Is Libertarianism Dead?
The traditional left/right political spectrum has been fragmenting since the end of the Cold War. It was to be expected since the spectrum was in essence defined by how pro- or anti-socialist you were—and with socialism dead as an ideal and dying as a policy, political alliances are splintering. Like Yugoslavia after the fall of communism, we are seeing the balkanization of ideologies on the right who were unified in their opposition to the left, but now are finding ways to oppose each other.
One of the more interesting divisions is between “conservatives” and “libertarians.” Frances Fukuyama, in this article in the Wall Street Journal describes libertarianism as “an ideological hostility to the state in all its manifestations” and declares that the free-market revolution reached its Jacobin phase with Newt Gingrich in the mid-1990s and is now abating. (Even Newt may be changing his tune, as noted in R21.) Two major areas of contention, according to Fukuyama, are foreign policy and biotechnology. Libertarians, he argues, as isolationists were proven misguided on September 11. And libertarians have joined with the left (or more accurately parts of the left, for it is fragmented too) in supporting stem cell and cloning research—and even reproductive cloning (see R21's take on cloning). This, according to Fukuyama not only raises moral objections from many conservatives, but also ignores the interests of the community, while protecting in the extreme the rights of the individual.
George Will, in this column in the Washington Post declares that “The conservatism that defined itself in reaction against the New Deal -- minimal government conservatism -- is dead, but that conservatives shouldn’t be too cranky about George Bush’s acquiescence on tariffs and subsidies, since Bush is winning on the important issues, such as appointing judges, curbing government activism, and bioethics (stem cells & cloning.) That is, conservative causes are prevailing, even if libertarian causes are not.
Sonia Arrison points out below that Charles Kessler, in this piece in the National Review, asks if big government is back. Kesler argues that the amoral, economic arguments of libertarians for limited government aren’t sufficient anymore and what’s needed is a moral case against big government—big government isn’t just bad economically, it’s immoral. Kesler writes:
“Fukuyama and Will are correct that the conservatives' and especially the Republicans' fight against Big Government was faltering long before September 11. Nonetheless, this doesn't prove that conservatives lack a cogent criticism of the modern state, much less that they don't need one. It proves only that the common libertarian critique, rooted in amoral freedom and the economist's view of human nature, has run its course. Libertarianism of this sort may continue to offer conservatives useful arguments but can no longer set the tone and agenda for our criticism of the modern state.”
But Ed Crane and Roger Pilon, from the Cato Institute, defend libertarianism in this piece in the Wall Street Journal. Fukuyama was setting up a straw man, they claim, when he described libertarians as hostile to the state across the board. Libertarians are not anarchists, but share the principles of the founders who “stood for basic libertarian principles: the equal right of all to pursue happiness, free from arbitrary interference, and government dedicated to securing that right.” Most Americans believe in individual rights and limited government, though it this offends the political class because it limits their power. They argue that there is great congruence between libertarian principles and American values, and defend the libertarian record (and sing its praises) on terrorism, globalization, social security, Enron, and judicial philosophy.
Virginia Postrel’s seminal book, “The Future and its Enemies,” describes the break-up of the traditional political spectrum and suggests its replacement—a continuum between “stasists” on the one end and “dynamists” on the other. Stasists fear chaos and look to the state to control individuals for the benefit of the community, whereas dynamists embrace change and individual choice. Dynamists reject the imposition of morality from the right and political correctness from the left, while stasists bind together some aspects of left and right in areas such as immigration control and protectionism.
As I wrote in Red Herring, this ideological battle will fight for the hearts and minds of the center, who, as "The Radical Center" points out, feel disenfranchised by the extremes of both political parties. Kesler may be right that conservatives should make moral, not just economic, arguments against big government, but while this may bring some cohesion to the right, I don't believe these will be the arguments that will win over the center. While libertarianism of old, an only slightly more respectable sibling of anarchism, is surely dead (and I wonder whether it ever really lived), libertarianism as described by Ed Crane, which embodies the ideas of limited government and individual liberty, is a powerful force and may be the unifying idea of the center as it battles with the frindges.
Chris Alden
Christopher J. Alden is Chairman & CEO of Six Apart Ltd., the world's leading blogging company. Six Apart acquired Rojo Networks, Inc., creator of an innovative RSS feed reading service, where Mr. Alden was co-founder and CEO. Before Rojo, he was CEO of Red Herring Communications, Inc., publisher of Red Herring magazine -- described by the Wall Street Journal as the "bible of Silicon Valley" - which he helped launch out of his house in 1993. Prior to that he founded Computer Guides, a consultancy.
More info...
Comments