Where Are The Free Market Republicans?
(posted by FreeDem)
Hat tip to mlinksva at Freedom Democrats for pointing out this post by Cato’s Tim Lee on the problem of trying to rally the economic conservatives in America with the promise of “Free Market Republicans” versus “Socialist Democrats.” I’ve long felt that America has descended to the point of having two economically statist parties, with the major difference being which interest groups you felt more comfortable siding with (big oil or big ethanol? environmentalists or mining companies?).
Cue Tim Lee:
Anyway, I think this nicely illustrates the problem with the conservative-libertarian alliance that is at the heart of a lot of “free market” organizations. Libertarianism and conservatism are very different political philosophies that happen to have found each other convenient political allies in the second half of the 20th century. We got lucky to have a string of politicians—Goldwater, Reagan, Gingrich—who successfully crafted a political program that both parts of the fusionist coalition could support, and as a result, a lot of people have come to view the two as synonymous.
But as the political climate has shifted, the differences have become more apparent, and it’s no longer so obvious that the Republican Party is the party of limited government. Conservatives’ priorities have shifted to the point where many conservatives’ top priorities now seem to be blowing up brown people in other countries, keeping brown people out of this country, and giving the president untrammeled authority to spy on and jail brown people without judicial oversight. These goals have nothing to do with libertarianism, free markets, limited government, or individual liberty.
It’s becoming increasingly true that the “free-market movement” is a polite fiction that continues to be observed because we have built institutions whose continued viability depends on its perpetuation. The cleavage is somewhat less obvious at the state level because state think tanks don’t grapple with the questions of war and executive power that divide conservatives and libertarians at the federal level. But even here, we have politicians signing ridiculous legislation to setting up state-wide databases to track meth consumption and punishing landlords that fail to pry into the personal lives of their Hispanic tenants. A movement that cared about individual liberty and limited government would be speaking out about these questions, but the “free market” movement is frustratingly silent on such questions.
I added an emphasis above to highlight the one last stand of the libertarian-conservative alliance: state politics. While it is true that even at the state level conservatives have shown a willingness to drink the big government Kool-Aid (Pawlenty, Huckbee, etc.), there are some outstanding Republicans at the state level (Palin, Sanford, etc.) who could be around for the next few Presidential cycles. And if you have a Governor with strong small government domestic credentials and (hopefully) a decline in the emphasis on foreign policy, you may–maybe–find a Republican candidate that could pull together the libertarian-conservative coalition for one last battle–in the primary. I won’t even begin to speculate on the chances of winning the nomination.
This scenario gives the Republican Party and the libertarian-conservative alliance the benefit of the doubt. Probably more so than they deserve right now. For every popular libertarian-conservative in a Governor’s Mansion, there is a big government conservative . . . or two? And there are a lot of mindless Republican hacks who will do whatever the establishment as a whole tells them to do.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
I was wondering — What positive victories can the libertarian-conservative alliance of 1953-1999 claim? There’s the lowering of marginal income tax rates under Reagan, and what else?
(By “positive victories” I mean some sort of actual wanted change, as opposed to just preventing an unwanted change.)
June 27th, 2008 at 4:16 am
I mean some sort of actual wanted change, as opposed to just preventing an unwanted change
Change isn’t very conservative, but preventing change is.
June 27th, 2008 at 7:00 am
TGGP is spot on. I once had a professor who had worked extensively for the Executive Branch during the Reagan-Bush Era and then the Congress after the Republican Revolution. His entire view of legislative politics was focused on the various ways in which factions can hold up and delay legislation. A true conservative.
At the same time, understanding all of the tools available to delay legislation makes me all the more angry at Democratic capitulation.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“which interest groups you felt more comfortable siding with (big oil or big ethanol? environmentalists or mining companies?). ”
This is like the old “Sesame Street” game of “one of these thing just doesn’t belong”:
big oil
big ethanol
mining companies
environmentalists
I consider myself an environmentalist because I don’t want to be poisoned, want my surroundings to be preserved not destroyed, etc. I’m not trying to enrich myself or my stockholders. Big difference.