Reclaiming the Right

Rightwing has become somewhat of a confused and convoluted position. Moving forward, or backward, the libertarian/right movement of the 30s and 40s, the right has transformed into something unrecognizable. Murray Rothbard wrote an essay in 1964 about the transformation, and the Rothbard would be even more appalled today, 45 years later, as the right is in a greater, confused state of intellectual disarray.

There is evidence of a present resurrection among independents and some conservatives, but it remains to be seen if this resurrection is grounded in anti-statism and non-intervention overseas like the Old Right. Hardly anyone is addressing the internal threat of statism as both left and right have found new external threats which take precedence over liberty, peaceful trade and free markets. The modern right gives lip service to classical liberal principles, but these principles are largely viewed as quaint ideas of a simpler, less dangerous past.

The old charge of "isolationism" missed one of the core values of the Old Right, what Rothbard described as America "serving the world as a beacon light of peace and liberty, rather than as master of a house of correction to set everyone in the world aright by force of bayonet."

The perceived threat of communism turned the right into militaristic statists, retrenching into a traditional system satisfied with temporary loss of freedom for the sake of Power, God and Nation, much like Bush's betrayal of the free market to save the free market. Individual liberty, free markets and limited government became something we could attain later, but, in effect, classical liberalism was being traded for a statist-leaning conservatism. Many moderate statists today yearn for Buckley when they should yearn for Nock.

The New Order created by the Industrial Revolution, the American Revolution and the French Revolution has been sliding back to the ogligarchic control of the Old Order, but it has a new face. Today's conservativism, which passes for the Right, is a conglomeration of muddled thinking, although a strain of classical liberalism/libertarianism is breaking through. Anti-communism was replaced with anti-terrorism, and while both have been threats, each has been a rationalization for building a more powerful, interventionist state. "Terrorists" are actually statists using different tactics, and America continues fighting statism with more powerful statism, just as we did with the communists. The weapon to use against statism is anti-statism, but we have to believe that statism is wrong in order to use this weapon properly and too have any integrity.

If it's a matter of the most powerful statists winning, then we might win the war of control, but how many innocent people must die in the process? How much liberty must be lost? And if the idea of statism lives on, then we'll always be fighting some other statist power which challenges us for control. Where are the voices of anti-statism in the world, upholding the New Order of classical liberalism which transformed the world once upon a time? The progressives are preaching a stale moral relativism, while the conservatives are preaching military superiority, but no one is preaching individual liberty, free markets and limited government. It seems as if these principles have been assigned to obscurity as we discuss ways for groups of states to control the world.

We are no longer that "beacon light of peace and liberty", just a powerful state with no vision of the future. It embarrasses most intellectuals to even think in such terms of having a vision of the future inspired by classical liberal principles, much less voicing these principles full-throatedly and attempting to persuade others to follow, or, through our actions, lead by example.

The world should be tired of war by now, but there are no champions for peace. The world should be tired of coercion by now, but there are no champions for liberty. The world should be tired of central planning and social engineering, but there are no champions of limited government and voluntary action. Well, there's not many champions, and the ones who do raise their voices are called reactionaries, rubes, rightwing fanatics, gullible, isolationists -- they are ridiculed and marginalized. To be fair, some strains of the right deserved ridicule and marginalization, and we're better off for their loss of power and influence, but, hopefully, the original resistance by libertarians to the Rooseveltization of America will never die.

There's still a useful distinction between right and left, but the right has been reduced to a few surviving libertarians screaming against a powerful and destructive wind. Melodramatic? Quixotic? I prefer to think that it's a healthy defense of liberty, and an authenic call for peace and prosperity for all -- a right resistance to a statist left and a confused moderate middle.

Between libertarians and moderates

To add to my previous posts talking about the present political designations and the relationships between them, there is an uneasy kinship between moderates and libertarians, especially if you look at moderates, as I do, as a form of liberalism -- or perhaps a combination of conservative wallet and liberal heart. Maybe a moderate is merely an anal retentive liberal, I'm not sure, but they definitely hold modern, and some classical, liberal views. It's the mixture of statism/modern liberalism, conservatism and classic liberalism that I have problems with -- what kind of concoction is it and what are its effects?

Peter Orvetti wrote about this, and I picked it up from The Libertarian Republican blog -- it was oginally written at www.LibertyForAll.net. First he talks about the echo chambers in leftist blogs and in libertarian blogs, and I suppose he means any other blogs which are preaching to the choir, and he also warns against the use of terms like "statist", and references to writers like Rothbard and Mises -- all the things I obviously do wrong here -- because most people don't understand the terms or get the references. I tend to think introducing people to these concepts and writers is a good thing, but I get his point -- many people won't wade through all the esoteric stuff, they just want pragmatic issues and regular talk about common politics, if they even have an interest in politics. The question Orvetti asks is -- Can the libertarian movement welcome "moderates"? -- the quotation marks are Orvetti's. I ask another question -- Do moderates want to be a part of the libertarian movement? 

Orvetti writes about moderate libertarians:

This breed of libertarian does not seek the abolition of government, but believes that local government is best, as it is closest to the people impacted, and carries the fewest layers of bureaucracy. He believes there is a difference between the notion that a goal is a good one, and the insistence that the government must assert responsibility for achieving that goal. He concedes that government can and has been a positive factor in the lives of many, but insists on examining whether a non-governmental solution could work better. He believes any government effort, no matter how well-intended, must be considered in light of the unwilling person forced to fund it.

It's sort of a moderate "thang" to always condition their views on government with the understanding that government can do some things well. I'm not sure what Orvetti means by "abolition of government", but most libertarians don't call for the abolition of government, so that's somewhat of a strawman to make the moderates look more reasonable and sane, I suppose. I agree that private solutions should always be looked at first, though, so, this we can agree on.

Orvetti goes on to write:

But this libertarian differs from her purist peers. She accepts that government, like the poor, we will always have with us. She has no practical objection to things like government roads and parks, and is concerned by what would happen to the desperate if the “safety net” should completely disappear. It is her goal to make libertarian ideals achievable within the realities of the present day, by working to keep government as uninvasive and as local as possible, and prefers to focus on the expansion of freedoms rather than the contraction of the state — while bearing in mind that the two go hand-in-hand.

Herein lies the rub. Why is it inevitable that government has to provide the safety net. If the libertarian is always looking for private solutions first, why not defend the principle of non-coercion by developing private means of voluntary charity and creative insurance arrangements to deal with safety nets?

I much prefer the thinker that Orvetti describes to a progressive, but I have to wonder why the moderate has to keep "her" link to state intervention? It always appears to be a capitulation I can't trust. I feel as if I'm being "sold" through a tactic of acknowledging the libertarian principles, but then comes all the stuff on the "other hand".

Like the politican who tells his constituents that they are correct in not trusting the government to run healthcare, and that the proposal from congress is awful, but, on the "other hand" doing nothing is not an option, and since the progressives are in power and a bill is going to be passed, then the politician has to try to compromise and do his/her best to curtail the awfulness of the bill, so on and so forth -- then the politician capitulates and the state grows in power and rolls over the moderate politician on the way to an extreme takeover. At this point you can't distinguish the moderate from the progressive because they are now a part of running healthcare, acting as if there was never a disagreement in philosophy. The public is patronized and conned once again.

To me it's not a matter of whether the libertarian movement will accept moderates, it's will the moderates accept the libertarian principles when it comes to non-intervention, non-coercion, free markets, private charities, individual rights and the like. If moderates think that libertarians should relax on their principles and accept realpolitics, become a part of the statist machine to make tiny changes in the system, then I doubt a strong alliance is likely or desirable by each group. If liberatianism is accepted in spirit but is thought of as literally naive, then we have a problem, because libertarianism is not about posturing, satifying people's desire for freedom with words, but acting pragmatically just to be a part of the power structure. There may be moderate Republicans who want to use libertarians this way, to appear classically liberal, then, to act as a statist, but it's not what libertarians will any longer accept, if I read the movement correctly.

We're in a political climate among the private sector that respects those who walk like they talk, and disrespects political manipulation as usual. I would hope the moderates want to join the libertarian movement -- we need all the help we can get -- but they can't fake it for votes.

When Liberalism was liberal

http://praxeology.net/ELG-EL.htm

To the principles and precepts of Liberalism the prodigious material progress of the age was largely due. Freed from the vexatious meddling of governments, men devoted themselves to their natural task, the bettering of their condition, with the wonderful results which surround us. But it now seems that its material comfort has blinded the eyes of the present generation to the cause which made it possible. In the politics of the world, Liberalism is a declining, almost a defunct force. The condition of the Liberal party in England is indeed parlous. There is actually talk of a organizing a Liberal-Imperialist party; a combination of repugnant tendencies and theories as impossible as that of fire and water. On the other hand, there is a faction of so-called Liberals who so little understand their traditions as to make common cause with the Socialists. Only a remnant, old men for the most part, still uphold the Liberal doctrine, and when they are gone, it will have no champions.

What Godkin called liberalism in 1900 is libertarianism today. Modern liberalism is what he was warning against, although he had no idea at the time that liberalism would become so debased. Click on the link above and read the whole essay -- it puts our present situation in perspective. And although he was writing about England, he was writing about America, too.

We've drifted so far from the orginal American Liberalism that this sounds foreign to young people today. What a shame we have squandered so much of the freedom which built this country. Of course, it's not too late, and we still have a great opportunity to continue on the path laid out by men like Godkin who understood the vision of the Founders.

It's instructive for us today, who divide into factions, to remember that the battle then, and as it's presented to us today, was between domination and freedom. We can no longer afford to watch liberty chipped away by social engineering technocrats who represent the modern American version of domination. In the midst of all the bickering and political gamesmanship, it's good to remember the ideas of those freedom-fighters who came before us.

Private Sector Narrative -- The New Beginning

Perhaps the narrative is changing. I know one thing -- the statist/progressive narrative has become incredibly dishonest. In order for the private sector narrative to break through, to become honest, to reveal the emptiness of statism, it has to be real -- not overstated and not understated. We can deal with real, and this is what makes the statists furious -- the straightforward rebuke of false charges, such as the inherent evil of capitalism, or the natural selfishness of people in general, or the absolute need for the state if there's to be a safty net. Smart people are insulted when the implication from statists is that people are too ignorant, too selfish or too needy to do without the state's superior wisdom and guidance. It's true that many people have never read Rawls, Nozick, Sandel, or don't know Buckley from Bozo, but that's not necessary -- and it's true that individuals have short-term, immediate needs and they don't perpetually make decisions based on the greater good -- and, it's true that some people have needs they can't meet using their own resources -- but, it doesn't follow that statism is the answer. 

 

No, we can say -- "Hold it, this is not necessarily true." The state no longer controls the narrative -- people are waking up, thinking for themselves and making decisions. The state becomes nervous when the private sector begins to reason, to resist and to individuate. The state would rather control group-think so that people are malleable, so that people go along with the plan, so that people believe the statist narrative. Notice how town hall protesters were written off as mobs controlled by far right organizations -- the state is fearful of people thinking for themselves -- this can't be!

 

Yes, it can be. The private sector is powerful, diverse and capable of thinking and acting and solving problems. It's been called spontaneous order, an order arising from millions of people acting and choosing in freedom, creating an interconnected, complex and greater mind that no group of technocrats can understand and manipulate -- at least not when people embrace freedom of choice, and act. Great ideas and innovations come from the interactions of free people. It's only when statists force their restricted visions on everyone that we begin to see conformity and fear of risk and confusion from not knowing what changes will come next.

 

We live in communities across the nation -- we know deep down that we're capable of charity and growth and prosperity and happiness when challenged to work together to make things happen. The narrative of weak, ignorant, oppressed and dependent citizens saved by the beneficent state is a joke. Get out of the way, state -- there's a new story to be told.

 

The fact is that with the right limitations placed on government power, people can work together to build their futures, and that they can help one another along the way. It's in the process of free interaction that solutions are found to problems, not central planning and social engineering. In the information age we are empowered more than ever to share ideas, to understand different ideas and cultures, to work out moral dilemmas and grow as a people, not only nationally, but globally. The private realm freed from the clutches of arrogant technocrats will create a new paradigm in which people take control of their lives, their finances, their communities, and their government -- making government reponsive to limited needs, not unchained and over-reaching. This is a vision, but I believe it will happen. We've come too far in America to become a third rate nation drifting into dependence and subservience -- there's too much creative energy and too much libertarian spirit to allow devolution into stagnation and dull submissiveness.

 

The new narrative is the story of a successful people who once again beat back domination and keep freedom alive so that following generations build on the innovation and progress. We can't get to the future through central planning and legislation -- we'll get there through experimenting, through free-thinking and reason, through developing solutions to societal problems so that everyone has a shot to find their niche and build their dreams, and through finding alternatives to wars, dependence, violence, crime, hatred and racism, better ways to deal with one another in community as integrated individuals. There's a spiritual aspect to the private realm which is a mystery to those with a statist mentality -- it's based in liberty and human interaction unspoiled by the petty designs of politicians and bureaucrats, and this spiritual aspect is the bond that moves free people beyond dependence to interdependence, prosperity, understanding and appreciation of art, depth of soul, higher planes of thought, a sharper, more confident vision of the future, a willingness to share, to build, to innovate, to love and find paths to peace. All along the way we make mistakes and ugly realities challenge our humanity, but as long as the libertarian spirit is alive, we will find ways to improve, to change, to grow and to amend. 

Libertarians -- no place in the two parties

It's a shame that neither party welcomes the libertarians -- both could use libertarian influence. The hardcore social conservatives reject libertarians because of civil liberty issues (which are basically individual rights), and moderates reject the "radical" limited government issues -- and, well, there's no way the liberals/progressives will welcome libertarians in the Democrat Party.

Libertarian ideas have been accepted by the independent movement, in part, according to what I've heard from opponents of progressivism calling themselves independents, which has turned away from both parties, and this might be where libertarian influence has the best chance of being realized and reestablished. Libertarian ideas could give the independent growth some clarity, especially when it comes to limiting government power and allowing the free market to function.

Communication is the largest problem -- there's still no clear libertarian message due to the public's confused ideas regarding libertarianism. The confusion is the fault of libertarians and the opponents of libertarianism. Not many in the public are sure what libertarianism means.

It's time to develope a definition for public consumption to fit into the political narrative of the 21st century. In the next four posts, I'll give my recommendations. There's a libertarian story which begins before the American Revolution but became popular after the establishment of U.S.A.. It's a story of liberty and individual rights, and one that needs to be told now more than ever. While it's true that humans have made great strides in the establishment of liberty, as happens from time to time, liberty is threatened and individual rights are subsumed under a new domination claiming the greater good. Liberty and individual rights are for the greater good.

Update on Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 01:49PM by Mike Farmer

I'm postponing the four posts due to a time crunch.