Return of the Conservative-Libertarian Coalition?

The Volokh Conspiracy ^ | November 6, 2008 | Ilya Somin

[Delacon]

It's no secret that the Bush years have severely strained and perhaps broken the conservative-libertarian political coalition. Most libertarians were deeply disappointed by the Bush Administration's vast expansion of government spending and regulation, claims of virtually unlimited wartime executive power, and other departures from limited government principles. As a result, many libertarian intellectuals (and to a lesser extent, libertarian voters), actually supported Barack Obama this year, despite his being a very statist liberal. Republican nominee John McCain had opposed some of Bush's excesses, including rejecting Bush's stance on torture and being one of the very few GOP senators to vote against Bush's massive 2003 Medicare prescription drug program. But McCain had numerous statist impulses of his own, including the most famous piece of legislation that bears his name. Even those libertarians who voted for him (myself included) did so with grave reservations.

With Barack Obama in the White House and the Democrats enjoying large majorities in Congress at a time of economic crisis, it is highly likely that they will push for a large expansion of government even beyond that which recently occurred under Bush. That prospect may bring libertarians and conservatives back together. Many of the items on the likely Democratic legislative agenda are anathema to both groups: a vast expansion of government control of health care, new legal privileges for labor unions, expanded regulation of a variety of industries, protectionism, increased government spending on infrastructure and a variety of other purposes, and bailouts for additional industries, such as automakers.

Even if conservatives and libertarians can find a way to work together, it would be naive to expect that they can block all the items on the Obama's agenda. Many are going to pass regardless of what we do. However, a renewed libertarian-conservative coalition could help limit the damage and begin to build the foundation for a new pro-limited government political movement.

Obviously, a lot depends on what conservatives decide to do. If they choose the pro-limited government position advocated by Representative Jeff Flake and some other younger House Republicans, there will be lots of room for cooperation with libertarians. I am happy to see that Flake has denounced "the ill-fitting and unworkable big-government conservatism that defined the Bush administration." Conservatives could, however, adopt the combination of economic populism and social conservatism advocated by Mike Huckabee and others. It is even possible that the latter path will be more politically advantageous, at least in the short term.

Much also depends on what the Democrats do. If Obama opts for moderation and keeps his promise to produce a net decrease in federal spending, a renewed conservative-libertarian coalition will be less attractive to libertarians. However, I highly doubt that Obama and the Democrats will actually take the relatively moderate, budget-cutting path. It would go against both their own instincts and historical precedent from previous periods of united government and economic crisis. If I am right about that, we will need a revamped conservative-libertarian alliance to oppose the vast expansion of government that looms around the corner.

Reforging the conservative-libertarian coalition will be very hard. Relations between the two groups have always been tense, and the last eight years have undeniably drawn down the stock of goodwill. But if we can't find a new way to hang together, we are all too likely to hang separately.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Any libertarian that voted for obama is unstable.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Thats sweet.Of course he is against the fairtax and now I know why.A tax lawyer huh?Well thats two strikes against him right off the bat.

[Jibaholic]

You're obviously a social conservative above all else, and not necessarily a limited government, individual rights conservative as most "small L" libertarians are.

I'm the one defending human rights. You, like most libertarians, are taking the "liberty for me, but not for thee" approach. That's fine, but please find a new name that does not have the word "liberty" in the title. How about will-to-power-atarians?

[Jibaholic]

It could also be that imposing your idea of morals on someone else is exactly the same as you said: “Liberty for me, but not for thee”

Is imposing abolition on slave-owners a violation of their liberty? Of course not. As Jefferson pointed out, government's exist to secure our rights. The weak and the helpless cannot defend themselves.

Just suppose for one second that 90% of America was gay. What do you think they would do to you under your philosophy?

If America were 90% gay the laws of evolution would still apply. It is a good strategy to invest time and energy into your own biological offspring, and a bad strategy to invest time and energy into someon else's biological offspring. The end result is that children raised by non-biological parents are more likely to be murdered and abused by non-biological parents. Go pick up a book on evolution like 'The Triumph of Sociobiology' or 'The Myth of Monogamy' or 'The Blank Slate.'

[Jibaholic]

But again, although many libertarians will strongly disagree with my views on these issues, the fundamental principle that the government should not interfere with people doing whatever they want to do as long as they are not interfering with another’s rights is what defines libertarianism.

I agree 100% with that particular aspect of your position. But most libertarians have a very small radius of moral consciousness that does not extend beyond consenting adults. Hence Murray Rothbard, probably the most important libertarian thinker, doesn't even think that parents have a moral duty to feed their children.

[CrosscutSaw]

Murray Rothbard, probably the most important libertarian thinker, doesn't even think that parents have a moral duty to feed their children.

Anyone who believes that is nuts. There are a lot of kooks who are libertarians no doubt. But still, I believe the fundamental libertarian principles are sound and are the foundation of our republic. Turning back to those principles would be the best direction our nation could take.

[mo]

“Alynski’s rules. Form Coalitions. We will need everyone we can get to defeat the coming Marxism....”

Basic problem is...these creatures live for politics...real Americans, Conservatives and Libertarians...generally have better things to do with their lives.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Hence Murray Rothbard, probably the most important libertarian thinker, doesn't even think that parents have a moral duty to feed their children.

You have grossly mischaracterized Rothbard's argument. He is discussing the parent's legal duties, not moral ones:

"Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question."

The Ethics of Liberty

[tacticalogic]

Virtually all of the hot-button social issues ultimately reduce to consenting adults putting their own self-interest ahead of the best interests of the children.

The opposition is within the federal government. It is supposed to be the government of the States. States don't have children.

A republic is characterized by a heirarchial system of governments. In ours the those issues are supposed to be the responsibility of the States. "States Rights" is libertarianism at the federal level, and that's where the fight is.

[weston]

Conservatives and Libertarians...generally have better things to do with their lives.

Better things...like good jobs, freedom to worship, going to the mall, enjoying doing the things economic prosperity allows.... If we don't take a little time and effort to preserve our rights and freedoms, we will lose them. Then we will wish we would have stepped away form the TV for an hour or two a week and worked a little for the cause.
It will take much more time and hard work,maybe even bloodshed to get back those "better things" once they are completely lost.

[Jibaholic]

That is not a mischaracterization. Rothbard would create a world in which parents can let their infants starve to death without punishment.

[Jibaholic]

I generally agree in leaving these issues to the states. But if the left escaletes to the Federal level, such as with Roe v. Wade or the imminent repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, then the Federal government is the only avenue. Furthermore, there are some times where the Federal government should get involved. I know that a lot of libertarians argue that Lincoln is a facist tyrant, but he ended slavery. More recently, it was appropriate to use the Federal government to end segregation. George Wallace - no racist - was wrong to want to leave it up to the states because segregation would have lasted forever, or at least a lot longer.

[mo]

could’nt agree more...if we don’t take time out now to become active, we may have to “water the tree of liberty” more literally. However...its easy to get “sucked into” the DC mindset when one gets too intertwined with that. I suspect a political part, that promised and funded electable, GUARANTEED term limited candidates...would be popular. But unless you couple that with a sophisticated end run around the media and big business...and then somehow you have to have savvy once you hit Capitol Hill so you don’t get steamrolled...would require an incredible infrastructure out in flyover country.

[tacticalogic]

Ending slavery was done by amendment. There should be no question of Constitutional authority there.

[Jibaholic]

So you would be onboard with an amendment that includes the unborn as persons? And you would be on board with an amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman?

[tacticalogic]

Sure.

The marriage amendment should be pretty straight forward.

Defining the unborn as persons is going to be a little more problematic.

Essentially you're recognizing citizenship at conception, so you're going to have to hammer out some details about things like does your age, for legal purposes start then, or at birth.

It also needs to be clarified exactly what this means in terms of the legality of contraceptive drugs. I see lots of potential for unintended consequences there.

It's probably nothing that couldn't be addressed but it needs to be done up front.

[Jibaholic]

well, it looks like we found some common ground. :)

[tacticalogic]

The small-government paradigm of libertarianism is relevant in the context of the federal government, and that's between the States and the federal government.

Whatever social aspects there are shouldn't be an issue until you get down to the State and local levels.

The States aren't supposed to be FedGov Mini Me's. They have different functions and there's no reason they can't be operated using different rules and philosophies and probably should be.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Rothbard would create a world in which parents can let their infants starve to death without punishment.

Please give a citation.

[K-oneTexas]

The marriage amendment should be pretty straight forward. Already addressed with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA defined marriage and spouse: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” Also it had two effects: (1) said no State had treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state and (2) that the Feds may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. On the Federal level it's set and defined. No it it up to the individual States. Once they decide then the 'Full Faith and Credit Clause' of the Constitution take effect and the Fed will have to ensure it. However that does seem to conflict with the first effect of DOMA. The USSC will have to decide if DOMA, or that effect at any rate, is unconstitutional.