What a Mess: Conservatism and Libertarianism
This article is part of an ongoing series exploring the tensions between, coalitions within, and futures of conservatism and libertarianism. We are looking at ideas that divide conservatives and libertarians, as well as ideas that bring them together.
Last week I made a confession:
Social conservatives accuse me of being too libertarian, libertarians accuse me of being too socially conservative. My political affiliation on Facebook used to be "free-market capitalist," but then I changed it to simply "freedom." A libertarian friend of mine once told me that I just don't like labels that have any "meaning," which might make me a Type 4, according to Mr. Carter's typology—a Christian who is really a conservative, but doesn't like the label conservative.
I said that "The differences between conservatism and libertarianism are details through which I have been sorting for years," and I resolved to dedicate my Tuesday column to the tensions between, coalitions within, and futures of conservatism and libertarianism.
We are going to look at ideas that divide conservatives and libertarians, as well as ideas that bring them together. We are going to look at arguments for fusionism, and listen to voices who vote for separation. We are going to read interesting books, talk to key people, and throw in some cultural commentary along the way.
People have to ask these questions. I have to ask these questions, because asking these questions is taking a risk with what I believe. It makes some of my most closely held ideas vulnerable. Guest writing for SingleRoots.com on the topic "career and adventure" I said:
There is something about risking everything that builds character. I am a better person, with more flavorful experiences, and more deeply held convictions than I would have otherwise been if I didn’t take that risk. [You'll have to read the post to find out what risk I was talking about!]
You're right—it sounds so messy. It's going to get uncomfortable, and we'll probably get all turned around—like spelunking through a creedal cave with speculative stalactites of philosophy bearing down on us and skeletons of our ideas scattered about. Writing expert Jeff Goins says that this is good:
Often, we want to wait for perfection before pursuing our craft. We want to clean the desk before going to work. To empty our inbox before we begin writing. But often, this is just stalling.
If we’re waiting for perfect, we’re kidding ourselves. Life is messy. And if we’re going to do meaningful work, we’re going to have to enter the mess.
So let's enter the mess that is going to be this column. If you are interested in the areas of conservatism and libertarianism, please join the conversation. You can leave a comment with a question or an idea below—there are already some great ones on post "On the Right Side of the Schism."
Also send your questions to Values and Capitalism or me, Jacqueline Otto, on Twitter.
9 people are talking about this
You sound like me. For forty years I've considered myself a libertarian, but find myself cringing at some of the current libertarian strategies and wishing libertarians were a little more conservative. Here is an article I recently wrote for example: http://constitutionparti.blogspot.com/2012/03/rick-santorum-for-grand-in...
Anyway, how do I join the conversation?
Hi Brian! Thanks for your comment. Jacqueline Otto's column will be published every Tuesday at our blog. Here's the latest post: http://valuesandcapitalism.com/dialogue/politics/what-we-gain-if-we-can-ditch-our-labels.
I have some recommendations for the column:
1) Define the terms under consideration. There are varieties of both conservatism and libertarianism. Before comparing the two, it is perhaps best either to pick out the varieties under consideration (in which case it is understood that not all conservatisms and all libertarianisms are under consideration, at least not at any given moment) or to define some generic versions. The latter can be difficult because people will disagree over what one should include in those generic versions, especially if there is no discernible "core"--that is, if the varieties actually disagree with each other in some fundamental ways.
2) Distinguish between ethical theories and policy recommendations; and between policy recommendations for a state or local government and for the federal government; and then compare like to like. To give a generic hypothetical, let's say that conservatism demands an objection, on constitutional grounds, to the federal government wielding some power X; and that libertarianism demands an objection, on the basis of the natural law, to government at any level wielding X. In this case, whatever disagreements there might be, there is at least some agreement on federal policy with regard to X. So, philosophical differences notwithstanding, conservatives and libertarians can agree (at least in this hypothetical) on some particular policy at some level of government.
3) Do not assume that the same word used by different groups necessarily means the same thing; and if it does not, distinguish between the various meanings before comparing the ideas of the groups. I've found that a word like "self-interest" can trip up discussions about conservatism and libertarianism.
4) As a general rule, allow the adherents to a philosophy define it, not the detractors. If there's something in the philosophy that the adherents do not express but only the detractors, then ensure that it follows from the premises expressed by the adherents themselves. I get a lot more from reading conservatives on conservatism and libertarians on libertarianism than I do from reading conservatives on libertarianism or libertarians on conservatism. This is not to say that outsiders have nothing to add, though I do think that informed critics can be hard to find.
Great parameters you have suggested.
While I believe in liberty as much as anyone, I do not consider myself a libertarian. I do not call myself a conservative either (I refer myself as a traditionalist) because I do not agree with much of what goes by the name "conservatism" these days. I prefer Russell Kirk, the 12 Southerners, Thomas Fleming, Clyde Wilson & Pat Buchanan to the neoconservatists that seem to be in charge at present. As far as libertarianism is concerned, I believe that if followed to its logical conlusions, it leads to Ayn Rand, Harry Browne, Robert Ringer and others who take individualism and self-interest to extremes and leads to anarchism. I have enjoyed reading the series on Christian Libertarianism, but I'm still not sure the two are compatible. Ludwig von Mises seems to support this: “A living Christianity,” said Mises, “cannot exist side by side with, and within, Capitalism.” I am not against capitalism, but I'm not an uncritical supporter as so many seem to be at present. I personally believe that the answer may lie in some third way, such as distributism. As Chesterton said, “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”
Given that fewer people believe in free markets today in America than in China, according to polling by GlobeScan and others - and given that at the same time we have seen historically high levels of agreement with opposition to abortion even among young people - isn't the failure of fusionism really just a failure of free market supporters to make their case?
I would love to follow this discussion.
I am no longer I conservative politically, and would find myself most comfortably in a more "Right Libertarian" understanding of things. I'm often in tension with those who would be more "Left Libertarian", however, at the moment, I'm more comfortable having these tensions than being fully conservative.
However, I sympathize with the conservative social concerns. Many of these spring up from my Christian understandings. Indeed, in my personal life, and in the life of the Church, I am conservative.
So how do I follow the discussion?
Hi Joseph -- Jacqueline Otto's column will be published every Tuesday at our blog. Here's the latest post: http://valuesandcapitalism.com/dialogue/politics/what-we-gain-if-we-can-ditch-our-labels.
2. Eliminate all restrictions on the cayrnirg of firearms, and re-establish the citizens' militia.3. Make airline pilots and all other transport captains part of this militia by permitting all such persons to carry firearms on duty.3. Eliminate any no-pets rules (and especially no DOGS rules). The citizens' militia must have a K-9 component.4. Eliminate all restrictions on the use of herbal or other natural products and derivatives. (For example, anyone preparing food for sale should be allowed to sweeten it, if desired, with stevia.) This also includes removing any legal or other impediments to the practice of "alternative medicine," subject ONLY to FULL DISCLOSURE of the practitioner's theories, practices, composition of any herbal blends, potions, etc.5. Eliminate any and all restrictions on "home schooling."6. Abolish government schools.7. Privatize all mail delivery. While we're at it, eliminate "franked" mail. Congresscritters don't need it anymore; they've got the senate.gov and house.gov domains, and I'm getting "franked e-mail" already. I don't object--so long as I don't have to pay for every piece of it.8. Phase out Social Security. (I would hope that Medicare would wither on the vine through the encouragement of alternative medicine.)9. Sell all government land that does not go specifically to the purposes listed in Clause I.8.17 of the Constitution (capital district, "needful buildings") This also includes handing airport security and air traffic control back to private contractors.10. Create a system of private-property interests in all portions of the electromagnetic spectrum presently used for communication, and abolish the FCC.
Join the Discussion