CE Week #9: “Libertarians Rising”
By Michael Kinsley
To oversimplify: Democrats are for Big Government; Republicans are against it.
To oversimplify somewhat less, Democrats aren’t always for Big Government, and Republicans aren’t always against it. Democrats treasure civil liberties, whereas Republicans are more tolerant of government censorship to protect children from pornography, or of wiretapping to catch a criminal, or of torture in the war against terrorism. War in general and Iraq in particular–certainly Big Government exercises–are projects Republicans tend to be more enthusiastic about. Likewise the criminal process: Republicans tend to want to make more things illegal and to send more people to jail for longer. Republicans also consider themselves more concerned about the moral tone of the country, and they are more disposed toward using the government in trying to improve it. In particular, Republicans think religion needs more help from society, through the government, while Democrats are touchier about the separation of church and state.
Many people feel that neither party offers a coherent set of principles that they can agree with. For them, the choice is whether you believe in Big Government or you don’t. And if you don’t, you call yourself a libertarian. Libertarians are against government in all its manifestations. Domestically, they are against social-welfare programs. They favor self-reliance (as they see it) over Big Government spending. Internationally, they are isolationists. Like George Washington, they loathe “foreign entanglements,” and they think the rest of the world can go to hell without America’s help. They don’t care–or at least they don’t think the government should care–about what people are reading, thinking, drinking, smoking or doing in bed. And what is the opposite of libertarianism? Libertarians would say fascism. But in the American political context, it is something infinitely milder that calls itself communitarianism. The term is not as familiar, and communitarians are far less organized as a movement than libertarians, ironically enough. But in general communitarians emphasize society rather than the individual and believe that group responsibilities (to family, community, nation, the globe) should trump individual rights.
The relationship of these two ways of thinking to the two established parties is peculiar. Republicans are far more likely to identify themselves as libertarians and to vilify the government in the abstract. And yet Republicans have a clearer vision of what constitutes a good society and a well-run planet and are quicker to try to impose this vision on the rest of us. Now that the Republican Party is in trouble, critics are advising it to free itself of the religious right on issues like abortion and gay rights. That is, the party should become less communitarian and more libertarian. With Democrats, it’s the other way around.
Very few Democrats self-identify as libertarians, but they are in fact much more likely to have a live-and-let-live attitude toward the lesbian couple next door or the Islamofascist dictator halfway around the world. And every time the Democrats lose an election, critics scold that they must put less emphasis on the sterile rights of individuals and more emphasis on responsibilities to society. That is, they should become less libertarian and more communitarian. Usually this boils down to advocating mandatory so-called voluntary national service by people younger than whoever is doing the advocating.
Libertarians and communitarians (to continue this unjustified generalizing) are different character types. Communitarians tend to be bossy, boring and self-important, if they’re not being oversweetened and touchy-feely. Libertarians, by contrast, are not the selfish monsters you might expect. They are earnest and impractical–eager to corner you with their plan for using old refrigerators to reverse global warming or solving the traffic mess by privatizing stoplights. And if you disagree, they’re fine with that. It’s a free country.
The chance of the two political parties realigning so conveniently is slim. But the party that does well in the future will be the one that makes the better guess about where to place its bets. My money’s on the libertarians. People were shocked a couple of weeks ago when Ron Paul–one of those mysterious Republicans who seem to be running for President because everyone needs a hobby–raised $5 million from July through September, mostly on the Internet. Paul is a libertarian. In fact, he was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988. The computer revolution has bred a generation of smart loners, many of them rich and some of them complacently Darwinian, convinced that they don’t need society–nor should anyone else. They are going to be an increasingly powerful force in politics.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/10/30/ce-week-9-libertarians-rising/trackback/
After reading this article, all I can say is that I’m not a libertarian. I can also say that the author of this piece probably agrees with the libertarians, or at least sympathizes with them. He portrayed them in such a positive light that it would be ludicrous to assume that he dislikes them.
Before reading this article, I didn’t know much about the libertarians. Now, however, I know I’m definitely not one of them. While I agree that civil liberties should be preserved, I believe that there is a fine line we shouldn’t cross.
Everyone knows that too many restraints on civil liberties lead to fascism. But too few restraints on liberty leads to anarchy, and I worry that the libertarians are toying with the fine line between civil liberties and anarchy.
Liberty is essential. We all know what happens when the government regulates all aspects of peoples’ lives. But without accountability and moral restraints on liberty, there’s nothing to stop those serial killers from murdering people without limit.
Danielle,
Let me critique your idiocy. The author wasn’t siding with the libertarians at all in the article. If you didn’t know (which it doesn’t seem like you did), libertarians are on the right side of the spectrum, same as republican. Democrats naturally are on the other side along with the communitarians. He was pointing out the qualities in the two parties that the Americans have problems with. In the article he talked about what they need to do to fix these qualities. This is the big one! People having many civil liberties does not lead to fascism. In fascism, you don’t get civil liberties; you get spied on by the government and told what to do and when to do it. Now if you have a bunch of civil liberties and are able to do what you want, why would you need a government? Having no government is the term for ANARCHY, NOT FASCISM. I hope I made that clear. For the last paragraph, you might be onto something. We need moral restraints on liberty, and a central government to determine what is lawful, and what our rights are. You’re right. Without moral restraints on our liberties, people could kill people relentlessly. Libertarians put an emphasis on morality for our civil rights so nut jobs don’t get off the hook. But they usually do with a democratic judge. So in your first two paragraphs you said you’re not a libertarian. In the last paragraph you agreed with one of their political views when you said we need morality restraints on liberty. Next time you decide to post, please make it halfway decent so I don’t have to waste my time sifting through garbage.
RE: Stefanie
Please don’t call me an idiot. Do I do that to you? No. Then don’t do it to me. Insulting the person you’re debating with seriously undermines your credibility.
I never said that people having many civil liberties leads to fascism. You’re both taking my words out of context AND putting words in my mouth. I said that civil liberties without a few moral restraints leads to ANARCHY. Think about it: When people have unlimited liberty but no restraints, the result is complete and utter chaos. THAT’S what I was saying.
I KNOW that having no government is anarchy! You either misread my post or you were so eager to think of me as a moron that you thought I said fascism. I did not. I KNOW that having too few civil liberties leads to fascism. Do you think I made it into AP Government because they felt sorry for me?
Go back and reread my post. You’ll see that I do indeed know what I’m talking about.
I am not a libertarian. But I DO agree with their point that we need civil liberties. Who doesn’t?
I’m so sick of you calling me a moron because you didn’t read my post carefully enough. Next time you post, read the post of the person you’re arguing with so I don’t have to waste MY time reiterating a point I made because someone didn’t listen.
Judging by the liberal trend towards socialism (and the groups I’ve seen on numerous street corners down town holding their “Ron Paul Revolution” signs), I think that liberatarians are definitely going to come into power as a party within the next year or so. We need something to balance the other end of the spectrum. And to any interested, I suggest doing more research on libertarianism than just reading this article. If you remember studying Locke’s ideals, it’s a lot like that. Libertarians believe strongly in the Constitution as it was intended, free enterprise, and people’s ability to be self made; they’re not all isolationists.
On a more topic related note, I disagree with the author of the article comparing democrats to libertarians. Yes, they promote the “live and let live” ideal when it comes to sexuality, but many also support universal health care which does not exactly promote free enterprise. And let me just say, I hate when democrats try to use racial or class crutches in order to justify welfare. My mother was the youngest of six, my father, the son of a trcuk driver. Both grew up dirt poor. 25 years into their marriage, they OWN a brand new house built by blue prints they drew (sort of) which is placed on 34 acres of land which they have owned for thrirteen years. The American dream is possible through perserverance and welfare (to an extent) is enabling people and convincing them they don’t need to perservere. But anyway, I’ll get off my soap box.
Idiot, as learned in that one class we all got into, is a political term. My apologies for the confusion and the double meaning in my above post to anyone who even read it. More importantly, opinions are not undermining when they don’t change the credibility of the facts that were given. I do believe that not everyone in this class always knows what they are talking about, myself included of course. In other words, being in this class does not prove a higher level of intelligence. Danielle said she said civil liberties without moral restraints leads to anarchy. Her exact words were “Everyone knows that too many restraints on civil liberties lead to fascism. But too few restraints on liberty leads to anarchy, and I worry that the libertarians are toying with the fine line between civil liberties and anarchy.” It looks like an unbeatable Where’s Waldo because I don’t see MORAL anywhere. Until now, I have never seen someone ‘put words in their own mouth.’ And civil liberties without moral restraints lead to anarchy? Too many civil liberties in itself lead to anarchy; it doesn’t matter if they are moral or not. Libertarians want to cut back on civil liberties too. They want people to depend on themselves and not have a government watching their back. If we were given a bunch of civil liberties, then we would need the government to be there every time one of them was violated. I agree with the author when he mentions it would be in the Republican Party’s best interests to loosen ties with the religious right. I can’t say for the rest of America, but I know it has pressured my distance.
Well, after reading the comments I wasn’t quite sure I read the same article. Stefanie said that, “libertarians are on the right side of the spectrum, same as republican. Democrats naturally are on the other side along with the communitarians.” But, the article said, “Very few Democrats self-identify as libertarians, but they are in fact much more likely to have a live-and-let-live attitude.” Meaning that Democrats are in practice more libertarians although they do not say that they are. Also, the article said, “Now that the Republican Party is in trouble, critics are advising it to free itself of the religious right on issues like abortion and gay rights. That is, the party should become less communitarian and more libertarian.,” and “…Democrats lose an election, critics scold that they must put less emphasis on the sterile rights of individuals and more emphasis on responsibilities to society. That is, they should become less libertarian and more communitarian.” Each party holds aspects of libertarianism, but neither truly are. Francis seemed to be more understanding of what libertarianism is; she actually did some research. I also see her point that libertarians don’t support universal health care, a Democratic ideal. But I also believe that that is just a part of the Democratic Party that doesn’t agree with libertarianism. The author wasn’t trying to say that Republicans say they are libertarian when they have nothing in common or that Democrats say they aren’t libertarian when in actuality they are. The author was comparing the commonalities of each party with libertarianism. As I said before, each party holds aspects of libertarianism, but neither truly are.
One thing I think a lot of people don’t quite see is that the political spectrum is not just to the right or to the left. When we did our ideological quiz, I saw a very good diagram. It was for the World’s Shortest Political Quiz. Although the quiz was worthless in my opinion, the diagram was perfect. It displayed the idealogs as a baseball diamond. It shows that libertarianism is on top of all the idealogs, with liberty being it’s main factor. Statist is on the bottom, being basically communist. (It is the ultimate government power.) And Democratic left (liberal) and Republican right (conservative) are in between those two extremes. Centrist was a square directly in the middle of the diagram. If people were to picture the ideologs in this sense, with some overlapping a little, I believe that there wouldn’t be as much confusion.
SSEMB