My discussion of the prospects for a libertarian-liberal alliance is probably incomplete without some attention to the troubled relationship between libertarians and conservatives.
As I argued in the previous post, at the level of fundamental principle, libertarians have more in common with liberals than with conservatives. However, there are important countervailing factors that may make a revival of the libertarian-conservative alliance more feasible than any likely libertarian-liberal coalition. Some of these factors operate at the level of intellectual elites, and others at the level of practical politics.
Intellectual Commonalities.
At the level of intellectual elites, there is much less disagreement between libertarians and conservatives than at the mass level. Most libertarian intellectuals find, say, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, to be repulsive. I know I do. However, most serious conservative intellectuals are far more supportive of limited government and probably less prone to support government interventions in social affairs than he is. My sense is that most conservative intellectuals continue to favor major reductions in the size and scope of government despite President Bush's movement in the opposite direction. Many of them even favor reductions in the government's role on some "social" issues. For example, there are probably more conservative intellectuals than liberal ones willing to endorse the abolition of the War on Drugs - by far the most important civil liberties issue from the standpoint of most libertarians. The National Review,probably the most prominent conservative opinion journal, has supported drug legalization for decades, for example. Obviously, this is cold comfort if conservative politicians don't heed NR's advice on this point. However, it does help explain why many libertarian intellectuals continue to view conservatives as allies. The conservatives we deal with on a day-to-day basis are far more likely to be National Review types than the type who watch the 700 Club.
Practical Politics
At the level of practical politics, there is no question that the GOP, under George W. Bush, has turned in a pro-big government direction, and that is one reason why many libertarians, myself included, wanted them to suffer a defeat in the recent election. However, most of George W. Bush's big government policies - such as the Medicare prescription drug plan, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the steel tariffs, were enacted purely for the sake of political expediency. Much of the Republican Party base hated them, and it is no accident that many Republicans are calling for a return to small government principles in the aftermath of their defeat in November. Unlike in the case of the Democrats, there is a real chance that the GOP will return to (relatively) small government principles in the near future, just as it did in the aftermath of the political defeat of its last two big government presidents - Richard Nixon and George Bush I. The political failure of Bush II may well lead Republicans to reconsider whether "big government" conservatism really is the way to go.
Civil Liberties and Social Issues
Most of those who argue against a libertarian-conservative coalition focus heavily on the issue of civil libeties. It is indeed the case that even most pro-limited government conservatives differ with libertarians on social issues such as censorship of pornography and gay rights. These differences are not going to go away. As a matter of philosophical principle, these differences are very grave. However, they matter less as a matter of practical politics because the ability of government to seriously constrain these kinds of freedoms in the modern world is quite limited. All the efforts of social conservatives over the last forty years have had little impact on people's ability to consume pornography, nor have they significantly slowed what I think is the natural and inevitable evolution towards greater social and legal acceptance for homosexuals.
The one major area where conservative policies do pose a truly grave threat to civil liberties is the War on Drugs. However, the Democrats don't show any more enthusiasm for curtailing drug prohibition than Republicans do. And, as noted above, there are probably at least as many anti-drug war conservative intellectuals as liberal ones.
While I oppose the Bush Administration's claims of virtually unlimited executive war powers, the administration's abuses in the War on Terror are not enough of a threat to civil liberties to justify a libertarian-liberal alliance on these grounds. As I discussed in more detail here, only a relatively small number of genuinely innocent people have been victimized by these policies (see also these two posts by Megan McCardle). Certainly far fewer than are harmed by the War on Drugs or by numerous policies favored by the Democrats. Moreover, Bush's more extreme claims for unlimited executive power have been repudiated by the Supreme Court and by Congress. That does not mean that libertarians should simply support pro-Bush conservatives on these issues or that there is no reason for concern. Far from it. It does suggest, however, that the issue is not enough to justify a libertarian-liberal alliance.
Whether the libertarian-conservative coalition can be saved remains to be seen. Much depends on the future course of the GOP. For the moment, however, it remains a more viable option than a libertarian-liberal alliance of the sort proposed by Brink Lindsey, Daily Kos, and others.
Related Posts (on one page):
Its strongest threads are: unionism, identity politics, and social redistribution. It is those pillar elements of American Liberalism that make it Leftist and not Liberal in the European sense of the terms--and ultimatel offsensive to libertarians.
The bad big tickets with conseratives are civil liberties related, sexual autonomy...--but these subjects are unlikely to pass judicial review. So its rather harmless to indulge the consersatives while getting their support in opposing social redistribution and collectivism.
Libertarians want neither of these two and thus are disastifed with the current predominant political alliance, even to the point they are considering abandoing ship (and they did do so in the 2006 election). Now the question is do they jump into the democratic ship, stay out of politics, strattle both ships or a combination of all four.
I think we just got lucky with Reagan. I'm not saying that we can't get lucky again, but we have not been batting close to 100 in small govt presidents for a long time.
Ha!
or, alternatively, if so the Democrats will succeed in establishing a lasting tenure as a majority party.
Ilya, in case you haven't noticed, the financial position of the modern Republican party can be established in the phrase: The future pays.
--
As to the post itself I think the war on drugs example is highly misleading. In attitude and enthusiasm for enforcement the republicans usually outdo the democrats. After all Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Monica, Santa Barbra, Santa Cruz, obviously very conservative leaning jurisdictions, have all made marijuana enforcement the lowest priority of law enforcement. California passed the MMJ legislation first and it is generally the liberal regions of the country which even allow privately funded needle exchanges and of course they are the ones likely to favor treatment over incarceration. College students, Berkeley and SF residents and all sorts of other liberals make up the most visible constituency favoring the relaxation of drug laws. I've seen plenty of college liberal groups express support for ending the drug war but I've yet to see the college republicans do so. At least at the level of the individual voter liberals seem far more antagonistic to the war on drugs
What's really going on among politicians/commenters is the Nixon and China thing. Since people implicitly assume that the democrats are weak on the drug war anyway a democratic politician who opposes the drug war gets smeared with being pro-drug and not tough on crime while benefiting from the assumption that republicans aren't the pro-druggie hippies that democrats might be the republican politician can get away with opposing the war on drugs.
I mean c'mon don't tell me that when you see a really liberal website (Daily Kos) that is ranting about the drug war you aren't even a little inclined to dismiss them as crazy hippies? I know I am and I'm a liberal whose fine with drug use. Also I suspect the other difference is that liberals oppose the drug war for much more honestly libertarian reasons that are more politically dangerous to openly express. The conservative arguments are often motivated by concerns about efficiency and side-effects of the war on drugs while I think many liberal opponents of the war on drugs just don't think the government should be able to tell us what drugs we do can and can't ingest.
It seems unfair in your argument to use the democrat's elected politicians as your foil while using conservative intellectuals/commenters as the comparison. Just as the lower support among liberals for the drug war results in a political incentive for democrats to talk up their drug warrior credentials elected conservative politicians have an incentive to support expensive government programs. In other words I don't think Clinton's budgetary performance was entirely luck, at least a bit was the fact that he was more likely to lose conservative votes by spending.
The difference between what politicians do and what the people support is an important point. Considering this It doesn't make sense for libertarians to ally themselves with anyone. The strong alliance of libertarians with the conservatives has been a detriment to civil liberties as would an alliance with the liberals. Rather the libertarians should avoid emotional entanglement/support for any party and make it clear their votes are available to the party who will support the most libertarian policies
Most liberal libertarian sympathizers thing that social liberties are far more important than economic liberties. I agree with this point wholeheartedly. Compared to the ability of the government to tell you that you can't marry who you like, have sex the way you want, read/express what you want, use birth control, get abortions, take the medicine you want, alter your brain chemistry the way you want or get help from your doctor to end your suffering having a lower tax rate seems a lot less important.
Conversely most conservative libertarians seem to value economic liberties such as not having their land value seized, not having their taxes used to pay for programs they don't approve of, not being forced to comply with government paperwork and mandates in running their businesses. Additionally gun rights are another big difference between the two. Though once again ironically democrats from anything but very blue states are probably more likely to be pro-gun to win more votes. I think these differences often reflect the fact that laws that affect a person directly motivate one more than those that don't but I'm not really sure.
Finally I want to say that I think it is imprudent to dismiss the harms of conservatives to civil liberties so lightly. A huge number of states have passed constitutional amendments to stop gay marriage on conservative votes/urgines, conservative backed COPA almost forced internet magazines to be PG-13,, based on primarily republican support a flag burning measure has almost passed several times, Ashcroft started taking internet porn companies to court using community standards in conservative areas, many states have restricted access to abortions, federal conservatives have continued to cause problems for MMJ in California, federal conservatives got very close to stopping assisted suicide statutes in the states.
The influence of conservatives is even more harmful to our freedoms at lower levels. Campaigns from conservative groups are a key reason why our TV and cable is still so heavily censored. Also local levels conservatives can often exercise pressure on civil rights without immediately being noticed by the ACLU (how man cases like Bong hits 4 Jesus never go to trial?).
It seems deeply troubling to dismiss all the conservative attempts at controlling expression and sexuality on the grounds that the courts will continue to rule them unconstitutional. The people who support these laws aren't idiots and if you keep giving them the power they will eventually get sympathetic judges on the court.
Maybe, but several red states have passed medical marijuana laws too, including Colorado, Montana, and Arizona. In other respects, California drug law doesn't differ that much from other states. And at the political level, Democratic politicians differ very little from Republican ones on War on Drugs-related issues.
I oppose all the items on this list. But most of it consists of 1) items that codified a status quo that had little chance of being changed in the near future anyway (ant-gay marriage laws), 2) laws that are ineffective (efforts to stop the spread of porn), or 3) laws that have no real chance of passing and/or are primarily symbolic (the FMA, flag-burning amendment). I agree on the assisted suicide point, though. The abortion issue is more complicated because it is one that splits libertarians internally. There's no necessary inconsistency in being a pro-life libertarian.
Maybe, but my interest is primarily in results rather than in "attitude." And most Democratic politicians' attitudes don't seem to differ much on this issue from those of Republican ones. The California cities that you mention are, I think, exceptional on this point. So too with liberal students. Moreover, I'm not at all sure that conservative students would be less supportive of drug legalization, on average, than liberal ones are.
I don't think I was doing that. I was comparing the conservative intellectuals to the liberal ones discussed in my "libertarians and liberals" post, and the conservative politicians to the liberals also discussed there. That's why I subdivided both posts into intellectual/ideological and "practical politics" sections.
What I find interesting is the different set of standards being deployed - that Republicans deserved to lose because of egregious behaviour in office, but Democratic congress members must reach a much higher bar. I don't quite understand why a Frist or a Delay (or a Bush, for that matter) seems to get mild clucking at worst, and the extremes of the leftist coalition (socialist feminists, for example) are held as somehow close to representative.
Me, I'm voting Democratic out of fond remembrance of gridlock, and yes, to punish those Republicans who have gotten entirely too comfortable. Living where I do, it is just symbolic, granted. But somehow many of my libertarian friends find it remarkably difficult to admit that Republicans are not natural allies, and that the marriage of convenience should be conditional. Perhaps I just put more weight on social freedoms than others do, but given the disasterous economic choices made over the last 6 years, I don't even know how to start defending them on that front, either.
I also wonder that Ilya discounts civil rights issues - sure, only a relatively small number of people have been persecuted under the new, expansive interpretations of executive priviledge, the various new laws such as the DTA, etc. I hardly find that reassuring. That I can now be taken into custody and denied the rule of law in solitary for 3.5 years is scary. That I most likely won't be might mean that it is more of an intellectual excercise (I'm way to boring to be a person of interest, I think), but it doesn't provide much faith in the directon of government.
It is my hope that the Democrats start rolling back the executive overreach ASAP. If they fail to do that, well, we have a serious problem. '08, absent a truly spectacular change of direction will do Democratic (I mean come on, 2 more years of this clown show?), and demonstrating restraint will go a long way towards getting on with settiling in to power and becoming as comfortable and corrupt as the Repbulicans have gotten, so that we can complete the cycle and move on.
The. Most. Fucking. Absurd. Statement. I. Have. Ever Read. Please read about Jose Padilla -- and then notice that he was a US citizen detained in the US and was never afforded a hearing for the whole time he was held incommunicado on a naval fucking brig. I guess because he had brown skin, libertarians don't consider it a threat to their "liberty."
What a joke. Joke. Joke. Joke.
In all seriousness (the above was also serious): I think this has something to do with Ilya coming from the former Soviet Union and expecting government to do these sort of things and not being that outraged about it.
Not if Republicans continue to appoint the federal judiciary.
Somehow it is ok if a Democratic president locks up hundreds of thousands of Americans of Japanese descent for the duration of that war, most guilty of only their parentage, but it is somehow a travesty when a Republican president locks up a single American citizen for conspiring with our current enemy.
If you are going to get upset about civil liberties, how about a 88 year old woman shot in her house when a SWAT team invaded? Are any of the cops there going to be prosecuted for that murder? Kathryn Johnston is dead. Padilla is not.
So, the liberal civil libertarians get livid about the vague possibility that someone might possibly have their overseas conversations with al Qaeda surveiled, or that one person (Abdullah al-Muhajir) out of 300,000,000 was held w/o full due process, but ignore that every day dozens, if not hundreds, of doors are broken in, instead of knocked upon, all so that someone can't flush some drugs down the toilet.
Let's just keep things in perspective. All this hype about the Administration's stripping us of Civil Liberties in its persuit of its War on Terror ignores that such deprivation has at most really affected the rights of a handful of people in this country of over 300 million people. There are a whole lot of other ways that our government interferes with the lives of an awful lot more of its citizens a lot more than this. IMHO, you are sticking your head in the sand if you are getting outraged at the Bush Administration's
WoT.
Jose Padilla is almost certainly not an innocent person. Moreover he is only one case. Why is he (and a tiny handful of other similar cases) important enough to justify a complete reorientation of the political spectrum? Why is the mistreatment of one man who is probably a terrorist somehow more important than that of tens of thousands of innocent people victimized by the War on Drugs or harmed by other big government policies? BY the way, many of them have "brown skin" too.
In all seriousness (the above was also serious): I think this has something to do with Ilya coming from the former Soviet Union and expecting government to do these sort of things and not being that outraged about it.
This crap is not worth dignifying with a response, though the Soviet Union was also not shy about violating economic liberties.
I, along with most of the rest here, seem to have a problem being coherant about this. But my contention here is that the place where a libertarians sees the most egregious rights violations by the government determines whether he leans more to the right or the left. Since the MSM has put the potential rights violations due to the WoT at the center of the debate recently, a lot of libertarians are leaning left right now. And it hasn't helped the conservatives that GWB has shifted towards being a big-government Republican since 9/11/01. Nevertheless, I believe that many libertarians will swing away from the liberal side when they realize that no-knock dynamic entries by the police; IRS tax returns, audits, and monitoring of all of our large transactions; pretextual DUI stops; imminent domain; etc. are far worse.
Many here would most likely contest this. We shall see.
One such observation is that clearly we need to distinguish different levels of government. At the national level, I think it is fair to say the Democrats have actively supported the War on Drugs. But various liberal and heavily-Democratic localities scattered around the country (I'm thinking of you, Ann Arbor, MI), have not.
Ilya then points to "red" states that have also sought to pull back from the War on Drugs. But I think this shows that all "red" states (which are simply defined by how they have voted in recent Presidential elections) are not alike. Indeed, the western "red" states Ilya notes are probably much more libertarian-minded than "red" states in, say, the deep South (e.g., note that Arizona became the first state to reject an anti-gay marriage proposal).
So, I think this all actually supports the idea that a realignment could in fact occur: a joining together of libertarian-minded folks in places like the West, Midwest, and Northeast could in fact potentially push one or both parties to become more libertarian-minded nationally. And we are actually seeing that happen: those western "red" states are not looking so "red" anymore, as they have started to vote for Democrats as governors, Senators, and Representatives.
All of which gets back to what a libertarian should do. Again, to me it seems obvious that these are the trends a libertarian should be encouraging. The bottomline is that the ideal position for libertarians is to become a swing constituency between two otherwise highly competitive parties, in which case they are likely to get more of what they want than their absolute numbers would otherwise warrant. But to be a real swing constituency, you have to actually swing.
What would ever make you think that liberals support "dynamic" entries? There was a lot of outrage about the increasing prevalence of such raids on liberal sites last week... while here, Orin Kerr had a gigantic thread supporting such raids.
This , IMHO, is the key. Who are the conservatives in charge, at the intellectual elite level? If it's the 'christian' right, then libertarians don't have much agreement.
Hardly the point. Is it the libertarian view that we just take the government's word on this; that we should simply allow people to arrested and detained, and tortured, because the President thinks they are terrorists? That's the attitude of the current administration, that you seem startlingly willing to simply shrug off as unimportant.
At least those arrested for drug crimes have some chance to refute the charges.
This is probably just because you know a lot more conservatives than liberals, but here I clearly call shenanigans.
What do you mean innocent? There's a whole range of innocence between "never having done anything wrong, ever" (which nobody can say with a straight face about anybody) and "was the mastermind of a legitimate and serious plot to blow up a dirty bomb in the United States" (which, despite the Government's contentions, I find extremely unlikely to be entirely true).
And though he's a pretty special case, he's somewhat representative of the hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans who were detained for at least months without being charged after 9/11, not to mention the thousands who were detained (most having been let go) without charges for at least months at Guantanamo Bay.
I think that you are underplaying this one. Maybe its still not as big of a deal as other things, particularly the war on drugs, but its not just "one case" of someone whose violations of rights were harmless.
What about Tipper Gore during the Clinton years?
As a conservative I agree with "wm13". If the libertarians want to ally with liberals, go for it.
If it makes you happy, have at it.
Next thing you know, you’ll have someone reminding readers of Janet Reno’s threat to the entertainment industry to “clean up” their act in six months or she would do it for them. A threat that was echoed by the Gore-Lieberman campaign in 2000.
Probably because the judge who issued the no-knock warrant previously worked as the Fulcan County attorney for the DNC.
By contrast, some folks in Waco had a "fringe" religion, bought guns, and wanted to essentially live apart from the rest of society. At worst, they were guilty of child abuse, something that sadly happens in virutally every city. So Janet Reno rolls in with a military raid to kill all the kids in order to save them.
Yes, we need to bring back Democrats to support civil liberties!
For those Libertarians who are able to compromise, continue reading. For those who think any form of compromise is anathema, you can stop now.
Lets examine the ground facts.
1. The Libertarians are a vocal, intelligent group with clear principles. This allows them to punch above their weight. But the simplicity and stridency of their principles also serves as an upper bound on the size the movement can achieve.
2. In the R party, the Socons are the biggest, most energetic group, and the Rinos or country clubbers are the next most powerful with their trump cards of inside influence, and the Libertarians take up last place. This might be regarded as depressing, but considering how small the Libertarians are, its actually very good.
3. I've heard a Libertarian say that 90% of the American People are L; its just they don't know it. Refuse this self-delusion. Perhaps 90% of the People have Libertarian tendencies, but they also have Socon, and Populist, and Statist, and Liberal tendencies as well, all bound up in the same person. Just like there's not too many out and out Communists in America, so there's not too many of the extreme known as Libertarian.
This all sounds terrifically depressing, but one key fact is missing. Most of the Socon are pretty strongly Libertarian influenced. Those of you who haven't visited a Baptist church should--ask around for their opinion of the government. There is a profound agreement there with G. Washington's comment about fire and gov't.
Most socons would come at things from the viewpoint of liberty is best, but sometimes you need to fix things by crude means. This is a viewpoint that starts at Libertarian, and then alters it to deal with real world problems the LP theory doesn't cope that well with.
On the other hand, the Liberals start in general from a Statist perspective, and consider what freedoms they should allow you.
It has been said, no doubt thousands of times, that Libertarians like the Right's economic view, and the Left's moral view. The problem with this is two-fold, is that the Right's view is generally focused on real problems, and the Left are probably more moralistic than the Right.
And a third issue...per the Libertarian who told me that comic books having porn was an important issue that could affect him, and so he cared about that, and not a whit about the War on Terror because how would that affect him? I have to say, the Drug War doesn't affect me much, nor do I expect that it affects most readers of this blog much. On the other hand, I do worry about Eminent Domain and Kelo.
So in closing, the Conservatives and the Libertarians have a great deal in common on the great issues of the day (not the esoteric issues), and I really wish the Libertarians would stop picking fights, or I'm going to start agreeing with WM13 instead of trying to be a peacemaker. I'd like to see an alliance of Libertarian and Conservative get the Country clubbers into third place in the Republican Party with the Libertarians taking over their position. It'd be better for everyone except the pork-barrellers.
http://www.slate.com/id/2148999/
Agreed for the Right, having government leave people alone is pretty much the rule whereas on the Left it’s usually the exception. One of the best ways I’ve learned in school to tell the Left from the Right is how they first view a proposal for a new law regulating or prohibiting behavior. Before debating the merits of the proposals, do they start by saying “do people need to be able to do this?” or do they start by saying “does the government have the right (authority) to regulate this activity?”
For every conservative who wishes to “legislate morality,” there are probably five left-liberals who wish to legislate “equality” or “social justice.” IMO it usually is because conservatives start from the perspective that the United States was founded on pretty solid principles and our legal framework generally only requires a few adjustments here and there whereas the Left starts from the perspective that because of things like slavery and women not having the right to vote at the beginning, the original Constitutional framework is somehow illegitimate (“dead White men”) and they have no compunctions about trashing the framework when it suits their purposes (New Deal, Great Society, Roe v Wade).
If Ilya Somin really doesn’t understand why it is that social conservatives are more likely to be economic libertarians (other than the fact that it generally works) or usually favor federalism (which would probably even more the case if the Right didn’t know that the Left has no such fidelity), it’s because they tend to respect the founding principles of the nation whereas social liberals, not so much.
I’m hardly a fan of Janet Reno and I agree that the Waco Siege was probably botched but suggesting that Janet Reno set out to kill the children in the compound is simply evil.
And let me be first to say that if you have a doomsday cult that’s stockpiling weapons, I’m all for the government taking a hard look at them.
For all of you who think that Republicans are more opposed to the war on drugs than Democrats, ask your Democrat friend for some real drugs, because whatever you are smoking is tainted with rat poison.
Here is the closest thing to a poll on that issue that I could find (from Pew Research:
And I don't think conservative intellectuals are more supportive of abolising the war on drugs either. If you get rid of all of the libertarians who you are counting, I would guess there are very few.
Among Democrats who I have asked on the other hand, I don't know ANY who favor the war on drugs, and this is not because they want to feel free to use, but because of principles and pragmatism.
And it is the Republican mantra that is always CRIME, CRIME, CRIME to the point that Democrats have to act tough to even be considered. As for no-knock raids...ever notice that most of them take place in southern red states like Georgia and Mississippi, and that they are being rolled back in "liberal" places like California, Connecticut, New York and Denver, CO.
I am astonished by some of the conclusions reached on this thread about what policies "liberals" support. Maybe there is just a difference between the liberals I know in the blue states and how they are misrepresented in the red states. Or maybe there is a substantial difference between the liberals in the red states and those in the blue states. Either way, the opinions on this blog about what policies liberals support are not representative of what the majority actually believes.
Coming from a libertarian.
By the way, I found this particular claim highly amusing: "For every conservative who wishes to 'legislate morality,' there are probably five left-liberals who wish to legislate 'equality' or 'social justice.'” I suspect a lot of Democratic politicians who found themselves on the wrong end of wedge issues (e.g., gay marriage) wish that was even remotely true.
Exactly the opposite. Liberals start from the perspective that everything should be allowed, and then decide what social or economic failures justify gov't intervention. Socons may start from the same perspective, but then they simply find justification for government intervention for different reasons. I think both start with principles of liberty and then compromise those principles based on different justifications.
But the difference, in my perhaps ill-informed opinion, is that socons have a very narrow view of politics. Their starting point, unlike liberals, seems to have less to do with absolute broad liberty, and more to do with freedom of religion and personal affairs. Then they compromise those principles for what they deem to be practical moral imperatives to allow gov't intervention. For all of those issues that fall outside of religion or personal concerns, socons pay little attention.
It is the liberals who have focused on broad-based liberty. The tendency of many liberals to call for government intervention is simply a byproduct of their focus on so many different areas of liberty. It is definitely not that they start from a statist perspective.
In summary, socons care about the freedoms of white, southern, tax-paying, gun-owning, church-going citizens. In doing so, they don't call for government intervention on a lot of issues, but are also willfully indifferent to government abuse on a lot of issues.
Liberals, on the other hand, care about the freedoms of everyone--muslims, christians, jews, blacks, hispanics, criminals, companies, workers, students, teachers, etc. In doing so, they call for a lot of government intervention because they are concerned with more failures. But they also pay A LOT of attention to government abuse in all of these same areas.
Both viewpoints are flawed because both sacrifice too many principles. But one is more suited to policing the abuses of government on a broad range of issues (radical liberals) and one is more suited to preventing abuse in the first place on a broad range of issues (socons).
Thus, if you are in a position like the current one, where the government is abusing its citizens left and right, it is mostly the liberals who are going to call for broad reform. Socons are going to call for reform on taxes, gun rights, and a few other narrow issues, while demanding gov't intervention on a lot of similar personal issues. Liberals are the ones calling for broad reform of the abuses in the war on terror, war on drugs, executive privilege, corporate welfare, campaign finance, etc. Unfortunately, they also call for a lot of broad intervention in economy and other areas.
But as far as principles go, libertarians have a lot more in common with liberals. It is just that when you have a lot of principles, you have a lot of principles to compromise. That is the liberal tragedy.
Very true. Karl Rove would be surprised to hear that.
That would highly amusing except of course that not extending marital benefits to homosexual couples is in no way “legislating morality” because no one is forcing someone to do or refrain from doing something. It’s merely making a decision not to extend a benefit to someone. A libertarian might question whether there should be any benefits extended to encourage civil marriage but there is no libertarian argument which would require government to extend those benefits to any and all relationships.
On the other hand the various minimum wage ballot initiatives which were passed this last election is pretty good example of trying to legislate “social justice” because that is actually an example of government forcing someone to do something or prohibiting them from doing something.
Okay so instead of legislating morality they just don't believe in liberty. You are starting from the standpoint that those benefits are the government's to grant. Which necessarily means that it had previously deprived its citizens of that liberty. Great. Much better.
You used the term "legislate morality". Not all legislation is coercive, so you can "legislate morality" without "forcing someone to do or refrain from doing something."
But if you want an example of attempts to "legislative morality" that are inconsistent with your numerical claim and which involve coercion, then the War on Drugs should suffice.
"[A]lmost two-thirds (65%) of white evangelical Protestants oppose allowing the possession of small amounts of marijuana, while 54% of white mainline Protestants support legalization, along with two-thirds (65%) of seculars."
So let's do a little math. I believe about 25% of the U.S. population are white evangelical Protestants. Times .65 that is 16.25%, and 16.25% times five is ...
Oh my goodness! At least 81.25% of the U.S. population are "left-liberals who wish to legislate 'equality' or 'social justice.'" I never knew there were so many of them!
Thank you for your kind comment, and I can only say I try to see things clearly as they are. Reality usually does not stick to any one person's ideology.
You are correct when you point out that the Right tends strongly toward Originalism and a profound respect for the Founding Fathers and the Constitution whereas the Left is frequently not so.
One of the key differences between Libertarians and Conservatives is that L have a coherent and simple system of principles. Whereas C have a much more vague and mish-mashy thing which while it has its disadvantages, it also allows more intellectual flexibility to cope with the unexpected nature of Reality.
This is seen in one of Thorley's reasons why socons are frequently strongly leaning libertarian economically--because it works. C is pragmatic. Woodstock sees this as sacrificing principles, but I don't think his principles match reality.
I dare him to claim that Libertarian Theory says all that we need to know about running a country. The problem is, he won't because that would be silly. Thus confirming the fact that Libertarianism like all other ideologies is inadequate in the face of reality, and that as dissapointing as it may be for intellectual clarity and elegance, but a mish-mash is the best we can hope for at this time.
I don't see the great similarity between Liberals and Libertarians. The great similarity I see is a desire to sneer at the supposed hayseeds.
Liberal principle is born from a belief in the perfectability of humanity. In order to do this, one must change society, and sweep away all the traditional elements (church, family, small service organizations, chess clubs...) and since most people naturally resist having their lives uprooted, one is naturally forced to reach for coercive methods.
Conservatives start with the notion that human nature is unchangeable and tragically flawed. Man is a jerk, and always will be one. From there, you go on to build checks and balances, bills of rights, and to view the use of governmental power with skepticism. However, this is a skepticism that turns back on itself. For a weak government leads to anarchy, and a strong government leads to tyranny, and how do you square this circle?
The Founders did it by creating Enumerated Powers. These would be areas where the gov't was strong, and these areas would be vital to keeping the society alive. The most obvious example is the making of war which is full of coercion.
So Woodstock, you might have a point in a way. You're seeing something, but I think at the wrong angle and with some details off. The Socons are focused on the things needed to keep society going, and the Liberals have a more broad-brush approach because they want to totally remake society into a Utopia.
Now, there are those whom Walter Russell Meade called Jeffersonians. These people are liberals usually, and see the First Amendment as the Alpha and Omega of the Constitution. That is the sort of people who join the ACLU, and imagine every grunt and frown from an elected leader is the portent of the 'dark night of fascism descending on America', but as one wit put it, this dark night is always descending on America, but landing in Europe.
I'm sorry, I don't see that Socons aren't interested in more than a few things, and just totally ignore other abuses. You're close, but not quite on target. In fact, Socons have probably the broadest, or the second broadest perspective on issues of any group in the nation (Liberals being the other competitor). They do have issues which they concentrate on, of course. Also, your list of groups reminds one of the Liberal tendency to group identity.
You do have a valuable insight tied up in your thoughts. Socons do have a narrow view of politics...this is one of their safeguards of liberty. Most issues should not be resolved by politics is a Socon sentiment.
Liberals are statist because they see everything as political.
As to 'desperate fear' as Libertarians leave from the R's as the other commenter alleged...well..no. Not really. I suspect WM13 is correct. I think a Republican Party that said "Security Fence NOW! Lower Taxes NOW! Pro-Life or Impeach the Supremes for willfully misreading the Constitution. Supported the separation of Science and State. Aggressively fought the War on Terror by means harsh and cold as is legal, and by invading some more countries. De-funded the ACLU and Planned Parenthood from their federal monies. Started moves to re-Federalize various issues like Education aka tried to abolish the Dept. of Ed.; got rid of Nasa in favor of Prize Monies for X Prizes; withdrew from the UN; and threw criminals in jail" and a bunch more similar goals would find themselves standing on a tidal wave of support.
The great mass of people like Conservatives when they are Conservatives. The R's lost because because they abandoned Conservatism, and to a lesser extent because they abandoned Libertarianism in favor of the Country Clubbers. These CC's are the Old Republican Party, the one that lost all the time before the SoCons came and upset their genteel world by being so crude as to actually win, and demand results. These CC's hate the SoCons because I guess we want someone to do their job, instead of going golfing. And I rather expect they view Libertarians as useful idiots.
I am again going to say this. I support an alliance of Conservatives and Libertarians to lower the Country Clubbers to third place within the R party. Because as much as the Libertarians can occasionally get on my nerves, I have to admit they usually have principles. The CC's only principles seem to be 'power is fun', and thus they are willing to compromise anything to keep it.
And this realignment would strongly benefit the Libertarians. Right now, you guys are the tail on the dog, which wags about frenetically, but accomplishes little. Become the Number Two power in the Number One party, and yes, you'll have to be polite to Socons, but you'll probably end up convincing a few Socons to try a one-state experiment in ending the War on Drugs. And then we can all check our theories against reality.
You'll have power to put some of your principles into action instead of being on the outside looking in.
This will benefit the Conservatives because if I had to choose an ally, I'd rather have one that I occasionally disagreed with, but had guts and conviction. That is, so long as I can trust you to keep your word. You show yourself trustworthy, and willing to help out, and you'll find yourself offered part of your desires. Granted, it WILL be half a loaf, but thats democratic politics, and if you don't like it, you're free to leave. Really. If you're too pure to compromise, you're of little use. Libertarians like this would be strong allies, and occasional rivals.
And maybe this would pave the way to that day all Libertarians dream about...the day when SoCons and Libertarians each have their own party, and the Dems are a distant memory.
Ok, that was way too long, so I'm stopping now.
Why should we change the institution of marriage just to make some incredibly small percentage of people "happy"? (Look, if you can't enter into a long-term committed relationship w/o the gov't giving it a blessing, you have problems far worse than your inability to get "married".) What is "libertarian" about trying to use government power to force people to treat homosexual relationships as if they are as valuable as heterosexual relationships? (If you want to believe that they are, that's great, go right ahead and do that. But what right do you have to try to force other people to change their opinions?)
If you're really a libertarian, why should property owners / business owners / private citizens be forced (by the government) to treat people the way you think best, instead of they way that they think best? Exactly what is "libertarian" about that?
Couple things I feel like addressing.
You mention Liberals believe that all men are perfectionable. While alot may do, I think it would be better to describe the majority of liberals naturally believe men at his core is good. Slight difference there. Additionally I wouldn't say all liberals believe in obtaining a utopia or near utopia the thought is extremly prevalent.
But it is also prevalent in Social Con circles. Maybe not utopia, but instead something similar to what the Puritans called a "City on the Hill." It is possible to create a just society, bringing it near holiness by bettering man by practicing virtue and avoiding vice. You nailed it with that is how Conservatives think, awarding virtue and punishing vice.
Problem is, in my mind many Conservative leaders, both politicians and the party intellectuals got cocky. They may still see the rest of humanity as deprave but they didn’t see themselves as deprave anymore. Thus they lost there since of internal doubt and humbleness, which helped guide them from selecting virtue instead of vice, additionally without doubt you are less likely to be prudent.
Thus the social con went on a crusade on not necessary things that really helped the country. The 2004 and 2006 Federal Marriage Amendments, were those really necessary? Wouldn’t the better answer have been simply to allow federalism run its course and let each state decide for themselves and let each state write their own laws and constitution?
I also see the rise of governmental spending across the board as proof of the loss of internal doubt (not just in Defense/Homeland Security areas). The Conservative leaders knew, they just knew, what was virtue and what was vice.
Add to this condition, another simultaneous malady was occurring, the longer you stay in DC the more you think like DC. Power corrupts, and you also begin to less see things on what needs to be done and fixed, but in more this election next election, what will my constituents think, I may lose my re-election if I do this for this act is unpopular even if its good for the country or necessary. Finally the longer you work in DC the less susceptible you are to new ideas for the new ideas are generated outside DC.
---
In my mind this is human nature and is inevitable for any position of power. In my mind it is inevitable for the reason listed above to change good men and women and turn them in to inept politicians. Certain philosophical viewpoints though can hasten this transformation, in my mind such as utopia worship or the fundamental belief it is possible to create a “City on a Hill.”
---
I know this would never occur, but if I were to rewrite the constitution I would make each state have 3 senators instead of 2, but only 2 senators are active at one time. A senator has a 6 years in office, but the middle 2 years of his term he has to stay in his state and isn’t allow to have any official political position during that time. Term limits aren’t the answer, but term breaks could give the man a break a vacation let him be a layman for a while. You can probably generate something similar with the house.
It is the difference between social philosophy of liberty (liberals) and personal philosophy of liberty (conservatives).
I also don't think liberals have any concept of humans as perfectionable. They believe humans are flawed, but they do believe in human society as perfectionable. That is, start with liberty, figure out what doesn't work, and then erect institutions to make sure everyone is happy. Completely different from believing that human nature is perfectionable. Actually very similar to checks-and-balance philosophy of perfecting human society, except liberals think you can actually reach the utopia so they keep trying.
Okay, you dared me. Principles should not be sacrificed as easily as they are on both sides. Libertarians are ideological but their ideology is a product of a long-term empirical observation of reality. Their principles didn't magically appear like the ten commandments. They were products of a reality that witnessed abuses of government power, the value of personal freedoms, and the successes of the free markets. Lots of libertarians are willing to compromise on those principles, but never for short-term gain or short-term solutions, unlike both conservatives and liberals. Only if they see a fundamental failure of those principles over the long term will they compromise on an issue-by-issue basis. So, some libertarians favor government health care. Some favor subsidized education. Some favor emissions trading.
The difference is that when they deviate from those principles, it is from a long-term empirical view, not from a short-term observation of a problem.
Sen Snowe &Collins libertarian-minded? Are you mad or just not paying attention?
I can see nothing in the Democrats that would attract this libertarian to them. They are just as statist as the Republicans and far more meddling. They are also supporters of policies that hurt the economy, can be rather anti-guns and seem to think that illegals should have the right to leech of the taxpayer not matter what. I find their attitudes towards Iraq and Israel most troubling as well.
"Liberal principle is born from a belief in the perfectability of humanity. In order to do this, one must change society, and sweep away all the traditional elements (church, family, small service organizations, chess clubs...)."
Which is why, of course, there are no such things as liberal churches, liberal families, or liberal service organizations.
I don't know enough about those Senators to address them specifically. In general, maybe you can define what you mean by "country club Republicans". Descriptively, the actual Republicans I know who would be likely to join country clubs are in favor of lower taxes, lower spending on social programs, less regulation of business, and don't really care about abortion or gay marriage. So, I think of them as somewhat libertarian-minded.
Good point, the homosexual privileges movement is far more totalitarian in its support for bias crimes statutes and its opposition to freedom of association than anything the “Religious Right” has ever done in our nation. There is simply nothing “libertarian” about that movement and their current cause of “same sex marriage” has nothing to do with libertarian principles one way or the other. I can understand objecting to sodomy statutes (but post-Lawrence that’s not even an issue except for those who object to the federal courts usurping the roles of State legislatures as Scalia and Thomas said in their dissents) but beyond that the homosexual privileges movement has nothing to do with protecting rights from government and is about using the government to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
It’s almost as bizarre as the criticism by many self proclaimed “libertarians” (including the column which touched off this thread) of the Bush administration for not wanting to force taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research. You might not agree with the moral considerations and believe that private parties have the right to fund this sort of research but there is nothing libertarian about the (federal) government funding it with our tax dollars.
I know you are responding to another poster, but I wanted to note that the issue has apparently changed from the one that you and I were discussing. I agree that the strict libertarian position may be to oppose all governmental support of marriage and all governmental support of basic science research. But the original question was whether there are a substantial number of social conservatives who want to "legislate morality".
And in that sense, social conservatives who think the government should be supporting marriage (and thus who aren't strict libertarians), but not supporting gay marriages because gay marriages are immoral, are in fact "legislating morality". Similarly, social conservatives who think the government should be supporting basic science research (and thus who aren't strict libertarians), but not supporting embryonic stem cell research because such research is immoral, are in fact "legislating morality".
In that sense, I do think these are perfectly appropriate examples of social conservatives seeking to "legislate morality", and the fact that strict libertarians might reach the same policy preferences in these cases for different reasons does not undermine that conclusion.