[Vision2020] Thought Provoking Article: Liberaltarians

[Ted Moffett]

Wayne et. al.

On the subject of who is or is not a libertarian, this article was
challenging, suggesting some sort of hybrid political approach labeled
"liberaltarian."

Ted Moffett

>
> A PROGRESSIVE MANIFESTO.
> Liberaltarians
> by Brink Lindsey
> Post date 12.04.06 | Issue date 12.11.06
>       Discuss this article (52)
> Print this article.   Printer friendly
> Email this article.   E-mail this article
>
> The conservative movement--and, with it, the GOP--is in disarray.
Specifically,
> the movement's "fusionist" alliance between traditionalists and
libertarians
> appears, at long last, to be falling apart. To understand what's
happening, look
> at the Democratic gains made in previously Republican strongholds on
Election
> Day. In "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire, both House seats--as well as
control
> of both houses of the state legislature--flipped from the GOP to the
Democratic
> column. Out in the interior West, Jon Tester squeaked past Conrad Burns in
the
> Montana Senate race, while other Democrats picked up a House seat in
Colorado
> (along with the governorship) and two more in Arizona. These parts of the
> country are all known for their individualism and suspicion of
officialdom--in
> short, for their libertarian sympathies.
>
> 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.
>
> This woeful record cannot simply be blamed on politicians failing to live
up to
> their conservative principles. Conservatism itself has changed markedly in
> recent years, forsaking the old fusionist synthesis in favor of a new and
> altogether unattractive species of populism. The old formulation defined
> conservatism as the desire to protect traditional values from the
intrusion of
> big government; the new one seeks to promote traditional values through
the
> intrusion of big government. Just look at the causes that have been
generating
> the real energy in the conservative movement of late: building walls to
keep out
> immigrants, amending the Constitution to keep gays from marrying, and
imposing
> sectarian beliefs on medical researchers and families struggling with
> end-of-life decisions.
>
> As a string of recent books attests, the conservative embrace of a
right-wing
> Leviathan has left libertarian-minded intellectuals feeling left out in
the
> cold. Bruce Bartlett, a Treasury Department official in the Reagan and
Bush I
> administrations, blasted Bush II in Impostor: How George W. Bush
Bankrupted
> America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy (and got fired from his
conservative
> think tank for his efforts). Cato Institute scholar Stephen Slivinski
followed
> up with Buck Wild, an exposé of GOP fiscal incontinence. In The Elephant
in the
> Room, New York Post columnist Ryan Sager bemoaned the rise of
big-government
> conservatism and warned that excessive pandering to evangelicals would
rupture
> the movement. And, most recently, The New Republic's own Andrew Sullivan
> denounced the right's fundamentalist turn in The Conservative Soul: How We
Lost
> It, How to Get It Back.
>
> 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.
>
> To date, Democrats have made inroads with libertarian voters primarily by
> default. Yes, it's true that Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos fame caused
something
> of a stir by proposing the term "Libertarian Democrat" to describe his
favored
> breed of progressive. And the most prominent examples of his would-be
> movement--first-term Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana, fellow Montanan
> Tester, and Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb--have sounded some libertarian
> themes by being simultaneously pro-choice and pro-gun rights. At the same
time,
> however, their anti-nafta, Wal-Mart-bashing economic populism is anathema
to
> free-market supporters.
>
> In short, if Democrats hope to continue appealing to libertarian-leaning
voters,
> they are going to have to up their game. They need to ask themselves: Are
we
> content with being a brief rebound fling for jilted libertarians, or do we
want
> to form a lasting relationship? Let me make a case for the second option.
>
> Since the late '60s, and especially the mid-'80s, torrents of words have
been
> spilled urging Democrats to move toward the center of the political
spectrum.
> Most such efforts, however, have advanced one compromise or another
between
> progressivism-as-usual and conservatism-as-usual--a few more items from
Menu A
> here, a few more from Menu B there.
>
> But the real problem with our politics today is that the prevailing
ideological
> categories are intellectually exhausted. Conservatism has risen to power
only to
> become squalid and corrupt, a Nixonian mélange of pandering to populist
> prejudices and distributing patronage to well-off cronies and Red Team
> constituencies. Liberalism, meanwhile, has never recovered from its fall
from
> grace in the mid-'60s. Ever since, it has lacked the vitality to do more
than
> check conservative excesses--and obstruct legitimate, conservative-led
progress.
> As a governing philosophy, liberalism has been moribund: When Jimmy Carter
and
> Bill Clinton managed to win the White House, they did so only by
successfully
> avoiding the liberal stigma.
>
> Today's ideological turmoil, however, has created an opening for
ideological
> renewal--specifically, liberalism's renewal as a vital governing
philosophy. A
> refashioned liberalism that incorporated key libertarian concerns and
insights
> could make possible a truly progressive politics once again--not
progressive in
> the sense of hewing to a particular set of preexisting left-wing
commitments,
> but rather in the sense of attuning itself to the objective dynamics of
U.S.
> social development. In other words, a politics that joins together under
one
> banner the causes of both cultural and economic progress.
>
> Conservative fusionism, the defining ideology of the American right for a
> half-century, was premised on the idea that libertarian policies and
traditional
> values are complementary goods. That idea still retains at least an
intermittent
> plausibility--for example, in the case for school choice as providing a
refuge
> for socially conservative families. But an honest survey of the past
> half-century shows a much better match between libertarian means and
progressive
> ends. Most obviously, many of the great libertarian breakthroughs of the
> era--the fall of Jim Crow, the end of censorship, the legalization of
abortion,
> the liberalization of divorce laws, the increased protection of the rights
of
> the accused, the reopening of immigration--were championed by the
political
> left.
>
> Furthermore, it has become increasingly clear that capitalism's relentless
> dynamism and wealth-creation--the institutional safeguarding of which lies
at
> the heart of libertarian concerns--have been pushing U.S. society in a
decidedly
> progressive direction. The civil rights movement was made possible by the
> mechanization of agriculture, which pushed blacks off the farm and out of
the
> South with immense consequences. Likewise, feminism was encouraged by the
> mechanization of housework. Greater sexual openness, as well as heightened
> interest in the natural environment, are among the luxury goods that mass
> affluence has purchased. So, too, are secularization and the general
decline in
> reverence for authority, as rising education levels (prompted by the
economy's
> growing demand for knowledge workers) have promoted increasing
independence of
> mind.
>
> Yet progressives remain stubbornly resistant to embracing capitalism,
their
> great natural ally. In particular, they are unable to make their peace
with the
> more competitive, more entrepreneurial, more globalized U.S. economy that
> emerged out of the stagflationary mess of the 1970s. Knee-jerk antipathy
to
> markets and the creative destruction they bring continues to be
widespread, and
> bitter denunciations of the unfairness of the system, mixed with nostalgia
for
> the good old days of the Big Government/Big Labor/Big Business
triumvirate, too
> often substitute for clear thinking about realistic policy options.
>
> Hence today's reactionary politics. Here, in the first decade of the
> twenty-first century, the rival ideologies of left and right are both
pining for
> the '50s. The only difference is that liberals want to work there, while
> conservatives want to go home there.
>
> Can a new, progressive fusionism break out of the current rut? Liberals
and
> libertarians already share considerable common ground, if they could just
see
> past their differences to recognize it. Both generally support a more open
> immigration policy. Both reject the religious right's homophobia and
> blastocystophilia. Both are open to rethinking the country's draconian
drug
> policies. Both seek to protect the United States from terrorism without
> gratuitous encroachments on civil liberties or extensions of executive
power.
> And underlying all these policy positions is a shared philosophical
commitment
> to individual autonomy as a core political value.
>
> The central challenge in cementing a new fusionist alliance--and, make no
> mistake, it is a daunting one--is to elaborate a vision of economic
policy, and
> policy reform, that both liberals and libertarians can support. Here,
again,
> both sides seek to promote individual autonomy; but their conceptions
differ as
> to the chief threats to that autonomy. Libertarians worry primarily about
> constraints imposed by government, while liberals worry most about
constraints
> imposed by birth and the play of economic forces.
>
> The basic outlines of a viable compromise are clear enough. On the one
hand,
> restrictions on competition and burdens on private initiative would be
lifted to
> encourage vigorous economic growth and development. At the same time, some
of
> the resulting wealth-creation would be used to improve safety-net policies
that
> help those at the bottom and ameliorate the hardships inflicted by
economic
> change. Translating such abstractions into workable policy doubtlessly
would be
> contentious. But the most difficult thing here is not working out
details--it is
> agreeing to try. And, as part of that, agreeing on how to make the
attempt:
> namely, by treating economic policy issues as technical, empirical
questions
> about what does and doesn't work, rather than as tests of ideological
> commitment.
>
> Allow me to hazard a few more specific suggestions about what a
> liberal-libertarian entente on economics might look like. Let's start with
the
> comparatively easy stuff: farm subsidies and other corporate welfare.
> Progressive organizations like Oxfam and the Environmental Working Group
have
> already joined with free-market groups in pushing for ag-policy reform.
And it's
> no wonder, since the current subsidy programs act as a regressive tax on
> low-income families here at home while depressing prices for exporters in
poor
> countries abroad--and, to top it off, the lion's share of the loot goes to
big
> agribusiness, not family farmers. Meanwhile, the president of Cato and the
> executive director of the Sierra Club have come out together in favor of a
> zero-subsidy energy policy. A nascent fusionism on these issues already
exists;
> it merely needs encouragement and emphasis.
>
> Tax reform also offers the possibility of win-win bargains. The basic idea
is
> simple: Shift taxes away from things we want more of and onto things we
want
> less of. Specifically, cut taxes on savings and investment, cut payroll
taxes on
> labor, and make up the shortfall with increased taxation of consumption.
Go
> ahead, tax the rich, but don't do it when they're being productive. Tax
them
> instead when they're splurging--by capping the deductibility of
home-mortgage
> interest and tax incentives for purchasing health insurance. And tax
everybody's
> energy consumption. All taxes impose costs on the economy, but at least
energy
> taxes carry the silver lining of encouraging conservation--plus, because
such
> taxes exert downward pressure on world oil prices, foreign oil monopolies
would
> wind up getting stuck with part of the bill. Here again, fusionism is
already in
> the air. Gore has proposed a straight-up swap of payroll taxes for carbon
taxes,
> while Harvard economist (and former chairman of G
> eorge W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers) Greg Mankiw has been pushing
for
> an increase in the gasoline tax.
>
> Entitlement reform is probably the most difficult problem facing would-be
> fusionists. Here, libertarians' core commitments to personal
responsibility and
> economy in government run headlong into progressives' core commitments to
social
> insurance and an adequate safety net. Yet a fusionist synthesis is
possible
> nevertheless, for the simple reason that some kind of compromise is
ultimately
> unavoidable.
>
> With millions already dependent on the current programs, and with baby
boomers
> beginning to retire in just a couple of years, libertarians' dreams of
> dramatically shrinking federal spending are flatly unrealizable for many
years
> to come. But liberals must face some hard facts as well. Spending on
Medicare,
> Medicaid, and Social Security is now projected to increase from about 9
percent
> of GDP today to approximately 15 percent by 2030. Already, spending on the
> elderly consumes more than a third of the federal budget, and the fun is
just
> getting started. If a fiscal crisis is to be averted, if economic growth
is to
> be sustained, and if there is to be any money left to fund domestic
programs for
> people under 65, the federal safety net is going to have to be recast.
>
> One possible path toward constructive compromise lies in taking the
concept of
> social insurance seriously. Insurance, to be worthy of the name, involves
the
> pooling of funds to protect against risky contingencies; "social"
insurance
> fulfills the same basic function but makes the government the insurer.
> Unemployment insurance is a species of legitimate social insurance; wage
> insurance, much talked about, would also qualify. But Social Security and
> Medicare as currently administered are not social insurance in any
meaningful
> sense, because reaching retirement age and having health care expenses in
old
> age are not risky, insurable events. On the contrary, in our affluent
society,
> they are near certainties.
>
> We can have true social insurance while maintaining fiscal soundness and
> economic vibrancy: We can fund the Earned Income Tax Credit and other
programs
> for the poor; we can fund unemployment insurance and other programs for
people
> dislocated by capitalism's creative destruction; we can fund public
pensions for
> the indigent elderly; we can fund public health care for the poor and
those
> faced with catastrophic expenses. What we cannot do is continue to fund
> universal entitlement programs that slosh money from one section of the
middle
> class (people of working age) to another (the elderly)--not when most
Americans
> are fully capable of saving for their own retirement needs. Instead, we
need to
> move from the current pay-as-you-go approach to a system in which private
> savings would provide primary funding for the costs of old age.
>
> These are only suggestions, meant to start conversations and debates. If a
new
> kind of fusionism is to have any chance for success, it must aim beyond
the
> specifics of particular, present-day controversies. It must be based on a
real
> intellectual movement, with intellectual coherence. A movement that, at
the
> philosophical level, seeks some kind of reconciliation between Hayek and
Rawls.
>
> If such an exploration could be launched, liberal and libertarian thinkers
would
> begin talking with one another and engaging one another regularly. Over
time,
> they would come to see themselves as joined in a common endeavor. And, in
the
> shared identity that would emerge, there would be plenty of room for
continuing
> disagreements, even sharp ones, just as there is in any robust political
> movement.
>
> Can liberals and libertarians really learn to work together? I don't know,
but
> their alternative is most probably to languish separately.
>
> Brink Lindsey is vice president for research at the Cato Institute. He is
the
> author of The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Transformed America's
Politics
> and Culture, which will be published this spring.
>


On 2/7/07, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>  Ted,
>
> Bush is like some of the posters and apologists on this list.  Bush and
> they do not wish for material to be posted to which they disagree or makes
> them look ignorant.  Bush and some of these mentally constipated,
> deluded guardians of public discussion even think themselves as
> libertarians.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070207/ac4d5975/attachment-0001.html