The Liberal/Libertarian
Published by Gautam Bastian February 4th, 2004 in Political TheatreIn the discussion about Free Software below, the heated arguments have veered towards the distinctions or similarities that might be drawn between ‘Liberal’ and ‘Libertarian’ Thought.
I think it is important to shed light on this topic, because it is one of great contention. Though ultimately it is just a matter of labelling or taxonomy, since these words carry a great amount of meaning and are often subject to misuse, both by proponents as well as detractors of the ideas enshrined in them.
Personally I find the term Libertarian a bit artificial, like Hayek does in the epilogue to his Constitution of Liberty titled “Why I am not a Conservative?”. The reason that I insist on using Liberal/Libertarian, is because, I want to make a clear distinction between the American Liberal’s of the Democratic Party like Clinton, Dean, FDR etc., and the Classical Liberals such as Macaulay, Mill, Hayek, Buchanan and others who would fall under the category of the Old Whigs of England, who later became the Liberals.
The American Liberals are not the original Liberals, by which I mean, and if you read Hayek you will know, that what was Liberal in Europe, became the foundation of the American system, and is thus now known as Conservative in America. However as Hayek rather lucidly explains, Conservatives typically lack an agenda of their own, they are just averse to change, and would like to see the status-quo persist.
A Liberal in the Hayekian or European or Classical sense is one who is aware of the dynamic nature of human society, and often welcomes change, but not all change, his fundamental belief is in the rights and freedoms of human beings, and if any change proposes to restrict those freedoms the Liberal will oppose that change. Liberals see a smaller role for government, and a larger role for the individual and private enterprise which has the capacity to spontanously organise itself. The Liberal wants a government that treats all its citizens equally, without discrimination. To him, International Trade yields all round benefits, and should be encouraged despite any short-term loss of welfare.
The American Liberal on the other hand, is quite another ideological animal. He looks for greater Government intervention to fix the ills of society, such as poverty and class conflict. The role of the Government is to represent the ’small guy’, and fight for him against the ‘big guy’. Thus Affirmative Action and Anti-Trust Legislation are seen as part of Government’s core role. Union Monopolies are seen as a good thing, while Corporate Monopolies are harbingers of ill . He believes that the market does NOT always work, and can be FIXED through surgical interventions by the government. He would want,International Trade, to be controlled to help protect domestic jobs, when free trade threatens the ’small guy’. In most of these charachteristics American Liberalism is like a lighter strain of Socialism.
This outline, ofcourse, blithely homogenises the ideas of the European Liberal and the American Liberal respectively, and starkly counterposes the beleifs in the interests of brevity. Individuals who consider themselves to be either, could plausibly hold divergent views, but this is the essence of what I think these ideologies profess.
Libertarian, is the name that many Americans who believe in the principles of European Liberalism, have assumed, to distinguish themselves from the American Liberals. Matters can be further complicated when we factor in Neo-Liberalism, Anarcho-Capitalistic-Libertarianism, Proto-Libertarianism Hoppeianism etc.
However, in the American context the closest approximation of the original European Liberals, remains the artificial ‘Libertarian’. And in writing for an alternately Anglophile and Americophile audience the term Liberal/Libertarian seems a just compromise.
DISCLAIMER: Extremely brief treatment of the many problems surrounding this issue, I’ll write more when I have the time and if a substantial discussion ensues.
Thanks Gautam (Slashdot rating of 5:Insightful).
However I disagree with both Hayek’s and your view of conservatism. The “Why I am not a Conservative” link which you posted suggests that Conservatives want to preserve the status quo. Form the American perspective this is incorrect. In the US it is the Conservatives who are pushing for deregulation, privatization and free trade and it is the ‘Liberals’ who want to preserve the status quo.
From my perspective this is how I see the political spectrum (based on real world situations of what is actually happening and not on definitions and history). Going from RIGHT(extreme Capitalism) to LEFT(Extreme Socialism)
RIGHT
Anarchists
Anarcho Capitalists
Libertarians
Conservatives
Liberals
Socialists
LEFT
Theoretically speaking whether you are a liberal or not depends on what the prevalent situation is. In India (which is currently more socialist than capitalist) you would be considered a Liberal because you oppose the current status quo (big govt, excessive regulation etc) and want to move towards a freeer market. But if you were in the US (and held exactly the same views) you could not count yourself a Liberal because they want to preserve all of the things you oppose - in which case you would find yourself in the Libertarian or Conservative camp by default. In the US the closest mainstream ideology that Libertarians can identify with is surprisingly Conservativism (and the Republican Party) and not the Liberals (Democratic Party).
In future discussions when I refer to Liberal I intend ist usage to be in the real world US context and not in the classical definition of the ideology. I think it is important to use these definitions in the real context rather that in the academic because the latter definitions were written in a whole different soci-econo-political world which has litte application today
For reference here are a list of issues that Libertarians agree with Conservatives - in fact a card carrying Libertarian could easily run on a Conservative Plank without compromising on ideology:
- Right to bear Arms
- Privatizing Social Security
- No Universal Health Care
- Privatization of Government Departments
- Reduce Taxes
- Reduce Welfare
- Limit Govt Spending (except in the case of Defense)
- Deregulation
- Environment (Corporate responsibility instead of Gvt. regulation)
- Free Trade
The few areas in which they disagree are
- Abortion
- Gay Marriage
- Drugs
- Some moral free speech issues (nudity etc_
But as you can see in the majority of areas they are in close agreement - economics, politics and only differ on sme issues of morality.
A hardcore libertarian would find it difficult to agree with any of the major Liberal viewpoints and could never run on a Democratic ticket.
Ck,
Although it may seem more ‘practical’ to take your perspective, it is one that you have deliberately to chosen to suit your perceptions of reality, the advantages of the academic-historical understaning, is far deeper, and provides for a much broader temporally independent discussion about who stands where in which debate. The right to left plane on which you define the idea space, is extremely limited, in that it accentutates the similarities between the liberal and the socialist on the one hand and the libertarian and the conservative, or the libertarian and the anarchist on the the other, while glosssing over the significant differences, in terms of the understanding of the role of individual and society.
It is better and more stable to impute certain fundamental qualities to each ideaology, which is independent of the time and the space. More later.
Just, some more points about Conservatives in America. If you observe the changes that have been taking place in the way that Conservatives behave, and the policies that they support the Hayek’s approach may become tenable.
For instance though Reagan won the elections on the plank of Balanced Budgets, and less welfare spending, today the Bush Administration, taking a cue from Reagan’s Supply Siders, not only reduces taxes, which is their traditional plank, but also increases expenditure on Welfare and MediCare (Formerly liberal turf), as well as their traditional Defence expenditures. The nature of conservatism is changing with that of the Status Quo. If the Conservatives seem confused abou what they are representing, it is just representative of the kind of Paradoxes, that McGovern starts out to explain in his recently fisked article, that pervade the whole American System.
The radical Democrat-Liberals (Dean) are clamouring for even more state intervention, which they will keep doing, because that is the only perceived means of fighting for the ‘little guy’.
Maybe the rise of Libertarians is illustrative of how the Conservatives no longer represent a Liberal status-quo, but a more Socialistic one.