Interesting essay on "liberaltarians"

[Sisyphus]

I came across this essay from 2006 at the Cato Institute.

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6800

 

It suggests that the conservative-libertarian fusion of the past is largely exhausted, and that an alliance of liberals and libertarians is actually more natural, if only each could get around their respective kneejerk hangups. The argument is that libertarian means naturally support progressive ends and vice versa, and offers numerous examples of shared ends and suggestions for reasonable compromise regarding seemingly insurmountable differences (like the entitlement system).

 

I thought I'd share it because I like its optimism, and because I think there are a lot of members here who would be sympathetic to the viewpoint.

[jryan]

It's an interesting article, but nothing new really. Libertarianism was born, to an extent, after the term Liberal was coopted in the early 20th century by the Progressive Movement.

 

In essence he is saying that liberals and libertarians could work together if liberals were just more economically conservative... which is no different than libertarians arguing that libertarians and conservatives could work together if conservatives were just more socially liberal.

 

In other words: Libertarians could get along with anyone ... who simply adopts their beliefs.

[Sisyphus]

It's an interesting article, but nothing new really. Libertarianism was born, to an extent, after the term Liberal was coopted in the early 20th century by the Progressive Movement.

 

In essence he is saying that liberals and libertarians could work together if liberals were just more economically conservative... which is no different than libertarians arguing that libertarians and conservatives could work together if conservatives were just more socially liberal.

 

In other words: Libertarians could get along with anyone ... who simply adopts their beliefs.

 

If you're going to simplify it to the usual "economic and social" and "liberal and conservative" axes, then that might be true, but that isn't the argument being made.

[ecoli]

behavioral economists like the label "libertarian paternalism." Some debate about this going around the libertarian blogosphere several weeks back. Nothing new was learned, as far as I could tell.

[Sisyphus]

behavioral economists like the label "libertarian paternalism." Some debate about this going around the libertarian blogosphere several weeks back. Nothing new was learned, as far as I could tell.

 

What happened several weeks back?

[jryan]

If you're going to simplify it to the usual "economic and social" and "liberal and conservative" axes, then that might be true, but that isn't the argument being made.

 

I don't think I am over-simplifying it. He is arguing that more affluent cultures are more liberal, and therefore a policy that promotes affluence will promote liberal ideas. His solution is a more conservative approach to economics (deregulation and lower taxes) that will lead to increased money in the federal coffers to be used to fund liberal agendas.

 

I don't think that this plan is as well thought out as the length of the article would indicate.

[Pangloss]

I came across this essay from 2006 at the Cato Institute.

 

It's interesting that they were saying that in 2006. I had been under the impression that most of that separation sentiment stems from 2007/2008, following the economic meltdown. They seem to make their case, though:

 

Libertarian disaffection should come as no surprise. Despite the GOP's rhetorical commitment to limited government, the actual record of unified Republican rule in Washington has been an unmitigated disaster from a libertarian perspective: runaway federal spending at a clip unmatched since Lyndon Johnson; the creation of a massive new prescription-drug entitlement with hardly any thought as to how to pay for it; expansion of federal control over education through the No Child Left Behind Act; a big run-up in farm subsidies; extremist assertions of executive power under cover of fighting terrorism; and, to top it all off, an atrociously bungled war in Iraq.

 

Libertarian-leaning voters started drifting away from the GOP even before Katrina, civil war in Iraq, and Mark Foley launched the general stampede. In their recent Cato-published study "The Libertarian Vote," David Boaz and David Kirby analyzed polling data from Gallup, the American National Election Studies, and the Pew Research Center and concluded that 13 percent of the population, or 28 million voting-age Americans, can be fairly classified as libertarian-leaning. Back in 2000, this group voted overwhelmingly for Bush, supporting him over Al Gore by a 72-20 margin. By 2004, however, John Kerry--whose only discernible libertarian credential was that he wasn't George W. Bush--got 38 percent of the libertarian vote, while Bush's support fell to 59 percent. Congressional races showed a similar trend. In 2002, libertarians favored Republican House candidates by a 70-23 spread and Republican Senate candidates by a 74-15 margin. Things tightened up considerably in 2004, though, as the GOP edge fell to 53-44 in House races and 54-43 in Senate contests.

 

Interesting piece.

[bascule]

It's always interesting for me to read Cato Institute articles as I often agree with them (and I'm a big fan of Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t, which is effectively Cato Institute TV). This one I'm not so sure. I think, if anything, he's saying that the GOP has strayed so far from their conservative roots that for an economic conservative the Democrats are the better horse to bet on.

 

I really wonder if he'd feel the same way today after the passage of the healthcare bill.

 

As a self-identifying liberaltarian, I prefer economic liberalism combined with civil libertarianism. I wish to see government power heavily restricted when it comes to control over the lives of individuals (e.g. invasions of privacy, restrictions on speech/expression, gun control), but I certainly want a regulated economy and don't want to see the government axe services to keep taxes down.

[Mr Skeptic]

I agree with him -- I consider myself libertarian, and I definitely align more with the Democrats. Although I kind of would like less taxes, at least the Democrats want to spend it on things I can agree on, things that need to be done anyways and so are not an extra cost (as compared to wars on terror, drugs, or foreign nations we don't like)