Why and how you should work with them.
By Julian Sanchez
Tuesday January 30, 2007
For the past half century, the American political landscape has been defined by an uneasy alliance between small-government libertarians and social traditionalists. United under the banner of “fusionism“ (a political label coined, as so many seem to be, by one of its critics), this improbable coalition of iconoclastic Oscars and fastidious Felixes came to define the conservative movement for the Cold War era. That movement is coming undone.
By the middle of George W. Bush’s first term, rumblings about a conservative crack-up were already being heard on the right. Now—after six years of single-party rule marked by ballooning budgets, homophobic demagoguery, religiously-inflected moral preening, catastrophic military adventurism, casual contempt for civil liberties, and a view of executive power that would make Caesar blush—many of us are ready to jump ship. Last month, noting that progressive blogger Markos “Kos” Mouslitsas had already declared himself a “libertarian Democrat, Brink Lindsey of the libertarian Cato Institute made waves with a New Republic essay proposing a new “liberaltarian” coalition.
The response from the left thus far has been, to put it politely, unenthusiastic. (It probably doesn’t help that “liberaltarian” may be the most cringe-inducing neologism since the New York Times coined “hipublican.”) But the real test of a political coalition’s viability is in practice, not theory. If it’s too soon to pick out drapes, it may at least be worth trying dinner, a movie, and a protest rally. College progressives can take the first step by seeking ad-hoc, issue-specific opportunities for cooperation with their libertarian counterparts on campus.
Your first thought may be: “Why bother? If I want to be called a commie, I can watch Fox News. If I want to hear someone quote at length from Ayn Rand… well, I’ll never want that.” But progressives have much to gain from reaching out to libertarians, and this may be an especially crucial time to try it.
Consider the findings of a recent study by the libertarian Cato Institute, which pegged the proportion of the electorate with broadly libertarian attitudes at about 13 percent. Statistics for the general population show that voters under 30 preferred Kerry to Bush, 54-45 percent. But according to the Cato study, libertarians in the same age bracket broke for Kerry by a whopping 71-24 percent. That’s in sharp contrast to older libertarian voters, who preferred Bush by about the same margin. It’s also a sharp reversal from 2000, when younger libertarians favored Bush almost as strongly.
Why the sudden swing? Well, it’s a political science truism that party preferences tend to get locked-in at a young age, forming the basis of lifelong voting habits. One natural way to read those numbers, then, is that older libertarians with fond memories of Goldwater or Reagan were willing to stay in the conservative coalition, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the GOP has abandoned small government principles, while their younger counterparts aren’t locked-in yet.
An unflinching look at the effectiveness of resistance to the war in Iraq might suggest another potential benefit of ideological hybridization. High-profile events like anti-war rallies may be satisfying to the people who participate in them, but a look at opinion polls on how the general public views them reveals an uncomfortable truth: They’re more likely to increase the average person’s support for a war than diminish it. It’s a safe bet that protests staged by radical groups like ANSWER had, if anything, the opposite of their intended effect.
Part of the problem, as the libertarian activists who staged a Guns for Tots event in Harlem could tell you, is that groups of people with strong, shared ideological commitments tend to develop a species of political tone-deafness. When brandishing a “Bush=Hitler” placard makes fellow in-group members think you’re bold, it’s easy to forget that it makes most everyone else think you’re insane. This feeds into people’s strong pre-existing temptation to pigeonhole political positions in binary categories, which makes it easier to ignore them. Hence, marijuana decriminalization ends up being regarded as a “leftist” cause, even though libertarians, and the conservative National Review, also support it.
Making common cause with libertarians, where this is possible, helps on both counts. Being forced to craft talking points in collaboration with people who hold a very different general worldview forces both sides to examine what aspects of their message might inadvertently alienate others. Each side will have arguments that might never have occurred to the other, allowing them to appeal to a much broader audience than either could have alone. And the mere fact that otherwise opposed groups are presenting a united front on a given issue makes their concerns harder to dismiss. In 2005, for instance, the Columbia University chapter of the ACLU worked with Columbia’s student libertarian group to sponsor a talk by Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News analyst and a fierce opponent of the Patriot Act. Noam Chomsky might have brought in a larger crowd, but how many people who didn’t already agree with him would have been motivated to attend with an open mind?
Suppose, then, you’re convinced that a little cross-ideological love fest is at least worth a shot. How do you go about it? Here are three broad suggestions.
Separate people from policies. Hardcore libertarians are going to believe a lot of things you find at least deeply misguided, and quite possibly appalling. Larval-stage libertarians may even take a certain pleasure in trumpeting the least popular of these in the most blunt, undiplomatic way possible. Many of them will believe, for instance, that private employers (though not government) should be legally permitted to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation. The vast majority of these folks, believe it or not, nevertheless find these practices every bit as repugnant as you do. They do not have white pointy hoods hidden under their beds: They just place greater weight on freedom of association relative to substantive equality, and are more sanguine about the ability of market forces and public shaming to curtail such behavior. They’ll tend to oppose government social programs, minimum wage hikes, or attempts to restrict trade in order to promote better labor standards abroad. Repeat to yourself, if necessary: This is not because they secretly despise the poor, but because they have a different view of the economic effects of such policies.
A related suggestion: Don’t “educate.” What most people would describe as trying to persuade people of their views, progressives sometimes characterize as “educating the public” about an issue. To those who disagree, this can sound kind of obnoxious. Make your baseline assumption that libertarians, just by dint of being on a modern American college campus, understand your views at least as well as you understand theirs. Assume disagreements are just that, disagreements, not symptoms of “ignorance.” When necessary, agree to disagree, and move on to something more fruitful.
Be an agreement entrepreneur. There are some obvious areas where most progressives and most libertarians are already on the same page, such as reproductive freedom, censorship, the drug war, and unconstitutional government surveillance. But there are plenty of other issues that have been branded as property of “the right,” even though progressives could just as easily join in like opposition to “pork” spending, which is seen as part of the right’s brand, despite the promiscuous earmarking of Republicans like Ted “Bridge to Nowhere” Stevens, and even though much pork is pure corporate welfare. Hunt for these points of untapped consensus.
Be narrow-minded. If you’ve done a moderate amount of activism, you’ve almost certainly been to a kitchen-sink protest. You know the type: Nominally, people are rallying against (say) pre-emptive war, but half the marchers are carrying signs bemoaning the plight of Mumia Abu-Jamal, and half the speakers are delivering jeremiads against corporate-driven globalization and genetically modified crops. Events or initiatives that draw in libertarians need substantially more focus. On a range of issues, you may want to consider which components of your message are essential, and which you’re willing to omit for the sake of building a broader coalition.
Say, for instance, you want to stage a campaign to promote awareness about and support for GLBT rights. If that means demanding that marriage laws treat gay and straight couples equally, insisting that the military admit openly gay soldiers, shaming companies with discriminatory policies, and exhorting individuals to examine their own heteronormative attitudes, libertarians will largely be on board. If it means pushing for an expansion of hate speech laws or statutes prohibiting discrimination by private employers, many of them will jump ship. Sometimes it will be worth narrowing your message to bring them on board, and sometimes it won’t. Either way, though, you’ll want to make the decision consciously and with full awareness of the tradeoffs.
As should already be apparent, forging a libertarian/liberal coalition, even on issues where they’re already inclined to agree, will not be easy, nor is it guaranteed to succeed. The present moment of political flux may be a historical inflection point, prelude to a massive political realignment and a new brand of “fusionism.” It may be just a brief hiccup, after which the old patterns reassert themselves. Or it may be that our chances of avoiding the second possibility depend on our willingness, liberal and libertarian alike, to take a chance on trying to effectuate the first.
Julian Sanchez is a Washington, D.C. based writer and a contributing editor for Reason magazine. You can read his blog here.
--------
Comments
Beautiful ideas beautifully written. As a Libertarian who came to it from the left, it’s wonderful to see the growing recognition that progressives and libertarians have a whole lot of common cause. The fundamental outlook of both perspectives is that people must be free to live their lives according to their own needs and desires, not subjects to the desires of some self-appointed master. Any issue where decentralization of power is the prescription is one where we are likely to agree.
— Sean Haugh - Jan 30, 10:44 PM - #Well-written article; good advice and ideas. And yeah… Ayn Rand is a joke.
— Kevin Morris - Jan 31, 12:44 AM - #Any viable grounds for cooperation, as you say, would not only have to be issue specific, but even further, only advocate a narrow set of possible ways to address that issue. I think there are very few cases in which that would be fruitful grounds for cooperation.
— Niral - Jan 31, 10:34 AM - #More to the point though, I think all this ‘liberaltarian’ stuff is noticing a generation gap more than a novel alignment of interests. Whether there is a concerted effort at cross-ideological cooperation or not, by the time this generation has access to power, these same issues will probably be addressed from a more socially liberal perspective anyway.
Not to block out the possibility of this with my own preconceived notions of who libertarians are, but when is the last time anyone met a libertarian eager to engage in collective action? While there may be principled libertarians out there who are annoyed by socially conservative legislation, it rarely provokes the kind of indignation that drives progressives to respond. I guess I am generalizing, but on college campuses, the libertarian label is in large part just that – a label. Politically disengaged students who have a generational-cultural gap with their parents on social issues but otherwise are completely in line with the conservative economics politics they grew up with choose to be “libertarian” instead of apathetic. Its slightly better, I guess, but not necessarily great grounds for cooperation.
Well, here are two more possibilities I didn’t have time to mention for space reasons. There’s a protest being held in New York today to demand the release of blogger Kareem Amer, who’s been held by Egyptian authorities since November for publishing unpopular views. That’s been led up by libertarians, but progressives should be fully on board. Also, I recognize there’s a variety of opinions on the left about the Kelo decision, but presumably y’all are as opposed as we are to the abuse of eminent domain to seize people’s homes and hand them over to private, for-profit corporations like Pfizer. Most of the outrage has come from the right, because it’s cast as a “property rights” issue, but it’s another place where there could be case-by-case collaboration.
— Julian Sanchez - Jan 31, 11:16 AM - #The Egyptian blogger is an interesting case, but its really a question of whether the US should continue to support Mubarak’s government. I’m not sure progressives (or any groups) have a unified position on that (a US-friendly authoritarian vs. the inevitably Islamist democratic alternative), and I wasn’t aware libertarians were that into civil rights issues abroad (but maybe thats a broader area of possible cooperation?).
— Niral - Jan 31, 11:27 AM - #As for Kelo, I worked against eminent domain seizures in Jersey a couple summers ago. The libertarians talked about property rights, the progressives talked about evicting people for the purpose of corporate handouts. Neither accomplished anything.
Over here, we don’t really feel the urge to re-think our politics. Maybe if libertarians changed their tack, and protested corporate welfare more than they did social welfare, they could come join the progressives.
Niral, you’re simply wrong. There’s serious energy among libertarian minded students for organization, if only left-wing groups on campus could stop being so goddamned obnoxious all the time.
Collective action is all well and good – it’s these patronizing notions of “educating the masses” or “by any means necessary” that turn off libertarians and those with similar leanings.
They’re much more likely to join you for a protest than for, say, a hunger strike or a sit-in.
As for not having enough points of agreement — pretty much any issue involving social liberalism is up for grabs. If you can’t make anything work, the only narrowness is likely that of your imagination.
The real narrowness I see, frankly, is from self-described ‘progressives’ — issues that they should be supporting, such as Christopher Hitchens’ rally of support at the Danish embassy in Washington DC, mostly attracted libertarian and ‘classical liberal’ support, but progressives should have come out in droves for something as fundamental as the right of free speech, the right of blasphemy, and the right to offend.
— Joe - Feb 1, 02:32 AM - #Libertarians are caste and heirarchy defenders. The fact that they viewed the anti-ERA, anti-civil rights Reagan as a hero says it all.
— Quantum Mechanic - Feb 2, 12:47 PM - #There are plenty of libertarians who view Reagan negatively (his escalation of the War on Drugs, for example, has done permanent harm to the country) or who don’t care much about him at all. I think that liberals’ tendency to stereotype those who disagree with them is a huge barrier to any coalition.
— Anna - Feb 2, 01:01 PM - #Some things are really troubling about this: * First and foremost, why all the focus on libertarians? Most campus libertarian groups I’ve seen are majority white and/or boys — a demographic the Dems have covered plenty. Isn’t it MUCH more important that “progressives” reach out to and support student of color organizations? Feminist organizations? Queer organizations? Why focus on broadening your base by compromising with pseudo-Republicans when there are SO MANY other groups that “progressives” need to support on campus much more? * Being “narrow minded” means not understanding how issues are interrelated. People talk about corporate globalization at antiwar rallies because we need to build a mutually-supportive broad & deep movement if we ever want serious social change, NOT superficial single-issue coalition (these are only useful for short-term, highly focused campaigns). * Your points about not alienating those who disagree are important (we need to persuade everybody eventually…), but a lot of folks take that logic too far and imagine a movement of monotone suit-wearing politicians being utterly PC and striving to appear moderate…. this is a boring/uninspiring and exclusive way to organize a movement. Not sure if that was on your mind as you wrote this piece.
— jack - Feb 2, 01:17 PM - #There are major issues that progressives and libertarians should be in almost uniform agreement on, like civil liberties, free speech, etc.
There’s also the war.
— TH - Feb 4, 02:45 AM - #Wait, campus progressives are bad because they’re so “obnoxious” but you’re angry at them because they didn’t support your pet cause of supporting some Danish racists under the guise of “the right to offend?” “By any means necessary” is a “patronizing notion” but “free speech is absolute; I have the right to be offensive” is a sample of intellectual rationality? Libertarian med student, heal thyself.
— August J. Pollak - Feb 5, 12:17 AM - #Jack:
Do you really think the left needs to reach out more to queer groups and racial minority groups? Where else are they going to go? In my experience, among the politically active on campus, the queer, feminist, and race based groups are the most actively supported and promoted groups by those who like to make noise about issues on campus. It is precicely the white boys who tune out after seeing all the activism around them on issues they don’t care about. If you could motivate the apathetic and quietly outraged majority of students on campus with a message that isn’t just “support this left wing cause,” you could form quite a powerful group for change.
— Juan - Feb 6, 03:14 AM - #This is a great article. I would really like to see these two groups getting along more often. Well written and makes some really great points. I always wondered why so many libertarians see themselves as psudo-conservative when in reality, they are closer to liberals on a four point chart (though not much closer) [[http://freedomdemocrats.org/files/2006%20Nolan%20Chart.GIF]]
I really think it is because conservitave groups tend to reach out to and cooperate with libertarians more often. I hope this changes, for purely selfish reasons (I find the idea that I’m joining hands with neocons to be insufferable)
Niral: Ouch. I am a libertarian, and I am far more likely to show up to a protest about increasing civil rights/social freedoms than to a protest about economic freedom. You paint with too broad of a brush. And if you believe campus libertarian’s are “politically disengaged” or “apathetic,” ask yourself why so many people on college campuses are tired of hearing about Ron Paul though bumper stickers, posters, signs and the internet. If anything proves that libertarians are a powerful force when energized, it is that.
August/Joe: Don’t confuse that “obnoxious” thing with a personal insult to progressive individuals. Last semester I lived in a co-op with the coolest group of kids on campus, nearly all progressive. It is the progressive clubs and political groups that act obnoxious, bent on “educating” me about their viewpoints on a topic I already know about. The article is right about that. For the most part, it isn’t the policies or the individuals that I find annoying, just the assumption of ignorance. Wouldn’t you be rubbed the wrong way by any group that assumed you were incurably dense?
— Lehua Makai - Jan 18, 10:50 PM - #Federal Agency of Governmental Communication and Information ,
— Alec - May 30, 09:10 AM - #