- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
AmSpecBlog
The Anti-Liberty Spectator
Via Tyler Cowen, I see that Daniel Klein and Jason Briggeman, two George Mason economists, have published a paper (pdf) claiming that conservative magazines, including The American Spectator, are not pro-liberty.
They review the records of the Spectator, National Review, The American Enterprise, and the Weekly Standard on pro-liberty stances regarding sex, gambling and drugs. They find that National Review is generally the most pro-liberty on these issues, but that overall all the conservative magazines lean anti-liberty. They conclude:
This investigation underscores that nowadays the menu of major public philosophies offers three options: conservatism, social democracy, and classical liberalism/libertarianism. Only the third upholds the presumption of liberty.
This is a sweeping, sweeping generalization. This conclusion reduces all kinds of arguments about the nature of liberty and the role of government in upholding liberty to grossly oversimplified terms.
In reaching such a conclusion, Klein and Briggeman employ big and questionable assumptions about which positions in policy debates about sex, gambling, and drugs are the pro-liberty positions. In fact, they don't even make it clear what exactly they consider the ideal pro-liberty position to be But to state outright that, for example, advocating regulation on prostitution or pornography is a clear violation of liberty (as they seem to do) requires an intellectual defense. I would have thought it obvious that there are conservatives who espouse those "anti-liberty" positions because they believe they are the true pro-liberty positions. For example, although I am personally anti-drug war, it is not apparent to me that any conservatives who argue for the drug war are secretly authoritarians. I know of plenty of folks who could provide an intellectually honest pro-liberty defense of all the positions Klein and Briggeman consider anti-liberty as a given.
So in short I experience no cognitive dissonance when I label myself both conservative and pro-liberty, nor for that matter when I write for The American Spectator.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Real American| 2.25.09 @ 2:37PM
to liberals, "liberty" means doing whatever you want to do, whenever you want to do it without any objections from anyone at anytime, preferably all of it paid for by the government.
ruth| 2.25.09 @ 3:23PM
Surprise, surprise, two university professors claim that liberalism is pro-liberty. Then how do these two 'educators' explain the repressive speech codes at their liberal universities? Liberty for sex, gambling and drugs, but no Freedom of Speech. Yup, sounds like liberal think to me. Blows my mind.
Ran| 2.25.09 @ 4:05PM
Ruth,
If only 'liberals' held to classical liberal or consistent libertarian values! Someone correct me, but it seems that modern 'liberalism' is, on most fronts, more in tune with the authoritarian aspects of 'social democracy'.
The best debates, it seems to me, arise between libertarians of some flavor and conservatives of some sort, and they're of the "how best to maximize liberty" kind of fracas. With liberals, it's too often about how to best get someone else to pay for their "liberties".
ruth| 2.25.09 @ 5:17PM
Or perhaps with the authoritarian aspects of National Socialism or Nazis, if you prefer.
Bert| 2.25.09 @ 6:33PM
I think some of you are confusing "classical liberal" with modern-day liberal (leftist). They could not be more dissimilar. Just think "libertarian" and you'll be closer to the mark. Trust me, professors at George Mason are not even in the same genus as professors at the factories of statist thought that comprise most other universities.
Alan Brooks| 2.25.09 @ 7:03PM
you can rut any way you want, smoke dope; but you are on the defensive if you want to live a moral life.
it is topsy turvy!
Alan Brooks| 2.25.09 @ 7:04PM
on target, Bert.
today's conservatism is indeed classical liberalism.
ruth| 2.25.09 @ 7:09PM
I'm sure those two professors champion 'The Nation' magazine as the most pro-liberty publication in print. Classical liberalism is dead in our country, Marxism has replaced it.
ruth| 2.25.09 @ 7:20PM
At least on the dummocrat side.
Alan Brooks| 2.25.09 @ 10:18PM
"decency", fellas??
hey let's not start springing these arcane words from left field, bub
Pingback| 2.25.09 @ 11:45PM
Liberaltarian Bait « links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Die Rechte Ecke| 2.25.09 @ 11:48PM
OMG - you fell for that garbage? Isn't that what liberals are telling conservatives to do - loosen up?
I have no problem with legalizing some drugs-pot especially - imagine all the dopers on the left not being able to do anything because they're stoned.
But really, you fell for two Economists saying TAS isn't for liberty!
Ha! Learn not to get out-flanked!
Pingback| 2.26.09 @ 12:32AM
Southern Appeal » Dispatches from the Academy links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 12:45AM
OMG, we just swallowed that study's findings hook, line and sinker. I mean they were real professors and all, and they'd never have any liberal bias in a university, right, so of course we fell for it. We be rubes here, you know.
Pat| 2.26.09 @ 10:10AM
Can anyone say "DOUBLESPEAK"??
Bob| 2.26.09 @ 11:54AM
This academic paper is absolutely correct on liberty fundamentals. But then again, we don't necessarily want true liberty. You are making the assumption that liberty is always a good thing for societies. But societies limit liberty in order to operate. You pay taxes which takes away your liberty. We don't give people the liberty to be mass murderers or child molesters. We don't give people the liberty to run red traffic lights. We don't give people the liberty to drive drunk. Taking away someone's liberty to take drugs or participate in prostitution is, indeed, a reduction in their personal liberty. That's all the paper is saying.
The most restrictive political group, then, in reducing personal liberty are social conservatives because they want to limit my behavior even more. Fiscal conservatives, on the other hand, are much more libertarian and don't want to confiscate my money for social needs. In terms of liberty, there is a huge difference between social conservative and fiscal conservative beliefs. That's where the academic article fails -- it doesn't distinguish between the two.
The problem with publications like AmSpec in relation to issues like this is that they don't admit that their social conservative positions do reduce liberty. For that reason, social conservatives are inconsistent with true conservative beliefs because they tend to reduce liberty.
Pingback| 2.26.09 @ 5:18PM
Dispatches from the Academy: Making Men Moral « Acton Institute PowerBlog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.26.09 @ 7:16PM
Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.26.09 @ 8:00PM
The Slavery of Excessive Freedom - World News 24/365 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
fashion jewelry| 7.24.09 @ 3:10AM
wholesale jewelry
jewelry wholesale
fashion jewelry wholesale
handmade jewelry
wholesale fashion jewelry
wholesale costume jewelry
costume jewelry
wholesale pearl
wholesale crystal
discount jewelry
cheap jewelry
NFL jerseys| 9.4.09 @ 11:17PM
It is a wonderful article,I like it!Welcome to read following news: NFL jerseys,Photoshop CS2,ghd Hair Straightener,Adobe Photoshop CS4,cheap uggs.