There seems to be an increasing amount of attacks by conservatives on libertarians, which is the stupidest thing I've ever heard! But I believe it's based on misunderstanding more than anything else. A misunderstanding derived from throwing away theory and philosophy, in order to adopt bumper sticker slogans instead.
While I don't always agree with Dan Riehl (anyone who agrees with another person 100% is a lamb, not a human), he wrote what I believe to be a really good piece in the aftermath of this year's CPAC, "Our Movement: A Time For Renewal."
There's more in that post that I agree with than disagree (if you require a more detailed disclaimer than this, you're not smart enough to read this blog). That said, I'd like to focus on a glaring mistake he made as an example of what I believe to be one of the main causes of this destructive divide between conservatives and libertarians.
See also: What Conservatives Need to Understand about Libertarians
Evidently some mostly young Ron Paul supporters were booed at CPAC. What a shame that was. I'd much prefer a younger generation starting out as libertarians and perhaps shifting slightly Right as they mature ...
Despite how often people try to dissect and re-write the political spectrum, the only one that makes sense is a scale that puts the two extremes on each side of the scale.
In other words, totalitarianism on the extreme left, and anarchy on the extreme right - 100% government vs. no government at all. The following video does a good job explaining the political scale.
Now unquestionably, libertarians desire much less government than today's conservative. Therefore, libertarians would have to move LEFT, not right (as Riehl implies), in order to become more conservative. Make sense?
Who's a libertarian?
David Kirby and David Boaz have published a new Cato Institute study estimating the size of the “libertarian vote.” They conclude that about 14% of American voters are libertarian in the sense of broadly opposing government regulation in both the economic and social realms. As a libertarian think tank, Cato obviously has a strong interest interest in coming up with a high estimate of the number of libertarian voters. However, Boaz and Kirby rely on polling questions from the National Election Study, a widely respected comprehensive survey of American political opinion developed by primarily liberal political scientists. They also note that other research by Gallup and Zogby comes up with higher estimates for the number of libertarian voters (20 to 25 percent). Other recent surveys show that the vast majority of Americans prefer smaller government with fewer services to larger government with more services (58 to 38 percent), and that trust in government is generally low.
Kirby and Boaz’s previous work on this subject suggests that libertarian voters tend to have higher education and income levels than the general population. This is consistent with other studies showing that increasing political knowledge tends to push opinion in a more libertarian direction, controlling for other variables. A key task for libertarian activists and intellectuals is to do a better job of mobilizing this libertarian constituency. In general, educated and affluent voters are easier to mobilize than those who are not.
In addition, we should work harder to get voters to connect their general distrust of government with specific issues. Here, the research on political knowledge is significant, since it shows that increasing knowledge translates to more libertarian positions on specific issues, as well as on general attitudes towards government. This is not to say that knowing more about politics necessarily turns you into a consistent libertarian; in most cases, it doesn’t. But, on average, it does tend to make people more libertarian than they would be otherwise.
Interesting, isn't it?
Study theory and philosophy more often than you "follow" pop-politics. That way you'll stay ahead of the curve, and always be more knowledgeable than any tv talking head or stupid politician.
Libertarians and conservatives shouldn't have that much to argue about at all, especially considering today's political environment.
You're absolutely right, we shouldn't have much to argue about.
I have to be honest, I feel like it's the other way around, that it's the libertarians yelling at Conservatives for not being sufficiently libertarian. I don't know where I'd fall on the spectrum, but I like to think it'd be closer to libertarian than "Conservative". But again, this is nothing but a symptom of the problem with labels in general.
I try not to go after Libertarians. In fact, because I have so few real disagreements with them at all, I couldn't if I tried. The ONLY thing, off the top of my head, with which I disagree consistently is the two stances on the War, or the Constitutionality and merits of armed intervention abroad more generally. As far as I see it though, that's hardly reason enough to destroy or even dent unity in the face of progressive totalitarianism. It's a family squabble at the dinner table for now.
Good stuff like always CL.
I don't discount the libertarians fault in this, but my audience is far more conservative than libertarian, so I try to focus on my audience. Also, this post was written in the aftermath of CPAC, where mainstream conservative pundits did viciously attack libertarians in many cases.
On constitutionality of the war ... I'll save that for our debate.
I agree that libertarians and conservatives have much in common in the current battle against the progressive agneda. However, I do think a principled conservative need not be a libertarian.
I am much more concerned with tradition, faith, respect for legitimate authority as in wise or at least prudential statesmanship.
While I think less taxes are good and less senseless or politically motivated regulations are good in a general sense, I also find the complete "hands off" approach disconcerting. Often, left to their own devices, corporations and individuals will do things that are immoral and it is not always the "hidden hand" of the market that resolves this.
We should seek an outcome where people can reach their full potential as humans and not be ground under the heel of an authoritarian state. However, gentle prodding may be a necessity on occassion. Perhaps, on rare occassion, something a bit more than gentle prodding may be necessary to maintain order, which is, I firmly believe, the foundation for prosperity and morality. Chaos rarely ennobles.
I think that is Burkean. After all, the French Revolution was all for liberty until it degenerated into tyranny. I think that illustrates that it is a thin line from freedom to anarchy and an even thinner line from anarchy to tyranny.
I don't mean to suggest libertarians are for anarchy or anything so ridiculous. But I do have concerns with how far we take things when fighting under the banner of liberty. I believe conservatism is a balance between liberty and authority that respects man as man.
Well, I call myself a conservative (even though in today's terms I'm probably libertarian) because my hope is to restore the limited, representative republic our founding generations gifted us. That, and I'm much more traditional than may come across on the blog. I believe in the "old ways." We may be more knowledgeable, but my grandparents generation was by far more wise.
It's a mistake to believe that free markets equal lawlessness. Rule of law is an important foundation of a free market. The only thing we disagree on is the "prodding." I don't have faith in another (superior?) humans ability to prod me, nor in mine to prod another.
Philosophically, I'm a Jeffersonian classical liberal. So while I don't discount Burke, I find Jefferson to be far more insightful and wise.
Good to see you around! I always appreciate your thoughts.
In my Utopian world we would all be principled, moral, anarcho-capitalist, but alas: I am a realist.
Most of the country; philosophically speaking: seems to be shifting to the right so it would be logical that more people will accept a libertarian point of view. Hacking on them will be counter productive and maybe even self defeating.
Shhhh! I'm with you on the anarcho-capitalist thing, but that's Very Scary (and won't realistically happen).
Libertarians neither stand for more nor less government, but voluntary programs, a very different thing. I recommend Libertarian International at http://www.Libertarian-International.org for information on the world movement.