The big Libertarian Party news in the last few days has been Democratic Party mailers sent to conservative voters asking them to vote for Libertarians as “true conservatives” rather than Republicans (see here and here). And, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Chuck Donovan, the Libertarian [..] steadfastly attacked Isakson as something other than conservative. In IPR comments, Robert Capozzi wrote,
If Ls are for lower taxes and spending, that’s widely viewed as right wing. Higher taxes and spending is left wing.
Where we CAN differentiate is where we cut from first. Military and corporate welfare cuts makes us different kind of right wingers on economics, and of course we actually would like to enact real cuts.
My response, also quoted as an article by Tom Knapp at Kn@ppster (note: personal opinion, not an IPR editorial):
Historically, right and left wing are determined by goals. Right wing goals are the maintenance of existing social and economic privilege, traditional social and religious values, and existing social and economic hierarchies. They also frequently include degrees of cultural, social and national chauvinism. Left wing goals are to level the playing field for the underdogs, break down barriers of privilege, and in general the opposite of the right wing goals as outlined above.
Libertarianism is a philosophy of acceptable means. Radical libertarians believe in completely outlawing initiation of force, while moderate libertarians seek to minimize initiation of force while maintaining that a functional society is impossible without some initiation of force.
Big government is the opposing philosophy of means — that is, whatever your goals are, they are best achieved by a powerful state.
So, the assumption above — one shared by most people in America today — is that big government is what serves to achieve leftist goals, and small government leads to rightist results. But, I believe that in fact the opposite is the case … that big government naturally goes hand in hand with big institutions and static hierarchies in all other fields of life.
Similarly, see Libertarian Party: ‘Anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian’, Libertarian Chair: Time to Re-Legalize Immigration, Randy Shaw: ‘Media Falsely Brands Corporate Plutocrats as Libertarians’, and Lee Wrights: ‘Anti-war liberals should vote Libertarian to stop all wars’.
Of course, many would say that Libertarians are neither left nor right. This concept is illustrated by the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, and by some other recent articles such as Casey Givens at UC Berkeley Students for Liberty:
“Perhaps I’m just blind, but I fail to distinguish any semblance of dissimilarity between Republicans and Democrats in modern politics. On the federal level, both parties have supported foreign interventionism in Iraq and Afghanistan, massive bailouts via the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), violations of our civil liberties via the PATRIOT Act, and secretive prisons overseas such as Guantanamo Bay. And, mind you, this is under both Bush and Obama.
See also: Libertarians release top 10 disasters of 2009 Obama administration:
Top 10 disasters of the 2009 Obama administration (in no particular order):
1. Cash for Clunkers
2. War escalation in Afghanistan
3. Giant government health care expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus package
6. Expansion of “state secrets” doctrine
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. “Bailout” Geithner as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficitsTop 10 disasters of the 2001-2008 Bush administration:
1. Cash for Car Companies
2. War in Iraq
3. Giant Medicare expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus “rebate” checks
6. PATRIOT Act
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. “Bailout” Paulson as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits
Readers are welcome to post their own thoughts on the subject in the comments.
21 responses so far ↓
1 Darryl W. Perry // Oct 30, 2010 at 4:24 pm
The entire concept of “left” & “right” is flawed. The terms came about based on which side of the chamber the members of the French Parliament sat on during the French Revolution.
“those who sat on the left generally supported the radical changes of the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization.” While, “those who sat on the right supported preserving the institutions of the Ancien Régime (the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church).”
2 paulie // Oct 30, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Those same divisions still exist today, in slightly altered form.
3 Darryl W. Perry // Oct 30, 2010 at 4:39 pm
It’s very altered…. hence my statement that it’s a flawed concept.
4 paulie // Oct 30, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Not all that very. Aristocracy (today, in the form of corporate plutocracy) and the church getting involved in politics are still very much with us. Secularization is still a hot topic.
The one thing that has changed is that most of what is called the left nowadays has fallen for the idea that when it comes to economic issues (only), big government means – that is, what has historically been considered rightist means – are the way to achieve leftist goals. I maintain that this idea is flawed, and that when we see instead that big government actually achieves rightist goals on economic issues – that is, the maintenance of established class privilege – just as it does on social/civil liberties issues and foreign policy – libertarianism becomes apparent as the true left.
5 paulie // Oct 30, 2010 at 4:57 pm
For the longer answer on that concept (well worth a read IMO) see
http://mises.org/daily/2099
6 Gene Berkman // Oct 30, 2010 at 5:51 pm
“Left” and “Right” in America have nothing to do with seating in the French National Assembly.
All the socialist groups clearly consider themselves on the “left” except perhaps the National Socialist Movement.
The “Right” developed in opposition to the New Deal, and included both principled free market liberals as well as more pragmatic politicians.
Since the Reagan campaign in 1980, the “Right” has absorbed many politically active Christians, who believe in using government to promote Christian values.
Libertarians are by default on the Right because we oppose socialism and favor the Free Market. But we are clearly opposed to government intervention in personal lives, which so many Christian conservatives promote.
And if we find allies among liberals and progressives in opposition to war, or in favor of legalizing marijuana, good. In my experience, I have worked with left-liberals, Greens and others in antiwar groups, and they all think of libertarians as right-wingers.
7 paulie // Oct 30, 2010 at 5:55 pm
The “Right” developed in opposition to the New Deal,
There was a left and a right in America long before the New Deal.
In my experience, I have worked with left-liberals, Greens and others in antiwar groups, and they all think of libertarians as right-wingers.
I think this has to do with the way libertarianism is most commonly marketed, not with anything inherent within libertarianism per se, and I believe we need to change this mistaken perception in order to unlock our true political potential.
8 Gene Berkman // Oct 30, 2010 at 6:06 pm
@ 7 – my experience with people on the Left is that their basic premise is collectivist, and if they become libertarians it means “leaving the left.”
I met lots of people from rightwing backgrounds, and still involved in rightwing groups who are libertarian on most issues, and some who are almost completely libertarian.
At this point, the biggest divisions between principled rightwingers (as opposed to GOP politicos) and libertarians comes down to abortion, immigration, and tolerance for gay people.
People on the left, even if the are antiwar and favor legalizing marijuana, still want government takeover of medical care, and they want to tax the rich and they think self-interest is some kind of sin. Why would anyone want to pander to such people?
9 Gene Berkman // Oct 30, 2010 at 6:10 pm
also @ #7 – yes, there was a Left before the New Deal. The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848 and The Peoples Party was significant through the 1890s, followed by the “Progressives” of the TR & LaFollette variety.
But there was really no “Right” in the terms of a political movement before The Freeman was founded in the early 1950s and National Review in 1955.
10 paulie // Oct 30, 2010 at 6:26 pm
The basic premise of the left is not collectivist. It tends to be less collectivist than the right on 2 of 3 broad policy areas – social issues and foreign policy.
On economic issues, what defines someone as being on the left is not collectivism per se, but whether they want to maintain or break up established economic privilege. Most people in America today tend to believe that collectivism tends to break up economic privilege and that laissez faire economic policies tend to concentrate wealth. I believe that this is exactly the opposite of what is actually true. If leftists came to once again believe that economic collectivism works against their goals – as they once did – they would cease to be collectivists in any sense.
This is again the product of the common modern American misconceptions that collectivism defines the left and laissez faire defines the right.
In fact, this has never been the case anywhere in practice, nor is it the case in America today. The right works towards collectivism in social policy and on military spending, and is not shy about using collectivism – corporate welfare, etc. – in the service of maintaining economic privilege. Libertarians who paint themselves as part of the right and work within rightist groups are falling into the trap that this modern misconception sets up, just as progressives fall into a trap when they think collectivist means help achieve their economic goals. So long as both libertarians and progressives fall for this misconception, both are working against their ultimate goals.
Who wins by this misalignment? The collectivist right wins because it gets libertarians to work on its behalf, and the collectivist pseudo-left wins because it gets genuine liberals to work on its behalf. Both groups are mostly motivated by fear of each other. The elitists who consciously manipulate this dynamic are the ultimate winners, as all political power sharing compromises between the left and right in power tend to be in the direction of bigger government, whether on social, economic or foreign policy.
To break up the dynamic, we have to go back to looking at government and corporate power as largely aligned on the same side and against those of us at the bottom. This was the original left, and it is also libertarian. It needs to be again if we are ever to move forward.
11 paulie // Oct 30, 2010 at 6:32 pm
This was not the genuine original left, which has existed much longer. It was just the beginnings of the the pseudo-left that purports to achieve leftist goals through rightist (that is, statist) means, which has successfully carried out a hostile takeover of the left and pushed libertarians into a mistaken alliance with the right. However, that did not make the right libertarian.
My thesis is that in order to make any significant forward progress we have to restore the original left, which opposed big government in all policy areas and also opposed corporate power and concentrations of wealth. Their view was that free markets would work naturally to break up accumulations of wealth, and that big government would only ultimately work on behalf of the plutocrats. I believe they were correct.
12 paulie // Oct 30, 2010 at 6:37 pm
This is also historically incorrect. The right has existed throughout American and world history, and in fact has changed less than the left has, even with some (completely surface) libertarian window dressing in 20th and early 21st century America.
13 Gene Berkman // Oct 30, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Paulie – in fact Republican politicos have given us wage & price controls, No Child Left Behind, medicare expansion and other collectivist programs.
As for marijuana laws, thank FDR. FDR also gave America its first peacetime draft. FDR, JFK and LBJ were all big promoters of international military intervention. So the left is as much responsible for limitations on social freedoms and for militarism as the later pseudo-conservative Republicans who continued the New Deal policies are.
There are self-styled conservatives and constitutionalists who oppose the Iraq war – The Constitution Party, The John Birch Society, The American Conservative magazine.
There are conservatives who favor legalizing marijuana – the National Review crowd, the late Barry Goldwater, etc.
But if someone on the left repudiates socialism, they are not really on the left anymore. Maybe liberals if they still favor the welfare state, but opposing economic collectivism means leaving the left.
This does not mean we cannot work with Greens and liberals in opposition to war, or in support of immigrant rights or gay rights or in support of legalizing marijuana. But a coalition of libertarians with the left is not the same thing as regarding libertarians as part of the left.
14 paulie // Oct 30, 2010 at 7:08 pm
But if someone on the left repudiates socialism, they are not really on the left anymore.
Actually, they don’t necessarily even have to repudiate socialism to become libertarians, just state socialism.
Socialism is worker control over the means of production. The state as a supposed means towards that goal has been an epic failure, just as voting for right wing conservatives to achieve laissez faire economic policies has been a failure.
15 Michael H. Wilson // Oct 31, 2010 at 11:41 am
re paulie @ 14.
Here’s a bit about Mondragon which is the world’s largest worker owned co-operative.
“MONDRAGON Corporation is the embodiment of the co-operative movement that began in 1956, the year that witnessed the creation of the first industrial cooperative in Mondragón in the province of Gipuzkoa; its business philosophy is contained in its Corporate Values:
• Co-operation.
• Participation.
• Social Responsibility.
• Innovation.
The Corporation’s Mission combines the core goals of a business organisation competing on international markets with the use of democratic methods in its business organisation, the creation of jobs, the human and professional development of its workers and a pledge to development with its social environment.
In terms of organisation, it is divided into four areas: Finance, Industry, Distribution and Knowledge, and is today the foremost Basque business group and the seventh largest in Spain.”
http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/language/en-US/ENG/Who-we-are/Introduction.aspx
16 Indiana Libertarian Greg “No Bull” Knott: ‘the only real progressive in this race’ | Independent Political Report // Oct 31, 2010 at 12:48 pm
[...] Libertarians: Left, Right or Neither? [...]
17 Best We Can Do? [Lake] // Oct 31, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Gene Berkman // Oct 30, 2010:
the left is as much responsible for limitations on social freedoms and for militarism as the later pseudo-conservative Republicans who continued the New Deal policies are.
……… conservatives and constitutionalists who oppose the Iraq war – The Constitution Party, The John Birch Society, The American Conservative magazine.
There are conservatives who favor legalizing marijuana – the National Review crowd, the late Barry Goldwater ………
———- and the hesitancy of left and right (what ever those terms really mean) to get to gether on issues ——- as seen first hand on anti war week ends at Balboa Part year after year!
18 paulie // Oct 31, 2010 at 7:05 pm
See also:
http://aaeblog.com/2006/11/24/greensleeves-was-all-my-joy/
19 paulie // Nov 14, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Everyone should read this if they haven’t already:
http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2010/11/crafting-new-alliance.html#more
Crafting a new alliance
By Gary Chartier
Libertarian outreach to the left hasn’t made this much sense in a generation.
Keep reading:
http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2010/11/crafting-new-alliance.html#more
20 paulie // Nov 14, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Slightly longer snippet from that…hopefully it will get some more people to read it and discuss it here:
I’m talking about union workers who’ve figured out that the Wagner Act framework has been sold to them as a way of protecting their interests, when the real motivation behind it was to prop up the power of their bosses and stop genuinely radical self-help measures.
I’m talking about the drug freedom activists who’ve realized that supposedly progressive politicians just want a kinder, gentler drug war, and members of minority communities who realize that the nanny state is responsible for a systematic assault on people of color that has left unbelievable numbers of the non-violent behind bars.
I’m talking about principled leftists who haven’t abandoned their goals, but who’ve figured out that their preferred means are ineffective, dangerous, and wrong—people who’ve realized that the problem isn’t this or that politician, but the state itself, that abuse by the state isn’t a bug, but a feature!
Some people will know that—along with friends like Roderick Long, Kevin Carson, Charles Johnson, Brad Spangler, Sheldon Richman, Tom Knapp, Paulie Cannoli, and Joe Stromberg, most of them at the Center for a Stateless Society—I regularly argue that libertarianism is and should be a movement on the left. But I’m not trying to make that case here. And I’m definitely not arguing that libertarians should try to trim their sails in order to persuade statist leftists to like them. My point today is just that libertarians can say to principled leftists: libertarianism is correct; freedom is right—it works, you should embrace it, and you don’t have to give up what you care about in order to do so. Libertarians care about things that matter to you, and you can and should achieve your goals using libertarian means.
21 David Nolan proposes resolution for LNC consideration | Independent Political Report // Nov 18, 2010 at 12:29 am
[...] See also: Libertarians: Left, Right or Neither? [...]
Leave a Comment