|
|
Who We Are Liberty and the Right by R.W.
Bradford The time has come for
libertarians to renounce their alliance with the
Right.
During the entire history of the contemporary libertarian
movement that began with the publication of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" in 1957,
libertarians have tended to see themselves as a part of the Right. Yes, there was
a brief apertura a sinistra in the late 1960s born in libertarian
opposition to the draft and the Vietnam War. But once the war was ended — by
a Republican president — libertarians again saw themselves as part of the
Right. This tendency continued even after the founding of the Libertarian Party
and the rise of libertarian institutions like the Cato Institute and Reason
magazine, that ostensibly sought a unique libertarian identity.
| | R.W.
Bradford is editor and publisher of Liberty.
|
|
I attended three different libertarian election parties on Nov. 2, 1976. There
was no jubilation at any of them. The grim mood was not the product of the poor
showing of the Libertarian candidate. No, it was because Republican Gerald Ford
had been defeated. Hardly anyone even cared about MacBride's showing. The same
was true, more or less, in each subsequent election: libertarians have celebrated
GOP and conservative victories, and been unhappy with their defeats.
Why have libertarians identified themselves with the Right? Part of the
reason, I think, is that the Right was more open to certain kinds of libertarian
thinking: political conservatives shared our hostility to the growth of
government and shared our commitment to liberty, at least in their rhetoric.
There were other reasons for this identification. For one thing, the intellectual
establishment in the U.S. was so overwhelmingly leftist in the later 20th century
that the Right was, well, desperate for respectable intellectual support wherever
they could find it, and while libertarians have tended to be politically
marginal, they have also tended to be intellectually powerful, respectable, and
influential. Associating with intellectuals like Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell,
Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek certainly was of value to political leaders
like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
I think there was another reason that was largely overlooked at the time. As
enthusiastic and committed opponents to the growth of government power,
libertarians naturally opposed those who were engineering and managing the growth
of the state. Despite the fact that Republicans controlled the presidency during
most of the last half of the 20th century, and were ideologically conservative
for most of the century's final two decades, the fact remained that the nation's
power structure — including the media, the intellectual community, and both
houses of Congress — remained firmly in the control of the Left. That part
of the reason why even a president as committed to smaller government as was
Ronald Reagan failed to halt the growth of governmental power. State power grew
and grew and grew, and those advancing state power were almost all leftists.
But that has changed. It is plain — and it has been plain for nearly a
decade — that the political Left has lost its legislative power and that the
Right is now pretty much in charge. Republicans have controlled Congress for
nearly a decade, and they are a very conservative bunch. destroyed most of
Clinton's mildly leftist agenda in the 1990s and won control of both houses of
Congress and the presidency in 2002.
|
| Now that conservative
Republicans control government, they find it far less fearsome They are the
greatest advocates of an imperial foreign policy, of massive defense spending,
and of invading people's homes in the names of the Wars on Crime, Drugs, and
Terrorism. |
|
Now that conservative Republicans control government, they find it far less
fearsome. When they were out of power, they advocated the Tenth Amendment and
states' rights as a bastion against expanding federal power. In power, they are
crushing states' rights and expanding federal power at every chance they get. Can
you imagine how much of a ruckus conservatives would have raised if leftists
tried to use federal law to invalidate state laws in areas where state law had
always prevailed? Well, you don't have to imagine it. Just look at what
conservatives were doing in the 1960s: they were fighting tooth and nail against
everything from federal civil rights legislation to federal aid to education.
Fast forward to 2002, and look at what's happened to states whose voters have
legalized medical marijuana. A conservative administration has simply invalidated
those laws by arresting people acting under their authority and charging them
with federal crimes. And more: they have spent substantial amounts of federal tax
money campaigning — mostly unsuccessfully — against those laws. Can you
imagine the outrage that Barry Goldwater would have expressed against that?
Federalization of drug law is the most extreme case of conservative rejection
of the federalism that the Founders built the Constitution around. But it is far
from the only case. Any sentient person who supports the Constitution must
condemn the conservative usurpation of the power to declare war accomplished by
presidents Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.
Today's conservatives have abandoned other elements of their claimed love of
liberty and opposition to ever more powerful government. They are the greatest
advocates of an imperial foreign policy, of massive defense spending, of limiting
the rights of people accused of crime, and of people who are not American
citizens. Out of power, Republicans in general and conservatives in particular
were unalterably opposed to budget deficits. In power, they have given us the
biggest deficits in history. Out of power, they have railed against regulation;
in power they have used regulation the same way the Democrats used it: to punish
political enemies, to reward friends (i.e., donors), and to appeal to the
ignorant majority of American voters.
| It is time for us to
recognize that the Right is not our ally in the fight against the welfare state
and the imperial state. |
|
We who love liberty need to change our outlook. As I argued 14 years ago in
the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the main enemy of liberty is no
longer the radical Left. It is the welfare state and the imperial state.
It is time for us to recognize that the Right is not our ally in this fight.
Yes, some conservatives still oppose the extension of government power in some
cases. But the same can be said of what's left of the Left. While the Right in
power oversees a state taking more and more of our money, imposing more and more
regulation, and invading our homes and personal lives in the name of the War on
Drugs and the War on Terrorism, the Left is willing, sometimes enthusiastically,
to support people's rights to privacy (though not to private property), freedom
of speech, of travel, of religion, and of thought. Right now, there are powerful
practical arguments for separating our identity from the Right.
Further, the Right is more closely identified with the resurgence of American
Imperialism than any other single issue, and as the casualties mount in Iraq and
the fraudulent character of Bush's rush to war becomes increasingly evident, the
Right is losing support. Libertarians risk an ironic tragedy: if the public
continues to identify us with the Right, we are liable to go down with the good
ship Conservatism because of a right-wing policy that is opposed by the
overwhelming majority of libertarians.
I do not argue that we should turn our back on the Right entirely. When
conservatives oppose the extension of state power, or propose to reduce it, we
should support them and even ally ourselves with them. But we should be equally
open to supporting and allying ourselves with left liberals when they oppose the
depredations of the Patriot Act, the arbitrary arrest of innocent immigrants, the
War on Drugs, the militarization of American life, and Bush's aggressive foreign
policy and imperialism.
We should never forget that our love of liberty provides us a unique vision
and a unique identity. We must never see ourselves as part of either the Right or
the Left. As lovers of liberty, we should be free to form strategic alliances
with either Left or Right in any situation where doing so advances liberty or
retards the growth of state power.
I realize that ending our de facto alliance with the Right will, in the short
term, reduce such influence as we have, while insulating us from the disaster
that faces contemporary conservatism. But I would rather stand with truth and
justice as my allies than with those who now hold power.
|
| | |
|
