Countering liberaltarianism: the 1964 approach

Ross has SECOND THOUGHTS...

The Future of Liberaltarianism (II)

No, wait, I take it back; maybe I don't wish Will Wilkinson's quixotic project well, for reasons suggested by Reihan's vision of a liberaltarian future:

... I'm on the political right, but I think liberaltarianism is a healthy, constructive development. If social democracy comes roaring back, as I think is very likely, a renewed liberaltarian liberalism could become the new center or even the new right -- this was roughly the case in Cold War Europe.

I think this is unlikely; I also think that a shift in this direction has the potential to turn out badly for almost everyone involved. Here I'm starting from the premise that American politics has been fitfully sorting itself into a meritocracy-versus-populism dynamic, with one party (the Democrats) dominated by the mass upper class and the other party (the GOP) representing the middle and working-class voters who resent this newish elite, for good reasons and for bad. The European model Reihan gestures at has succeeded - to date - by largely marginalizing the latter temper, with the result that the continent's right-populist types (your Le Pens and your Haiders) are simultaneously more extreme and more powerless than the equivalent figures in the United States. But conservative populism in the United States is way too potent to be marginalized in that fashion, I think - which makes it very hard to imagine a scenario where Lindsey-Wilkinson liberaltarianism becomes the right-of-center counterweight to social democracy, and the voters and interests that currently comprise the base of the Republican Party simply fade away into irrelevance.

What could happen, instead, is a bigger-tent liberalism - somewhat chastened, perhaps, by some big-government failures in the Obama era - that makes libertarian intellectuals feel welcome, engages them in conversations about smarter regulations and more efficient tax policy, and generally woos them away from their culturally-dissonant alliance with people who attend megachurches and Sarah Palin rallies. This would make for a smarter left-of-center in the short run, but I think in the long run it would be pernicious. It would further the Democratic Party's transformation into a closed circle of brainy meritocrats, and push the Republican Party in a yet more anti-intellectual direction. And it would produce an elite consensus more impervious to structural critiques, and a right-wing populism more incapable of providing them. The Democratic Party would hold power more often, and become more sclerotic as a result; the GOP would take office less often, and behave more recklessly on those rare occasions when it did manage to seize the reins of state.

This is obviously a political gloss on what is essentially an intellectual project, and I know Will, like many libertarians I admire, prides himself on not thinking in terms of partisanship. But for anyone who cares about political outcomes, I think it's important to consider the correlation of forces when you set out on ideological projects - especially in a country where the two-party structure has been as durable as it's been in ours. I understand the impulse for smart, independent-minded libertarians to flee what seems like an increasingly anti-intellectual American Right and seek conversations and alliances with the friendlier parts of the left-of-center. But the vacuum on the Right also militates in favor of smart, idiosyncratic thinkers trying to fill it, instead of fighting for a seat at the crowded liberal table. That doesn't mean registering as a Republican, attending CPAC, or casting a vote for McCain-Palin (or the next iteration thereof). But it means being open to the possibility that the old fusionism, battered and bruised as it is, may still hold as much promise for the advancement of libertarian policy goals as "liberaltarianism" ever will. I'm sure that the right-of-center conversation would be smarter, richer and better off the more a Will Wilkinson or a Brink Lindsey were involved in it - and that goes for your Tyler Cowens and Megan McArdles as well. And I'm pretty sure that the country would be better off as well.

I offer my response in two parts, LONG RAMBLING...

I'm be sticking with this little quixotic project, of course, but Ross's political analysis is intriguing.

What I take away from it is that the cultural right must come to grips with something counterintuitive: it needs fusionism more than we do. Their numbers are greater, sure, but their mean IQ is lower. That's not meant to offend -- it's the banal reality that correlates with their being cultural populists who champion traditional conformity, and we libertarians being cultural elitists who champion individual liberty.

But the last eight years proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that populist Republicans without sane elite guidance cannot govern properly. The elitist libertarian march to reduce the size of government has been mangled into the pernicious populist half-measure of "cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes" while maintaining the size of government at Jesus-will-be-returning-soon levels.

Sure, now that they're out of power Republicans have rediscovered the talking point of "generational theft". But given the last eight years it's sheer hypocrisy, and they're not fooling anyone yet (and I doubt they'll manage before 2010 given all the recent craziness).

Meanwhile the idea that libertarianism is doomed without Republican foot soldiers on our side misses the political reality. Our size in intellectual circles is overrepresented, but as a voting block we're pretty small. This plus the current split of American liberal elitism into culture on the left and economics on the right makes us much nimbler. We can abide in the smart left-of-center, as Ross describes above. It wasn't perfect, but even just policy-wise the Clinton years were a heck of a lot smarter and better-executed than Bush's. (Also contra the crazy hysteria of the right these days, Obamanomics will actually be very similar to Clintonomics, for reasons too long to argue in this post.)

In order to avoid the "smarter" big-tent liberalism that Ross fears above, the Republican party will need to face some music that Ross and most others on the right don't want to face. The party needs a return not to 1980 dogma, but to a 1964 principled defense of liberty. This means largely giving up on the culture war and neocon interventionism. This would demoralize the base. In the short-term, the party would lose more elections, and badly. But it's the only way I see to reform the party of Goldwater and keep the right intellectually solvent, restoring its ability to govern sanely. Do this, and within less than a decade there will be a 1980-style victory again. [This is because the pace of change is faster today -- it certainly won't take 16 years as it did back then]

The alternative is more of the same: obstruct progressives as much as possible with Rovian short-term tactics and Limbaughian populism while waiting until Democratic screwups outweigh the public's memory of Bush's. If Obama succeeds as the Reagan of the Left as many expect and demographic trends keep up, this route could easily take 12+ years to bring about a Republican victory. And it won't be a 1980-style victory. It'll be just another 2000, leading to more Bushian failure and misery for everyone.

And shorter/restated SUMMARY...

Basically my idea is the Republican party should disregard its base (which it can win back later) and lose a few more elections by returning to a 1964 principled defense of liberty --- rather than continuing to embrace the political dogmas of 1980 with its current illiberal base.

It's counterintuitive and so hard to justify, but if Republicans don't undergo a 1964-style reinvention I think you'll see:

-No regaining of the intellectual credibility Ross wants for the right
-A majority of libertarians and centrists/moderates/independents voting with the left
-Both of the above persisting for a length commensurate with 1980's realignment (i.e. Obama remains crowned "Reagan of the Left" and has a Democratic successor until something weird like Perot happens)