Posts on most blogs about Ron Paul rarely lead to any meaningful discussion as the Paul supporters quickly spam the comments. One benefit of using moderation to prevent Paul supporters from engaging in their usual tactic of shouting down anyone who doesn’t agree with them one hundred percent has been to allow for other ideas to come up. There are two items coming from the discussion under this post which I have decided to promote to the front page of the blog. The first has come up several times in discussions of whether the Paul movement is more one of social conservativism with some libertarian ideas or a true libertarian movement. This leads to a look at how the meaning of the word “libertarian” has changed over the years.
The word “libertarian” has become almost meaningless for a variety of reasons. The use of the word by many Republicans has been noted in the discussion but this isn’t the only problem.
The first factor which led to the change in meaning was the birth of the Libertarian Party. Back in the 1960’s and early 1970’s libertarianism was primarily used to refer to anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard or supporters of government so limited that it didn’t even have the power to tax. Such positions based on principle were fine for political discussion groups and underground magazines but didn’t make a practical platform for a political party. Many libertarians such as Samuel Edward Konkin III argued against the formation of the Libertarian Party, correctly predicting how it would dilute the position. Subsequently we had Libertarian Party candidates such as Ed Clark campaigning on a platform of reducing government back to where it was under John Kennedy. Once libertarianism could mean a significant amount of government, it became easy for others who support freedom in some areas to support other government action (including the Iraq war by some or prohibiting abortion by others) while still using the libertarian name.
When I have called Paul’s campaign more a social conservative phenomenon than a libertarian phenomenon, some bloggers have argued that I am wrong on the grounds that Paul was once the Libertarian Party’s candidate. They miss the point that I was using libertarianism in its more strict meaning used before the birth of the party by which the Libertarian Party itself is not necessarily libertarian. If you want to define libertarianism as being synonymous with the Libertarian Party then by definition Paul would be a libertarian, but this is a definition which is independent of actual principles and not one I find particularly significant when looking at the positions of an individual candidate. Party affiliation is a poor way to describe an individual’s philosophy. Jesse Jackson and George Wallace might have both been Democrats at one time, but their views are certainly quite different.
Another factor is that libertarians have grown up and lived in the real world. The more consistent and extreme meanings of libertarianism look more realistic when living on a college campus than living in the real world. Many libertarians have moderated their views as they’ve lived in the real world but continue to use the label.
The word “libertarian” is also used to describe many people due to the lack of good terms to describe a variety of political positions. Many people don’t fit in entirely as conservatives or liberals. This includes people who are more liberal on social and civil liberties issues and conservative on economic issues. They support more freedom and less government than the status quo on both social and economic issues and therefore the libertarian label is often applied for lack of a better term but this is a distinctly different view from the more extreme libertarians who would support far less government (if any government at all).
As a consequence of these trends we have the split between Ron Paul and his former staffer Eric Dondero who both call themselves libertarians but have opposite views on the war and Patriot Act. Both might be libertarians under its current use but neither would be libertarians under the more pure definition of the past. Eric Dondero backs Rudy Guilani, considering him libertarian, but I’d consider Giuliani one of the least libertarian candidates due to his views on the war and in increasing executive power. Bill Maher also often calls himself a libertarian but leans towards John Edwards, the candidate who might be the least libertarian candidate of all when his views on economic issues, social issues, and civil liberties are all considered. Any label which includes Ron Paul, Bill Maher, anarcho-capitalists, and supporters of the Iraq War and Patriot Act is no longer of very much value.
Hmmm… Here’s a question: as the word “libertarian” becomes increasingly associated only with the meaning “one who wants less government”, do we face a situation where almost everyone will eventually (rightly or wrongly) identify as “libertarian” as government continues to expand rather than contract (a realistic scenario since arguably the most libertarian President in recent years, Bill Clinton, mostly just “held the line” rather than actually decreasing the impact of government)?
In other words, if “libertarian” comes to just mean “less government”, won’t government at some point come to be so pervasive that almost every one thinks it’s too pervasive?
Ron,
Have you read Radicals for Capitalism? I purchased it when it came out but never got around to reading it. It’s back on my reading list, I’m curious as to how you feel about its history of “libertarianism.”
Plus, Murray Rothbard’s “Betrayal of the American Right?”
I’ve found similar problems in defining “libertarianism” because I’m still going back and forth on this whole “anarchism” thing.
Mark,
If it is to mean anything I hope that at very least libertarian is used to mean s significant decrease in government interference in the lives of individuals, but who can predict how the word will be used in the future.
Freedom Democrat,
I haven’t gotten to it in light of both the length of the book and the number of unread books I already have piled up. Some day I’d like to read it.
So much to address here.
Firstly though, a factual error in your otherwise fine piece. It was Ed Clark who ran for President on the Libertarian ticket, not “Ed Crane.” Crane is the head of the Cato Institute. I think he’d find your error quite amusing. Crane never ran for any political office.
Secondly, you mistakenly argue that Murray Rothbard was an “original Libertarian” and that the libertarian movement was birthed in the 1960s out of his efforts. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Go back and read old, old issues of LP News from the 1970s, or early issues of Reason Magazine. (All of which I have in my extensive libertarian movement archives in my garage.)
Rothbard was a Leftist Anarchist at the time, who sort of infiltrated the libertarian movement.
The original libertarians came out of the very Right-wing Barry Goldwater Campaign, sprinkled in with a few maverick Conservatives from the National Review Magazine (Frank Meyers, for example).
If there’s one single individual who could be considered the “Founder” of the Modern Libertarian movement that would be Dana Rohrabacher. Dana was Chairman of the “Libertarian Caucus” of Young Americans for Freedom in the late 1960s, during a very critical era. The young buck Libertarians back then, like Dana’s friend Don Ernsberger, and former LP National Chairman Jim Turney, came out of Dana’s group. Dana today, as you know is a United States Congressman representing California, and is very much a Right-winger. (Though he’s still very libertarian, supporting Marijuana legalization, and ending the Selective Service Draft.)
David Nolan, who founded the LP, was at the time Chairman of the Colorado Young Republicans. Dr. John Hospers, the LP’s First Presidential candidate in 1972, came from the Right, and today is very much Pro-War in Iraq and a Bush supporter.
Rothbard and his sidekick, ex-Male Prostitute Justin Raimondo, came on the scene in the mid-1970s. In about 1974, their “Radical Caucus” took over the LP platform committee, and changed it into a hardcore non-interventionist Anarchist document. They were also fantastic propogandists, having learned those skills from the Left. They proceeded to whitewash libertarian movement history to make it appear that Rothbard was always connected with libertarians, and that the libertarian movement was always non-intervenionist.
Unfortunately for Rothbard/Raimondo, some of us are old enough to remember the original libertarian movement, and have extensive documentation to prove otherwise.
Originalists libertarians were Pro-Defense. They were not opposed to the Vietnam War per se, simply opposed to the Military Draft FOR the Vietnam War.
Original libertarians from the 1960s are still around today, and thankfully can be consulted to confirm all this. People like: Dr. Jack Wheeler, Kevin Bjornsen in Seattle who is still active with the WA State LP, Bob Poole of Reason Magazine, Mike Dunn founder and former Chairman of the Libertarian Defense Caucus, Ernseberger, Rohrabacher and Jim Turney.
I’ve done extensive interviews with many of them. And what I’ve learned runs completely counter to the current line of “Libertarians are non-interventionists.”
Eric Dondero
Fmr. Sec. Libertarian Party of Florida, 1985/86
Former Libertarian National Committeeman, 1986/87
Fmr. LP candidate for State Legislature, 1986
Fmr. Travel Aide/Advance Man, Ron Paul, Libertarian for President, 1987/88
Islamo-Fascism runs counter to the philosophy of Liberty. It’s hard to argue that people who wish to force our girlfriends/wives to wear ugly black burqas from head to toe, jail our marijuana smoking buddies, outlaw free speech for newspaper cartoonists, ban nude beaches, take away the right of women to vote, and cut off genitals of all gay males, are “friends of freedom.”
It boggles the mind how some Libertarians align themselves with these very anti-libertarian forces.
They forget these are the very people who brutally assassinated Dutch libertarisn Theo van Gogh and Pym Fortuyn.
These are the very same people who shot and forever paralyzed the wife of the Alabama Libertarian Party State Chairman in 2002 (John Muhammed, Beltway Sniper). Note – Her Filipina co-worker at the liquor store lost her life in the shooting.
Libertarian means less government. Islamo-Fascists want an extreme increase in the government and governmental powers. They want nothing less than to Talabanize the United States of America.
Liberty is completely incompatible with Islamo-Fascism. And those who defend Islamo-Fascism, even by being weak on the War on Terror, are no better than the Islamo-Fascists themselves.
Eric,
Yes, that was a dumb mistake and I’ll fix it with regards to confusing the two people named Ed C. In my partial defense, how many liberal blogs even know who both Ed Clark and Ed Crane are to even mix the two up in a post?
I disagree that my comment on Rothbard was a mistake. I’m simply meaning he represents one of the major divisions of libertarianism prior to the party and I didn’t mean he was an original libertarian in the sense of the founding of the libertarian movement. I really don’t want to waste time on that question as there are many ways to validly argue as to when the libertarian movement was formed and who would be included. (And yes, I do have many of the old issues of Reason, Liberty, LP News, and other publications down in the basement.)
I would hardly call Rohrabacher any more the founder of libertarianism than Rothbard. We are also looking at two different things as to consider Rohrabacher and the YAF libertarians it is necessary to move to a much broader definition of libertarianism is, with considerable overlap with conservatives. Rothbard was also involved well before the 1970’s. I think you are confusing his involvement in politics (which came later) with his intellectual contributions to libertarianism (which began earlier). We are also talking about distinctly different groups (showing the problem with the libertarian label) especially when you say that libertarians were not opposed to the Vietnam war. Basically your comments demonstrate my point that the label libertarian has many different meanings. It is necessary to stipulate the principles someone holds as opposed to simply whether they are a libertarian.
This post was hardly intended to be a history of the libertarian movement. I did mention the Goldwater influence in another recent comment similar to this one. To take this back to the Paul campaign, one way in which Goldwater is relevant was his views on the religious right. He would not echo their talking points as Paul does on church-state issues.
Eric,
Just when you are starting to sound a bit rational compared to the Paul supporters you blow it with your last comment.
“Islamo-Fascism” is a ridiculous use of the language. If you really felt confident in your arguments about the problems with Islamic fundamentalism you wouldn’t need to throw on the fascism modifier. Fascism refers to a specific philosophy and not every anti-freedom philosophy is fascism.
There are no libertarians I know of who aligned themselves with Islamic fundamentalists. Disagreeing with how to respond to them does not mean aligning with them or being any less opposed to their viewpoints. Going to war in Iraq and raising hysteria about “Islamo-Fascists” only plays into the hands of al Qaeda and weakens the United States and the cause of freedom.
I somewhat agree. I think a more accurate phrase is Islamo-Naziism. A lot of Europeans who oppose the Radical Muslims tend to use Islamo-Nazi instead of Islamo-Fascism. I prefer it to, cause it’s even more accurate. But I believe we’re stuck with Islamo-Fascism cause it’s so popular now. Plus, it does roll of the tongue easier.
However, if you do prefer, on your Forum, since you are the owner here, I’ll gladly use Islamo-Nazi instead.
Eric,
Islamo-Naziism is even worse. I would apply Naziism to the specific fascist moment in Germany which has nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism. There are similarities in which both are anti-freedom beliefs, but they are different beliefs.
Dondero’s history is flawed like most of what he writes. First, libertarianism is older than any of the people that any of you mention. And you can find modern libertarians easily going back to the 1920s, people like Nock and Mencken for example. Rothbard was not a founder of the LP but an opponent of the Party until it was started then he suddendly wanted to control it.
Yes, Raimondo was Rothbard’s lackey but everyone knows that. And Justin’s choice in career at the time was well known though he adamantly denies it today but then Justin is good at rewriting history to fit his agenda.
But the idea that the Radical Caucus took over the LP and turned it from Dondero’s pro-war, interventionists policy to a non-interventionist one is just so much bull. I was there and there was no shortage of non-interventionists who had nothing to do with Rothbard or the Raimondo/Garris types. Many were attacked by Rothbard and his creepy followers. Non-interventionism makes sense from basic libertarian principles. And it has always been the dominant view of libertarians. Some closet conservatives have tried to pretend otherwise but they are just inventing history, like Raimondo does, to further their own delusions.