Topic: Libertarianism
The Dangers of Libertarian Radicalism Way back in 2008, we established how the LP was dead and just didn't know it yet. But future movements will not fare better until they deal with internal threats. This is an analysis of how the LP failed to do that.by Spencer Jayden
(libertarian)
Friday, August 28, 2009
Recently, some of you may have noticed a cluster of articles still dwelling on the failures of the Barr/Root '08 campaign last November, or whether to further moderate the LP platform in 2010. Those who check my backlog might notice that I predicted just as much way back in October:
...The LP is a failed brand... will they heed their principles and stop subsidizing a party too "big" to fail? Or will the LP linger on, like the corporate duopoly which keeps on insisting on one more chance? That choice is up to you.
-The LP is Dead, 11/13/08
Obamania was so 2008.
Faux-conservatism is back in style. Americans agree with us on record deficits and central planning in growing margins everyday. One might think that if there ever was a time to harness these frustrations, it would be now. Yet, only one organization is actually producing meaningful results and it's not the LP.
Now, if you had asked me less than a year ago, on any topic how to give the LP mainstream appeal, I'd point you to my backlog of articles. Even then, I was finding out more and more the LP shunned many proven recipes for success. Curiously though, if you were to go through the list of things I - and others like me- found, there would be a certain group of people who would tell you that you were all wrong, such "prequisites" were somehow present, and most likely call you a statist.
I then had an epiphany- the LP was being destroyed from within- by a flawed and unreasonable adversary known as the "radical libertarian." Radical talking points often held many contradictions that you wouldn't notice without careful examination. Yet, the logic was almost irresistable to those who didn't know better. What follows are just 3 fallacies of what I'm sure are several in radical heterodoxy:
1. Radical Libertarians ignore the laws of voluntarism in their own party.
As championed by scholars like F.A. Hayek, the moral heart of libertarianism is called voluntarism. In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek observed that people in government were as prone to perverse incentives and the laws of demand as everyone else was. Upon this conclusion, he said: "It can hardly be denied that such a demand quite arbitrarily limits the facts which are to be admitted as possible causes of the events which occur in the real world."
This is to say that governments, to guard their own interests, try to cover their tracks in bad policy by forcing people to see things in their favor.
I tried to think - where have I heard this before? In the past, the LP rationalized away failure and dwindling support always due to external reasons beyond their control. So a few moderates suggested retooling various bylaws of the LP on numerous occassions. Their arguments were reasonable: things like the NAP pledge, dues-based membership, and open-delegate primaries, were intended to keep out the violent extremists and do-nothings, while giving the sincerest members a large stake in the party's future.
But suggesting changes was an exercise in futility. The moderates were often laughed right out of the LP, that is, if they still believed strongly about their ideas. They were usually told that the LP is the best place for politically homeless libertarians. And for 30 years, it was true. (Now, we finally have another- and nonpartisan- choice: Campaign for Liberty.) In the end, this "too big to fail" logic has only paralyzed the LP, and led to a largely unchallenged domination by a group I refer to as the radicals, or purists that refuse incrementalist approaches.
For those unfamiliar, Marxist diamat- AKA dialectical materialism is Karl Marx's whole sociological theory based on a primitive understanding of matter. Though Marx revolutionized several ways we view social sciences, some of his ideas had gaping flaws. Take this example of what Marx called Transformation:
"Merely quantitative differences, beyond a certain point, pass into qualitative changes." - Das Kapital
Later, Friedrich Engels in the Dialectics of Nature, wrote it as this:
The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes.
How does this relate to the politics? Well, it's basically Marx's way of explaining revolution. But to apply this to the LP, moderates believe quantitative success flows from qualitative success; using our existing resources, we can foster lasting policy changes, win strategically crucial elections, and then reinforce our base. Contrast this with the Radicals, whose beliefs match the order of Engels' law. They argue the message is quality stuff already. "Even if we register as an asterisk on election day, a presidential candidate can best spread our message." "Voter education is the solution to growing membership." In other words, the leap forward only occurs once enough principle members join the party to facilitate a critical mass. This could explain why a few radicals are so gung-ho about revolution, as well.
But is any of it true? Well, on one hand, there would be more tangible results, as there is no shortage of liberty-minded individuals, right? But too often, the people found at hempfests and tax protests are not as libertarian as we expect. For example, they may think marijuana should be decriminalized, but disagree with legalizing all drugs overnight. They hate their taxes, but many want a SMALL social net, not none outright. Hmm... I wonder why they join C4L instead of the LP.
Radicals hate gradualism; they don't care about branding, language, etc. To them, it's a compromise of ideas, and that's evil: we'll all end up just like the Democrats and Republicans. I'm not deaf to these concerns. Modern liberalism's goal is to forcefeed opponents its intellectual bankruptcy (pay-go spending and entitlements). Ayn Rand explained this quite thoroughly why this is. The natural tendency in the political spectrum is to move left. There is a reason why most Supreme Court justices grow more liberal in their decisions over time. It's because relativism favors their cause.
But not all liberals are Marxists as many radicals claim. And so, compromise makes sense for them. In the same way, an incrementalist approach is perfectly consistent with Libertarian philosophy, but radicals will have none of it.
This one's just plain stupid- like buying a power drill you'll never use. Unfortunately, radicals have engendered an identiy crisis in the LP.
What is the LP exactly? Thinktank, PAC, or a real party? Campaign For Liberty, on the other hand, knows both its purpose and limitations and the LP doesn't.
I can only hope to warn about self-proclaimed "radical libertarians". The greatest threat to libertarians comes from them. It does not matter if ever Libertarians do break away and find another political home, for the radicals will likely systematically destroy that too, like a parasite that unwittingly kills its host.
Author's Note: I have no problem with purism. Purism in search of truth does not have to mean dogmatic action. It is perfectly fine to have stronger beliefs, just realize that policy will not catch up with you so fast. Remember- there is no *poof* button that will make everyone as libertarian as you.
FIN
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 12 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Spencer Jayden only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Spencer Jayden is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
"For example, they may think marijuana should be decriminalized, but disagree with legalizing all drugs overnight."
I guess radicalism is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I would think the idea of legalizing a drug like meth is a pretty radical idea and not a very good one. I agree that the Libertarian Party will never go anywhere as long as it is controlled by radicals. These days I'll only vote for a Libertarian as a protest vote, because it's pointless to actually hope the Libertarian candidate will win because there is no chance of that. It is a failed brand, and the party is viewed by most as a party of extremist wackos. People are sick of Republicans and Democrats too. It's just a damn shame that the Libertarian Party can't remake itself into something palatable to the majority of voters. It may be too late.
Some pretty good stuff, but I'd like to offer a couple of corrections regarding bylaws.
1. The Non-Agression Principle based oath is a purity oath, not a protection against violent extremists. You can be a violent extremist and still obey the oath: just shoot the tax man in self defense.
2. Some members of the Reform Caucus favored the repeal of membership dues. I was not one of them. On the bylaws committee I pushed for a restoration of dues. However, to avoid under counting our membership in relation to other parties, we created the term "sustaining member" for dues-paying members. Oath signers remained members for the purpose of press releases while sustaining members run the party.
3. In our literature and in most of the 2006 debates "radical" meant someone with extreme views (anarchists, etc.) while "purist" denoted those who want the party to be run solely by radicals.
Cody: The question of whether the LP can reform is over. I have long argued that the LP is a microcosmic entity that represents political struggle as a whole. The moderates and radicals don't understand each other, and those that try to create common definitions and perspectives between the two are constantly aggrovated by those who assume they can do a better job.
Carl M.: Hello, sir. First, I'd like to say that I admire the work that you've done and theories you've promoted in expanding libertarianism a la "holistic politics". I was stunned to find someone articulate so well the same things that I had noticed.
I'm aware of your former position on the bylaws committee and will review what you have added. Obviously, you'd have a greater deal of facts to go off of then I did, hence different conclusions. On one note, though, from what I've read, the original intention of the pledge was to show the LP did not advocate terrorism or open rebellion. This view makes sense when taken to a logical absolute, but not for the sake of fewer hypotheticals.
Also, on point 3... on the whole terminology, I once used purist, radical, etc. the same way. After some time, though, my views changed. The radical connotation was "extreme opposition", which to me, was different than purist philosophy. To me, you could believe in all the tenets of anarcho-capitalism, but that does not necessarily mean you want a radical implementation of it. Also, I rarely use the word pragmatist as in the vein of political parties, being pragmatic is redundant - it's a foregone conclusion.
That is the reasoning from my point of view, and the one I've consistently used, but it in no way is the ONLY one. In the end, all that changes is the words - not what's attached to them.
National can take a page from he CALP (and California can learn to use what it has) and establish two different agenda driven or goal driven agents. One is the Platform, written mostly by the Platform Committee, which describes our destination. The other is the Program, written mostly by the Program Committee, which backs or sponsors specific ways to bring us closer to the goal of the platform, incrementally even.
For example, the platform advocates legalizing all drugs, the program advocates sending people to treatment instead of jail, and it is not a contradiction because of the different nature of the two agencies.
I wouldn't concede that the radicals are somehow more libertarian than you or I. Often sloppier and less analytic in their thinking, prone to overlook obvious tradeoffs and with no aversion to elevating flights of fancy to inviolable "principle" (ugh) but not more libertarian.
Having a statement of "destination" is both putoffish to voters looking for any excuse to not register Libertarian (well their Platform says government gets to maintain a PO box!) and inherently schismatic.
Labeling such a "Platform" is also a surefire way to confuse the voters.
Perhaps you've succeeded in creating "flypaper" for the anti-productive ideologues, but it would seem a strategic mistake given that the goal is to change public policy. Let the ideologues form a club outside of a political party to preach their old-time utopian religion. Utopias are simply not what political parties are for.
@ Ayn R. Key, good point. I think that is what was suggested here. A platform should be something politically tangible, and there may be a long-term goal as well to get us to the stage that we're ready for "pure, unbridled capitalism" if that makes sense.
I see that Carl Milsted's posting here now. That's good to know; read plenty of his articles and agree wholeheartedly with his prescription.
"I wouldn't concede that the radicals are somehow more libertarian than you or I. Often sloppier and less analytic in their thinking, prone to overlook obvious tradeoffs and with no aversion to elevating flights of fancy to inviolable "principle" (ugh) but not more libertarian."
What do you mean, concede? The whole point is that there's a difference between radicals, which ARE sloopy and hardly analytical in their thinking, like you said, and everyone else- purists and moderates, who either believe in less government or no government (but on the latter, they recognize it will take time to get there).
The problem is simple. The LP is a 3rd party. The only hope for the LP is that the Republican party moves so far to the left that is ostrecizes its own members. Although, that did seem to happen to some extent during the Bush years, those wanderers seem to be finding their ways back according to recent polls. So since people inherently don't like the taste of losing the LP is in a real quandry.
Simple Solution, let the radicals have their idealogical party of whiners and do-nothing intellectuals, and the mitigators who truly want substantive change need to stop trying to morph the LP into something more encompassing. Although I am not a member, I think the Republican Liberty Caucus has the right idea: Libertarian candidates in Republican clothes. Ron Paul has done it for years with success, and in his '08 run he had national coverage in debates and a donation pool that stunned everyone.
This is exactly what I have been arguing: the LP is dead. But your response which amounts to "3rd parties are useless", I disagree. Our two current parties once WERE 3rd parties. We've had several influential 3rd parties in our past.
All this talk about ballot access, media blackouts, it's all a defeatist excuse to continue losertarian strategies. A smokescreen for idiots who would rather have the best of both worlds: say they run a political party, and have their own debate club. Duverger's Law has weaknesses. It's not impossible to exploit them.
And on the RLC, I agree that they, as well as the DFC should be supported, but I refuse to believe that either party bears a true savior. Ron Paul succeeded as he did because he worked under the radar. Now, both wings of the Government Party are awake to the fact that there are people who will try to mobilize. Just look at how they've fought to disenfranchise C4L members that held party office...
No, the Republican Party and Democratic Party cannot be allowed to continue. It's time for a new banner for liberty.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
