian things done by the Right, each one is something the Left does as well, or where the Left does something equivalently bad. Meanwhile there are major unlibertarian things that the Left pushes that have nothing corresponding to them in size and scope on the Right — Cap & Trade, and Obamacare, to name the two biggest things that come to mind.
August 24, 2010, 6:51 pmJK says:
Sure just like you won’t find a R from Florida that is willing to cut Medicare, but none the less the idea that either defense or entitlement spending is a wash between the parties is non-serious.
Republicans spent a trillion dollar is Iraq, what’s the “Democratic equivalent” to that?
I wouldn’t disagree that in most R v. D elections a libertarian will be better served by voting R. But this idea your pushing that Conservatives are basically slightly imperfect libertarians while liberals and libertarians share no fundamental values is so forced it’s giving me a headache.
August 24, 2010, 7:16 pmDavid Emami says:
You have a point. However, government regulation of the marketplace tends to kill off, or at least hurt the growth, of those things being regulated. If you increase regulation of radio stations, you tend to get fewer of them (or at least fewer new ones), and it’s harder for the FCC to justify hiring more people to do the regulating. Also, the entities the government is interacting with generally don’t want the interaction — the ones deriving money and power from the relationship are the regulators. With subsidies like the welfare state, on the other hand, the interaction is desired on both sides, and is self-reinforcing. Both sides will vote and/or lobby for increases in its funding, staffing, and scope. Things that provide more “customers” in such a situation will only accelerate the problem.
Or to put it more succinctly: I’m more worried about things related to government doing things for people rather than to people, because I’m more worried about people voting out of gluttony than out of masochism.
August 24, 2010, 7:39 pm» Liberaltarians Leaving Cato Liberal Values says:
[...] David Weigel reports that some see this as a purge of the liberaltarians, while Ilya Somin of The Volokh Conspiracy [...]
August 24, 2010, 8:29 pmJustin says:
Yes, and conservatives are also pro-libertarian on issues regarding the rights of Muslims to put mosques wherever they want, not to mention limiting the authority of the state to incarcerate you for long periods of times for relatively small criminal activities, or kill you, to decriminalizing drugs, to Due Process rights, Habeas Corpus access, prisoner’s rights, 4th Amendment rights, warrentless wiretapping, etc., etc.
But liberals will get around to stopping all of that unless you support that most conservative of groups, the ACLU!
August 24, 2010, 8:36 pmbeamish says:
That’s not putting it mildly. It wouldn’t be especially strange, just remarkable, which is why people are remarking about it.
How do you explain Wilkinson’s recent twitter references to the Koch brothers on your interpretation?
August 24, 2010, 8:38 pmGuy says:
Thank you, that’s what I’ve been saying. If liberal-leaning libertarians continue to leave (for whatever reason) the libertarian movement then “libertarianism” will become just like “fiscal responsibility” or “family values” – a meaningless term that Republicans use to get votes, but don’t really care about. If libertarian groups are really committed to libertarianism, they’ll try to build bridges and reach across both sides of the aisle.
The ACLU is facing the same problem – the group’s support for Citizens United has caused some fallout. Libertarianism is being ripped in two by the tidal forces generated by the two major parties.
August 24, 2010, 9:00 pmIlya Somin says:
How do you explain Wilkinson’s recent twitter references to the Koch brothers on your interpretation?
Easily. None of those references (actually only one reference) even hint at any role the Kochs may have played in his departure from Cato. They merely link a recent New Yorker article about them and their opposition to Obama (which is mostly focused on issues where I bet Wilkison agrees with them, such as Obama’s health care plan). Wilkinson also has Twitter links to a wide variety of other news stories. If the Kochs somehow conspired to force Wilkinson out of Cato, his tweets don’t reveal any evidence of it.
August 24, 2010, 10:26 pmbeamish says:
There’s a second reference to writers at Koch-supported institutions. (To tell the truth, that tweet seemed more significant before tracking back to the Salam tweet it replies to.) I guess we read the tea leaves differently, which doesn’t matter much.
A couple of your messages seem to imply that you don’t think that Wilkinson and Lindsey are significantly less sympathetic to the Republican party than most of their former colleagues, and that seems mistaken to me. Do you mean to imply that? If the Koch brothers were trying to make the Cato institute into a firm ally of the Republican party, would it make sense for them to try to force Wilkinson and Lindsey out?
August 24, 2010, 10:57 pmrpt says:
Ask George Will.
August 25, 2010, 12:28 amrpt says:
Wonderful anarchy!
August 25, 2010, 12:31 amIlya Somin says:
A couple of your messages seem to imply that you don’t think that Wilkinson and Lindsey are significantly less sympathetic to the Republican party than most of their former colleagues, and that seems mistaken to me. Do you mean to imply that?
I know most of those former colleagues. I would say that the majority of them have very little love for the Republican Party, at least since the Bush era. Some have a bit more than Lindsey and Wilkinson. Others a bit less. Certainly, Cato’s entire foreign policy division is very hostile to the party, for example.
August 25, 2010, 12:36 amMark Rutherford says:
Hello-o! Aren’t we getting a little off-topic here with all this discussion about the intellectual possibility or impossibility of liberaltarianism, and the nature of libertarianism? Can’t we stick to the gossip, for ONCE?
August 25, 2010, 1:11 ambeamish says:
So, is your answer to my second question ‘no’? I’m merely curious and not trying to win a debate. Also: here’s a light-hearted bloggingheads discussion of the question.
August 25, 2010, 4:48 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Since when have Republicans ever been willing to use the term “libertarianism” to get votes? (For that matter, since when has the term “libertarianism” ever gotten any votes?)
I think you missed the point I.S. was making, and has made before: liberals aren’t interested in that.
August 25, 2010, 7:40 amMark Field says:
I think you meant to say that libertarians are the ones who aren’t interested. They’re happy where they are, marching in lockstep with conservatives.
August 25, 2010, 9:52 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
You think incorrectly. Like Horton the elephant, I meant what I said and I said what I meant.
All you have to do is read Matt Yglesias’s recent series of posts on deregulating trivial things, and his commenters’ angry replies, to see that there’s no hope for liberaltarianism. Liberals really do worship government.
August 25, 2010, 9:59 ambadlaw says:
Liberals worship government when one of their own is in power.
I don’t have much to add to this discussion, but I have to say, I’ve always had a cynical view of libertarians. The ones I’ve known have always fallen into two categories: stingy, anti-Bush Democrats who consider themselves too enlightened to go along with the pie-in-the-sky liberals, or atheist anti-Bush Republicans.
August 25, 2010, 10:40 amLiberaltarian says:
David St. Hubbins: Liberals say, “Love your brother.” We don’t say it really, but…
August 25, 2010, 10:59 amNigel Tufnel: We don’t literally say it.
David St. Hubbins: No, we don’t say it.
Nigel Tufnel: We don’t really, literally mean it.
David St. Hubbins: No, we don’t believe it either, but…
Nigel Tufnel: But we’re not racists.
David St. Hubbins: But that message should be clear, anyway.
Daniel Suraci says:
What you listed are means, not ends. When I say ends, I mean it in the philosophical sense, not as a single bill to be passed. Libertarians want the highest utility possible, as do liberals, which includes fiscal fairness and social equality. They disagree about how to get there.
E.g. If liberals followed libertarian means of free market reforms, they would get to their desired end of less dramatic differences between the wealthy and rich.
August 25, 2010, 11:22 amMark Field says:
Inconceivable.
August 25, 2010, 11:48 amSam Schulman says:
I have always thought that the unbridgeable gap between libertarians and conservatives – and the unbreakable link between libertarianism and American liberalism – is the belief in the essential goodness of human beings (which is openly asserted by liberals, but is implicit and inseparable from libertarian conviction that states, religions, custom, history and tradition can ultimately be dispensed with, in theory).
August 25, 2010, 11:56 amAm I wrong?
PeterM says:
All the more power to them!
August 25, 2010, 12:18 pmPassing By says:
David M. Nieporent–Since when have Republicans ever been willing to use the term “libertarianism” to get votes?
You’re right. Guy wrote it wrong. He should have written that Republicans advocate libertarian positions to get votes, but don’t deliver on them when in power.
The clearest example is Ronald Reagan (who many libertarians still look up to, unlike the Bushes).
Despite his brave talk about “smaller government”, government outlays were a higher fraction of GDP under Reagan than under Carter or Clinton.
The Republicans have been peddling this “smaller government” fairy tale for 30 years now, and libertarian-minded voters keep buying it. So I guess the problem isn’t with the Republicans.
August 25, 2010, 1:31 pmLN says:
Yes — a very common libertarian argument is that the government can’t be trusted.
August 25, 2010, 1:46 pmGuy says:
Fair enough, but they use rhetoric designed to appeal to libertarians, even if it’s not the word “libertarian”.
Why do you say that? I don’t see any serious evidence of that. The problem is that conservatives are slowly redefining what it means to be libertarian until eventually the distinction will be meaningless.
August 25, 2010, 6:23 pmGuy says:
Oh no! Blog comments, conclusive proof! Now, why do conservatives hate the ACLU so much? I guess they only like libertarian ideology when it agrees with them, the message to other libertarians is clear – shut your mouths on social issues, and just keep pounding away on deregulation.
August 25, 2010, 6:29 pmDesiderius says:
MarkField,
“I think you meant to say that libertarians are the ones who aren’t interested. They’re happy where they are, marching in lockstep with conservatives.”
No doubt the grapes were sour in any case.
August 25, 2010, 7:07 pmDesiderius says:
Guy,
“I guess they only like libertarian ideology when it
August 25, 2010, 7:09 pmagrees with themis not pointed like a gun directly at their noggin”Mark Field says:
Touche, though a better comeback if liberals were actually interested in libertarians. Most of us gave up on them long ago.
August 25, 2010, 10:06 pmGuy says:
In what way is the ACLU pointing a gun at conservative’s heads? Aside from their position on the Establishment Clause, I don’t see any reason why conservatives should feel “attacked” by the ACLU, certainly not anymore than liberals should feel “attacked” by the Cato institute.
August 25, 2010, 11:42 pmRick Sincere says:
People move between think tanks all the time, much as journalists move between, say, The Washington Independent, The Washington Post and Slate. Dave Weigel and the others with conspiracies in their imaginations should acknowledge that this is not a sign of some nefarious shenanigans behind the scenes.
August 26, 2010, 1:17 amDesiderius says:
MarkField,
“Most of us gave up on them long ago.”
Not so long, and not so wise.
We elected a President with you. He hasn’t entirely given up on us, even if you foolishly have.
August 27, 2010, 9:57 amDesiderius says:
Guy,
“certainly not anymore than liberals should feel “attacked” by the Cato institute.”
By the conventional definition of liberal (not mine), you are, and effectively, whether you feel it or not. This isn’t necessarily so (see the Iraq War), but it is often enough the case that liberals should perceive Cato as a threat to their power. Likewise conservatives and the ACLU.
Interests conflict.
August 27, 2010, 10:00 amLiberaltarians Are So 2006 « Around The Sphere says:
[...] Ilya Somin: There are two big problems with Weigel’s insinuation. First, Cato has not changed or even deemphasized any of its positions on those issues where they have long differed with conservatives including the war on drugs, immigration, foreign policy, and others. If they were trying to move “back into the right’s fold,” one would think they would pulled back on these positions at least to some noticeable extent. Yet a quick glance at Cato’s website reveals recent attacks on standard conservative policies on Afghanistan, and the “Ground Zero mosque,” among other issues. [...]
August 28, 2010, 5:50 pmClub Troppo » Brink Lindsey vs the American Right says:
[...] commentary from: Arnold Kling, Ilya Somin, Clive Crook, Matt Welch, Daniel McCarthy, and Alex [...]
August 29, 2010, 9:15 amArgument ad Kochinem | Trevor Burrus says:
[...] Foster at NRO has asked whether or not there is a “liberaltarian” purge at Cato. At Volokh, Ilya Somin does a good job putting the situation into [...]
September 1, 2010, 3:56 pm