|
If
you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul
of conservatism is libertarianism. – Ronald
Reagan, 1975 interview with Reason magazine
There’s
a lot of truth to what Reagan said. And for nearly
half a century small government, small “l”
libertarians have been an important part of the
Republican coalition – not just in terms of
money and votes, but more importantly, as a source
of ideas.
Thirty
years after Reagan’s statement, however, some
believe it’s time for the libertarians to walk
away from the big-government GOP and, instead,
make a new home within the Democratic Party.
The
idea for the break-up got a major push last year,
when Cato Institute Vice President Brink Lindsey
wrote in the New Republic that liberals and
libertarians actually have a lot in common:
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.
Is
this soil fertile enough to sustain a lasting
relationship? Lindsey isn’t sure,
believing that Democrats will first have to shed
some of their interventionist economic polices
(which seems very unlikely given the class
rhetoric Sen. Jim Webb rolled out in a
post-election Wall Street Journal op-ed).
But Lindsey offers a couple of areas that might
make a good starting point in the courtship, such
as ending farm subsidies that favor agribusiness
and doing away with all other forms corporate
welfare.
Which
is fine. Until the presidential candidates start
traipsing through Iowa, where they learn that
while that ethanol subsidies may distort markets
beyond belief, they are mighty good politics.
And
even if libertarians could overlook jarring
realities like this, are the Democrats even
willing to take them in? Washington Monthly’s
Kevin Drum says no way: “It's hard to see the
point of even trying to compromise on this
stuff.”
So
where does that leave the libertarians? Some, no
doubt, will pack up and leave for the Democratic
Party, no matter what. They simply can no longer
stand the GOP and its spendthrift, faith-based
ways. Others might drift toward the Libertarian
Party. On the surface, this would seem a far more
natural fit. But the reality is that small “l”
libertarians like to be on the winning team as
much as the next voter. There’s also the
weirdness factor. The limited government rhetoric
is nice. But the railing against the crimes of the
Federal Reserve is a bit too rich for all but the
most deeply committed.
Of
course, some will stay put, at least for a while.
The GOP isn’t perfect and, if anything, its
blemishes became more pronounced after a decade in
power. But the alternatives are only worse.
Except
for one.
Free
agency.
Many
partisans don’t like the idea of anyone shifting
their allegiances between parties as they please.
That’s just not cricket. But given the baffling
indifference of the Republican-controlled
legislature to limited government (two tax hikes
in a row and even bigger government), libertarians
have to wonder whether the Virginia GOP even knows
they exist.
The
party might take notice if libertarians decided to
support candidates because of what they believe
rather than which party they belong to. It would
make life miserable for political consultants and
incumbents. But that’s exactly the point.
If
the goal of libertarians is to roll back the
growth of government, then neither major party is
a good fit and the LP… well, the LP is what it
is. Instead, libertarians ought look for
candidates who challenge the status quo. On
education, for example, George Mason economist
Arnold Kling wrote:
I
have been losing interest in the contests between
Democrats and Republicans in Washington. I am more
anxious about the outcome of the struggle between
innovators and incumbents in the field of
education.
The
incumbent policy is more of the same. Both parties
in Washington champion more government involvement
in primary education and more subsidies for
existing colleges and universities.
The
innovative policy is to support any alternative to
our current education system. Ultimately, we would
trust consumers to keep the best alternatives and
discard the rest.
There
are a number of policy areas where libertarians
could ask the same innovator v. incumbent
questions. Who out there is challenging the old
VDOT business model on transportation? Who is
looking for a new solution to the entitlements
problem that is fast approaching Virginia’s
doorstep? Who is advocating a different way to
approach Virginia’s boom and bust budgeting
cycles?
The
answers don’t always come wrapped in red or blue
paper. Or even purple. And the sooner the small
“l” libertarians realize that, the sooner they
will find candidates, and yes, even political
parties, that they can truly call their own.
--
April 16, 2007
|
