-
The Paul Factor
May 29, 2012 | 36 comments
-
Bain v. Solyndra
May 29, 2012 | 0 comments
-
Gallup: Veterans Prefer Romney
May 28, 2012 | 24 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Memorial Day Edition
May 27, 2012 | 20 comments
-
Refuting Compassionate Conservatism's Electoral Benefits
May 24, 2012 | 12 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Austin Bramwell claims that it is difficult to get an answer from libertarians about the current financial crisis. Why? "Libertarianism has two faces," he writes, "which I call the comic and the tragic."One says that markets are flourishing and personal emancipation is proceeding apace, so every day in every way things are getting better and better. The other sees the dead hand of the state crushing individual freedoms with rapid, stultifying government growth.
Bramwell concludes that libertarians "react to circumstances as the mood dictates." Maybe. I'm sure you could find specific libertarians and conservative fellow travelers of libertarianism who, say, in the span of the 1990s went from bemoaning a Clintonian era of big government -- from Hillarycare to Ruby Ridge -- and closed the decade by praising the fantastic growth and innovation of the markets during the Internet-boom economy. I know in over a decade of column-writing, I've had my bouts of triumphalism and pessimism. But for the most part we are talking about distinctly different people here, even if they would all describe themselves as libertarians.
There is almost no overlap between the people who see agree with Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch that this is a libertarian moment and the Rothbardians who believe we never should have junked the Articles of Confederation. Or the libertarians who cheered the Internet boom of the 1990s as a victory of markets over the state and the exponents of Austrian economics who saw that boom as an illusory product of the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policies and artificially low interest rates. Thomas Woods, whose current book on the financial meltdown I reviewed this week in the Washington Times, doesn't look back fondly on the dot-com era.
Saying that these different camps are inconsistent is like complaining that conservatism is contradictory because of a lack of commonality between the Weekly Standard and Commentary on the one hand and the American Conservative and Chronicles on the other.
View all comments (8) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/02/12/two-faced-libertarianism
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Continuing Crisis
- I Take the Secret Service Scandal Personally
- …And a Young Child Will Lead
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Red Phillips| 2.12.09 @ 11:57AM
Yes, they are different people. And that is one reason why some libertarians and conservatives can get along despite libertarianism being essentially a left-wing philosophy. Both are pining for better days gone by. Both are moralizing about the excesses of modernity (state and moral).
Mr. Liberty| 2.12.09 @ 1:08PM
Problem is that many people call themselves libertarian who really are just anarchist. The fundamental belief of a true libertarian is that
"One should be allowed to do ANYTHING as long as it doe not adversely impact someone else.". That last part is often ignored...and if ignored then your an anarchist. Libertarians often are seen as having odd positions because they have a hard time making broad sweeping statements that fit things into nice little catagories. For example they can't say they are for deregulation because that leads to monopoly and unfair business practices which indeed do impact others negatively. Conversely they don't want any regulation that forces people to do things unnecessarily. When the public gets out of sound-bite mode they will vote libertarian.
Tripp| 2.12.09 @ 2:46PM
I agree to a certain extent- I am a libertarian, but in the Cato Institute mode, less of Murray Rothbard more Milton Friedman. It is entirely necessary for a society to have equality before and rule of law. That by no means dictates that we shouldn't strive to have less intrusion of the law, however; things such as ending the "war on drugs" and advocating personal freedom do not equate with anarchy. Just because people like me thought McCain as our fourth or fifth choice for the GOP nomination does not mean we are crazy anarchists.
J David| 2.12.09 @ 2:59PM
*Conservatives*(of a Republican stripe) will never vote Libertine, -er Libertarian. Commie-lib Dems will never vote Libertarian because they they will never survive as a party if conservatives are allowed to flourish and demonstrate the success of their free market beliefs, the success of Godliness, and they are unable to buy votes with socialism. They are an authoritarian mindset.
Once those two groups are subtracted, there aren't many people left. There will be no end to "sound-bite mode" until communication as we now know it is shut down...AND IT WILL BE SHUT DOWN. All information will be regulated and/or disseminated by the State, and newspapers, TV, movies, etc, will be arms of propaganda for an authoritarian global gov't.
Reagan's Ghost| 2.12.09 @ 3:07PM
It took from 1917 to 1989 to end the Evil Empire. That is a long time to fight totalitarian socialism, but it was partly done by a collapse from within, of a State unable to bear its own weight of consumption always exceeding production, un-fueled by the personal responsibilities and achievements of liberty.
God help America now that she has taken that path!
J David| 2.12.09 @ 3:20PM
Libertarians include the very lowest, worst elements of society, the kind that always feed on carrion, dopers, child pornographers, racist hate groups prone to use of terrorism, baby-killers, destroyers of marriage, and any other special interest anti-social splinter that wants to rend the fabric of society.
There will always be fringe groups - fringe because they desire the generally unacceptable - that will skim only what is useful to them from an ideology that lends itself to that Libertine surface application that they can use for their own wicked ends, and toss any *good will toward men* in the process. Its success as a philosophy depends on basic human goodness...
Humans are sinners in their basic nature and Libertarian tenants play to anti-social behavior in its surface application.
Eric Dondero| 2.12.09 @ 7:31PM
The people you mention are only "different" flavors of the same leftwing libertarianism. Cato, Reason, Rothbardians, et.al. are all decidedly on the leftwing of our libertarian movement.
Should've mentions some Rightwing libertarians like Boortz, Dennis Miller, PJ, Nugent, Club for Growth, and RLC.
We Libertarians of the Right are pretty united on our agenda: Fiscal Conservatism, Social Tolerance, Strong on Defense.
Kirk A. Smith| 2.14.09 @ 3:28AM
I am a libertarian in the GOP and a strong believer in Frank Meyer's fusionism....."libertarian means for traditional ends". It started with Goldwater, worked well for Reagan and I believe we can successfully adapt it to accomplish our shared goals now and in the future.