Mar 25, 2005
Never Mind Howling at the Moon
A few months ago I commented on one of the reasons why libertarians don't get respect. As I wrote back then,
In the 2004 election, the Party fielded a candidate who distinguished himself by claiming that use of the ZIP code is voluntary (which is true)--and that its use constitutes consent to be taxed under the Sixteenth Amendment as a"resident of a federal district of the District of Columbia."
Now this is a fat load of conspiracy-theory mumbo-jumbo. Sadly, consent is not required, save in certain theoretical constructs of the ever-hopeful libertarian mind. But wishing and dreaming will not make it so.
Nominating a fraud and a conspiracy theorist who is an embarrassment to the libertarian movement would be bad enough all by itself. Even more damning, however, is the fact that this individual did scarcely any better or worse than certain quite reasonable candidates that the party fielded back when it still looked like a rising star in American politics.
What this should tell us is that the problem with the LP runs far deeper than one presidential candidate. Consider this fisking of the Libertarian Party Platform written by the group bloggers at The 2% Company. I don't agree with everything it says, but its very existence should be a worrisome sign: By any objective measure, the 2% Company and their kind are exactly the voters the LP should be winning over. As proof, consider the group's short manifesto:
But the 2%ers can't stomach the Libertarian Party platform. And to be frank, neither can I. They write,
This indecision between anarcho-capitalism and some vague form of a state means that whatever platform emerges will be little more than a bunch of glowing generalities. Simply choosing in either direction would be better than the betwixt-and-between approach we have seen so far.
But when the intelligent, well-connected voter reads the LP platform, they do not see a pure, principled, ideological party stance. They see a whole lot of confusion--which is, of course, a pretty fair description of the party itself.
Again, let's look at the 2% Company's analysis:
Granted, blathering unreason does have a long and illustrious history in party platforms, and neither major party could ever draft one without it. But not only is this unreason, it is lunacy of a particularly sparkling kind. It clutters the LP platform with a lot of far-flung distractions rather than focusing on the most important, near-term problems. If it is to have any success at all, the Libertarian Party should moderate its platform and focus on those problems that most likely could be solved through political action--and those that are the most pressing to the general public.
Suppose there were a party with a platform that looked more or less like the status quo--but that recommended abolishing most farm and business subsidies, ending the war on drugs, simplifying the tax code, easing the"decency" regulations, and bringing the troops home from abroad. It wouldn't make any other drastic changes, but would merely push for these issues alone.
This hypothetical party would have very real support among smart, young, influential voters--much more at any rate than the current LP. It is just this sort of compromise that enables action in party politics: Imagine that our hypothetical party had even a tenth of the seats in Congress. Would this not be an overwhelming force for our ideals?
Unsurprisingly, the 2% Company soon comes to the conclusion that so many others have reached about our current Libertarians:
As the 2% Company notes,"tolls" are the answer to everything. Tolls! Of all the most government-oriented, bureaucratic, statist solutions I could possibly imagine! No, I'm not really sure how roads would be financed in an ideal society. I do know that there are many worse things than what we have right now, and that staving them off might not be such a bad idea. I also know that liberty is remarkably resourceful. Perhaps in time we'll discover a workable solution to more public-goods problems--but we won't do it without some clear-cut libertarian successes elsewhere.
But the Libertarian Party isn't about politics; it's about a revolt against politics."Well, yes!" some of you may say. I, however, find this a contradiction in terms--a political party without a politics is not a bold counter-cultural statement. It's a pipe dream, and it's a distraction from the real work of securing individual liberties given the conditions under which we now live.
Instead, I would advocate a platform that would move the present government--gradually and cautiously--toward a more minimal state. Focus on the most egregious and unpopular abuses. Don't sweat the small stuff, and ignore anything that can't plausibly be accomplished in a decade. Begin in the mainstream, and move slowly.
Anarchists: Don't write me off just yet. There's something in this for you, too, I promise.
Personally, I happen to be convinced that the private defense agencies of anarcho-capitalist theory would in no sense be private: Privateness ends when force is sufficiently concentrated. Second, even if I am wrong, and if anarcho-capitalism is the best social arrangement, getting from"here" to"there" will almost certainly have to be a gradual process--that is, if Libertarians don't want to face a massive backlash against their program, one that would even further discredit libertarian thought.
Let's suppose that the anarchists are right. Now let's imagine that the Minarchist Party has been in power for a good fifteen or twenty years. Government is a tiny fraction of the size it used to be, and private institutions have grown in proportion. Life is far better all around, and many people have learned firsthand the benefits of free markets and individual liberties. Won't the transition to anarchism be that much easier, with a weakened state and a libertarian-minded population? At any rate, the difference between"good government," if such thing exists, and"bad government," would certainly become clearer once larger numbers of people had been brought on board.
Electorally, too, a move toward the center could yield huge practical benefits. Just a few steps toward that political center--hate it though some of us might--there is a large, untapped reservoir of libertarian-minded voters who are repelled by the extremism of the LP. I've been using the 2% Company as an example here, but I think they are typical of a much larger segment of the population.
Even the LP's own favorite marketing tool, the Nolan Test, suggests as much. But the party has been unable to capitalize on these voters because it's always tried to do far too much, and far too fast. The libertarian-minded voters out there have never been more dissatisfied with both the major political parties, but until they are offered a reasonable-sounding third option, one that does not look like so much howling at the moon, they will never change their affiliations.
Never mind if howling at the moon really is the high-minded, principled thing to do. What on earth gave you the idea that party politics is about high-mindedness or principle? Conservatives and liberals move mountains in party politics, every single day. They get what they want, again and again, and we all know how few principles they can have.
Randy Barnett suggested recently that the Libertarian Party has hurt the cause of libertarianism by draining off the libertarians of both major parties and diverting their efforts into a losing battle. He's right--and I might even add to the critique: Once these people are in the party, they stop talking sense altogether, and they are lost as effective advocates on matters of political consequence. Compare the work done by the Cato Institute, Reason magazine, the Pacific Legal Foundation, NORML, even the many Objectivist groups out there. Every last one of them, without exception, has done more for libertarianism than the Libertarian Party.
It is a standard rejoinder from the advocates of the LP, that if you do not care for the party's tactics or approach--Hey, why not join up and try to change things?
But what nonsense this is! Have we ever heard its like from another political organization of any sort at all? And why should we not take it as a frank admission of intellectual bankruptcy? Even worse: What possible appeal can this rejoinder have to anyone at all?"You don't like us. So join our group." Oh please.
If libertarianism is going to be a party politics at all, it needs a clean break from the dead-end party that it has right now. It needs a new party, one that recognizes what party politics really is: In the system we have (again, love it or hate it), party politics is the art of appealing to the public. Our current party has not the slightest clue how to do this. Appealing to the public means compromising; it means making deals, it means jettisoning the radicalism--all for the purpose of doing what we can in this particular realm of human action. It's one where we have scarcely begun to make ourselves known.
[Crossposted at Positive Liberty.]
It's the Party, stupid. The Libertarian Party is a badge of shame upon an otherwise reasonable branch of political thought.I stand by these words today. Everyone knows now that the Party is past its prime, and that even in its prime, the LP never was much to write home about.
In the 2004 election, the Party fielded a candidate who distinguished himself by claiming that use of the ZIP code is voluntary (which is true)--and that its use constitutes consent to be taxed under the Sixteenth Amendment as a"resident of a federal district of the District of Columbia."
Now this is a fat load of conspiracy-theory mumbo-jumbo. Sadly, consent is not required, save in certain theoretical constructs of the ever-hopeful libertarian mind. But wishing and dreaming will not make it so.
Nominating a fraud and a conspiracy theorist who is an embarrassment to the libertarian movement would be bad enough all by itself. Even more damning, however, is the fact that this individual did scarcely any better or worse than certain quite reasonable candidates that the party fielded back when it still looked like a rising star in American politics.
What this should tell us is that the problem with the LP runs far deeper than one presidential candidate. Consider this fisking of the Libertarian Party Platform written by the group bloggers at The 2% Company. I don't agree with everything it says, but its very existence should be a worrisome sign: By any objective measure, the 2% Company and their kind are exactly the voters the LP should be winning over. As proof, consider the group's short manifesto:
The Two Percent Company is an informal group of folks who are concerned about the current direction of our country and our world. In short, we believe that people have the right to do whatever they want to do, as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Unfortunately, religious figures, politicians, and stupid or narrow-minded people are determined to impose their silly or dangerous beliefs on us.Can I get an amen here?
But the 2%ers can't stomach the Libertarian Party platform. And to be frank, neither can I. They write,
Taken in what we believe is its intended entirety, the Libertarian platform attempts to create something like a utopian commune existing on a political island separate from the rest of the world. This commune would have no central regulation for its monetary system, legislation or law enforcement; in fact, we'd be hard pressed to specify exactly what powers would remain with the government under the Libertarian system.There is a reason why the 2% Company can't figure out whether a government would or would not exist in the Libertarian utopia: The LP itself hasn't decided yet.
This indecision between anarcho-capitalism and some vague form of a state means that whatever platform emerges will be little more than a bunch of glowing generalities. Simply choosing in either direction would be better than the betwixt-and-between approach we have seen so far.
But when the intelligent, well-connected voter reads the LP platform, they do not see a pure, principled, ideological party stance. They see a whole lot of confusion--which is, of course, a pretty fair description of the party itself.
Again, let's look at the 2% Company's analysis:
The Libertarians on Freedom of Religion:Indeed.[From the platform.] We condemn the attempts by parents or any others -- via kidnappings or conservatorships -- to force children to conform to any religious views....and on Families and Children:[Again from the platform.] Families and households are private institutions, which should be free from government intrusion and interference. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, without interference by government -- unless they are abusing the children.So, which is it?
Granted, blathering unreason does have a long and illustrious history in party platforms, and neither major party could ever draft one without it. But not only is this unreason, it is lunacy of a particularly sparkling kind. It clutters the LP platform with a lot of far-flung distractions rather than focusing on the most important, near-term problems. If it is to have any success at all, the Libertarian Party should moderate its platform and focus on those problems that most likely could be solved through political action--and those that are the most pressing to the general public.
Suppose there were a party with a platform that looked more or less like the status quo--but that recommended abolishing most farm and business subsidies, ending the war on drugs, simplifying the tax code, easing the"decency" regulations, and bringing the troops home from abroad. It wouldn't make any other drastic changes, but would merely push for these issues alone.
This hypothetical party would have very real support among smart, young, influential voters--much more at any rate than the current LP. It is just this sort of compromise that enables action in party politics: Imagine that our hypothetical party had even a tenth of the seats in Congress. Would this not be an overwhelming force for our ideals?
Unsurprisingly, the 2% Company soon comes to the conclusion that so many others have reached about our current Libertarians:
So, we could embrace the Libertarian ideal, and work toward a Libertarian world where we'll all just wander the earth — free from borders and passports, tracking deer with the Indians through the middle of the Wal-Mart, bartering some extra ammo for a bottle of rye, allowing our six-year-old children to strike out on their own and make their precocious ways in the world, enjoying our unlimited freedom...and paying tolls. Lots and lots of tolls.What we have now in the way of political platform strikes the 2% Company--and yours truly--as a pure utopian fantasy, a plan that would be impossible to implement given our current starting conditions and that shows no effort whatsoever to connect the libertarian ideal to the world of the present.
Or, we can take the good ideas from the Libertarians, and discard the rest. The same can be said of any political party, and this is exactly the method that we recommend. If you research the ideas already in existence, weigh them rationally, choose what works, and fill in the rest with your own ideas, then when it comes time to cast your vote, you will be able to decide who best matches your own platform, and not just who belongs to a given political party that really doesn't represent your opinions at all.
As the 2% Company notes,"tolls" are the answer to everything. Tolls! Of all the most government-oriented, bureaucratic, statist solutions I could possibly imagine! No, I'm not really sure how roads would be financed in an ideal society. I do know that there are many worse things than what we have right now, and that staving them off might not be such a bad idea. I also know that liberty is remarkably resourceful. Perhaps in time we'll discover a workable solution to more public-goods problems--but we won't do it without some clear-cut libertarian successes elsewhere.
But the Libertarian Party isn't about politics; it's about a revolt against politics."Well, yes!" some of you may say. I, however, find this a contradiction in terms--a political party without a politics is not a bold counter-cultural statement. It's a pipe dream, and it's a distraction from the real work of securing individual liberties given the conditions under which we now live.
Instead, I would advocate a platform that would move the present government--gradually and cautiously--toward a more minimal state. Focus on the most egregious and unpopular abuses. Don't sweat the small stuff, and ignore anything that can't plausibly be accomplished in a decade. Begin in the mainstream, and move slowly.
Anarchists: Don't write me off just yet. There's something in this for you, too, I promise.
Personally, I happen to be convinced that the private defense agencies of anarcho-capitalist theory would in no sense be private: Privateness ends when force is sufficiently concentrated. Second, even if I am wrong, and if anarcho-capitalism is the best social arrangement, getting from"here" to"there" will almost certainly have to be a gradual process--that is, if Libertarians don't want to face a massive backlash against their program, one that would even further discredit libertarian thought.
Let's suppose that the anarchists are right. Now let's imagine that the Minarchist Party has been in power for a good fifteen or twenty years. Government is a tiny fraction of the size it used to be, and private institutions have grown in proportion. Life is far better all around, and many people have learned firsthand the benefits of free markets and individual liberties. Won't the transition to anarchism be that much easier, with a weakened state and a libertarian-minded population? At any rate, the difference between"good government," if such thing exists, and"bad government," would certainly become clearer once larger numbers of people had been brought on board.
Electorally, too, a move toward the center could yield huge practical benefits. Just a few steps toward that political center--hate it though some of us might--there is a large, untapped reservoir of libertarian-minded voters who are repelled by the extremism of the LP. I've been using the 2% Company as an example here, but I think they are typical of a much larger segment of the population.
Even the LP's own favorite marketing tool, the Nolan Test, suggests as much. But the party has been unable to capitalize on these voters because it's always tried to do far too much, and far too fast. The libertarian-minded voters out there have never been more dissatisfied with both the major political parties, but until they are offered a reasonable-sounding third option, one that does not look like so much howling at the moon, they will never change their affiliations.
Never mind if howling at the moon really is the high-minded, principled thing to do. What on earth gave you the idea that party politics is about high-mindedness or principle? Conservatives and liberals move mountains in party politics, every single day. They get what they want, again and again, and we all know how few principles they can have.
Randy Barnett suggested recently that the Libertarian Party has hurt the cause of libertarianism by draining off the libertarians of both major parties and diverting their efforts into a losing battle. He's right--and I might even add to the critique: Once these people are in the party, they stop talking sense altogether, and they are lost as effective advocates on matters of political consequence. Compare the work done by the Cato Institute, Reason magazine, the Pacific Legal Foundation, NORML, even the many Objectivist groups out there. Every last one of them, without exception, has done more for libertarianism than the Libertarian Party.
It is a standard rejoinder from the advocates of the LP, that if you do not care for the party's tactics or approach--Hey, why not join up and try to change things?
But what nonsense this is! Have we ever heard its like from another political organization of any sort at all? And why should we not take it as a frank admission of intellectual bankruptcy? Even worse: What possible appeal can this rejoinder have to anyone at all?"You don't like us. So join our group." Oh please.
If libertarianism is going to be a party politics at all, it needs a clean break from the dead-end party that it has right now. It needs a new party, one that recognizes what party politics really is: In the system we have (again, love it or hate it), party politics is the art of appealing to the public. Our current party has not the slightest clue how to do this. Appealing to the public means compromising; it means making deals, it means jettisoning the radicalism--all for the purpose of doing what we can in this particular realm of human action. It's one where we have scarcely begun to make ourselves known.
[Crossposted at Positive Liberty.]