Hmmm, after a whole week of fantastic traffic, it has suddenly gone down through the floor today, so I better act quickly and post something really provocative - an old anti-Libertarian screed that is bound to attract trolls (and traffic)....
Much of the stuff on this blog is based on the bimodal (bipolar?) view of the world: there are Conservatives and there are Liberals, and that's it. Lakoff, Ducat, Frank and the like spend much time explaining the two, or just trying to explain the strange Conservative animals to the Liberals.
But, as I stated before, only about a third of Americans are core Conservatives and another third are core Liberals. What about the remaining third? Also, as only about a half of Americans vote, does one group or another tend to be over- or under- represented in the voting booth? Are Conservatives more likely not to vote, but Rove managed to lure them out of their lairs in sufficient numbers to win this time? Is the proportion at the polls skewing our notions of their proportion in the general population? The polls, after all, screen for "likely voters". Who knows what is the ratio among the screened-off, the "unlikely voters"? Since the Fundies have taken over the GOP and are quickly building a fascist theocracy, it is an immediate goal of the Democratic Party, the only other powerful political force as faulty as it is, to figure out the way to save the World by getting the middle third to vote for Dems.
It is practically impossible to get the core Conservative third - they are just apparently lost to reason, for deep psychological reasons (http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/12/conservatives-are-crazy-and-dangerous.html), and although they need to go visit the shrink pronto, those are the kinds of people least likely to do so, as "seeking help" is one of the emasculating "no-no's" in their deeply femiphobic world. Thus, "moving to the Right" or appealing to the economic self-interest will take us nowhere. Before I start thinking about the "middle third", let me give you some very smart thoughts by other people about the difference between Left and Right - please don'e be lazy to click on the links, these are worth your while:
The Progressive Agenda
http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2004/12/the_progressive.html
Dining with the rhinos
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/120104Bageant/120104bageant.html
Some Epistemology
http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2004/01/some_epistemolo.html
"Rhinoceros" in America
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/12/rhinoceros_in_a.html
On the possibility of getting through to the right
http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2004/12/on_the_possibil.html
The Left2Right Blog Phenomenon
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/12/sociology_of_bl.html
The dialogue continues on whether dialogue is worthwhile
http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2004/12/the_dialogue_co.html
This reminds me of something I wrote about 18 months ago on the Edwards primary blog:
If your party's goal is to steal from the poor and give to the rich, and,
If there are a few rich and many poor people in the country, and,
If the power is decided by elections in which majority decides, and,
If the majority of the poor do not like the idea of giving money to the minority of the rich, then,
The only way to get elected is to lie.
So, now that you have enjoyed a few minutes of sound logical explanations why Left is right and Right is wrong (and evil), let's try to look at the Middle and especially at Libertarians.
Lakoff explains the Conservative and the Liberal core models in terms of family models applied to the Government. The Conservatives are raised in Strict Father families and like Strict Father government, while Liberals are raised in Nurturant Parent families and like Nurturant Parent government. According to Lakoff, there are no Moderates, there are only people (Independents, Undecideds?) who are capable of switching between the two modes and/or use both modes in different areas of life [he also mentions the rare animal - the pragmatic: someone who is firmly conservative or liberal but is capable of making compromises in short term in order to attain long-term goals. I guess I am a liberal pragmatist in a way: http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/12/in-defense-of-pragmatism.html]. Thus, invocation of 9/11, War on Terror and the Politics of Fear invoked the Strict Father model in most of them, thus Bush won. The Democratic Party, in order to win, needs to trigger the Nurturant Parent model instead, which is exactly NOT possible to do by triangulation, appeasement, and caving in to macho foreign policy, anti-abortion, or whatever right-wing agenda has been proposed for adoption by Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the DLC cretins.
Libertarians, according to Lakoff, are on a far-off radial deviation from the Conservative core. Many prominent libertarians (e.g., Dan Drezner, Mike Munger) did not like, nor did they vote for Bush as far as I know, but they could not stomach Kerry either. Thus, libertarians are essentially conservative and retain the conservative core in economic sphere, while they have also adopted some aspects of the liberal core, particularly in the social sphere. Thought this way, the libertarians are just one special case of the Independents in the middle third.
But there is another lurking question: do the in-betweens, including libertarians, frame the government in the family mode? Ducat thinks they do. He explains it through the psychoanalytic term of "transference". Every adult feels transference towards the government in one way or another: conservatives like the abusive father and despise the loving mother, both in their personal lives and in their view of the government, which is clearly pathological. Liberals, on the other hand, want to put a restraining order on the abusive father and love their loving mother, both in personal lives and in government, quite a rational thing to do. People in the middle, the Undecideds, want both - they want their government to be both like a harsh father and like a loving mother. They want both the 'daddy state' and the 'mommy state', and are always grumbling how there is no real choice between the two parties in American politics because the two parties are such polar opposites: one provides pure testosterone, the other oozes estrogen (or is presented, actually erroneously, to do so), and the Independents are not happy with having just one or the other. How would they like a testosterone-laden Democratic party? Not at all, as it would be a 'daddy party' in which daddy is not as strong, in other words GOP daddy beats Dem daddy every time. Unfortunately, due to the GOP propaganda, they do not see that Liberal worldview is not "mommy" model, which I have explained at length before (http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/09/nurturant-is-not-coddly.html).
Ducat writes:
"Democrats, especially those who identify as liberal or
progressive, tend to see the 'maternal', caretaking functions of government as
most important. Thus, when out of power, they have a negative paternal
transference to the government, which can be seen as a malevolent, abusive
father." ("The Wimp Factor", p.237)
When Republicans are out of power, they have a negative maternal transference to the government, as they see it as a weak, ineffective mother. Thus they rail against the government. Once they assume power, they change its facade - it is a phallic macho government now, so it is good. "No more national nanny - daddy's in charge now".
But here is something ineteresting. Ducat separates Libertarians from the rest of the Undecided herd and explains them in a separate manner:
"Libertarians, on the other hand, seem to attribute both
negative maternal and paternal qualities to the government, and insist they need
neither love nor the law from those who hold public office".(p.237)
OK, now this all sounds like types of teenage rebelion. Some rebel against the father, especially if he is a disciplinarian, some against the mother, especially if she is an ineffective as a disciplinarian, some retain good relations with both, and some very unhappy ones rebel against both. When is everyone going to grow up and come back home for Thanksgiving?
Suddenly, instead of two, we have four models of family-type transference of the government. Where do they come from? How are they caused?
Both Lakoff and Ducat think in term of fathers and their influence on their sons' gender-based emotional health and, connected to this, the political/ideoligical orientation. Sometimes, it gets a bit fuzzy what they are talking about. Let me try to develop this further.
Strict Father has quite a range of meanings, from the most colloquial sense of "strict", through Dobsonian sense of harsh, to the legal sense of abusive. This is a broad range and apparently, the differences matter. According to various longitudinal studies, the regular Joe-Sixpack Strict Father does not have the same effect as an abusive father. Both result in very negative outcomes, both socially and politically, but the abusive father is much worse than strict father. The individual responses of children will vary depending on genetics, the birth order, the behavior of the mother, siblings and other family members, and the existence (and quality) of the peer support group (e.g., gangs vs. sports teams) as well as broader society (e.g, school).
Bit, Strict Father and Nurturant Father are not the only types. There are also the Indiffent/Uninvolved Father (the next better model after Strict Father in terms of long-term outcomes), and the Indulgent/Permissive Father (the next better, just short of Nurturant Father in long-term outcomes). So, there are four basic types of fathers. Add to that the Absent Father, and the family consisitng of Two Gay Fathers (of different dispositions/childrearing styles) and it gets quite complex.
Now add to that complexity the role of the Mother, not much developed in either Lakoff's or Ducat's work. Strict Mother, Indifferent Mother, Permissive Mother, Nurturant Mother, Absent Mother, Two Mothers...how about a mother who is passive when daddy's around but a tyrant when he's gone? Each of the Mother and Father types may be alone as a single parent, or may be paired with each of the types of the other parent. Some combinations (e.g., Strict Father - Permissive Mother, or Nurturant Father - Nurturant Mother) may happen more often as such personalities would be drawn to each other, but it is safe to say that all combinations exist in various proportions.
How does each one of these combinations affect the kids? How does it affect the Eldest Son, Crown Prince, Heir of the Family Farm/Castle? How does it affect middle and younger sons? How does is affect daughters? Are different types of parents treating sons and daughters differently, while other types are more egalitarian? How come abusive fathering results in conservative sons and liberal daughters?
And, for Christ's sakes, can anyone explain Ann Coulter!@#$%^&? I am not sure, but I guess that she is not, has never been, and never will be married, or even in a serious relationship with another man. Which man wants his head chewed off after copulation? I am afraid of even thinking what kind of stuff she keeps in her bedroom for her amusement and satisfaction: some chains, police batons, stainless-steel spiky dildos, hand-held jack-hammers? (sorry for the disturbing imagery this may have caused in some of you). Here is how Freepers themselves describe Phyllis Schlafly: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2185/is_6_14/ai_106649708 , but Phyllis is nothing compared to Ann. Next to Ann Coulter, Cruella DeVille emits warm and fuzzy feelings of Merry Poppins - and Ann is not a cartoon character, she is a real person, or perhaps she is a robot designed at The Heritage Institute. It is unbeliavable what venom this woman possesses and spits - worse than any man I have ever met (http://www.reload.ws/blog/mkac.htm). What's her story? How can a psychiatrist explain the phenomenon? Lakoff does not even try, and Ducat's explanation is a non-explanation, something about being rich and being on a power-trip. I do not buy it. This is some serious disturbance.
This whole post, although I meant to write it for quite a while now, was prompted by this post by my state-mate and Libertarian Chair of Duke's Poli-Sci Department, Mike Munger, who links to me with humor and expected disapproval:
http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/2004/12/coturnix-does-not-quail.html
Here's another example of the need for clear-cut definitions of terms. As Libertarians are an offshoot of the Conservative core, they are officially part of a the mathematical set called "Conservatives", as they are clearly not the members of the only other set, the "Liberals". Yet, when I write about Conservatives, I write about the CORE Conservatives, people like these: http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/12/hypocrisy-or-natural-order-of-things.html, or these: http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2004/09/war-of-worlds.html. When I write about Conservatives, I do not think of Munger - why should I even have his blog on my blogroll? I read his blog and, though I generally disagree, at least his arguments have internal logic, make sense and are peppered with charming sarcastic sense of humor. How can I think he's a nut when he is the source of Coulter-mocking stuff like this: http://www.townhall.com/acimgs/webimages/gun.jpg.
If you want to see the scary Conservatives, go to the online asylum called Free Republic, or the worse one called Little Green Footballs (sorry, no links, I don't want spam here). On the other hand, I would love to have some coffee with Munger one of these days, I bet he is as fun guy in person as he is online.
Update:
Some interesting links:
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid
http://www.sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php
Critiques Of Libertarianism
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Organizing principles
http://sideshow.me.uk/sdec04.htm#181425
- Log in to post comments
So you're basically admitting that you're a blog whore and will post anything for traffic? ;-)
I just decided to be honest for a day...
Libertarians suck. I agree. Thanks for the links.
But before everyone goes all psycho on you, you may want to differentiate between big L Libertarians and people who for some reason describe themselves as libertarian.
As pointed out in one of those links the common libertarian rejoinder is as follows:
And it is a stupid statement of ideology because no one disagrees with it. Everybody is for those things, but is libertarianism universal? No, because those big L Libertarians are freaking nuts.
How many times have I heard them argue that we shouldn't have an FDA, a CDC, a Dept of Ed, NIH or virtually any other government agency that demonstrates the need for prevention of disaster or reinvestment in the people. It's like they have no recollection of what drugs were like before the FDA, or could you imagine how much fun it would have been figuring out where that e coli outbreak came from without a national agency designed to track down mistakes?
It makes my head hurt even thinking about all the dumb things I've heard those big L libertarians say.
However, the majority of people who describe themselves as libertarian really are not. The vagueness of that ideological position makes it really easy for people to think they're libertarian, when they actually just posses the rather ordinary belief in liberal individual freedoms.
Trolls? I resemble that remark!
Ok, I'll bite.
For someone skeptical of evolutionary psychology, you're sure able to swallow a lot of substanceless psychological speculation when it says mean things about conservatives.
First, at a minimum you're confusing methaphor with reality. Just because an issue can be framed in terms of masculinity vs feminity doesn't mean that it stems from it. Perhaps the reason the metaphors pop up is because family relations conveniently provide metaphors with positive connotations.
Second, Lakoff's methaphor strains to accomodate even the modest range of issues dealt with and doesn't even make sense when explaining attitudes towards business, science, globalization, and privacy.
Thrid, not only does this framing fail to provide any serious insight into ideology, it promotes bad outcomes when people internalize it. Familial love for the government, whether as a father or mother, is a recipe for authoritarianism and nationalism. The common element of both the paternal and maternal concepts is that they should be defered to, just as a child should listen to his or her parents, and that they should be loved desipte their flaws, a nicety that is counterproductive to extend to a government which frequently needs public rebuke to prevent corruption. Unsuprisingly, nationalist rhretoric is constantly spiked with references to father- or mother-lands and authoritarian leaders try to present themselves as the embodiment of that national parent.
If you want a good one-size-fits-all idea to explain ideologies, contrasting the character of "The Other" they use to define themselves will give you a lot more milage than this combination of trite observations (politicians try to use methaphors and euphemisms to favorably frame an issue - suprise!) and rewarmed Freudianism (he's a conservative because his mommy didn't show him enough affection and daddy was too strict).
quitter,
I'll explain the difference between Libertarians and libertarians for you.
If someone describes themselves as a Libertarian, it typically means they support the Libertarian party, which has relatively radical beliefs, not unlike other radical niche parties like the Greens or the Constitution Party.
If someone describes themself as a libertarian, it means they agree with some form of libertarian ideology, which is diverse but unified by the general belief that the scope of government power is presently too wide both on social and economic matters and typically holds that 1) markets are a more efficient way of organizing human activity than government planning 2) behaviors that affect only the person engaging in them or other consenting parties should not punished 5) the government is the only entity that can legitimately initiate the use of force. The quote you give is an accurate description but vague and has a strong positive spin, which is exactly what you'd get if you asked a progressive to define progressive.
I don't see why you have such a hard time grasping this difference.
Matt,
I do see that difference. I was hoping to prempt an argument between the little "l" people and coturnix over what libertarians he's talking about. What I don't understand is why people who identify with libertarianism and the radicalism it entails based on such a completely banal ideological overlap which applies to everybody I've ever met.
Imagine, for example, that Libertarians were united under the ideology that puppies are cute. Everybody agrees except for some evil cat-loving dictator in another country. However, the people who run this hypothetical Libertarian party are people who believe that all government is evil, the FDA is a conspiracy to enrich doctors, and every regulation ever passed has always killed more people than they saved, and other crackpot extreme beliefs (mixed in with some subtle racism and a tendency toward denialism). Why, if you just love puppies like everybody else, would you identify with these crackpots?
I think the reason people like to say it is 1) they haven't met many of these crackpots and argued with them, 2) they identify with the fluffy belief, and 3)it's an identifiable political term that doesn't align one with the dominant parties. It's almost like they want to say they're an independent, but not just because they're indicisive or lacking opinions.
So, don't worry, I know the difference. I just have trouble understanding why smart people would identify with the big L types in any way whatsoever.
mixed in with some subtle racism
wtf is "subtle" racism?
quitter,
I've met plenty of LP members and have worked with the LP myself on local races and most of them aren't as radical as you describe - maybe the way you approach discussions of libertarianism gets them in ultra-polemic mode? Some LP members are moderate enough for mainstream politics - for example, Ron Paul has run with them in the past as a presidential candidate and is in the House of Reps now.
The problem with the national LP is that there is a perpetual struggle between the idealists who want the platform to represent a highly idealized libertarian political philosopy and pragmatists who want to base the platform around implementable ideas. The idealists have more or less taken over the part due to the self-reenforcing cycle of increasing radicalism -> lost elections -> pragmatists go elsewhere -> increasing radicalism, which is why 3rd parties tend to be dominated by cranks. Most recently you can see this in how the Reform Party went from running a fairly succesful 3rd party presidential campaign in '92 to Buchananite takeover and complete irrelevance.
We call ourselves libertarians because we do subscribe to the same basic philosophical tenets as the members of the LP, although with less radical interpretations on average, and the term predates the LP, which was created because a group of libertarian activists wanted to start a libertarian party and they weren't very original in naming it. I don't see how you conclude that "the scope of government power is presently too wide both on social and economic matters" is a glittering generality that everybody agrees with. If you support nationalized healthcare, you don't agree with that statement. If you support a national ID card, you don't agree with this statement. If you support a flag burning amendment, you don't agree with that statement. If you support a ban on online gambling, you don't agree with this statement. It's actually a reasonably hard statement to agree with if you're not actually a libertarian and hence a good indicator of who is.
Well, it has a lot to do with their obsession with affirmative action and belief in debunked science like that of the Bell Curve.
Overall I feel that the unifying feature of the big "L" Libertarians is that they somehow feel they have been wronged. If it weren't for some evil external influence they'd be movie stars and nobel prize winners. It's never, of course, their own mediocrity which has kept them down. It's always something external, the government, affirmative action, damn liberal nanny-state lovers, whatever. It seems like a lot of excuses for some pretty basic human failings.
That's why I find them to be a lot like denialists, they see conspiracies, freak out over really minor governmental interventions (like the exceedingly light requirements of affirmative action policies post-Clinton) and act like it's the freaking holocaust if some white guy didn't get a job while a black person did.
That's what I mean by subtle racism. It's not overt, they're not George Allen or anything, they just have a sense of misplaced entitlement.
quitter,
I'd like to meet some of the libertarians you talk with and check their straw content.
quitter, that's a very nice analysis.
I just view libertarians as developmentally stunted -- found something they liked and stopped reading further. On a personal level I think it's worthless to distinguish between large and small ells because eventually the small ells realize what the large ells are and stand for. At that point they either stay or move to something else, but small ell is just a transient phase.
And I see them as dangerous hatchet men for radical conservatives. Some of the Republicans dangerous ideas ain't theirs per se but regurgitated ell platform. Ells can't get themselves elected by fundies so they get on the coattails of Republicans.
So where does CATO and reason fit in this scheme? Effective fronts?
EVERY party has it's idiot extremist, the Libertarian Party is no exception. I love reading all the assertions people make about this party. Usually people who aren't members, and are speaking from hearsay. Read the platform. You either agree, or you don't. I always hear these bizzare critisisms which simply don't jive with what I've read.
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
Matt,
Well I was at a party arguing with Nick Gillespie and three of his friends at which point they told me the FDA killed more people than Hitler.
That would be, um, the editor in chief of Reason magazine and his buddies.
So, I don't know how much straw is in my arguments. I've met and argued with some pretty prominent libertarians, and they say some crazy shit.
Clayton,
Here's the position from your link.
And we like puppies! And we don't like Nazis! And we like ice cream! And we don't like Mussolini!
C'mon. That's the whole point. The basic position is something everybody agrees with. Is there a group of people out there that disagree? Let's see who would like this statement:
There, a la the "libertarianism makes you stupid" link I've modified their ideological position a bit. Does anyone agree with it? **crickets**
That's because their statement of ideology is so banal, and obvious, and universal, it makes everybody a libertarian.
Now if they were to say something specific, like the FDA and all federal regulatory agencies should be abolished (like many real libertarians have told me Matt) would you still agree with them? Or that people who work for government are evil? That's when I really started to see libertarianism as a really dangerous ideology because I realized the people I argued with were making the same freaking arguments as Tim McVeigh (you think that's crazy read American Terrorist). Or see what the World Libertarian Order says about McVeigh. That's a little freaky, especially when after the bombings I remember a lot of people making the argument McVeigh would have been a hero if he had blown up the Murrah building at night. Or how about this press release in which the libertarian party offers advice on how to prevent the next McVeigh? The long and short of it is, conceed to McVeigh's demands!
For these and other reasons I've come to really despise libertarians as a group of people who are really only interested in legitimizing selfishness under a mein of "protecting individual liberties." And their real hatred for government I think is responsible for a nationwide contempt not just for government institutions, but for the good and hardworking people that compose the overwhelming majority of our government.
Perhaps you're right, and that is truely their position. I, and those I know, are simply mislead or nieve. I am however glad to know that their "basic position is something everybody agrees with." I hadn't been under that impression. I assumed that there was a division within the party on issues wherein a position hadn't been stated.
The book you mention is written by some reporter for The Buffulo News, I don't see the relevance. He doesn't speak for me, nor does he seem to speak for the Libertarian Party.
Oh, and the press release. Which of the five points do you disagree with? They are totally in-line with the party's basic position that "everybody agrees with."
World Libertarian Order is some fruitcakes tripod account, do you really see that half-assed personal site as indicative of every libertarians views.
Admittedly, libertarian ideology attacts a disproportionate number of conspiracy theorists and survivalist nuts but, I suspect that we'd disagree as to how prevalent or influential they are.
Clayton
These are not libertarians, I did not suggest this. McVeigh was from Buffalo. Some reporters from the area decided to write the book on his story. That is all. It has nothing to do with the libertarian party, but if you read it, you see that really McVeigh was just a libertarian.
Second, of the five points I disagree with?
Well as usual they are coached in the libertarian universality. Criminals should be punished, crime is bad, government should be responsible, etc. The point is, that if you actually read what they are saying they basically demand that McVeigh be appeased or another one will take his place. Basically, they're saying surrender to McVeigh or more like him will come. Now, whether or not you agree with the indivual points is irrelevant. They're condoning terrorism, and a specific anti-american terrorist act. Wake up.
There are so many reasonable groups to associate with, why associate with these assholes?
Clayton-
is it your position that you have to be a member to read, or comment about a particular political ideology?
I don't think I want to join the brownshirt party in order to have an opinion on them. I guess to me that defeats the point of having parties.
The question of who speaks for the Libertarians is similar to who speaks for the Republicans and Democrats -- you go to their think tanks and their talking point publishers and you read beyond the party press releases about the utopia of "dewy green meadows and unicorns". This is why I asked about CATO and Reason; people will turn to well-spoken, intelligent, manipulative organs that represent the platforms as implemented. The Republicans don't get their strategy from red-state theocrats; they get it from AEI, PNAC, The Manhattan Institute and so on. They'll water it down so red-staters can read the large-print edition and add some references to God, but the Republicans values come from from think-tanks, not from a 300lb bubba driving a pickup truck in the south.
Of course, folk that invoke tyranny whenever they speak about the local school board are generally identified as libertarians.
Here, I think I disagree with quitter (maybe I'm misreading his point) -- This strategy of not examining unpleasant points because examination leads to appeasement of some sort is in my view dangerous; it leads us to disregard the root cause of an action and we revert to accepting published talking points - i.e. why McVeigh, why 9/11, why Iraq, why minutemen, why Pat Robertson (or Pat Buchanan) and so on. I'd like to know why; I may not agree with the why, but in order to mitigate the results, I want to know the path to it.
To many Americans, to question the official party line on 9/11 is appeasement, so we are forced to accept the simplified view that they attack us because they hate our values, hate our freedoms, etc although that was primarily a propagandists justification for war. To invoke appeasement is so in-vogue as a strategic codeword, yet it stands in the way of diplomacy often enough that it justifies unilateralism. Diplomacy is my codeword for multilateralism and coexistence.
Not examining cause will lead to WWE - war without end -- and of course, we've also conveniently redefined war -- how often have we heard that "war on Terror" is a new kind of war?
Well, if it's a new kind of war, please invent a new word that defines it and I'll consider it, although I can think of some older words that may fit.
Ted,
I didn't mean to suggest that we shouldn't examine the cause of McVeigh, which is actually something that we really failed to do. I just don't agree with the Libertarian party's response to it. It is a little bit sickening to see a group use a terrorist attack to advance an agenda, part of the reason I really hate the Bush administration, and here the Libertarians were doing the same thing. Basically saying, unless you adopt our party platform, more McVeighs will come out of the woodwork and blow up federal buildings.
I disagree with their analysis, their conclusions and dislike the implication the only solution to domestic terrorism is to buy into the anti-government bullshit of the Libertarians.
As far as their think tanks? Or their magazine Reason? Little more than apologists for the worst kind of pro-business anti-regulatory BS. They don't believe in global warming, are aggressively against taking steps to prevent climate change or pollution, and really have a disgusting laissez-faire view of how we should not only treat our people, but also people around the world. I find them repugnant and disengenuous.
I don't disagree here per se, but aren't these views de facto representative of the administration's strategy?
My position is that some of the Republican puppy-dog positions are libertarian because they have common interests. I also think that libertarians do a better job articulating some of these things for public consumption particularly because the Republicans have lost their historically strategic messages (policy evolution to neo-imperialism). Libertarians do the marketing press releases for the Republicans. It's the era of outsourcing and mergers, isn't it? For example, who stands for limited government these days? Republicans or libertarians? Who expresses it better with credibility? So we have a marriage of convenience -- while one party expands government programs and spending, and diverts funds from the public to private interests at the behest of PNAC, Manhattan and AEI, the other one justifies it on the basis of puppy-dog cuteness.
I'm not sure I trust anyone who actually believes in the Republican=Father, Democrat=Mother dichotomy.
It may be what conservatives see, but it makes no sense to me, since I come from a family that had two resposible parents.
I suspect that the Republican family model is probably a lot more screwed up to begin with - Deadbeat Dad & Crackwhore Mom, maybe. That seems to be the way they govern, in any event.
(I can't help but worry about the way conservatives must grow up, after the arguments about abortion with them that always seem to end up with, "What if your mother had believed in abortion?" It just never seems to occur to them that my mother actually wanted me. When I answer, "She did - I was planned," they seem completely surprised, like it's never been known to happen.)
About half the libertarians I meet are fakes - they aren't really libertarian and they don't actually believe in individual freedom, they just like the libertarian arguments against liberalism. The other half are liberals who don't know it or haven't yet figured out that you can't trust money to behave without regulation. The latter group may change, but the first group is never going to be on our side because they're really just a bunch of (mostly racist and sexist) pigs.
Ted,
It depends from think tank to think tank. Cato, for instance, will sometimes express a great deal of fury with the administration - especially over ever-expanding government - but I think they are generally just apologists for business.
AEI and Manhattan I think are just a Bush butt-buddy institutes, that have absolutely no consistent position except that Bush is right. If they really believed in this individual freedom stuff, they'd have a problem with the patriot act, wire-tapping, endless security etc., instead what you see is proto-fascism, especially out of Manhattan.
quitter,
"McVeigh was just a libertarian."
This really says it all about your messed up priorities. Why McVeigh is a villan isn't because he was angry at the government over Waco, but because he murdered people.
"It is a little bit sickening to see a group use a terrorist attack to advance an agenda"
I know - your attempts to tar libertarianism in general with McVeigh's actions do make me sick.
Identifying his ideology is tarring libertarians in general?
I think what tarred libertarian philosophy in general after his attacks were those who were saying if the building was empty he'd be a hero.
But seriously, don't flip out just because you have a terrorist. Most groups have a famous terrorist or two. Liberals had the Weatherman and lately it's ALF/ELF, fundies/pro-lifers have Eric Rudolph and all those wackos that shoot doctors at abortion clinics. And the mainstream liberals and conservatives decry that too, but they usually are willing to acknowledge that it was an extreme variant of their ideology and that they don't approve of violence either.
McVeigh was an extreme variant of libertarianism, egged on by a hatred of government that is fostered by many libertarians out there. It's not a big deal, you can't be responsible for what the crazies do. But own up to your terrorist, it's not the end of the world you know.
quitter,
A) The climate of animosity towards the federal government that developed in the '90s was largely due to the government's own fuck ups and hardly limited to libertarians. People were legitimately pissed off about how the Waco raid and subsequent standoff were handled and the attempts afterward to prevent any serious investigation of what when wrong.
B) What am I not owning up to? Given that I just said that McVeigh had anti-government sentiments but was evil because he decided to blow people up because of them in my last post, I don't see what you're getting at, other than looking for more excuses to mention that McVeigh was a libertarian (not a big L one, mind you, one of those small l ones that you tried to say didn't really exist earlier in this thread).
C) And just as it is would be crass and opportunistic to try to tar environmentalism with the ELF by a statement like:
The ELF is an extreme variant of enviromentalism, egged on by a hatred of economic development that is fostered by many environmentalists out there.
It is crass and opportunistic to try to tar libertarians with McVeigh's terrorist actions.
I didn't say McVeigh was a little l I said he was a big l. I also don't deny the existence of the little l's, I just don't understand why the fluffy mission statement is a good enough reason to attach a label to yourself that also belongs to the crackpots. After all you said before:
I think, based on your own statements about the radicalism of the modern libertarian party you also are a little "l" because it sounds like they don't represent you any more although you agree with the fluffy mission statement. If the Democratic party had become so radical I wouldn't call myself a Democrat. Then you say:
No! That's exactly right. It's exactly what environmentalists need to do, stand up to the radicals and elimate the type of rhetoric that creates radicalism. Every ideology has to own up to its radicals. Environmentalists have to own up to the fact that ELF radicals are fed on their ideology. Animal rightsists need to own up to ALF terrorizing scientists in California and England, etc. Every ideology has it's radicals and it is their responsibility to make sure that radicalism is not encouraged. For instance, Eric Rudolph is an anti-abortion terrorist. He was created by the extremist rhetoric of anti-abortion advocates calling abortion docs nazis and murderers. That kind of radicalism is encouraged and fomented by that movement even though on the surface groups like Operation Rescue claim nonviolence. It's the rhetoric that really is to blame. When you call people evil, or nazis, or murderers you dehumanize them to your followers. Eventually, if you dehumanize your opponents enough, some of your followers will probably think it's ok to shoot them or blow them up. In the case of the anti-abortion types, I think it might even be purposeful, libertarians it is probably unintentional, but you have to own up to the fact that extreme rhetoric gives birth to extremists. When you call government evil, say it isn't good for anything, and demonize it in all it's forms, one day, someone will listen to what you're saying and attack it with violence, even if you claim nonviolence.
This is exactly what's happening with modern animal rights groups and environmental groups. Just last year PETA put up a display in San Fran (I think) showing a pile of dead animals and a pile of dead humans with the text, "to Animals, all humans are Nazis."
Holy freaking cow! And you wonder that they end up with radicalism? With violence against scientists? It's just that kind of rhetoric that I hate and I think creates the dehumanizing conditions allowing violence against opponents.
If you think this is crazy, just ask abortion providers, they've noticed that historically, before elections or in general when the rhetoric heats up over abortion politically, there are often shootings. They monitor, not just threats, but the political climate to assess their day to day risk of an attack.
Finally, this is really a distraction from the real topic, which is how libertarianism sucks period. One of the great things is how whenever something is deregulated or privatized, not only do consumers end up paying more, but there is a decrease in services and increase in fraud. Most of the agencies libertarians rail against were created because of specific instances of fraud and abuse that existed before deregulation. The belief that the invisible hand will correct fundamental human greed is ludicrous, and all the "implementable" ideas of libertarians have just been failures. Not to mention, we already lived in a libertarian society once, I think it was that entire era before the FDR administration. And what a success that was. The free market created drugs that were mostly poison, food that was contaminated, and business practices were so crooked the entire economy collapsed. Then we got the FDA (first just for food in 1909 and then after a patent medicine killed 110 kids drugs were placed under it in 37), the SEC, FTC etc., to keep the greedy bastards in line. What have been the results? Now, with the mere requirement that drugs have to do what they say they do? The birth of pharmacology as a serious science. With the SEC and FTC? No more great depressions. And when we deregulate these agencies as happened in the 90s? Vioxx, worldcom, Adelphia, Enron. Same freaking story, different decade. The free market needs regulation, libertarians are nuts.
quitter,
I'm a little l libertarian - neoclassical micro, political economy via Hayek and public choice theory, and Chicago school macro; Mill for personal liberty, with some qualifications. Think the LP is a trainwreck from the tactical perspective, although I'm still closer to them than Dems or Reps.
McVeigh was not an LP member or affiliate as far as I know(he wouldn't have been ideologically sound enough for them /sarcasm), thus not a big L libertarian.
Dehumanization, by the process of Othering, is not only ubiquitous in politics, but is the fundamental nature of politics itself. You yourself have spent this thread trying to sketch out a "libertarian" Other, a fundamentally-greedy, terrorist-sympathizing, foaming-at-the-mouth-radical simulacrum against which you've sought to align people. By being radical in your antiradicalism, you dehumanize the radical just as much as the radical dehumanizes the object of his ire. The extreme of this thinking doesn't shoot doctors, it locks up dissidents.
The Haymarket riot is an excellent example of anti-radical sentiment causes worse that the violent radical's crime - 8 killed by the lone unidentified anarchist who threw the bomb, 11 killed by cops, 7 (only 4 hanged before being pardoned) sentenced to death without any real evidence of involvement because despite knowing none of them actually did it, the gov't argued that their rhetoric incited the bombing.
I'm not going to debate you on the merit of actual libertarian policy proposals - this thread has gone on long enough that I doubt anybody else is paying attention and I doubt either of us is going to change the other's mind, so I'm content to leave it at that.
Matt,
Yeah, I think this ended up just being an argument between the two of us, which makes me a bit sad because we've been previously allied against the crazies. I'll make one last point.
You say:
To this I'd say, I haven't meant to be dehumanizing, but the problem is when you are arguing against dehumanizing tactics it's hard not to get pissed at the people doing it. That's my problem with Anne Coulter, I don't want to say that she's a Nazi, because that's too easy, but man, she sure sounds like one sometimes. So how do you point that out without a Godwin violation? I get pissed when people argue radicalism, and it's hard to say they're inciting radicalism without being nasty to them in return, I'm not a Christian, so I'm not exactly a master of that whole love your enemy thing.
I never, never advocated locking up people who are spreading hate by the way, and think that's a bit of a red herring. I've advocated consistently that the people who are politically aligned with those spreading hate to take control of their own ideology. It's shouldn't be against the law to be hateful, but it should be discouraged by people with similar goals from allowing their ideology to be hijacked by radicals. To say I'm for locking up people based on speech is just a low blow, and I must say, typical of libertarians being called on their bullshit. I'm saying, don't expect hate speech to create anything but trouble, and libertarians, sorry, have nothing to offer us politically. I realize that will upset you, even as a little-l, but hey, we've tried these ideas, they failed. Sorry.
For those who are ineterested in looking at some of the arguments about "L"ibertarianism, by a different stripe of libertarian.
Are you a real libertarian, or a Royal libertarian