TNR BLOGS

September 06, 2008 | 4:31 PM
September 06, 2008 | 3:43 PM
September 05, 2008 | 8:32 PM

September 05, 2008 | 2:53 PM
September 05, 2008 | 3:45 AM
September 05, 2008 | 12:25 AM

September 06, 2008 | 3:14 PM
September 06, 2008 | 3:10 PM
September 05, 2008 | 4:28 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

September 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
September 03, 2008 | 1:01 PM
September 02, 2008 | 6:20 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
30.06.2008
Liberaltarianism, Revisited

Via Matt Yglesias, an interesting post from Tim Lee on the subject of Brink Lindsey's excellent book The Age of Abundance. Lee writes:

Too many libertarians seem to define libertarianism as a very specific and restrictive political program: as a laundry list of government programs to be abolished, or equivalently as a very short list of government programs that won’t be abolished. By that measure, libertarianism is nowhere close to successful. But if we define libertarianism more broadly as a set of general ideas and attitudes--pro-market, pro-tolerance, skeptical of authority--the last few decades look a lot better from a libertarian perspective.

As Matt points out, this sounds a lot like contemporary liberalism, which has gradually been shorn of its more statist elements. This, ultimately, is why I'm persuaded that the liberal-libertarian alliance Lindsey envisioned in his December 2006 TNR article is likely to come about in some form or another. You're already starting to see quite a few young libertarian-leaning voters decide that the Democrats' mild economic heresy is more palatable than the GOP's more serious deviations from the small-government line in the realms of social and foreign policy.

What's more, it's quite possible that the trend might be accelerated if the Democrats find themselves controlling both Congress and the White House come January. One serious look at long-term budget projections will convince the Democrats that means-testing entitlements is the only way to make the numbers add up: You can keep sending checks to wealthy seniors or you can fund liberal priorities like universal health care for the working poor, but you can't do both. If, after a few years of unified Democratic control of the federal government, you don't see marginal tax rates reverting to their pre-Reagan levels, libertarians will be apt to decide they've won the battle and Lindsey's prediction will be borne out. A social-safety net that's genuinely Rawlsekian, even if it's more generous than most libertarians would prefer, is something I'd wager they'll be able to reconcile themselves to. (Of course, it's also possible that we'll get no means-testing of entitlements, a serious spending orgy, and massive tax hikes beyond anything currently being proposed by any prominent Democrat, which would obviously preclude a liberal-libertarian alliance. But I wouldn't bet on it--even Democrats aren't that suicidal.)

--Josh Patashnik 

Posted: Monday, June 30, 2008 10:47 PM with 5 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

jet said:

While it's nice to see some of those statist elements gone from liberalism, I don't really care if libertarians form an alliance with liberals.

June 30, 2008 11:33 PM

rozenson said:

Seriously -- what's a bigger offense against small government: Social Security or domestic spying?

I do fear, however, that libertarian influence in the Democratic Party would mean a more non-interventionist approach in foreign policy.

June 30, 2008 11:41 PM

colablease said:

"'But if we define libertarianism more broadly as a set of general ideas and attitudes--pro-market, pro-tolerance, skeptical of authority--the last few decades look a lot better from a libertarian perspective.'

"As Matt points out, this sounds a lot like contemporary liberalism, which has gradually been shorn of its more statist elements."

Well, it sounds like Matt's version of liberalism, which is awfully close to libertarianism; look at the people he hangs out with.  He's a twenty-something who dislikes rules [Most people I knew were the same way when we were in our twenties], and is pretty much driven in his politics by his hatred of the Iraq war.  But support of universal health care, e.g., is neither "pro-market" nor "skeptical of authority" [those pesky mandates again].  And liberaltarianism would leave a huge chunk of the Democratic base--the chunk that doesn't toil in the DC opinion industry--effectively orphaned, and maybe ripe for the Douthat-Salaam Sam's-Club strategy if the Republicans weren't so conservatarian themselves.

July 1, 2008 10:57 AM

colablease said:

"'But if we define libertarianism more broadly as a set of general ideas and attitudes--pro-market, pro-tolerance, skeptical of authority--the last few decades look a lot better from a libertarian perspective.'

"As Matt points out, this sounds a lot like contemporary liberalism, which has gradually been shorn of its more statist elements."

Well, it sounds like Matt's version of liberalism, which is awfully close to libertarianism; look at the people he hangs out with.  He's a twenty-something who dislikes rules [Most people I knew were the same way when we were in our twenties], and is pretty much driven in his politics by his hatred of the Iraq war.  But support of universal health care, e.g., is neither "pro-market" nor "skeptical of authority" [those pesky mandates again].  And liberaltarianism would leave a huge chunk of the Democratic base--the chunk that doesn't toil in the DC opinion industry--effectively orphaned, and maybe ripe for the Douthat-Salaam Sam's-Club strategy if the Republicans weren't so conservatarian themselves.

July 1, 2008 10:57 AM

jet said:

Good points by both colablease and rozenson.  I'd add that Josh probably falls in the age group that might find a liberaltarian alliance beneficial.

July 1, 2008 12:25 PM