A Libertarian Process Revolution?
(posted by FreeDem)
Are idealistic revolutions doomed to fail? The 2parse/blog argues that idealistic revolutions, ranging from the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution, all end up suffering the same failure of believing that the end justifies the means–any means. As a mutual fan of Arthur Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon,” I agree that some of the greatest anti-totalitarian novels of the modern era have highlighted the tendency of utopian schemes to become corrupt and often undermine the very principles they claim to uphold. The same doom could very easily befall a libertarian revolution, with the end justifying the means. So far, purists in the movement have largely kept out such a threat. The result, rather than a successful idealistic libertarian revolution, has largely been a complete and total lack of a libertarian revolution. Instead of focusing on idealism, perhaps libertarians should take the pathway of the more successful revolutions in history and focus on process.
The rare alternative to these goal-oriented or ideological revolutions are process revolutions. While American history has had a number of ends-focused revolutions - the original American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Civil Rights Movement - these movements all had more or less discrete goals which could be achieved (seceding from Britain; preventing the secession of the South; and ending the legal discrimination against African Americans). These were revolutions whose purpose was not to tear down the existing social and governmental structures, but to amend them in discrete ways. The concrete nature of the goals of these revolutions in addition to extraordinary leadership1 of these movements mitigated the dangers inherent in revolution and rapid change through American history.
Now there are arguably serious critiques of the American Revolution as a process revolution. At one time, I stumbled on a very insightful blog post (and brownie points to anyone who helps me find it again) that argued that the instigators of the American Revolution, for all of their idealism, were fundamentally wrong about perceptions of reality and the threat of totalitarianism from the British Crown. They were, for their time period, the equivalent of the 9/11 Truth movement. Rather broadly, the author then used this to cast serious questions about the whole purpose and goal of the libertarian movement.
On a side note, I find the secessionist arguments of the South to be equally absurd and conspiratorial. While the development of “Lost Cause” mythology has built its foundation on the defense of “states rights” as the defining issue of the Civil War, I’d be mildly curious to see how a modern Confederacy would write its history if their bid for independence had been successful. I’d be even more interested to see the development of libertarian thought in the North free from the baggage of paleolibertarians trying to link libertarianism to the “Lost Cause.” But I digress . . .
A libertarian movement focused on a process revolution would be able to focus on a small set of discrete goals. A balanced budget amendment. Term limits. Restoration of the gold standard. These are just examples of specific policy proposals, far short of some “abolition of the state” or “restoration of the Constitution as originally written.” Whether or not they are the best policies to be adopted by a libertarian process revolution can be discussed.
Thoughts?
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
You must be on to something, or we are on strikingly parallel wavelengths, because just one or two sentences into your post, I started thinking about the importance of process to any movement.
Then, there you go, right on cue, talking about process. Ultimately, I do agree that means/process is more important than the end. Overarching, idealistic goals are nothing if the method used to get there is not “just” and consistent with the goals in the most important respects.
The parts of the libertarian philosophy that I like most are the emphasis on reason, the importance of personal liberty and freedom, and the heavy skepticism of power. I believe these attributes, by their very nature, speak more to process and attitude than to ultimate goals. I think this is why libertarianism, as a grand goal of sorts, rarely succeeds as a mainstream political movement. The whole idea, it seems to me, is to provide a counterweight to power and oppression - the very things that most formal parties and movements often drift toward when left unchecked.
In my opinion, libertarian principles are at their best and most effective when internalized on an almost subconscious level, bringing out the active role and judgment of every citizen, and hopefully keeping the power structures (both public and private) accountable.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Haha, I suppose I may have been tipped off by the word “Process” in the title…
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I couldn’t agree more. That said, if the best we libertarians can do in terms of focus is Restoration of the gold standard,” then we are really in trouble as a movement. Term limits and a balanced budget amendment are worthy causes, but there’s way too many arguments against a return to a gold standard to count. Frankly, the most important area on which I think you could get most libertarians to agree would be on restoration of economic substantive due process rights.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I was just throwing out the gold standard as an example of a specific goal. Which goals the libertarian process revolution should have are still up to debate.
May 25th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I tried posting this earlier but the George Washington as truther post is Why I am Not a Libertarian by Mencius Moldbug.