There you go again!

This article invokes the memory of something the Gipper said, so I'll do the same, only more appropriately, with my title. It seems that thoughts of a chasm opening up between the religious and secular components of the Republican Party aren't unique to this writer. Here, we have a Libertarian, appropriating the banner of fiscal conservatism for himself, trying to make the case -- to the religious right -- for remaining in bed with his half of the party!

Recall that I recently wrote twice (once at length) on the problem with Libertarianism. I'll save myself some time and quote myself (from the latter posting) on the big, elephant-sized problem with the Libertarians as "defenders" of capitalism.

The most succinct (and my favorite) criticism of that political movement comes from Peter Schwartz's outstanding polemic, Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty, in which he says "Libertarianism deserves only one fundamental criticism: it does not value liberty." How can a proponent of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, whom many falsely believe to be a Libertarian, and who is a defender of laissez-faire capitalism, say this? In a nutshell, because that party is an evasive attempt to ignore the fact that the idea of liberty is a complicated concept that is anything but uncontroversial. Furthermore, a proper defense of that concept requires an entire philosophical hierarchy starting, not just with the nature of man, but of reality and how we know what we know. To value liberty, one must first understand it, and this is where the Libertarians fail. To take a common example that happens to occur in the article, some Libertarians are anarchists. But a thorough understanding of what liberty is -- freedom from compulsion from others -- and what liberty requires will reveal that one must have some form of government to protect that freedom. Thus the "big tent" approach of Libertarianism results in a political movement loaded with people like anarchists who do not value freedom.

Pejman Yousefzadeh quickly backs me up on this one.

[Libertarian writer Cathy] Young makes a number of excellent observations in support of her argument -- pointing out that just as anti-communism united libertarians and conservatives during the Cold War, so should anti-Islamic fundamentalism unite the factions in the present day. She aptly critiques the extremes of both factions -- extremist libertarians for their refusal to abandon their foreign policy isolationism in the midst of a war against terrorist groups and a soft power/hard power campaign to assist in the spread of liberty and democracy, and conservatives for their unfortunate tendency towards "nanny-statism" on a number of social issues. As Young points out, much of the domestic policy agenda of the Bush Administration's second term -- including tort and Social Security reform -- should find a receptive audience in both libertarian and conservative camps.

Extremism! That word rears its ugly head every time someone who has no clue about the importance of principles starts discussing why people should forget their principles to work for a common cause. (Me: But how do we decide whether a cause is worth fighting for in the first place? By recourse to our princi--? Yousefzadeh: Extremist!) Now if you don't already understand why government might be important to freedom, go back and read my long post. The rest of you should notice that Yousefzadeh cites as "extreme" Libertarians ... the isolationists! (Anarchists would, of course, be the ultimate of these....) BUT: No security from invasion, no capitalism. So Yousefzadeh falsely uses members of his own party whose own views contradict capitalism as examples of why "extremism" among Libertarians (by whom he obviously means fiscal conservatives in general) is a bad thing.

And why should I, whom Yousefzadeh insults by calling a "Libertarian", sacrifice my principles? He gives several reasons, but I'll cut to the chase and address the most important one: "[I]f the factions split, they will be able to wield less political power." Indeed, he later laments the very existence of his own party for this reason, directly contradicting his earlier claim that "[T]he libertarian-conservative marriage ... has existed since the Cold War." (Silly me and my extremist insistence on the Law of Non-Contradiction!) I assume that what Yousefzadeh wants to say is that the LP was just a splinter faction of all "Libertarians." But I digress. Such it is when you traverse the weed-choked paths of the untended garden that is a Libertarian's "argument".

Power. Getting what you want. Let's ignore what I've already pointed out for a moment -- that you have to have principles in the first place to even have an agenda for which to wield power. (This will bite us in the ass again in short order anyway.) Let's just consider one example Yousefzadeh cites as something that fiscal and social conservatives should unite behind.

Let's consider the first argument. The Constitution of the United States promotes -- if one wishes to consider it in honest fashion -- a vision of limited government. It promotes the principles of federalism, which when respected entail the devolution of power to state and local governments. The Congress of the United States is limited in its ability to craft legislation by the enumerated powers found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment helps create a greater presumption of liberty in the realm of individual rights, and the Tenth Amendment further solidifies the Constitutional commitment to devolution of power to the state and local level.

The phrase "States Rights" comes to mind. And a big Libertarian fave also comes to mind: legalization of marijuana, which would certainly be easier in some states if this matter were left to them to decide. But what might the religious right get out of it? A chance to ban abortion, as I blogged about long ago. "But doesn't that mean some states would become able to tell a woman what to do with her own body?" you might ask. "And doesn't this contradict the very idea of individual rights, and thus of freedom?" Yousefzadeh will cut you off at this point, yelling, "Extremist."

And would the "marriage" end once states rights had, Christ-like, risen from the dead? I think the Libertarians would be in for a rude awakening (or at least an abrupt interruption in their supply chain of weed) on that score. They'd be in favor of (I can't resist this next word) defending the "marriage". But the Christians would legalize pot anywhere over their cold, dead bodies. But no. The marriage would not end. It would be annulled. It would be like the marriage had never existed! If need be, the Christians would find other allies. Abortion would become illegal. And marijuana would stay that way. And the Libertarians would be impotently wailing about the "extremism" of the Christians who at least got one thing right: Never cede an important principle to someone you disagree with.

The problem is, Pejman, that the Christians have principles. This means that they know what they want. Knowing this, they will accept as allies whichever other faction demands fewer concessions from them. Why? Because a more demanding partner is also one that will want to use some of that power for his own ends, at the expense of their own.

Here's how this shakes out in practice. The Christians are cheesed because Bush isn't moving fast enough to outlaw abortion. This means that those uppity secularist conservatives are starting to be more trouble than they're worth. In the meantime, some credible version of Hillary Clinton is starting to sound like she might lend her ear to this part of the religious agenda, if only she gets more of her economic agenda. Well, the religious conservatives don't really give a hoot in hell for capitalism (That would be why they're not called "fiscal" conservatives, Pedjy-boy.) so they might very well ditch the fiscal conservatives to get a bigger piece of what they want.

But don't worry. This won't happen too soon. You've just confessed to them that you'll sell yourself out to preserve the "marriage" if the religionists look like they're about to get up and leave. Unfortunately, you also won't get what you want anytime soon, either. But don't worry, you're looking more useful to the Christians than you were before. (And this, by the way, is exactly why I'm afraid that our next election is going to turn into a bidding war for the religious right.)

There you "hippies of the right" go again, wanting to have your hashish brownies and eat them, too! When you give up principles, you really give up power.

Maybe those pesky extremists are on to something, after all.

-- CAV

Updates

3-18-05: Corrected a typo.
4-19-05: Corrected spelling of Yousefzadeh's first name.