Libertarian Frolics and Detours

Walter Olson, whose commentary on litigation follies is invaluable, declares today that he is going to vote for the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate, who he concedes “appears to be a barking moonbat” (Seems, Wally? Nay, he is), rather than George W. Bush. He links to other small-l libertarians who share his sentiment, some of whom plan to go further and cast an ultimate protest vote for John Kerry.

Their complaint is one that I’ve heard often: that the Bush Administration “combin[es] aggressive social conservatism with uncontrolled spending and big new government programs”. Few of the complainers argue that Senator Kerry is any better, and Wally doesn’t try to make that case. Instead, the notion seems to be that a Bush defeat will lead to a Republican Party that takes small government principles more seriously and panders less to spending lobbies, after which all of the damage wrought by a Kerry Administration can be undone.

I’m not the one to tell libertarians what action is in their own best interests, but reasoning of this sort fits the stereotype of libertarianism as the philosophy of “We happy few – and the fewer, the happier.”

President Bush doesn’t have an admirable record of restraining federal spending, but he isn’t at all a hopeless case from a small government point of view. He has been remarkably successful in cutting taxes, has reduced trade barriers (despite the temporary folly of the now-lapsed steel tariffs), has proposed a sensible immigration reform (unfortunately stalled by closed borders sentiment in Congress) and is responsible for only one big new government program, the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The last is a wretched idea, sure to expand expensively. On the other hand, he insisted, at considerable political cost, on yoking it to health savings accounts, the first concrete step that the government has ever taken toward steering health care to a free market track.

Libertarian protest voters may wish to contemplate the policies that their protest will help produce: Senator Kerry advocates tax hikes (some of which he could, as President, obtain simply by vetoing extensions of the 2001 cuts), has promised to “renegotiate” trade liberalization agreements (his running mate is an outright protectionist), will pursue either higher immigration barriers or a utopian multiculturalist policy (depending on whether he is more swayed by his labor union or his Hispanic Left constituency) and has plenty of ideas for dramatically expanding the size and scope of government. Maybe a Republican-controlled Congress will keep him in check, but maybe he will hive off enough left-leaning GOP votes to enact much of his program. The “golden age” of Clinton inertia was largely the product of that President’s personal lack of interest in all issues except reelection. Anti-Bush libertarians are betting a lot on the hope that John Kerry is cast from the same mold.

But I don’t want to descend to the argument that W is the lesser of two evils. If one looks at issues central to liberty, he is a good, albeit not a perfect good.

First, whatever libertarians may think about the President’s conservative stands on abortion, homosexual rights and stem cell research, those controversies are less important than freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of association, all of which are threatened by left-wing policies. Bush spokesmen haven’t been calling for restoration of the “fairness doctrine”, threatening retaliation against news media that present unfavorable views of their candidate, floating plans for “national service” for all high school graduates (temporarily played down so as not to conflict with the “Bush has a secret plan to restore the draft” smear) or assuring trial lawyers that they need not worry about significant tort reform. Nor has the Bush Administration given aid and comfort to campus speech codes, affirmative action racism or restrictions on the right of private organizations to determine their own membership. Aggressive social liberalism is a more serious danger to our rights at the present time than the President’s rather mild social conservatism.

Second, George Bush is the first President to take steps toward reversing the tide of Big Government in two of the areas that it most dominates: retirement policy and health care. Not even Ronald Reagan seriously suggested transforming Social Security’s public liabilities into private assets or increasing, rather than diminishing, the role of the patient in making choices about medical care. One reason why the Statist Left is so stridently anti-Bush is its fear that, within a couple of generations, Social Security reform and health savings accounts will create a new capitalist class of senior citizens, independent of the State and with an economic interest in limiting its impact on the economy.

A second Bush term will be a promising environment for pro-liberty initiatives. A Kerry victory will take them off the table for years. It could also lead to the demise of the small government wing of the Republican Party. If the President loses, the media will be quick to attribute the outcome to his “heartless right-wing policies”, and Republican opportunists will get lots of favorable coverage as potential “rescuers” of the party. In those circumstances, the likelihood that the next Republican nominee will be as libertarian as George Bush is close to nil. Libertarian purists who think that they have a lot to moan about now “ain’t seen nothing yet”.

Correction: Walter Olsen assures me that his statement was not meant to be read as a declaration that he intends to vote for the Libertarian Party candidate. I evidently read too much into it. At least, I didn’t misread as badly as some of his correspondents, who think that he endorsed John Kerry.

Further Reading: Hogberg’s Libertarian Guide to Bush Vs. Kerry considers a lot of issues in greater depth. I do disagree on some points, especially –

• The advantage that Mr. Hogberg gives to Kerry on “Government Spending” is wishful thinking. It assumes that Republicans will continue to control Congress throughout a Kerry Administration and will hold the line against government extravagance with virtual unanimity. To that I respond with three words: Ha, ha, ha.

• Abortion and same-sex marriage are far from unambiguous issues from the perspective of individual liberty. There is no libertarian principle that grants the right to kill very small human beings, so libertarian pro-abortionists rest their position on their understanding of biology or theology, not on the proper role of the state. The arguments in favor of state recognition of same-sex marriage are all grounded in equality, not liberty. So long as the government doesn’t persecute homosexuals, their liberty is unimpaired by a lack of state-conferred benefits.

• I’m surprised at how often libertarians omit freedom of speech, press and assembly from their lists of key political issues. Those freedoms are all under attack from the Left right now. I don’t think that there is much question about which Presidential candidate is more likely to defend them from the PC Police.

Comments

[Alexander Freund]

You talk about how the left is killing free speech more than the Bush Administration. However the Bush administration are responsible for the Patriot Act (although both parties disgracefully signed this anti-liberty piece of legislation) which allows them to suspend civil liberties, and if they see fit, could even look over library records and internet files. I mean I can't think of anything more anti-libertarian. Let's not even get into his catering to the christian right....

You also fail to mention the war in Iraq and the war on terror. John Kerry was a lot closer when it came to defense issues to the isolationist position of the Libertarian party, who would pull out of Iraq immediately. Sure he supported the war, but Bush and his administration were the ones who made the war in the first place.

George Bush and his administraiton are neo-conservatives, and this philosophy is extremely different from libertarianism, particulalrly when it comes to cutting spending and foreign affairs. We are talking about an administration who has created nonstop redtape since 9/11 in the name of protecting our freedom. Sure they are defense based, and not domestic spending, but libertarians are against any spending of the national government, period. I don't see one trace of libertarianism in this man, who has the inability to speak without mentioning God and other moralistic messages which have nothing to do with government in the slightest.

Kerry was no libertarian, and neither was Bush. But when you put it all together, Bush isn't economically conservative anyway, and he's a neo-con imperialist who designs all his policies around his christian, moralistic views. The choice was clear: Kerry was less evil.