Last December, the New Republic hosted the unlikely
marriage of liberalism and libertarianism. Cato Institute scholar
Brink Lindsey presided over the “liberaltarian” wedding, a
union rooted in “philosophical commitment to individual autonomy as
a core political value.”
It would be easy to dismiss Lindsey’s article as the ideological
equivalent of a midlife crisis, but it appeared in the context of a
larger “Libertarian Democrat”
meme embraced by some libertarians and liberals alike. The idea
was that liberalism would provide a happier home to freedom-lovers
and that Democrats could actually behave in ways that enhance
liberty.
How is the happy couple faring? A month after Lindsey’s piece
appeared, the honeymoon was already over. The liberal-led
Democratic Congress quickly rescinded its promises of fiscal
responsibility, outspending the Bush administration by $20 billion
even on the Iraq war supplemental. In violation of free-market
principles, Democrats boosted the federal minimum wage by 70 cents.
And to cover the bill of greater government spending, their budget
blueprints authorized a $721 billion tax increase over the next
five years.
Congressional Democrats have continued their advocacy of
government dependency. Most notably, they passed a $35 billion
comprehensive expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance
Fund into a full-fledged, permanent program. Benchmarks of
eligibility were relaxed to cover anyone within 350 percent of the
poverty line, with waivers for those earning up to 400 percent.
At the state level, things are just as bad. Lindsey’s own Cato
Institute rates gives low grades to Western governors hyped as
“libertarian Democrats.” New Mexico’s Bill Richardson scores best
with a C. Montana’s Brian Schweitzer and Wyoming’s Dave Freudenthal
both receive F’s.
Nowhere do we see greater flexibility toward free markets or new
openness toward smaller government. Once entrusted with political
power, liberals are more likely to swell budgets and issue
regulations than fight perceived infringements on civil
liberties.
The Democratic presidential candidates don’t promise to be any
more liberaltarian than their colleagues already in office. They
all pledge to roll back the Bush tax cuts and enlarge the federal
government’s role in healthcare. And their rhetoric is decidedly
anti-free-market.
On her campaign website, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton
complains: “Corporate profits are up. CEO pay is up. Wages are
lagging. Household debt is soaring. At the same time, health care,
energy, and education costs are rising.” In other words, the free
market has failed. And for all these problems, there is a
government solution.
John Edwards promises “a specific plan for truly universal
health care that will take on the insurance and drug companies,
cover every man, woman, and child in America, and get better care
at lower cost.” Bill Richardson calls for an “energy and climate
revolution,” which includes state-controlled efforts to cut demand
for oil, reduce greenhouse emissions, and support “mandatory
world-wide limits on global warming pollution.” Meanwhile, Barack
Obama pledges to further increase the minimum wage, subsidize
transitional jobs, and pour more money into education.
Even on the most fundamental libertarian issue — free trade —
the Democrats are exactly wrong. Gone is the enthusiasm for NAFTA
and GATT that characterized Bill Clinton’s administration. Instead,
Edwards has vowed “smarter trade that puts workers first.” And the
whole pageant has become an echo chamber of globalization’s
lament.
The new protectionism is based on the idea that it takes a
village to promote economic growth, rather than the free movement
of goods and people. Hillary Clinton has announced, “The unfettered
free market has been the most radically destructive force in
American life in the last generation.”
Regrettably, conflicts over healthcare, social security, and
trade are not incidental or passing. They are calculated
expressions of two distinct worldviews. The liberal view, bemoaning
market outcomes, resorts to government. The libertarian view,
skeptical of state power, endorses markets.
The recent Republican spending binge, accompanied by
disagreements over war and civil liberties, may account for the
libertarian’s wandering eye. But far from being an improvement over
the conservative-libertarian fusionist alliance, the liberaltarian
marriage is already on the rocks. But already in the first few
months of their new marriage, it must be clear that libertarianism
and liberalism are having irreconcilable differences.
Garin K Hovannisian is a student at Columbia
University’s School of Journalism and blogs at LuckyFrown.com.
