Liberaltarianism, RIP
The Cato Institute is soon to part ways with Brink Lindsey and Will Wilkinson, exponents of the libertarian-liberal fusion (and all-around bad idea) known as “liberaltarianism.” Even a good Burkean might find something of value in an compound of the best elements of the Left and libertarianism, but what Lindsey and Wilkinson seemed to be headed toward was a hybrid of a worst. Lindsey had even been a “liberventionist” in the days when the Iraq War was aborning. I suppose he’s still one today. (See comments.)
I find myself largely agreeing with Joseph Lawler at First Things:
Lindsey’s brand of liberaltarianism, especially, proscribed conservative priorities and values to such an extent that it almost seemed, to me at least, to exclude almost all movement libertarians. Take, for instance, Lindsey’s 2007 denunciation of libertarian hero Ron Paul. Lindsey claimed that Paul’s conservative personal viewpoints (“his xenophobia, his sovereignty-obsessed nationalism, his fondness for conspiracy theories, his religious fundamentalism”) indicated that Paul had a “crudely authoritarian worldview.”
Paul, to say the very least, is far from an authoritarian, as anyone with a passing knowledge of anarchist-tinged brand of politics will tell you. In criticizing him for having what are in Lindsey’s estimation backward values, Lindsey has somehow forgotten the fundamental tenet of libertarian ideology: that diverse worldviews are easily compatible when the government stays out of personal affairs.
Actually, there’s plenty of debate among libertarians on that last point, and the question is less about whether a libertarian order can tolerate “diverse worldviews” than whether a particular kind of worldview is necessary to have a libertarian order in the first place. But Lawler is right that many libertarians, no less than conservatives, find Lindsey’s pronouncements objectionable.
Was that enough to get him fired from Cato? There’s no tenure at any think tank that I know of, which means that just about anyone can be dismissed for any reason at any time. I’ll miss Wilkinson as the editor of Cato Unbound, which set a standard for online-only journals.
Update: Thomas Knapp has a smart post about why liberaltarianism was doomed as a political strategy — libertarianism has been a reaction against the party in power, and for most of the 20th century, that party was the liberal party. I would add that while Washington has been more Republican and “conservative” in the decades since LBJ, the perception of big government as a liberal problem (rather than a deficit-spending-and-militarism Republican problem) still survives.
I think it would be a tautology that for both believers in big and small government, you can tolerate the beliefs of the other, but cannot allow them to actually implement the beliefs. For Big Government barely lets the Amish be grandfathered in and usually comes up with some new abuse. Nor can I opt-out of anything to live under liberty.
The paradox for those who believe in small government is after Leviathan is slain, how do we prevent its return as doing so will require an act of government in some form – collective action including using force or denying what might be lesser rights (voting – majority rules?; contracts – can I sell myself as a slave? Prevent a progressive constitutional convention).
For now, what is needed is a new great awakening, a revival, a reformation, a resurrection of the soul of the individual. The answer is not in solving the puzzle, but insuring the citizens are of such a character that it need not be solved.
Daniel,
I personally know Brink, and am vehemently against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I can tell you that Brink has changed his mind on supporting the wars. He was an old Cold War hawk and interventionist in the mold of Goldwater and after 9/11 he was very hawkish but his views have completely changed on supporting the war in the past few years. I don’t know if he’s written any public statements on the matter but I am very sure that if you email or call him and ask him he can confirm that. Even though I strongly disagreed with him on foreign policy, and the fact that I supported Ron Paul while he didn’t like the guy, Brink is a great libertarian thinker. Who cares if he is not doctrinaire down-the-line on ideological issues, I think his perspective is needed in the libertarian movement, and I disagree with him on a lot of issues.
“I don’t know if he’s written any public statements on the matter but I am very sure that if you email or call him and ask him he can confirm that.”
Then his change of opinion is meaningless, isn’t it? Not that it would matter much anyway after he got all the death and destruction he asked for.
Brink has publicly discussed his turnaround on foreign policy on several occasions. He’s very dovish these days.
I think that scholars who work for thinktanks tend to over-estimate their own importance and influence. They often act as though they (rather than foundation donors and economic conditions) drive policies. The only reason why libertarian economic ideas are more respectable than they used to be is that, in many areas (sadly, health care is an exception) central planning has been tried and found wanting.
“Brink has publicly discussed his turnaround on foreign policy on several occasions. He’s very dovish these days.”
I bet that warmed the hearts of the Iraqi widows and orphans attending those Cato luncheons where he unburdened himself.
Brink did indeed get it wrong and apologies do not completely undo the past. But I think it is worth something that he has repeatedly acknowledged his mistake and not sought out weak excuses for his actions. In his defense I’ll also add that he didn’t behave as odiously toward opponents of the war as did Andrew Sullivan (whose subsequent behavior suggests that he learned nothing). I completely agree on Ron Paul: Brink is demanding that not only must Paul embrace “anything peaceful” but his mistaken scientific/religious ideas mostly kept to himself are inconsistent with libertarian ideas, as is his “extremism in defense of liberty” which puts his sense of threats to it on a hair-trigger. I won’t cry for Brink, but enough water has gone under the bridge that I don’t need to spit at the mention of his name either.
[...] commentary from: Arnold Kling, Ilya Somin, Clive Crook, Matt Welch, Daniel McCarthy, and Alex [...]
My impressions of the debate: Aiming for the middle does not quite cut it. Nor does aiming to shoot the right as Lindsey does, nor aiming to shoot the left as Goldberg does, nor aiming at both as Kibbe does.
From a practical perspective, asking rhetorically “where libertarians belong” is less important than understanding how they can be politically relevant.
One key to political relevance is simple – a predictable centrist libertarian swing vote. The rub – for a swing vote to be predictable it has to be organized. And nobody yet has figured out how to herd these cats. This is sometimes referred to as the “Hot Tub Libertarian” Problem.
There is an answer. There is a way to herd these cats. Paraphrasing from my post “Curing Libertarian Electile Dysfunction”:
[...] Liberaltarianism, RIP (amconmag.com) [...]