The section of Libertarian Alliance pamphlets I find most interesting is Tactical Notes. One of the most important questions for Libertarian strategists should be: how close to party politics is it advantageous to be?
I spent my four years at University distant from the Conservative group. The group was, most of the time, largely worthless. Sometimes they were wet, other times just offensive. I remember the time when one Tory president went into a chip shop and exclaimed loudly, “I think it’s great that I buy from the common people here! It keeps them in a job.”
The Liberty Club, which is non-partisan and interested in ideas, was much more successful, with more members, a higher budget and a higher profile. One of the Tory presidents declined our invitation to join saying that the Liberty Club seemed “extreme”. I replied: “Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Being independent of a political party was very useful because we could express ideas seen as being slightly on the fringe.
But I do think it harmful when libertarians completely remove themselves from mainstream party politics. The creation of a Libertarian Party in the US has been wholly unhelpful because it allowed the religious right much more influence over the Republican Party. It has taken away the influence of libertarian ideas. Giving centre-right parties a libertarian hook does seem to me to be worthwhile.
Yes, I know all of you on this blog disagree with me. So I’ll shut up now, and promise not to write on this subject again.
Politics is the ideological contest and dispensation of power. Of course it matters. You are asking, though, if libertarians are merely detached opinionators, and that’s another question.
In unexceptional times there might be a case for such detachment. But in exceptional times detachment is a luxury the right can ill afford. I would suggest, for example, that the coming crunch on European federalism is one such exceptional moment. The right, libertarians included, have a duty to seek the political liberty of our people. That objective can ONLY be achieved from within the broad Conservative movement (if not the Party itself). It might not feel too great for some, but anything else is just shouting in the wind.
You know, this is actually the reason I’m not a member of the Libertarian party here in the US. It seems to me (and I know I’m not alone in this) that many libertarians, in particular those doing the organizing, have an inability to moderate their tone enough to appeal to mainstream voters. Broad appeal is necessary to effect real political change, and I think that many Libertarians have a blind spot where that is concerned.
We don’t all disagree with you, Alex. Not all the way, anyway.
The tactical problem is very stiff. Third parties have a function — mostly to play with and work to popularize ideas that the mainstream isn’t yet ready to embrace — but the resources they absorb are therefore lost to the other, arguably more important function of swaying one of the major parties.
Time was, there was a better case for third-party politics. That time passed in the 19th Century. The differences between then and now can’t be neatly summed up in a few words. The central thread is that political success has now become a matter of survival to altogether too many persons and groups. The State has become so large, so inescapable, and so powerful that even tiny differences between the platforms and the alliances of the major parties are matters of intense importance to millions of people. With his well-being on the line in the here and now, it’s well nigh impossible to persuade John Q. Public that he should invest his vote or his proselytic efforts in a third party effort that will take decades to mature — if it matures at all.
I was once active in the Libertarian Party of New York. I left it for several reasons, but an important one was the general scruffiness of the people involved in it, real marginal characters whom I’d become unwilling to associate with further. This, too, is a consequence of the stratospheric height to which political stakes have been raised by the unlimited swelling of the State. When decent people feel they must align themselves with a major party, the minor ones automatically fall to the screamers and kooks.
By the way, the “religious right” is a ghost story. Whatever impressions American media have given you about the existence of an organized religion-oriented political force here, they’re entirely bogeymen. Religious faith correlates very weakly with political preferences in America. Figures such as Pat Robertson command too little political influence to matter. The media likes to keep the notion alive to scare Democratic voters who’ve begun to doubt their party’s direction into staying in the fold.
The story you give about the chip shop is the sort of thing that makes it very hard for many of us who started off on the left to ever sympathise with or vote for the Tories, however much we conclude that the left are a bunch of idiots who have left for la la land, and however much we realise that many (or most) Conservatives are not like that. As I have been mentioning repeatedly though, I will vote for them next time if they promise not to make me carry an ID card. Hopefully they are smart enough to realise there are a lot of votes in this issue.
You questions are best answered by telling you that, in case you didn’t know, your quote about liberty and vice is from Barry Goldwater during the 1964 Republican Convention. Unfortunately, today that quote doesn’t mean what it should. In this age of moral relativism, every extremist thinks they’re on the side of truth and justice. That’s why they’re so extreme. As a result every faction thinks they have a right to act in ‘extreme’ ways. Vegans, Islamists, clinic-bombers, the KKK…Nancy Pelosi. Personally, I think the public of the US is starting to automatically discount anything that is considered ‘extreme’. And I stress the ‘starting’ part. I think they’re getting tired of the shock tactics of the new movements. (No matter how old these movements might actually be) I vote Rebuplican because turning the right towards Libertarian values is a much shorter road than making the Libertarian Party a viable third party for every district in every state in the whole country. Which, I believe, is where they truly belong. Just call me sell-out.
aequitas, veritas.
I left the American Libertarian Party after eight or ten years of intense involvement over the War and their “peace” foreign policy.
Who would have thunk that the Libertarians would be following the Marxist line in international relations? I in fact had left the communist/socialist left only to have it follow me into the Libertarians. I have pointed this out to them numerous times only to get uncomprehending stares back. Ah, well.
I feel quite at home at Samizdata though. Nice to meet with people who understand the need for international police as well as they understand the need for local police. Americans of the Libertarian persuasion know nothing of power vacums etc. More is the pity.
BTW Matt Eric is spot on as well.
I agree with you entirely, Alex. And one day I’ll get round to blogging here about it with a few more detailed reasons why…
Just wanted to add my voice to those who are trying to “reform” the US Republicans from within, rather than try to bring the Libertarians into the mainstream.
Just seems like a better use of my time.
In Canada, the most ‘right-wing’ party is the Canadian Alliance Party. It is largely an amalgam of social conservatives and libertarians. Its policies are almost entirely driven by the libertarian elements, with ‘family friendly’ tax policies (i.e. taxes aren’t raised when people living together get married) thrown in to satisfy the social conservatives.
The coalition works quite well and has helped to push the federal government towards more responsible fiscal policy. If the libertarians were to remain disengaged from politics, the party could not have had the success that it has.
But I do think it harmful when libertarians completely remove themselves from mainstream party politics. The creation of a Libertarian Party in the US has been wholly unhelpful because it allowed the religious right much more influence over the Republican Party.
EXCELLENT observations. I dont understand this idea that by withdrawing themselves from less than perfect organization that they have any influence. If they joined in numbers, they might find that more people agree with them than not.
The US LP may be utterly worthless, but what success can libertarians really expect in trying to turn one of the major parties towards a more libertarian stance?
DogFace: Just call me sell-out.
DogFace, you’re a sell-out. 🙂
But so am I.
I think the public of the US is starting to automatically discount anything that is considered ‘extreme’. … I think they’re getting tired of the shock tactics of the new movements.
Interesting observation. Certainly post-911, many Americans lost all taste for both religious millenarianism and the tranzi left, and developed a renewed appreciation for pragmatism and basic liberties. I know I did.
I admire the “Keepers of the Sacred Flame” types (such as Perry, who wrote, “I will never embrace or respect any political party myself and I sure as hell will never join one. My object is get as many people as possible to … Think Different”) and I value their contributions as educators, influencers and evangelists.
But as one who measures success by one’s ability to impact reality, I think it’s clear that alone, the Keepers are going nowhere fast. Only by linking with vigorous, compatible Others can their genes spread. Total ideological purity, like total genetic purity, is a losing game. Hybridize.
Eric, parties turn all the time from one stance to another.
Today’s Republican Party bears little resemblance to that of 50 years ago. Ditto for the Democrats. New ideas, new issues, and new people are continually leaving and entering and nudging the parties this way and that.
For example, the religious right didn’t exist, let alone wield influence, until quite recently. A few entrepreneurial minds among them linked up with an entrepreneurial politician who fused their agenda to several other agendas, then rode the whole contraption to victory.
It can be done, and it is done all the time.
I am sick of libertarians being kooky outcasts (here in the US) when in reality the majority of the population is libertarian. I hate to say this (because I know I’ll be hated for it) but the pursuit of ideological purity is a major reason for it. Small “l” live-and-let-live libertarianism is now America’s Great Silent Majority. And they haven’t a thing to say about it.
I decided that I shouldn’t remain silent, even though I am anything but ideologically pure. I found I am not alone, at least in the blogosphere.
Thoughtful piece. Thanks.
It seems like a catch-22 to me. If libertarians fold into one of the mainstream parties of the right then we end up risking the same draining of anything resembling principles that has happened with those groups (in the US especially: the parties might as well be called the Anti-Abortion Opportunistic Statists & the Pro-Abortion Opportunistic Statists), whereas having a seperate party means we keep our principles pure at the cost of being utterly shut out of the discussion since the media is so overwhelmingly pro-government.
It’s a question of whether we can weave our way into the hall without having to sell our souls. I wish I knew the answer to that, but I don’t…
We need both libertarians working inside the other parties and the Libertarian Party. When the LP comes away with 1.7 million votes for the US House, the libertarians in the other parties can better convince their leaders to start listening and considering more libertarian policies. The mid-century Socialists in the US had the same effect on the Democratic Party. The Socialists didn’t win many elections, but the Democrats adopted almost all of their policy goals. We (I am employed by the LP) may not win any major federal offices in the next decade, but we do help shift the debate, shape the policy, and educate people about liberty. Those are all very valuable toward reducing our creep into socialisms. Whether one strategy is better than the other is not a valid reason to only adopt one of the strategies, because it takes more than one strategy and many coalitions to shape policy.
Alex, I for one agree with you. I happen to think the battle in the market place of ideas is more important than the battlefield of political policy.
For me the challenge is to change the intellectual orthodoxy, which I believe has been captured by socialists, statists and anti-intellectuals/modernists of various stripes.
Change the orthodoxy and political parties will naturally realign themselves in relation to it.
Trigger:
“Whether one strategy is better than the other is not a valid reason to only adopt one of the strategies, because it takes more than one strategy and many coalitions to shape policy.”
I’d go further. We don’t know what the best strategy is. As we don’t, the best approach is to use all the strategies we can think of, in parallel – i.e. a sort of evolutionary darwinism of strategies. That way, the best one will emerge.
As the devil’s disciple on earth once said, “Let a thousand flowers bloom”
Cydonia