Jonathan Rick -
3/17/2005
George W. Bush is most emphatically not a libertarian. In fact, his first administration -- wherein he did not veto a single bill -- makes one question whether he's even a conservative in the traditional sense of limited government principles. (Perhaps neoconservatism concerns more than foreign policy?)
In any event, the view that GWB shares a libertarian ideology is nothing new. Consider the conclusion from a 2003 cover story for the New York Times Magazine by Bill Keller, who is now the executive editor of the New York Times:
"What Bush is striving for, on the evidence of the choices he has made so far, is bold in its ambition: markets unleashed, resources exploited. A progressive tax system leveled, a country unashamed of wealth. Government entitlements gradually replaced by thrift, self-reliance and private good will. The safety net strung closer to the ground. Government itself infused with, in some cases supplanted by, the efficiency and accountability of a well-run corporation. A court system dedicated to protecting property and private enterprise and enforcing individual responsibility. A global common market that hums to the tune of American productivity. In the world, America rampant -- unfettered by international law, unflinching when challenged, unmatchable in its might, more interested in being respected than in being loved.
"If he fails, my guess is that it will be a failure not of caution but of overreaching, which means it will be failure on a grand scale. If he succeeds, he will move us toward an America Ronald Reagan would have been happy to call his own.
Bill Woolsey -
3/16/2005
I believe the article is more or
less correct.
The description of what libertarians
are about is fine--as long as one just
thinks about the economic agenda. I
don't know that this "strategy" of squeezing
social spending is all that common. Most
libertarians just want to cut it, without
there being any strategy at all. Well,
maybe some notion that smaller government
would benefit the poor in the long run.
It is almost certainly true that Bush
has received and been sympathetic to some
libertarian advice on many economic issues.
The claim that his social security proposal is
completely nonlibertarian is a joke.
It is a modest version of a scheme that has
been proposed by many libertarians for years.
To claim that it isn't libertarian at all is
highly sectarian--though not at all unusual
among libertarians--those other "libertarians"
aren't really libertarians because they support
vouchers, or private social security accounts,
or whatever.
The out of control spending and borrowing during
the first Bush administration have been awful.
How often have you heard Bush brag on either
of these things? On the contrary, we hear promises
to do better.
Congress is dominated by pork-barrel Republicans.
While I don't think out of control spending
is something Bush likes, the sort of visceral
hatred of that sort of thing that I (and many
other libertarians) feel, isn't one of Bush's
libertarian tendencies.
The medical medicare benefit was where he was
off the reservation.
On the supposed opposition to war that is a key
element of the classical liberal tradition--Bush,
like just about everyone in the U.S.,fits.
Few argue that war is a positive good--providing
the best field for man to exemplify his martial
virtues. Few argue that the U.S. needs an Empire
so that our nation will be glorified in History.
Similarly, few argue that we should have an Empire
to collect loot or tribute. Or even to impose favorable
trade or investment policies so that the U.S. can
gain or maintain prosperity at the expense of the rest of the world. The conventional wisdom today is that the trade and investment policies we favor for other countries would benefit them and the rest of the wold too.
All the sorts of bizzare pro-war notions that the
classical liberals opposed have almost entirely
been defeated in the marketplace of ideas.
Instead, we have competing ideas about how best to
apply liberal (or libertarian) values to foreign
policy.
Isolationism isn't the only libertarian approach.
The notion that it is, is just that sectarian
approach that those libertarians who disagree with
my view aren't really libertarians. Not unusual,
but innacurate.
Liberal (or libertarian) imperialism isn't a very
plausible approach, but some libertarians do hold
to it. Creating a libertarian world is one way to
provide for national defense, and one way to create
a libertarian world is to impose it by military force.
While it seems to me to be unlikely to work, could
easily be counter-productive towards geting a
libertarian world or for national security for some
regime trying to implement the strategy, and would
likely have unnacceptable collateral casulties and
create an unreasonable tax burden, it isn't incompatible with libertarian values.
Of course, Bush isn't working fo a libertarian world,
but rather a democratic capitalist one. But then,
the claim isn't that Bush is a libertarian. Rather
that he shows libertarian tendencies. While what I
like least about Bush is his foriegn policy, I can't
agree that it is obviously unlibertarian. Some
libertarians support it.
The real problem with Bush is that he supports at
least some moves in the direction of even greater
moral parternalism than the status quo and shows very
little interest in libertarian reforms in that area.
That is why he is a conservative.
The only real criticism I would have regarding
the original article (leaving aside ignoring
personal liberties) is the impression that
libertarians are further right than the
conservatives on the economic issues.
While extreme libertarians are further "right" on
the economic issues than moderate conservatives,
extreme conservatives are further "right" on the
economy than moderate libertarians.
Some conservatives in the John Birch society
lambast Milton Friedman as a sell-out.
I suppose this shows the success of libertarian
sectarians in reading more moderate libertarians
out of the movement, as well as liberal historians
identifying conservative with the policies of
Republican public officials.
It may also be that pretty extreme free market
advocates who have decent credentials (like Ph.D.s
in economics) are more likely libertarian than
conservative.
In fact, this may be true as one considers the
entire spectrum of pro-market views. I'm thinking
about the sorts of policies favored by Milton
Friedman, Hayek, or James Buchanan.
In other words, Republican public officials
advocate a more moderate market oriented agenda
than free market economists. Republican public
officials are more likely to be conservative and
free market economists are more likely to be
libertarian.
So, I would say that Bush does have some good
libertarian instincts on economic issues and has some
good libertarian economic advisors. He just doesn't listen to them enough and the implementation has been awful. Failure to reign in pork barrel spending by the Republican Congress has been a true disaster.
He isn't a libertarian because he has conventional conservative views on using the criminal justice system to promote traditional moral values. Libertarians oppose that sort of parternalism.
Bush's foreign policy has moved away from the conservative mainstream. While some libertarians agree that a crusade to promote democracy is a good thing, that position is even further outside the relatively dovish libertarian mainstream than the more hawkish conservative one.
Mark Brady -
3/15/2005
One reason there is so much misunderstanding of libertarianism--which leads to absurdities like identifying George W. Bush as a libertarian--is because many people who identify as libertarian seldom if ever mention the opposition to war that lies at the heart of the classical liberal tradition. All too many 'libertarians' are unaware of this crucial aspect of the tradition. And many other 'libertarians' who know better either fear that it will put off prospective recruits or are themselves uncomfortable with it.
Jason Kuznicki -
3/15/2005
The Bush Social Security plan takes precisely the same amount of money out of our paychecks as the current Social Security already does. It may manage that money differently, but the degree of control that individuals would exercise over it is scarcely increased; as I understand it, participants in the new plan would still be forced to buy life annuities with "their" savings.
Now, I'm a moderate, as libertarians go; I would gladly award the name "libertarian" to even an incremental plan that proposed giving back some of our hard-earned money. Such a plan would be a step in the right direction. But this thing doesn't even come close.
Considering Bush's massive increases in government spending, his continued support for the failed war on drugs, his reckless borrowing--which can only lead to currency problems later, his many attacks on civil liberties, his overtly religious agenda... Even Clinton was a better libertarian, and frankly, that isn't saying much.
