Libertarianism’s Achilles’ heel
10/06/2013 Deja un comentario
In politics, we often skip past the simple questions. This is why inquiries about the fundamentals can sometimes catch everyone short. Michael Lind, the independent-minded scholar, posed one such question last week about libertarianism that I hope will shake up the political world. It’s important because many in the new generation of conservative politicians declare the libertarianism as their core political philosophy. It’s true that since nearly all Americans favor limits on government, most of us have found libertarians to be helpful allies at one point or another. The libertarians have the virtue, in principle at least, of a very clear creed: They believe in smallest government possible, longing for what the late philosopher Robert Nozick, in his classic book “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” called “night-watchman state.” (source: E.J. Dionne Jr. – The Washington Post – 10/06/2013)
Anything government does beyond protecting people from violence or theft and enforcing contracts is seen as illegitimate. If you start there, taking a stand on the issues of the day is easy. All the efforts to cut back on government functions, public schools, Medicare, environmental regulation, food stamps, should be supported. Anything increases government activity (Obamacare, for example) should be opposed. In his bracing 1970s libertarian manifesto “For a New Liberty,” the economist Murray Rothbard promised a nation that would be characterized by “individual liberty, a peaceful foreign policy, minimal government, free-market economy”. Rothbard’s book concludes with boldness: “Liberty has never been fully tried in the modern world; libertarians now propose to fulfill the American dream and the world dream of liberty and prosperity for all mankind”. This is where Lind’s question comes in. Note that Rothbard freely acknowledges that “liberty has never been fully tried,” at least by the libertarians’ exacting definition. In an essay in Salon, Lind asks: “If libertarians are correct in claiming they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in early 21st century is organized along libertarian lines?” In other words, “Why are there no libertarian countries?” The ideas of center-left, based on welfare states conjoined with market economies, have been deployed all over the democratic world, most extensively in the social democratic Scandinavian countries. We also have had deadly experiments with communism, a.k.a Marxism-Leninism. From this, Lind asks another question: “If socialism is discredited by failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn’t libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world?” The Answer lies in a kind of circular logic: Libertarians can keep holding up their dream of perfection because, as a practical matter, it will never be tried in full. Even many who say they are libertarians reject the idea when it gets too close to home. Strongest political support for a broad anti-statist libertarianism now comes from Tea party. Yet tea party members, as the polls show, are older than the country as a whole. They want to shrink government in a big way but are uneasy about embracing this concept when reducing Social Security and Medicare comes up. Thus do the proposals to cut these programs being pushed by Republicans in Congress exempt current generation of recipients. No way Republicans are going to attack their base.
But this inconsistency (or hypocrisy) contains a truth: We had something close to a small-government libertarian utopia in the late 19th century and we decided it didn’t work. We realized that many Americans would never be able to save enough for retirement and, later, that most of them would be unable to afford health insurance when they were old. Smaller government meant that too many people were poor and that the monopolies were formed too easily. And when Great Depression engulfed us, government was helpless, largely hand-cuffed by this anti-government ideology until Franklin D. Roosevelt came along. In fact, as Lind points out, most countries that we typically see as “free” and prosperous have governments that consume around 40% of their gross domestic product. They are better off for it. “Libertarians,” he writes, “seem to have persuaded themselves that there is no a significant trade-off between less government and more national insecurity, more crime, more illiteracy and more infant and maternal mortality ….” This matters to our current politics because too many politicians are making decisions on basis of a grand, utopian theory that they never can or will put into practice. They then use this theory to avoid a candid conversation about the messy choices governance requires. And this is why we have gridlock.