Despite all the buzz surrounding then idea that we are at a libertarian moment in American politics, libertarians remain a tiny slice of the American electorate.
It’s been fashionable in the political media as of late to talk about the libertarianism; a political philosophy that calls for minimal state intervention in economic and social policy at home and zero military intervention abroad, as being a growing part of the American political scene. The ongoing pundit class’s obsession with Senator Rand Paul is a great example of this on going trend. In fact we probably hit “peak libertarian” in early August when none other than The New York Times Magazine published a front page feature by Robert Draper on how libertarianism represents a future path for a new resurgent Republican Party.
It’s an interesting theory, but unfortunately for Draper it’s completely bogus.
To begin with much of the argument that we are entering into a new a “libertarian moment” is dependent a pretty simple trick. That is defining policy positions that libertarians favor as being a “libertarian” position. But this doesn’t make much sense at all, policy positions can be held for all sorts of reason that having nothing to do with libertarian philosophy. Thus libertarians may favor policy changes like legalizing marijuana, but that doesn’t mean that there’s anything particular libertarian about that policy position. After all a liberal Democrat might favor all sorts of changes in drug policy and higher taxes and stricter regulations on Wall Street (things that libertarians hate), while a conservative might favor legalizing marijuana and a military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program. As Seth Masket put it:
Basically everyone agrees with libertarians on something, but they tend to get freaked out just as quickly by the ideology’s other stances. Which is why libertarianism tends to have a low ceiling for popularity.
Pretty much the only way you can make it look like libertarianism is a popular movement is if you expand its definition so far as to be almost meaningless. This is more or less what [Robert] Draper has done in this article.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
But that’s not the only problem with the “libertarian moment” idea. The simple fact remains that there is very little hard evidence that voters are actually changing their minds and becoming more aligned with the libertarian mindset. Over at Talking Points Memo Dylan Scott dug into new poll results from the Pew Center and found evidence that even self-described libertarians often disagree with their philosophy’s party line:
Pew’s research showed striking departures from the expected party line. Libertarians were more likely than the general U.S. population to say that it is better for the United States to have an active role in world affairs, according to the Center.
They even favored stop-and-frisk—the controversial policing tactic—a touch more than the average American, despite civil rights supposedly being one of the cornerstones of the libertarian movement.
The division of American politics into two big parties, one that favors social liberalism and more government intervention in the economy and one that favors social conservatism and less government intervention in the economy, may seem arbitrary. But it remains remarkably popular. There may be a lot of folks in the media that favor social liberalism pared with and hands off approach to economic affairs, and they may be supported by a few very wealthy donors, but there just aren’t a lot of ordinary Americans who agree.
The division of American politics into our current two party system makes sense, because it’s what people want.
Like The Good Men Project On Facebook
Photo by Fuschia Foot/Flickr
The two party system is what we have been brainwashed into believing. Republicans and Democrats have become opposite sides of the same coin. The only real difference is the rhetoric.
I really don’t think that’s right. Now you are right that there are a lot of theoretically policy changes that are never really on the table regardless of who wins the next elections. So if you want a return to the economic policy or foreign policy of the Gilded Age, that just isn’t the cards. We aren’t going back to a period of “splendid isolation” or getting rid of the New Deal reforms anytime soon. But then again a lot of policies radicals on the other side of the spectrum favor, like Ta-Nehisi Coates call for reparations for African Americans,… Read more »