One of the conservative debaters from the Libertarianism v. Conservatism debate two weeks ago, Daniel Anderson, wrote a follow-up for the Heritage blog on Friday, arguing that the debate was a celebration of the similarities between libertarianism and conservatism and the need for libertarians to not believe they are separate from conservatism. Given that Heritage has gone to great lengths to differentiate itself from libertarianism in the past (see Russel Kirk’s “A Dispassionate Assessment of Libertarians”) this post is intriguing in its desire to align libertarianism with conservatism, even by reinterpreting the debate it describes. I believe the most accurate way to reconcile Dan’s post with the explicitly contradictory message of the debate is to interpret it as a recognition of conservatism’s ideological crisis and the threat to conservatism’s very future due to the growing strength of the libertarian movement. In short, it is a recognition of libertarianism’s ideological authority and a plea for support.
The point that libertarianism and conservatism are different philosophies with drastically different origins and implications for public policy has already been highlighted by the libertarian side of the debate, Clark Ruper’s post, “Is Conservative a Dirty Word?”, and my opening letter to the SFL Annual Report. While it is true that the conservative team quoted pro-liberty authors who explicitly denounced conservatism like F.A. Hayek (see his excellent article “Why I Am Not A Conservative”), the fundamental principles between the two sides were clearly articulated as opposed to one another.
In his post, Dan raises a number of points for why he thinks libertarians ought to align with conservatives. Some of them are accurate depictions of where libertarians do align with conservatives, but several of them are deeply flawed and are actually reasons for why libertarians are very different from conservatives. Here are the points that I believe highlight the division:
- “Whether they emphasize human rights and freedoms or duties and responsibilities, they unanimously value the human person” as the center of political and social thought.” Response: Recent efforts by conservatives to enforce social mores on individuals via the government whether regarding the moral views of a particular religion or unreflective nationalism expose a deeply collectivist mentality in much of conservative ideology. The value of the individual is only preserved by maintaining the basic principle of self-ownership, which many conservatives have disregarded in recent years.
- “They oppose liberal attempts to use the State ‘to enforce ideological patterns on human beings.’” Response: Libertarians do oppose liberal attempts to use the State to enforce ideological patterns on human beings. However, we also oppose conservative attempts to do the very same thing, which has been especially problematic over the past 10 years. Contemporary conservative attempts to impose ideological patterns on humans include an ideology of sexuality, an ideology of morality, an ideology of what one may do with his/her body, and so on. Whereas conservatives insert the term “liberal” as an important qualifier for what kind of ideological patterns they oppose, libertarians have no qualifier.
- “They join in defense of the Constitution as originally conceived.” Response: Conservatives defend the Constitution as they want to conceive of it today. Libertarians defend the Constitution as a check on government power and protection of individual liberty, which requires a greater respect for individual autonomy and personal ownership than fits with conservative endorsements of civil liberties violations.
- “They are devoted to Western civilization and acknowledge the need to defend it against the messianic intentions of Communism.” Response: First, libertarianism is devoted to the basic rights of the individual and the importance of freedom to the human condition. This is not unique to Western civilization. There are many examples of libertarian thought in the East and all over the world. Second, the threat of Communism is a relic of the past. No one defends Communism in decent society anymore. It is no longer a reason to tie libertarians and conservatives together. With the end of public endorsements of Communism, libertarians are able to and ought to spend our time watching out for and challenging the more nuanced and subversive efforts to grow the state from both the left and the right.
Conservatives have long relied on libertarians for both intellectual arguments and political endorsements to maintain their movement. In particular, conservatives have called on libertarians to buy into the conservative rhetoric of economic freedom and ignore conservative restrictions on personal liberty (I will for the time being ignore the inability/lack of desire by conservative leaders to turn the rhetoric of economic freedom into substantive reform).
While it is understandable that libertarians of the older generation adopted the strategy of “fight for economic freedom now and deal with social issues later”, we should now recognize that this strategy is inherently flawed. There will always be significant threats to liberty. Just as there was never been a period in the past 50 years when enough economic liberty was achieved for libertarians to finally debate conservatives on social issues, it’s unlikely that we will achieve full economic liberty in the next 50 years. Given the perpetual threats to economic liberty, libertarians ought to take on threats to social liberty as well, which primarily come from the right. Libertarians are not opposed to liberals in the same way as conservatives. Libertarians are opposed to statism, which is present on both the left and the right. As much as libertarians ought to play nice with conservatives, we need to play nice with liberals as well.
For the past ten years, the nation has faced threats from both the left and the right sides of the political spectrum that are larger than the subtle similarities that caused previous libertarian generations to side one way or another. Conservative support for TARP under Bush, backing of individual mandates to purchase health insurance when proposed by a Republican, opposition to equal rights for homosexuals, and endorsement for an over-extended war, are very recent and real threats to liberty that libertarians cannot resolve by siding with either red team or blue team. If libertarians join exclusively with one side or another, the nation will likely fail to address these invasions of the individual’s autonomy with sound solutions. Libertarians and conservatives are not of the same ilk. Conservatives who want to work with libertarians need to first admit this fundamental truism and then either seek our support on the issues where we can find agreement, or reform their inaccurate views.
The type of discourse seen during the intern event is important for further exploration of both the shared policy stances and the differing principles underlying both ideologies. But in a time when the ideals of liberty are under attack from both the right and the left, friends of liberty must stand up for what liberty truly means and call out those who only invoke liberty for their pet issues. Only by preserving the full meaning of liberty and working with both the left and the right as tactical allies without fully associating with either can we ensure that the freedom, safety and happiness we experience today will be there for ourselves and our children in the years to come.
I commend Dan and Heritage for seeking out libertarians to support conservative efforts. Recognizing the strength of the libertarian movement is the first step towards correcting the many errors of contemporary conservative leaders. Indeed, I am more than happy to collaborate with conservatives. I believe there are many well-intentioned, limited government conservatives out there. But neither SFL, myself, or libertarianism, is “a faction of conservatism” as Dan writes. In fact, as the tone of the post makes clear, there should be no expectation on the part of conservatives that libertarians will support their actions or ideas. The plea from Heritage for libertarians to support their cause emphasizes the historical reliance of conservatives on libertarian individuals and ideas; for our active support in defense of economic liberty and for our passive silence on social liberty. Yet it also emphasizes our fundamentally different principles and the strength of the libertarian movement today.
Thankfully, we are defined by our own beliefs, not the assertions of an outside organization. I can only hope that conservatives will take this lesson to heart and revise their strategy for working with libertarians. Collaboration is certainly possible. However, it needs to be identified for what it really is: collaboration between two different movements, not the internal workings of a single belief system.
Of course, watch the full debate here if you haven’t seen it yet:
Libertarianism v Conservatism Debate from Students For Liberty on Vimeo.
Pingback: True Economic Liberty: Not a Conservative Idea
Referring to the video of the debate, I'm annoyed that nobody called out the conservatives only using half of Madison's "if men were angels quote". They cut quotes in half the same way they would cut liberty in half. The full quote goes on to say "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." There is not one government on the face of the earth that is not run by the same unangelic men that conservatives are so concerned with herding. Its as if individuals are clueless, but if you get enough of them together and call them government they suddenly become all wise and all-knowing.
Another thing that annoys me is that the conservatives referred to our Founders as if they too were conservatives. But tell me, just exactly what were the Founders conserving? Monarchism, or the divine right of kings? Serfdom perhaps? Colonialism? No they were not conservatives. In fact, the Great Seal of the US designed in 1782 has the Latin phrase "norvo ordus seclorum" which means "A new world for all time", or a "new age for the ages". That's because in their time, their ideas were new and radical and revolutionary. There was nothing traditional about the ideas of the Declaration of Independence that for the first time declared to the world the sovereignty of the individual and that the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Conservatism is not a philosophy- its an approach. You can be conservative if the thing you are conserving is worthy. But that cannot be your philosophical foundation. If a new idea comes along, is it rejected solely on the basis that its new?
Where conservatives seem to agree w/ libertarians, it is because our classically liberal founders instituted libertarian ideas into America, making them traditional here. They hold on to a free market because it is traditional, while failing to realize the deeper philosophy of liberty underneath it. Having a world view that does not have a philosophical foundation makes your way of thinking become nuanced, because you constantly have to reevaluate where you may stand on a host of issues that are old, new, traditional, nontraditional, etc. Libertarians firmly believe in liberty, and that philosophy is consistent, so no matter what the issue, whatever is in the best interest of liberty is where the libertarian will align himself.
Well put jppuertorico85, thanks for the comment.
Great post, Alexander. Interesting points, James.
Nicely said.