Why You Should Be a Libertarian And why you might be already PI editorial
The libertarian ideology is one of the most misunderstood in American politics. Many citizens don't have any idea what it is. Most of them who do - liberal and conservative - aver that libertarianism is nothing but a worthless form of crypto-anarchy. The author of one recently popular anti-libertarian article, titled with brevity "Why I Am Not a Libertarian," argues that libertarians want to privatize everything, and that since privatization of such things like the Pennekamp Coral Reef in Key Largo would destroy the cute fish and their natural habitat there, libertarianism is not for him. He also alleges that to be libertarian is to support abolishing welfare in favor of ruthless Social Darwinism, and since he doesn't like the idea of handicapped people being tossed in the street, so he rejects that axiom of "libertarianism" as well.
Granted, many libertarian authors have unfortunately espoused wild ideas such as universal privatization or the abolition of welfare. Many still do. But no political viewpoint is exclusive to the opinions of its published authors, or can a position be entirely dismissed because of the opinions of its most dogmatic talking heads. For example, most conservatives support the drug war, but William F. Buckley, Jr., the most brilliant conservative, directly opposes it. (Note: Late in Mr. Buckley's career, he occasionally referred to himself as libertarian.) Many conservatives justify their positions with Christian theology, but many other conservatives do not. Some liberals, such as Hillary Clinton, support illiberal positions like legislation intended to preserve the morality of children. Many liberals are religious skeptics, but many other liberals are not. The variance within ideologies - in either philosophical foundation or policy positions - is as common as political opinion itself.
When one becomes a "conservative," he is not forced by a phantom Ideology Regulator to align his viewpoints on every issue to the content of the Rush Limbaugh Show. When one is a "liberal," there is no requirement that she agree wholeheartedly with every word uttered by Nancy Pelosi. Similarly, just because prominent libertarians are recklessly anti-state or anarcho-capitalist, it doesn't mean that all libertarians have to harbor similar delusional fantasies of "absolute freedom."
Moderate libertarianism, distinguished from its infamous extremist cousin, supports the general increase of personal freedom and market competition wherever feasible. The debate among these libertarians is what constitutes such an opportunity for practical reform and progressive policies, not what constitutes a coercive Big Government diktat awaiting emancipation by the savior called Capitalism.
This organization is moderate libertarian. You can read our indictments of Ayn Rand's objectivism and the Libertarian Party. You can observe our support for welfare, state-funded health insurance, and environmental protection. We oppose the inheritance tax because we respect the right of successful parents to support their children, but we also published the excellent but contrary argument that inheritance is unearned income and thus more efficient to tax. We argue against certain inefficient technologies. We see the need to regulate efficiently and often, and have specifically proposed various taxation schemes to ameliorate the social ills that corporations can wreak. We do not argue abstract theoretical points and then universalize our conclusions; we analyze each issue independently with empirical evidence.
Our aim is to appeal to those who weren't already persuaded by Libertarianism in One Lesson. We only support public policies that can be feasibly implemented, but we are no less libertarian as a result. The moderate libertarian is not an crypto-anarchist in the vein of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, but a pro-market pragmatist in the vein of The Economist. We support personal freedom and choice, not because we are suspicious of government's right to restrict behavior, but because we have seen pluralism and freedom help develop a enriching, prosperous and innovative society. As Mr. Buckley himself aptly noted, "Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive."
Moderate libertarianism is a widely-respected position (in ironic contrast to the widely-derided libertarian extremism), generally referred to in America as "social liberalism and fiscal conservatism." It is also called classical liberalism, small-government conservatism, or European liberalism.
Moderate libertarianism is the fastest-growing position in American politics. While party identification declines every year, more and more Americans are shifting to this "social liberal and fiscal conservative" banner. But they are represented by neither party, and certainly by no prominent commentators.
Some politicians are already courting these independent, de facto libertarian voters. DNC Chairman Howard Dean uses the dual liberal/conservative nomenclature to expand the Democratic tent, while his conservative opponents such as John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have long used similar rhetoric to court libertarian-leaning conservatives. Many successful election strategies - from Bill Clinton and Tony Blair's Third Way to the Republican Contract With America - have involved political baby steps away from party doctrine and toward this moderate libertarian position. According to Gallup, 20% of Americans already actively identify themselves with it. Many more are on the edge: 28 million Bush voters in 2004 had (unfulfilled) socially liberal leanings.
It is no wonder that these moderate libertarian voters don't have a home, or even know that they are libertarian at all. Their options in political commentary are a Zugzwang: partisan loudmouths or the extremist libertarians who are rightly hammered by the partisan loudmouths.
But the development of moderate libertarianism will give these independent voters a voice. With the continuing efforts of well-respected publications (The Economist, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times), governments (EU's Lisbon Agenda, Japan's Koizumi reforms) and non-governmental organizations (OECD, IMF, World Bank), who advance moderate libertarian positions in fact, if not name, libertarianism will continue to gain ground.
The collectivist, socialist attitudes that underpin the economic policies of American liberals are being discredited: globalization and technology continually teach the humanitarian value of economic growth. The social atavism of conservatives is being rapidly impugned by scientific progress and social pluralism.
It is the libertarians have the best ideas from both liberals and conservatives. Do you want to be where politics was, or where it is going?
More on the subject of libertarianism: Look in the Mirror The striking similarities between successful liberals and conservatives
More editorial: Give Up The value of political apathy and disengagement
