For a long time, I have been
skeptical about the libertarian Democrat argument in all of its
incarnations, but lately I can see the case for it if you
differentiate between theory and practice, between intellectual
conservatism/liberalism and the Republican/Democratic Parties as
they actually exist today. In his column this
morning, John T. does an excellent job explaining why Brink
Lindsey's desire for a "movement that, at the
philosophical level, seeks some kind of reconciliation between
Hayek and Rawls" is impossible. At the philosophical level,
libertarianism is diametrically opposed to liberalism. Libertarians
believe that the function of the government should be limited to
protecting individual freedom; liberals believe that government
should be used as a means to help alleviate suffering, even if it
means encroaching on individual freedoms (i.e. more taxes,
regulations, etc.). To libertarians, capitalism is not only the
most efficient economic system, but the most moral one. Liberals
may acknowledge that it's the most efficient, but find the income
inequality it produces immoral, and believe in a government that
actively reins in capitalism to make it more equitable. At the
ideological level, libertarianism is still more compatible with
conservatism, which also holds that government should be limited to
protecting individual freedom. The difference is that conservatives
also believe that the existence of certain cultural values is
crucial to maintaining a free and prosperous society (this has
caused a greater gulf between libertarians and conservatives in
recent years). That brings us to what the Republican and Democratic
Parties are actually like in practice.
If you divide political issues
into three main categories (economic, social, and foreign policy)
it's pretty easy to understand why libertarians may now be more
comfortable with Democrats. Since Republicans have proved
themselves at least as dedicated to big government as the
Democrats, the economic category has become a wash. While in the
past Republicans used social issues symbolically, during the Bush
years (faith-based initiatives, stem cells, gay marriage, Terry
Schiavo, etc.) they began to translate more often into actual
policy. Of course, the War on Terror is the dominant issue of our
time and will be for the foreseeable future. And as John points
out, dovish libertarians find themselves in much more agreement
with liberals on WOT-related matters.
The bottom line: Lindsey's idea of a "real intellectual
movement" fusing liberalism and libertarianism is pure fantasy, but
based on what the political parties are actually like today, it
makes sense that dovish libertarians will remain more comfortable
with Democrats. And given that in my view, we'll be fighting the
WOT for a very long time, that alliance of convenience between
liberals and libertarians may be here to stay.
topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Conservatism, Libertarianism
