our politics can be portrayed along two axes, economic and non-economic, according to the preferences of two-dimensional men who vote for two-dimensional progressive conservatism. This divided voters into four quadrants, and the winning one was left-wing or middle of the road on economics but right-wing on social issues. Those voters went three to one for Trump.
Of course, libertarians are in the opposite quadrant: left-wing on social issues and right-wing on economic issues.
I have argued for the last few years that libertarians have been thrown under the bus by both major parties.
As a libertarian I am not sure we are still “left wing” on social issues. “Left wing” has come to mean the illiberal “woke” politics. Whereas many issues (gay rights, criminal justice reform, drug legalization, gun rights, etc) are either accepted positions on both sides or outright “right wing” issues. I personally think we are politically homeless on economic issues but increasingly “right wing” on social issues.
This seems correct to me on social issues.
Economically, we’re homeless, but I’d argue that anyone who thinks we’re equally homeless is kidding themselves. On the right nobody really disputes the idea of capitalism and free enterprise. There are sometimes accurate complaints about whether it’s really free enterprise if you are overwhelming the market with regulatory capture opportunities or basically get to employ slave labor in other countries, but that falls within areas that are pretty open to debate in most libertarian theory.
On the left though, there’s a significant batch of folks that are apparently outright Marxists, a larger batch still of outright socialists, and then a larger body of folks who seem willing to entertain these bad ideas as if they had merit.
Basically, the issues on the right are an annoyance but not a fundamental difference. The issues on the left are about as fundamentally different as possible.
I agree. My fundamental bone to pick with the “right wing” is that they resort to Keynesian policies when governing and especially during crises (2007/8, covid, etc). That being said I would rather have a Keynesian than a Marxist/socialist. It would be nice to have a true hayekian govern for once.
Also school choice and religious liberty are outright “right wing” now. I am not sure what is even “left wing” that is left? Maybe your opinion on abortion? Ending police unions?
How about sex, marriage, transgender, immigration?
Immigration is a good counter point. Probably “left wing” at this point. The rest not so sure. Do either wing have differing political opinions on sex or marriage? Different cultural opinions sure but no real political ambition to change the status quo. Gay marriage seems settled, transgender civil rights were just affirmed by a “right wing” Supreme Court…
Legalizing prostitution and drugs maybe. These are views the right probably views as left wing and the left – which mostly opposes them I gather – views as wacky libertarian ideas.
Buckley, as always, offers a clear and insightful argument. And the Republicans, as well as the country, would be much better off taking to heart his counsel than that of paternalistic Yuval Levin or much, much worse, returning to the say-one-thing, do-another, deep contempt for the base, median voter chasing, personal-brand-burnishing, poll driven antics of the old Bush Dynasty, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney Republican establishment.
Buckley writes “Along a different axis, voters can be divided according to their views about a variety of other issues: a classless versus a class society, honesty versus public corruption, and nationalism versus globalism.”
Do libertarians have any dogma about class? In general, perhaps because so many libertarian think tanks are on the Bezos payroll, it appears libertarians are heavily invested in the notion that average Americans are genetically inferior and should be grateful for their undeserved good fortune in being born in the USA and having what they have. This largely explains why libertarians attract so few followers.
Even in countries with proportional representation, libertarians are not especially numerous or popular. Most seem to favor top-down edicts from courts to achieve their ends and are not especially interested in the rough and tumble of persuasion and democracy.
There are exceptions of course. Perhaps the most consequential libertarian holding office today is the governor of Minas Gerais, Romeu Zema of the NOVO party, the most consequential libertarian party in the world. Zema is, like Trump, the businessman son of a businessman. Minas Gerais, the second largest state by size of economy, is the size of France and has incredible economic potential. Zema has shouldered the day to day burdens of administrative responsibility in the time of virus gracefully and competently.
Despite the virus, he has advanced the NOVO Party agenda, which largely overlaps that of the progressive conservatism espoused by Buckley:
*defend democracy, civil liberties, and protect a meaningful role for citizens in democratic participation;
*incentivize entrepreneurs;
*focus on key areas of education, health, security;
*the privatization of public enterprises like Petrobras and Banco do Brasil;
* supports welfare programs like Bolsa Família;
* defends the education vouchers program for private schools;
* opposes extensive regulation; and,
* Wants an independent central bank.
If they ever develop any interest in participating in democracy, USA libertarians would do well to study NOVO Party. And it definitely wouldn’t hurt Republicans either.
The Liberal International’s 1997 Oxford Manifesto (https://liberal-international.org/who-we-are/our-mission/landmark-documents/political-manifestos/oxford-manifesto-1997/ ) one can see how the original Oxford Manifesto – sweet, clean, and direct – has been amended to hand over libertarians to progressive control:
“There remain many challenges to Liberalism: from the violation of human rights, from excessive concentrations of power and wealth; from fundamentalist, totalitarian, xenophobic and racist ideologies, from discrimination on grounds of sex, religion, age, sexual orientation and disability; from poverty and ignorance, from the widening gap between rich and poor; from the misuse of new technologies, from the weakening of social ties, from competition for scarce resources, from environmental degradation in an overcrowded world, from organised crime and from political corruption.”
It adds numerous other progressive planks and foreshadows how “libertarian “ think tanks in the USA would become progressive fellow travelers and how libertarians have become increasingly illiberal, surrendering to the temptation of world governance, apocalyptic environmental millenarianism, and social justice warriorism. I don’t see how the Democratic Party has abandoned libertarians at all, it has simply converted them.
I don’t think we are all using the same definitions of liberal and libertarians. Are you (edgar) perhaps from outside the US? I ask because here the word Liberal became associated with the left socialists, whereas in the rest of the world it seems to have stuck to the original meaning. In the US, someone calling themselves a liberal is more likely to have Marx on their bookshelf than Smith.
I am confused by your statement:
Do libertarians have any dogma about class? In general, perhaps because so many libertarian think tanks are on the Bezos payroll, it appears libertarians are heavily invested in the notion that average Americans are genetically inferior and should be grateful for their undeserved good fortune in being born in the USA and having what they have. This largely explains why libertarians attract so few followers.
But perhaps it makes more sense if you are using a different definitional set. I don’t see many libertarians making arguments about genetic superiority or inferiority of the middle class, although there is definitely discussion of the effects of genetics on the extremes of the spectrum.
this is essentially the quadrant staked out by Nigel Farage & the UKIP. Mickey Kaus adapted a version of this for his long shot run against Diane Feinstein for the California US Senate seat a decade ago. Kaus, a long time Democrat, was supported in his run by Ann Coulter and I believe Andrew Breitbart. This same trio – Kaus, Coulter and the survivors running Breitbart’s organization, were key early backers of Trump long before anyone else with any media presence gave him any chance.
It seems to me that libertarianism has largely been abandoned because it doesn’t have credible solutions to today’s problems. Young Americans have fewer economic opportunities than their grandparents; liberty without opportunity isn’t attractive (e.g. homelessness). The world’s most dynamic economy, China, is Stalinist with massive state-owned enterprises; the relationship between liberty and prosperity is no longer obvious. The pandemic highlights the role of externalities on the economy and other aspects of the human experience; social media highlights them in a different way. Climate change is getting increasingly obvious; libertarianism offers no solution (not that anyone else offers a plausible solution).
Exactly what solutions is libertarianism offering that would make voters pay attention?
When I was growing up, I was a libertarian primarily because I didn’t want to get robbed. It was obvious that a large % of my income was taken by a government that didn’t give much of value back, and I wanted someone to stop it.
I was vaguely “socially liberal” but mostly out of ignorance of human nature. “What harm could it do”? As I got older, the answer was a lot. Underclass behavior and underclass immigration both meant more people to rob me, and I came to see the sexual revolution as a net loss.
Libertarianism can’t keep people from robbing me, so what good is it?
Singapore style technocracy, perhaps with a more TFR friendly culture (Israel?) has a lot more promise then libertarianism for delivery a world I would want my daughters to come of age in.
If one broadens the definition of libertarian beyond ancaps, then they’ve had a solution to externalities for a very long time that is superior to stringent regulation. I also thinks it’s a mistake to attribute China’s high growth rates to its brilliant economic policies (which, bad as they are, are nowhere near Stalinist; China is at its most Stalinist on social issues).
Personally I don’t think statism has made any credibility gains on libertarianism in recent years. I don’t think what ideologies become popular or unpopular though, especially in the short run, has much to do with their ability to solve problems and much more to do with the ability to satisfy the emotional whims of the times.
Stalinist isn’t too strong a word for China these days (link link. While I wouldn’t attribute China’s growth to its statism, it’s clear that the statism hasn’t prevented the growth.
And if libertarianism has a plausible solution to externalities, I haven’t heard it.
It’s true that politics is often about emotions. That applies to libertarianism as much as anything; in some ways it’s a teenager’s desire for independence projected into the political sphere. But for those who are willing to assess ideas on their merits, what have you got that meets today’s challenges?
Neither of those links argue China follows Stalinist economic policies, they focus on things like the concentration camps; again, Stalinist with respect to civil liberties, but not the economy.
And the solution is Pigouvian taxes (ideally thoroughly assigned property rights but failing that, Pigou).
As opposed to the child’s desire for the safety of parental control? You’d have to be more specific than “today’s challenges.” I’ve yet to see the state solutions to “today’s problems” that are superior.
“I have argued for the last few years that libertarians have been thrown under the bus by both major parties.”
Don’t feel lonely: the Republican establishment also throws its own voters and the conservative principles of “Current Year minus 1” under the bus all the time. #That’sHowTheyGotTrump. Libertarian insights and values have the same tire tread tracks on their shirts as a dozen other members of the formerly Big Tent. (Pretty small tent now where the GOP is now down to 25% of state Assembly seats).
But as I said before, the under-bus-throwing goes both ways. Most libertarian public intellectuals are eager to take any opportunity to distance themselves from the Republican party and conservative positions. It’s bus-tires for everyone – but this time with necklacing – if people don’t stick to a tacit mutual non-aggression pact and focus their fire on the real enemy.
At any rate, Azerrad’s article in the same symposium said the problem was too *much* libertarianism:
Aren’t you feeling the free trade fetish and hatred of government-as-the-answer in the wake of the CARES Act and Lockdown Socialism?
Azerrad is mostly spot-on with the rest of his article, and ironically if he has been more accurate on the above point it would only bolster his case that there is not much left that is conservative about the conservative establishment.
Good points.
I think the reason the libertarians have been a popular target for both parties is that both major parties are in favor of more governmental power. As Russ Roberts put it, both parties want to take your money and give it to their friends, but they have different friends. I would paraphrase to say both parties want to have power to change your behavior, but they prefer different behaviors.
The libertarians seem to be the only group that on principle says government shouldn’t be taking your money and giving it to friends or making you behave in particular ways. Such talk is anathema to the major parties, neither of which seem to have principles from which one could deduce their policy positions.
“Such talk is anathema to the major parties, neither of which seem to have principles from which one could deduce their policy positions.”
On the contrary, progressive positions are very easy to deduce and have been forecast with great accuracy and perspicacity, both by opponents criticizing such changes on the right and the vanguard advancing them on the left. There is almost nothing that seems new or radical today that can’t be traced back and wasn’t already worked out as the logical extension of certain basic principles and likely political incentives at least two generations ago. This would be true even without the advantage of ugly historical parallels, which only serve to bolster the confidence of these predictions and thus to increase one’s sense of alarm.
If one is confused by some reversals or unexpected twists and turns, the usual explanation is that what one was led to think was a ‘principle’ was merely a tactical deception or feint, and a temporarily convenient maneuver while the pieces were in a weaker relative position.
Libertarians are a small cohort, pretty much negligible in influence today, which is the optimal target. Many people are reluctant to admit that they hate 50% of the population, and are wary of the backlash. 3% is more manageable. I think that’s part of it. Some progressives/conservatives still cling to the idea that most conservatives/progressives ‘deep down’ agree about the fundamentals, so a different antagonist is often necessary.
Today in Trumplandia:
Imagine if Obama had floated this idea.
As predicted. If DACA sauce is good for the goose, DACA sauce is good for the gander. You can thank Chief Justice Roberts’ inability to write an opinion containing even a scintilla of anything resembling legal reasoning.
As Justice Thomas wrote in dissent “Without any purported delegation of authority from Congress and without undertaking a rule-making, DHS unilaterally created a program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)[… …] Perhaps even more unfortunately, the majority’s holding creates perverse incentives, particularly for outgoing administrations. Under the auspices of today’s decision, administrations can bind their successors by unlawfully adopting significant legal changes through Executive Branch agency memoranda. Even if the agency lacked authority to effectuate the changes, the changes cannot be undone by the same agency in a successor administration unless the successor provides sufficient policy justification to the satisfaction of this court.”
Roberts’ judicial tyranny has backfired and unleashed anarchy. Article III of USA Constitution seriously needs a rewrite and modernization to current liberal democratic standards of judicial restraint and non-partisanship, if the USA is ever going to make a pretense of restoring the rule of law.
Defund the judiciary
I’d like to request Dr. Kling’s feedback on Trumponomics. The authors, Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore are very libertarian. Larry Kudlow is libertarian. A lot of senior Trump staff have libertarian ideology.
The Trump Administration has been mostly libertarian policy married to a populist front man.
Consider:
– War on regulation.
– Championing school choice and charter school vouchers.
– price transparency and markets in health care. The Trump Admin failed to get major health legislation passed politically, but supposedly lots of good work has been done under the radar.
– The Tax Cut had libertarian underpinnings.
– Criminal Justice Reform with support from CATO
– Repealing net neutrality with “soft touch” regulation is libertarian.
– Energy policy is libertarian. If American companies fail, there are no bail outs, but Trump is a public cheerleader and eliminated lots of regulatory barriers to energy industries.
– Judicial philosophy is aligned with libertarians.
Sure, Trump has made concessions for political considerations. He’s bragged about tariffs, which IMO, was very exaggerated. And the Trump Administration hasn’t made less progress on many issues than desirable, which is understandable when the Democrats have a majority in the house.
I suspect Kling isn’t giving the Trump Administration credit. And he is underestimating how radically away from libertarian ideology a Democrat Administration would push things.
Example: Trump had Casey Mulligan as chief economist on the council of economic advisors for a year, but the pandemic ruined a lot of that track record. Casey has tried to make that case <a href="https://economics21.org/trump-deregulation-unnoticed-experts"here" and in his new book / memoir of the experience “You’re Hired!: Untold Successes and Failures of a Populist President”.
Is that “under the bus”? Maybe, maybe not.
I’ve never heard of Casey Mulligan or any of this before, but those are fantastic links. I preordered the book.
Ideally, Kling would read and consider some of Casey Mulligan’s arguments with an open mind and respond to them. At least read Mulligan’s ungated op-ed you linked. I suspect that he will not.
No, I don’t think Trump is throwing libertarians under the bus at all. He has lots of serious libertarians doing amazing deregulation policy work behind the scenes that has largely been ignored by mainstream discussion.
The problem is that even those libertarians on Trump’s staff have to parrot extremely non-libertarian things in public. Unless you’re some kind of autocrat, you can’t advance libertarian policies is practice while promoting its opposite in public.
Whatever advances they may have made, my guess is that very soon it will all be undone and much more very soon.
You are talking about after Trump leaves office and another presumably Democratic administration takes over. Yes, I absolutely agree. But you can’t reasonably blame the current administration for the choices of future administrations. I do think some positive policy changes from the Trump Administration will have some long term positive influence even with a hostile administration taking over.
Did you read the Casey Mulligan op-ed linked above? It’s a well written account of Trump Administration libertarian deregulation achievements. I suspect you haven’t read it, and focus on a few inflammatory public quotes. Public political discussion is a mess.
Ajit Pai is a senior Trump Admin public official whose has gotten lots of publicity who has said lots of libertarian things like advocating “soft-touch” regulation. I suspect you overlook that and focus on a few inflammatory quotes.
There is a 100% chance that the cronyism of national-conservatism and democratic-socialism will make a grand mess of things. One might hope that libertarian ideas might emerge from the rubble of that destruction.
There’s no guarantee of that. Think of all the countries have been stagnating from very non-libertarian situations for generations. I’m not optimistic.
Many thought that the left was the greatest threat to libertarianism and free markets. I’m not surprised that it came from conservatism. However, I never saw it coming from this caricature of dumbed-down conservative populism.