Libertarian Squishiness: Or Why the Right is Not Conservative

Jennifer Burns is Assistant Professor of History at the University of Virginia.

Libertarian Squishiness: Or Why the Right is Not Conservative

Wednesday, 19 August 2009 19:45

In this recent article, the New York Times does a fairly good job keeping in check its astonishment at a noted Republican lawyer, Theodore Olson, deciding to take on the cause of gay marriage. Before I even started reading the article, I knew I’d find a reference to one of two things: Ayn Rand or Barry Goldwater. And there it is, Olson had his political awakening during Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign. As I describe in my book, many of Goldwater’s youth followers were avid libertarians who looked to Rand for inspiration. That her and Goldwater’s shared commitment to individual rights should surface more than thirty years later is not surprising. The more pragmatic and ambitious libertarians from the ‘60s swallowed their pride and joined up with politically powerful conservatives. But the differences always remained, which is why I prefer to use the term “right” rather than “conservative.” Libertarians have always worried their alliance with conservatives was a kind of Faustian bargain, but Olson’s story suggests rather a successful Fabian strategy of permeation. Libertarian ideas have become more accepted, to be sure, but its harder to show how they have affected the size and reach of the federal government. Should Olson’s suit succeed, libertarians will finally be able to claim they changed the course of history.

Comments (24)

|2009-08-24 03:27:35 John C. Snider - The Libertarian Conundrum

Libertarianism (whether strong, moderate or liberal) is in a serious crisis nowadays. Any libertarian (notice the lower case "l") who is welcome in liberal circles for his advocacy of gay rights or drug decriminalization will very quickly find himself assailed as a Fascist for daring to suggest anything like a laissez-faire policy toward personal wealth.

Conversely, libertarians who are, or rather were, attracted to Republican notions of smaller, sleeker, more common sense government quickly found themselves confounded with the right-wing obsession with gays, abortion, school prayer, flag desecration and Israel.

Nowadays libertarians are almost universally dismissed as kooks, almost on a level with Birthers, Truthers and neo-Nazis. I'm afraid serious intellectual libertarianism is NOT going to get a hearing in America for a long, long time.

Thanks!

|2009-08-24 11:21:36 Jennifer Burns - is it that bad?

John: do you really think the situation for libertarians is so dire? There are a lot more libertarian professors nowadays then when Rand was alive. The difficulty is in translating these ideas into policy. One reason I'm interested in Ayn Rand is she bridges these realms between elite and popular, abstraction and activism. Something to chew on for our podcast!

|2009-08-24 12:57:21 John C. Snider - Yes, it's that bad (I think)

Jennifer, I'll take your word for it that there are more libertarian profs nowadays. Of course, it could be that there are so few that any fluctuation up or down can be attributed to statistical noise. :)

From where I sit, it seems libertarianism is in disarray. I used to think the LP had some mediating influence on the Republicans, but eight years of Bush disabused me of that notion. Now Republicans have "found religion" when it comes to spending, but really they're just making life difficult for Obama. Were they in power they'd be back on the old abortion/gays/flag desecration/Israel bandwagon.

Libertarianism in the public eye is now equated with townhall rabble-rousing, Truthers, Birthers, gun nuts and neo-Nazis. Or whatever. In short, there's nobody known to the public who is offering an intellectually-based libertarian message. I wish there were!

Anyway, I could go on a long ramble but I'll stop there.

Thanks!
John

|2009-10-01 15:58:14 Roy M Carlisle - is the C4L invisible

John,
Do you really think that Ron Paul is having no effect on the American political landscape? From where I sit (a highly ranked think tank) there seems to be a lot of movement in terms of libertarianism and it is not just rehashed Republican/conservative/right idealogy. But it is hard to see all of this from the outside when I sit inside.

|2009-10-01 16:51:23 John C. Snider - Yes I really think Ron Paul is having no effect

Hi Roy,

Thanks for your observations. I think at this point Ron Paul has virtually no effect on the political landscape. He is seen as a marginal kook little better than the teabaggers who think Barack Obama was born in Kenya and sleeps with a Koran under his pillow. I'm not saying it's fair; I'm just saying that's how he's perceived. Sadly, I think the Democratic rank-and-file have seen how petty and disingenuous the Republicans have been of late and are now no longer in the mood to compromise or negotiate. I think this leaves libertarians (both Big L and little L) out in the cold. :(

|2009-10-19 09:47:53 KeithCu - Ted Olson

It is a mistake to draw a huge amount of conclusions about one person in one case!

The right is very conservative: spend a few months reading National Review or something similar and you will understand better.

|2009-10-20 14:28:22 Jennifer - John's right

John, as a liberal Democrat, I wanted to tell you that I think you are right about how Libertarians are viewed right now, in part, because you don't have a major speaker on your behalf. Ron Paul, although he is a Libertarian, still files under Republican and any interview he gives shows his name with that R. Bernie Sanders is a known Socialist but he files as an Independent. So there is some confusion about who the libertarians are. I do not find Ron Paul a kook at all and agree with some of his views (the war in particular). But really, it's people I meet in chat rooms or friends of friends who are teaching me about libertarianism. I realize that the tea parties and anti-government-growth messagaing is getting mixed up with the Republican messaging. I think people like you have a lot of hard work ahead of you to get your message out.

I don't agree with everything the libertarians are about, but I am learning to repect the principles far more than I respect the Republican party....

|2009-10-22 05:44:31 Skye Stewart - Why not Libertarian?

Hello Jennifer,

I was hoping if you could briefly mention what it is about libertarianism that you cannot accept?

It's sometimes encapsulated by means of an appeal to an "equality of authority" between persons, but most often referred to in terms of an axiomatic relation between each person owning himself - which of course precludes the possibility of owning or controlling another person - in that it would untenably conflict with it's (ethically) necessary universalized application.

Do you deny self-ownership? And if not, perhaps Lockean homesteading?

Just curious, thanks!

|2009-10-28 08:57:19 wilson rahn - am I a true Libraltarian?

I a a conservative Christian first and formost. I believe in mant things that the libratarins beleive. My gqustion in two fold- If a am a conservative Christian will that nullify my Libeltarion beleives. Secondly I an on Soc. Sec. Is that against the true value of being a liberaltarin! Sorry for such ignorant guestion but I need to know

|2009-11-07 07:32:58 Alan - Where the Libertarian manual?

It seems Libertarianism can be whatever the practitioner wants it to be. Because the ideology comes off as non-judgmental, permissive and consequence free, many people with opposing opinions are attracted to it as a "safe" place of sorts. Or as Jennifer put it whim worshipers. People want gun rights but not the decriminalization (or legalization) of drugs. Others want gay rights but not gun rights. With so many competing points of view pulling away from a center, this would seem to be anathema an organization calling itself a political party, a movement maybe, but certainly not an organized party. I used to think the Libertarian Party was a constitutional organization. An outlook I embrace. Less government. Inexpensive government. Instead, the party seems to be an ideological Hyde Park where diverse and divergent interests gather to voice their dis-connected outlooks which have been marginalized in the two major parties. I think a true Libertarian society requires a pop...

|2009-11-07 07:37:46 alan - Where the Libertarian manual?

It seems Libertarianism can be whatever the practitioner wants it to be. Because the ideology comes off as non-judgmental, permissive and consequence free, many people with opposing opinions are attracted to it as a "safe" place of sorts. Or as Jennifer put it whim worshipers. People want gun rights but not the decriminalization (or legalization) of drugs. Others want gay rights but not gun rights. With so many competing points of view pulling away from a center, this would seem to be anathema an organization calling itself a political party,a movement maybe, but certainly not an organized party. I used to think the Libertarian Party was a constitutional organization. An outlook I
embrace. Less government. Inexpensive government. Instead, the party seems to be an ideological Hyde Park where diverse and divergent interests gather to voice their dis-connected outlooks which have been marginalized in the two major parties.

|2009-11-07 07:39:48 Alan - Where the Libertarian manual?

It seems Libertarianism can be whatever the practitioner wants
it to be. Because the ideology comes off as non-judgmental, permissive
and consequence free, many people with opposing opinions are attracted
to it as a "safe" place of sorts. Or as Jennifer put it whim worshipers. People want gun rights but not the decriminalization
(or legalization) of drugs. Others want gay rights but not gun rights. With so many competing points of view pulling away from a center, this would seem to be anathema an organization calling itself a political party,
a movement maybe, but certainly not an organized party. I used to think the Libertarian Party was a constitutional organization. An outlook I embrace. Less government. Inexpensive government. Instead, the party seems to be an ideological Hyde Park where diverse and divergent
interests gather to voice their dis-connected outlooks which have been marginalized in the two major parties.

|2009-11-08 17:50:07 Thehaymarketbomber - Anarchists?

Would you agree that libertarians are simply anarchists who don't have the courage of their convictions?

|2009-11-08 20:23:17 Ron from Pgh. - Conservative Contradictions

This legal case of T. Olson might be a start bringing the Right into reality but I see a long road ahead. How the Right plans on an invasion and re-do of any country housing terrorists is not my idea of smaller government. I wait for the answer of how the government will determine if, how, and when life, cellular to formation of a fetus, is murdered. How do we monitor all the fertile females among us and bring those found guilty to justice? The insane War on Drugs? All this spending and domination without CBO estimates because .....blank out...

|2009-11-08 21:08:32 Denys - Christians, Anarchists, Libertarians and Kant

Wilson
I would say that being a conservative christian would not, by definition disqualify you as a libertarian. Christianity and its tenants are personal beliefs which is one of the things libertarians try to ensure we are allowed to have. What would however disqualify you as a libertarian is if you believe in moralizing your fellow citizens. For instance many conservative Christians believe in media censorship, outlawing of prostitution and pornography, and the war on drugs. These are things that libertarians view as personal moral choices, if you believe that prostitution is wrong do not engage in it, and even speak out against it if you wish. But it is not the governments job to come in and forcefully arrest people that are causing no harm to others, and enforce the morals of a certain section of the populace upon others.

Thehaymarketbomber
Well the distinction between libertarian and anarchist is actually somewhat problematic. At first you can say all anarchists are libertaria...

|2009-11-08 21:12:31 Denys - Christians, Anarchists, Libertarians and Kant

Thehaymarketbomber
Well the distinction between libertarian and anarchist is actually somewhat problematic. At first you can say all anarchists are libertarians but not all libertarians are anarchists, meaning that it is a more moderate ideology of the liberty spectrum. But were as its easy to say that you are a liberal but not a socialist, a conservative but not a fascist, or a communitarian but not a Communist (by this i mean Communist as we saw in the USSR). It is not so easy to say i am a libertarian but not an anarchist, all these other ideologies do have premises but they are not for the most part moral premises, they are all rooted in the question of how to have the best most practically functioning society. Libertarianism is rooted in a Kantian moral premise that individuals are ends in themselves and no other individual can use them as a means without their concent. Because it is an absolute premise that says anytime you force someone in any way its immoral it is difficult ...

|2009-11-08 21:20:08 Denys - Christians, Anarchists, Libertarians and Kant

It is an absolute premise that says anytime you force someone in any way its immoral. Because of this, it is difficult to say that im a libertarian but i believe in taxes and police because they are necessary for society. You must necessarily say that if all infringement on individual autonomy is wrong then taxes, government and a police force must all be done away with. But if that's done away with then how are we able to prevent other infringement on individual autonomy such as rape, theft, murder and forced religious conversion.

Thats why i prefer to say that i lean towards libertarian ideals, but i believe in government and a police force because i consider them to be lesser violations of personal autonomy then murder and rape.

|2009-11-26 16:32:46 Anonymous

Up till quite recently, all these questions have been for the most part rhetorical in that life went on as usual without the people having to actually take action on anything. That level of apathy was actually desirable in providing a safety buffer for a society without strong politics.
Nowadays however, it seems like life is not going to be the same as before.
Ayn Rand has always promoted the separation of economics and state. This would place these philosophical questions again in the realm of conjecture and 'curiosity'.
We need to have our economic lives back. All else matters very little. Our common economic views of free-markets and property rights should be the guiding lights and rallying focuses for our cause.

|2010-01-01 09:48:20 Peter - CSpan Interview

I caught part of this interview, was Jennifer Burns advocating a belief in God as a "moderating" force in society or merely explaining the views held by others.

I find it deeply disturbing that any person can qualify rationality as hubris and then uphold belief in a mystical entity as a necessary and good tempering force. Religion is not based on reason, to use it as any sort of template for a governing body (individuals are free to do as they please) is a very dangerous idea. Reason is responsible for all the progress we have made, it is religion that has sought to stifle this over the ages. To suggest we all need a dose of it lest we become enamored of reason is absurd, tantamount to saying we all need to be reminded that 2+2=5 should we grow too comfortable with 2+2=4. This is an appalling vestige of the days before the enlightenment, haven't we learned our lesson already?

|2010-01-24 12:36:25 CT Lostaglia - To Wilson Rahn

Hey Wilson,

As a libertarian I can tell you that you have an OBLIGATION to take back whatever money you were forced to contribute to social security. It would be highly inappropriate to be forced into giving your money away (that is called theft in 100% of the places on this planet.) without getting a return on your investment. So yes, cash that check!

(Also, you should definately try to bilk the system for whatever else you can to recoup the loss of federal taxes that build bridges and otter farms in other states.

And regarding the article...Has anyone read the 10th amendment to the constitution? I know 9 judges that have...so buh bye Mr. Olson, have a nice day.

|2010-02-23 06:03:02 d Perley - religion, disturbing, dangerous, appauling

I have to react to Peter who is so typical and reactionary toward "Christianity". I have in my mind an idea or Liberal, and liberal but libertarianism? There are Christians in all political persuasions. Peter's use of "reason" is strange. To me reason is akin to logic, logic is a connected series of ideas or "truths" or at leas theorems. creativity is an exciting and essential part of being human and it is not logical or reasonable but who wants to put the tags of disturbing, dangerous and appalling on all creative artists? Christianity also thinks out of the rational box don't discount it or demonize it. Rand was an atheist and that in itself is a non rational belief Dave

|2010-03-13 03:56:28 Jesse Wilson - Libertarianism and Social Security

As a Libertarian, I believe the Social Security program was/is/will be pure evil. It has proven to be the biggest Ponzi scheme ever. No one--except economists--realize that the employER's matching portion is really the employEE's money also. When you consider this, and the time value of money, most working people today will receive a pittance of what they should--if anything at all. If I die at 55, my 25-year-old son would inherit my accumulated savings toward retirement. In this system, my earnings/savings are confiscated and given to society. It's evil! So it's evil AND terribly inefficient for both the citizens and the government. The citizens are short-changed and the government is in debt and unable to pay even the short-changed amount. This is because of waste, fraud, etc. Included in the waste is administration costs and poor investment decisions.
Now, should a libertarian accept his social security payments? By all means! He paid for it--in spades! The argument...

|2010-03-13 04:00:47 Jesse Wilson - Continued

that he shouldn't take social security is similar to the fallacious argument used today to bash Republicans: They were against the stimulus but they're accepting the money. Same answer--they paid for it in spades. We all have/will! This IDIOTIC argument is akin to saying that since Bobby Knight railed against and fought the new 3-point shot in basketball, his players should have only been awarded 2 points for such shots. He can play under the new rules while disliking them and continuing to change them. Anyone who makes this argument today, that Republicans are hypocrites for accepting stimulus funds is being disingenuous. I immediately dismiss them as the worst kind of politician and NOT an honest broker. In a high school debate, that argument would be refuted right away, the type of false logic might be cited, and they would lose the debate. But in larger society, in politics, it's a clever play that's rarely seen for what it is.
On a second subject mentioned on this boar...