Tag Archives: Nick Gillespie

Conservatarian Dilemmas 3: Israel

Posted on by

This is my third and final post prompted by the dialogue between Nick Gillespie and Charles C.W. Cooke. The issue is foreign policy, and although they did not discuss Israel, I think that it is about that country that conservatives and libertarians get most confrontational–and uncharitable–with one another.

Conservatives want a strong national defense, and some libertarians (seemingly including Gillespie) are ok with that. However, conservatives often want to intervene in this barbarous world, and libertarians are against intervention.

One libertarian argument against interventionism is that the U.S. government that is our agent to perform such intervention is the same flawed, bumbling entity whose intervention in domestic affairs we fear. Cooke concedes that point. However, he does not regard it as a decisive argument against any and all intervention.

There are more than a few libertarians whose vehemence against Israel makes it difficult for me to picture them joining a conservatarian coalition. The most charitable interpretation that I can come up with for the libertarian antipathy toward Israel is the following:

American libertarians are anti-interventionist. Israel is a country that wants America to intervene in ways to protect its interests. America has sometimes (often?) done so. Without Israel there would be less American intervention, and because of that Israel deserves to be singled out for opprobrium.

The conservative view might be the following:

Israel’s and America’s interests generally align. Along the civilization vs. barbarism axis, Israel is far more civilized than its enemies. American intervention is constructive and appropriate.

Some libertarians and progressives blame Israel for the costly, counter-productive attempt to force democracy on Iraq. I think it is unfair to hold Israel responsible. While some Israelis, notably Natan Sharansky, indeed were keen on spreading democracy, his views were much more popular in the U.S. than in Israel. Faith in democracy as a solution to the problems in the Middle East is as American as apple pie. If anything, President Obama took that faith even farther than President Bush.

My own feelings about Israel are similar to those expressed by George Gilder in The Israel Test, which I wrote about a couple years ago. Gilder sees hostility to Israel as reflecting a dislike for dynamism and entrepreneurial success. Progressives can seem nostalgic for the socialist poverty that Israelis shared before the liberalizations that took place over the past 30 years or so.

For some American Christian conservatives, support for Israel has a religious basis that is off-putting to more secular people (and to many Jews). Otherwise, I think that American support for Israel among conservatives is based more on Israel’s circumstances than on its diplomacy or lobbying. If there were as many medieval fanatics surrounding Singapore or Switzerland, my guess is that the conservatives who see America as the Indispensable Nation would want us to be heavily involved in those areas as well.

Another possible argument for leaning against Israel is that one should do so in order to counter Jewish political pressure. However, my sense is that most Jews feel a stronger affinity to the cause of progressivism than to Israel’s government, particularly with a conservative at its head.

Yes, there are American Jews who advocate for the U.S. to pursue hawkish policies in the Middle East, but they are far outnumbered by other American Jews who loathe the hawks. My guess is that if Binyamin Netanyahu wanted to get into a popularity contest in America with Barack Obama, he would do better if American Jews were excluded from taking part in the poll.

Finally, I have to say that I have concluded that this is a topic on which people have a hard time disagreeing with one another charitably. If you (or I) want to voice an opinion on Israel in order to vent, then fine. But you (or I) should not expect that someone’s mind is going to change as a result. Instead, expect an uncharitable response.

While I expressed some of my views on Israel, they are beside the main point, and feel free to ignore them. The main point in this post is simply the observation that Israel profoundly divides conservatives from a significant group of libertarians. If you disagree with that, or you think that the divide is caused by something I have not mentioned, then by all means weigh in.

Conservatarian Dilemmas 2: Social Issues

Posted on by

This is the second of three posts inspired in part by the dialogue between Nick Gillespie and Charles C.W. Cooke. The social issues that I have in mind are drugs, abortion, and gay marriage. Some thoughts.

From the civilization-barbarism perspective, one may oppose legalizing marijuana, abortion, and gay marriage to the extent that one believes that civilization depends on, or at least is enhanced by, restrictions against these. However, that is not Cooke’s conservatarian position. He instead favors allowing different communities to adopt different policies. My thoughts:

1. From the freedom-coercion perspective, I see Cooke as trying to argue for a (local) “freedom to coerce.” As a general rule, this is problematic. In fact, the controversy over Indiana’s religious freedom law (or “religious freedom” law, to those who oppose it) may be an illustration of the difficulties with this approach.

During the battle over civil rights, Barry Goldwater applied federalism to argue for states’ rights to impose Jim Crow laws. Milton Friedman argued that businesses should be allowed to engage in discrimination. Today, most Americans believe that Federal coercion to prevent racial discrimination is a good thing, and Cooke supports this consensus.

2. Some conservatives try to appeal to libertarians by arguing that progressive social policies are coercive. For example, a businessman who opposes abortion can be forced to pay for health insurance that in turn pays for abortions of employees. The libertarian counter is that the wrong involved here is not that the businessman is forced to pay for abortions but that he is forced to pay for health insurance.

3. Another conservative line is that without traditional family values, people will become degenerate and thus dependent on the government, leading to bigger government. Call this the David Brooks argument. My own view, as readers of this blog (particularly the posts under the category “Four forces watch”) know, is that bifurcated family patterns are unlikely to be altered by government action.

4. The elephant in the room here is religion and voters who are motivated by it. Just the other day, I saw a full-page ad in the Washington Post using biblical imagery to argue against legalization of gay marriage. There is a long tradition of conservative politicians (and, for that matter, progressive politicians) who are not themselves committed to religious beliefs wanting to appeal to voters who are.

5. Should a baker who is opposed to gay marriage have the right to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple? I think that the most appropriate libertarian answer is to say that the baker should have such a right. But it seems to me that if you open the door to a right to discriminate, then racists can use that door. On the other hand, if you say that government should be able to force a baker to do business with an unwanted customer, does that mean that government also should be able to force a customer to do business with an unwanted baker?

My preferred society would be one in which (a) there is sufficient market competition so that if you are discriminated against by x you can easily obtain what you want somewhere else. The government has to get involved only if discrimination is pervasive; and (b) religious values are enforced within religious organizations only. If you violate the beliefs of your religion, you can be excommunicated by that religion, but otherwise you should not suffer.

I do not think that this solves the conservatarian dilemma on social issues, but it’s my best shot.