Conservatives and libertarians struggle to understand how we fit with each other’s ideological frameworks.
Most conservatives envision a sliding scale of political ideologies, with totalitarianism on the far left, anarchy on the far right, and conventional republican and democrat positions scattered in between. Libertarianism is often shoved to the right of conservatism as an afterthought. To accommodate libertarianism, many political scientists think that separate scales are needed for social and fiscal issues, such as the famous Nolan Chart and the World’s Smallest Political Quiz.
These efforts, while valiant, have left us laymen of the political debate unsatisfied. The prominence of the Tea Party has demanded an intellectual effort be made to reconcile conservatism and libertarianism.
In this attempt, Jonah Goldberg and Matt Welch recently debated the question, “are libertarians part of the conservative movement?”
Goldberg, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and Editor-at-Large of National Review Online, argues that the libertarian movement is a “part of the broader American conservative movement’s push for limited government.” Matt Welch, Editor in Chief of libertarian Reason Magazine, vehemently disagrees, holding that libertarianism is incompatible with traditional conservatism.
Welch says that conservatives are only entertaining the question of libertarian inclusion because the Republican Party “lost power,” they are “bleeding market share,” and America is “becoming increasingly more libertarian.”
Goldberg was willing to concede that “libertarianism is not part of the conservative movement except for four minor points; and they are that historically, philosophically, politically, and practically” they are the same movement.
In a similar debate printed in the August/September 2010 Reason Magazine, Goldberg calls out libertarians for their refusal to reconcile with their conservative counterparts.
At the intellectual level… economic libertarianism remains largely synonymous with economic conservatism. The Mount Rushmore of libertarian economics—Hayek, Friedman, Mises, Hazlitt, et al—quite simply is the Mount Rushmore of conservative economics.
Symbolic of the greater debate, Goldberg and Welch are talking at cross terms. While libertarians like Welch want to preserve their intellectual identity, the better question to be asked is if the libertarian movement can strategically afford to NOT be a part of the conservative movement?
Cutting ties with the conservative movement and the Republican Party could be crippling for the libertarian movement. Many young people find libertarianism through the economic giants which conservatism shares with libertarianism or through Republican elected officials such as Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
Conversely, can the conservative movement afford to lose the libertarians? While it is understandable for conservatives to get frustrated with the rabble-rousing, free market-loving libertarians, pushing them away could mean the loss of a significant voting bloc. As Goldberg said, “you can’t pull out the libertarians and leave the conservative movement standing in America.”
The answer to both is no. While it is fine to talk about and appreciate the differences between libertarians and conservatives, in our current political climate, its clear conservatives and libertarians need each other. Such talk of divorcing the movement is a distraction from what should be our one and only focus this year – making Barack Obama a one-term president.
About Jacqueline Otto
Libertarians aren’t part of the conservative movement, libertarianism has it’s roots in Marxist theory, it’s just another one false premise, a trap to ensnare those who might not fall for communism or socialism.. the Marxists lay out their traps to slowly divide capitalists, from their former loyalities to their previous loyalities to their western constitutionalist countries, and become addicted to subsidies, the abusive policies of totalitarian states, when they are allowed to exploit such conditions, and so on. Libertarians view the government as the enemy, they don’t like the US constitution, or bill of rights, they view rights as something one sided, that they can exploit, they don’t feel obliged to respect those rights in others. While most libertarians will deny it, the insanity that is Bill Maher exemplifies what libertarianism is.
Like neo-conservativism, libertarianism was created by Marxists, the founder of that misguided ideology, Rothbard’s stated aim was to do away with western governments (he was silent about communist and socialst states) and allow corporations and various other powerful entities to run things globally.. libertarians are a disease, and are leftist in origin, they have nothing in common with conservatives, or representative forms of government, rights and freedoms.
Totally off-base. Libertarians support maximum freedom and believe that the government’s purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens. This is a view that was shared by the Founders. Libertarians, more than anyone else, are the ones fighting FOR the Constitution. Look at the politicians who are generally considered libertarian: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, etc… they’re the ones evaluating everything the government does in terms of whether the Constitution permits it. Meanwhile “conservatives” like G.W. Bush are saying it’s just a piece of paper. The entire basis of libertarianism is respecting the rights of others – hence the belief that basically all behaviors (depending on how “pure” a libertarian you are) should be legal as long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of others.
Ironically, libertarian principles such as free markets, upholding civil liberties, and a non-interventionist foreign policy were what was considered “conservative” for decades. It’s only recently that being “conservative” has come to mean supporting the PATRIOT Act, reckless foreign invasions, bailouts, and unfunded entitlements. By historical standards, someone like Ron Paul is far, far more conservative than the mainstream GOP fare of Romney, Pawlenty, Rubio, etc.
And Bill Maher may have claimed at one point to be a libertarian, but his support for Obama and John Kerry and various big-government policies suggest he was either insincere or very misguided in his usage of the term.
Negative. Libertarians do not need conservatives. Conservatives are becoming increasingly worried (rightfully so) about their “ideology” losing ground and have been trying to offer this flawed fusionist argument for decades. Libertarians do not need conservatives because we are not conservatives.
My impression: The way I saw it, the tnierlariabs simply made fewer mistakes than the conservatives. Both sides sounded flawed. The conservatives shot themselves in the foot when it came to general logos, namely on the drug issue. More powerful conservative debaters certainly exist. Likewise, despite sounding “smarter,” the tnierlariabs made themselves come off as amoral, hostile to virtue, elitist, and borderline anarchic. It is the sort of patronizing presentation that will crush a libertarian when it comes to addressing mainstream America* ; of the negative ethos that sentences you to 3rd party irrelevance by decree of the median voter. More powerful libertarian persuaders certainly exist. I was reminded of Rachel Maddow. Too much passion, reliance on strawman, and above all else, too much hostility for the opposing view. They would’ve gained points by taking care to sound equally calm as the conservatives. Both teams need to keep practicing. The conservatives most definitely, but the tnierlariabs are not exempt. Its not what you say, its how you say it. ~David~ *[believe it or not, the audience of "mainstream" America primarily consists of apolitical individuals *not* in the 18-34 year demographic. If you can't frame your philosophy in a manner that'd get ma and pa from Kentucky on board, nothing you say matters. Regardless of your believes, you must *sound* like you hold their values. Candidate Obama knew this. When will tnierlariabs understand?]