...final word (for now) on libertarians vs. conservatives

Really Strange Bedfellows II
A final word (for now) on libertarians vs. conservatives
by Nick Gilespie

It's been a long, long while since I've been accused of impairing the morals of a minor (really). In fact, the last time I can remember such a claim being leveled against me was back in high school when I coaxed some classmates at good old Mater Dei High School into seeing Monty Python's Life of Brian rather than a less theologically charged movie. Some of my friends' mothers--and a buttinsky parish priest--saw my actions as proof positive of heretical tendencies (this, even in a very post-Vatican II atmosphere).

So the recent charges by National Review Online Editor Jonah Goldberg that what he calls my brand of "cultural libertarianism" is partly to blame both for 20-year-old John Walker's defection to the Taliban and for "campuses today [being] infested with so many silly radicals" really make me feel young again. For that early Christmas present, I thank him. He's recently signaled that he's putting this particular hobbyhorse back in the closet for a while and I fully intend to follow suit after these few more words on the matter.

Beyond its particulars, this exchange--prompted by Jonah's taking exception to my editor's note in the January Reason--helps clarify important ideological differences not only between our respective publications but between libertarians and conservatives more generally. These differences are worth underscoring, if only because they are not going away anytime soon. Indeed, especially with the hardcore Marxian left becoming increasingly irrelevant and centrist liberals essentially acknowledging the efficiency of markets and grappling more and more with libertarian arguments for free expression and lifestyle choice, the debate between libertarians and conservatives is likely to assume greater and greater significance as the 21st century unfolds. These two positions--roughly representing forces of choice vs. forces of control--are where the action is, and will be, for a long time to come.

In his original formulation, Jonah claimed that libertarians espouse a form of "arrogant nihilism" and that John Walker's participation in a retrograde fundamentalist regime was "a logical consequence" of such a misguided "political agenda." He wrote, "According to cultural libertarianism, we should all start believing in absolutely nothing, until we find whichever creed or ideology fits us best. We can pick from across the vast menu of human diversity — from all religions and cultures, real and imagined — until we find one that fits our own personal preferences."

He is not, I think, particularly mistaken in emphasizing libertarianism's interest in what he derisively terms "Chinese-menu culture" and "designer cultures." I'd argue, in fact, that all cultures are precisely admixtures put together by individuals to serve their particular needs and ends. No one questions that "cultures"--an imprecise term at best--change over time and in response to the demands of the people comprising them. Consider Roman Catholicism, which I alluded to at the start of this piece: Despite official claims to a consistent, unbroken, and self-evident tradition dating back to the first century A.D., the plain fact is that a Catholic from 1901 would barely recognize today's church as his own. Things change, and in response to specific and ongoing, if not always articulate, demands.

One of the defining characteristics of contemporary America and the modern world writ large is that more individuals have the means and motivation to insist on a "culture" that reflects their particular needs and sensibilities. Jonah ridicules this as underwriting such apparently clear absurdities as "Buddhists for Jesus" (as if Christianity itself had no precursor forms that violated existing categories). Dictating the limits of culture used to be the province of small, typically aristocratic elites, who could enforce their vision on the masses. Nowadays, that ability is effectively becoming decentralized, the result being a proliferation of standards, not a flight from them. This trend, which I've written about at length in terms of creative expression, frustrates and frightens conservatives and other gatekeepers who prize stability and hierarchy, for they mistake it as an end to standards.

Where Jonah is absolutely wrong, however, is to assert that an appreciation for this dynamic is tantamount to nihilism. To suggest that is to argue that tolerance is nihilism. It isn't: Tolerance, particularly in a libertarian framework, is grounded in respect for individuals as equal and autonomous agents, as long as they recognize others' similar standing--the right to swing one's fist ends at my nose and all that. Tolerance is a universal principle that underwrites all sorts of local differences. To believe in tolerance is manifestly not to believe in nothing.

Which is precisely why F.A. Hayek, in his widely read essay "Why I Am Not a Conservative," placed tolerance at the heart of a truly liberal--or, properly, libertarian--order. In his column titled "The Libertarian Lie," Jonah makes great hay over the fact that Hayek explicitly rejected the term "libertarian," calling it "singularly unattractive." There's no question Hayek dissed the particular word, claiming that "it carries too much the flavor of the manufactured term and of a substitute." Yet he unreservedly embraced the substance of it, too, talking repeatedly about "the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution." "The liberal," wrote Hayek, "is aware that it is of the essence of human achievement that it produces something new; and he is prepared to come to terms with new knowledge, whether he likes its immediate effects or not." This seems to me much more a description of "cultural libertarianism" than of National Review conservatism, which seems to groan at every change in women's status, say, or every new development in genetic engineering.

The contested role of Hayek in this is worth lingering over, less because Hayek is some sort of high priest with divine insight and more because the appeals made in his name demonstrate core beliefs of his petitioners. At the heart of the Hayekian project, as I quoted in my earlier rejoinder to Jonah, is a belief that "to live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends." For Hayek, such tolerance had a strong instrumental component: He argued for a maximally defined private, "protected sphere," one free of all sorts of coercion, because it allows for decentralized experiments in living through which individuals and groups gain meaningful knowledge and social institutions evolve. Elsewhere, he defined a free society as one in which individuals "could at least attempt to shape their own li[ves], where [they] gained the opportunity of knowing and choosing different forms of life." To limit choices, for Hayek, was to risk impoverishing a robust "extended order."

Hayek's insistence on the necessary limits of human knowledge similarly distances him from contemporary conservatives, who typically sound a very different tone in their proclamations. "The liberal is very much aware that we do not know all the answers and that he is not sure that the answers he has are certainly the right ones or even that we can find all the answers," wrote Hayek. At another point, Hayek, true to his Humean roots, notes that "in some respects the liberal fundamentally a skeptic." Compare these positively postmodern emphases on the limits of knowledge to Jonah's exasperation that "to the cultural libertarian, all authoritative cultural norms should be scrutinized again and again" (emphasis in the original).

Jonah is right to note that the "conservatives" specifically alluded to in Hayek's title are "conservatives in the European tradition (de Maistre, Coleridge, et al)," yet he merely ignores the question of whether that brand of conservatism is a part of his own. Hayek may well have noted, as Jonah writes, "that United States was the one place in the world where you could call yourself a 'conservative' and be a lover of liberty" because of America's peculiar past as a liberal nation. Yet that doesn't mean that all aspects of U.S. conservatism are classically liberal. Hayek notes that conservatives have a reflexive "distrust of the new and strange," essentially a fear of change.

This calls to mind Jonah's argument against another "cultural libertarian," Andrew Sullivan, who supports gay marriage. Titled, "Patience, Andrew, Patience: The Case for Temperamental Conservatism," the column seems an illustration of Hayek's idea that conservatism, "by its very nature cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but...it cannot prevent their continuance." Jonah essentially grants that gay marriage will come one day--a concession that no conservative would have made 30 years ago--but that we should just hold off on it for the time being. (Click here to read the explicitly Hayekian case for gay marriage I made in Reason some five years ago.)

Regardless of where or whether Hayek fits into all this, there can be little question that libertarians and conservatives break sharply over issues of choice vs. control, with libs opting for more of the former in all areas of human activity and conservatives emphasizing the latter, whether the topic is gay marriage, biotech, or drug use. There can be little question that we are facing increasing choice--not simply in economic but cultural and social terms, too, where the "Chinese menu" has exploded into a wide-ranging buffet. Anthropologist Grant McCracken has observed what he terms "plenitude," or the "quickening speciation" of social groups, gender types and lifestyles. "Where once there was simplicity and limitation ... there is now social difference, and that difference proliferates into ever more diversity, variety, heterogeneity," writes McCracken in 1997's "Plenitude."

For conservatives, such thoroughgoing choice is problematic, whether we're talking politics or culture, because it allows for unregulated experimentation ("Buddhists for Jesus"). Jonah notes that "personal liberty is vitally important. But it isn't everything. If you emphasize personal liberty over all else, you undermine the development of character and citizenship" and all forms of "established authority."

Maybe, maybe not. This much is certain, though: Such an understanding misses the key point that individual liberty is the starting point of "established authority," whether political, social, or cultural. Reeling off a list of "the ingredients for Western civilization," Jonah counts, "Christianity and religion in general, sexual norms, individualism, patriotism, the Canon, community of standards, democracy, the rule of law, fairness, modesty, self-denial, and the patriarchy." All of these things are under construction, reconstruction, and deconstruction on a daily basis, as different individuals opt in or out. But they all require buy-in from individuals too, even if the choice, as it often is, is to bind oneself to particular rules and conventions.

"Choosing determines all human action," wrote a different Austrian economist (and Hayek's mentor), Ludwig von Mises. "In making his choice, man chooses not only between various materials and services. All human values are offered for option. All ends and all means, both material and ideal issues, the sublime and the base, the noble and the ignoble, are ranged in a single row and subjected to a decision which picks out one thing and sets aside another."

To understand that basic reality is not, pace Jonah, to "encourage the dismantling of the soapboxes [libertarians] stand on." Rather, it is the best and perhaps only way to maintain a flourishing culture.

Hayek may well have noted, as Jonah writes, "that United States was the one place in the world where you could call yourself a 'conservative' and be a lover of liberty" because of America's peculiar past as a liberal nation.

The past? We can still be a liberal nation (and conservative also), but not if we give our liberal heritage away to every ultra statist who claims it. They need to be challanged everytime they claim the title.

Well, I think that if tolerance means accepting very destructive things and refusing to at least try to change them, then it is a gutless empty fraud. If you see a person about to consume a drug that you KNOW will destroy their life, or you see a young frightened girl being dragged by a feminazi to a clinic to turn her unborn child into 3 Lbs of ground chuck and you don't do anything about it, then you have sunk to such utter ethical confusion that it would be a liability to know you. These days, most of what passes for high minded tolerance is actually low lying gutlessness.

Conservatism has been falsely labeled as filled with hate and anger, but it is actually the [pseudo]liberal that is nearly consumed by hate, class warfare, envy, etc. I say pseudo-liberal because ~90% of people, and 100% of the politicians, who claim to be liberal are really pseudo-liberal. A real liberal has compassion for others, but gives from their own time talent and treasure to help. A true liberal also has a high sense of right and wrong and a high sense of courage in defending the weak and innocent. The one person that I know who fits the description of a true liberal is Mother Theresa. I cannot thiink of a single so called political liberal who can measure up to the above description, do you?

I am disappointed that you resort to the term "statist" given your past civility in defending your libertarian philosophy. Be that as it may, I am glad that the debate has been settled as to the myth that libertarians are just conservatives in all but name. The fact is that libertarians and liberals share a family tree not libertarians and conservatives.

So, would you say that liberals and libertarians have points of agreement but not conservatives and libertarians?

There are two stated positions that libertarians have in common with conservatives, the 2nd amendment and taxes/economics. That is where the similarity ends. On almost any social issue you can name, the libertarians are in lock step with liberals. The mantra that libertarians couple "responsibility" to freedom unlike the liberals rings hollow and is a stalking horse to maintain some semblance of credibility when debating conservatives.

Yes, as a rejection of objective reality and a remarkable simultaneous exercise in Clintonian "The world is what I believe it is not what it actually is" and juvenile knee-jerk Randianism, this is bad.

Gillespie reveals in himself the cultural idiocy that has made libertarians such an electoral powerhouse. As to Catholicism, truly the general run of "novus ordo" Masses are a cultural abomination by comparison with the Tridentine rites but the Deposit of the Faith remains the same as would be recognized by any 1901 Catholic.

I have often wondered what might make me think of Jonah Goldberg as something other than a two-legged wind tunnel. By golly, I think I've found it! Eureka!!!

Jonah is proving to be just another feather brained liberarian basher, no better than some of the meatheads here at FR. IE, - this from his article of the 12th, linked above:

------ liberals see no problem with using the government to impose their cultural beliefs on others; they just won't admit that's what they're doing.

In this sense, cultural libertarians are less bigoted than their liberal cousins. The libertarians think all ideologies — so long as there's no governmental component — are equal.

Indeed, RINO's like Goldberg see no problem either, with using the government to impose their cultural beliefs on others; they just won't admit that's what they're doing.

And, libertarians certainly do NOT think all ideologies — so long as there's no governmental component — are equal. -- For instance, the few libertarians on FR can not even agree on such basics of libertarian ideology as the non agression principle.

Jonah's generalizations are the pure BS of an outclassed mind, arguing of prinicples he doesn't and can't understand.

I'm glad to see I'm not alone in using terms such as "pseudo liberal" and "so called liberal" when referring to the imposter who conservatives have let steal the term, as a matter of convenience. I do however distinguish a difference between the two, which probably for some time to come should keep the two separate. The difference is focus and not necessarily ideology. Liberals tend to disregard tradition, family, property rights, law, individual responsibility, etc. That does not mean they are against these things. It just means they give them a lower priority than they give individual freedom, equality, relieving human suffering, etc. Liberals actually believe that conservatives do not in the slightest care about their concerns. This belief makes them easy pickings for corrupt political hacks, communists, socialists, etc.

I say a well prepared movement of libertarians could pull the rug out from under the the ultra statists and their fellow traveling parasites, by basicly out lefting the left. As I see it, the Libertarian Party and movement were well on their way to doing just that by 1980. But the LP was growing out of control. So the conservatives with in the LP launched a purposeful campaign to pull it back to the right, where it now probably does more harm than good.

One small battle which could have extraordinary results, on which both libertarians and conservatives could join forces is the not crediting the most unliberal people in the country with the title liberal. I ask, is their any economic system more liberal than the free enterprise system?

And this is bad?

Before asking if this is bad, I think one should ask; is it accurate? While there probably are cultural libertarians who think people ought to start out believing in nothing, I doubt there are very many of them. On the otherhand, I see nothing wrong with an individual having a period of time in their life when they basicly believe in nothing. I think it good that we have sub cultures, various religions, etc to choose from. I say variety adds strength to the culture.

...blame Islamic converts on Libertarianism?

Why not? I assure you before this movement ever begins bringing on any real changes, we are going to blamed for one hell of a lot more. The public won't respect us until they fear us. And they won't fear us until they hate us. You know, maybe I've got it all wrong. It might just be good that the LP takes votes from Repubs.

For instance, the few libertarians on FR can not even agree on such basics of libertarian ideology as the non agression principle.

Our greatest strength while we are small is in everything libertarians do not agree upon. The more infighting, factions and caucuses the better. I look forward to the day when the party is paralyzed by infighting. Because that is when we will break out and become a dynamic movement. In 1981 we were almost there. Interestingly, I blame Reason Magazine for helping set the movemnet back. They had a news letter called "Front Lines" which was full of Party infighting over ideological questions. They got rid of it, wanting not to advertise how dis-unified we were.

I like your description of the movement as most healthy when the real disagreements got debated. Apparently the foundation types got nervous.

So now we have a false harmony: "We all basically agree", smiling, (kicking under the table)... how cultlike. As opposed to: "Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in".

We won't get respected until we inspire fear, and we won't get feared until we get hated. I presume you mean hated for stealing the young idealists/ altruists from the left.

The fact is that libertarians and liberals share a family tree not libertarians and conservatives.

All three share a family tree, and dispite what you may think, the Left derives from libertarianism, not the other way around. Libertarianism is the modern representative of the liberal or whiggish tradition (and many who call themselves conservatives are in fact more moderate members of the same tradition). The great early philosopher in that tradition was John Locke. The Left comes from the French philosopher Rousseau, who came after Locke and modified some of his ideas, the social contract in particular, into supports for tyranny. About the time Rousseau's ideas were bearing fruit in the French Revolution, the founder of conservatism was active. Burke was a member of Parliament in the Whig party. In other words, he was one of ours! His arguments were different from Locke's, and probably influenced the arguments of libertarians/liberals/whigs like Bastiat and Hayek (and you can see obvious influence from Bastiat on whiggish conservatives like Sowell).

Locke himself took many of his arguments from Hobbes, but changed around the effect in much the same way Rousseau did to him, but had political forerunners in the Levellers. More about them here.

If authoritarian conservatives have any share in the family tree at all, it might be from Whigs like Cromwell. You must be real proud of that.

There are two stated positions that libertarians have in common with conservatives, the 2nd amendment and taxes/economics.

So If libertarians agree with the 1st amendment and the 4th and the 5th and the 9th and the 10th etc, conservatives differ with us? HMMMM, maybe you know different conservatives than I know?

That is where the similarity ends.

Hmmmm, so since there are only two basic limbs of responsibility, social (as you put it) and economic and libertarians are in agreement with conservative policy on fully 50% of that spectrum and nothing in libertarian philosophy condones any of the behaviors on the social side (where you incorrectly connect libertarians with modern day liberals) you conclude that we have very little in common with conservatives? Very odd conclusion indeed.

On almost any social issue you can name, the libertarians are in lock step with liberals.

Will you please list the issues that libertarians are in lock step with liberals so that I can refute them and disabuse you of those mistaken notions one at a time?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.