Fusionism, Liberaltarians, and STATISMMike Rappaport
Recently, there has been much discussion about Brink Lindsey’s suggestion that libertarians and liberals form a political alliance to replace the political alliance between libertarians and conservatives. Many of these posts have been thoughtful explorations of the similarities and differences between these different political positions. See, e.g. here.
To me, though, the alliance between libertarians and liberals is simply a nonstarter. It is appealing to some libertarians, who like to view themselves as equally distanced from both liberals and conservatives, but it is really just an illusion. And the reason can be summed up quite easily: Modern liberals are largely statists.
Certainly, this is evident in their economic policies. For example, liberals just seem to love government run social welfare programs. One can talk until one is blue in the face and they won’t even take seriously privatization of social security (with a mandatory savings plan). Not very libertarian; very STATIST.
Similar points apply to their views about matters normally treated as noneconomic, such as freedom of speech or race relations. Many liberals still pan over a world with the fairness doctrine or a world with government financed media channels, such as the BBC. Don’t even mention campaign finance.
Even in areas such as gay marriage, where some libertarians make common cause with liberals, there is a strong element of statism at work. After all, gay couples can get “privately” married right now. Most (but not all) of the benefits from gay marriage involve the extension of state conferred benefits that are now given to traditional marriages. But, significantly, these benefits would not be conferred in a libertarian world, whether they involve mandates that health insurance be conferred to spouses, social security benefits, hospital visiting privileges, or even (or especially) the symbolic benefit conferred by the sanction of a state blessed union.
It is sad to have to say these things, because a liberal-libertarian compromise would be a healthy and salutary contribution both to our intellectual life and to our politics. But wishing ain’t getting,
Conservatives certainly differ from libertarians on many issues (although less so the more moderate the libertarian). But one needs to be careful here not to exaggerate. While European conservatives really are in sharp conflict with libertarians, American conservatives are largely conserving the traditions of America, which are mainly libertarian. Friedrich “why I am not a conservative” Hayek understood this.
Of course, there is not terribly much in common between big government conservatives, like George Bush, William Kristol, and Fred Barnes, and libertarians, especially when President Bush has run the war so poorly. But the repudiation of those conservatives would leave the way open for the fusionist conservatives — Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, and Phil Gramm. Alas, the hope for America and for liberty is that there are many more like them in the pipeline.