Monday, May 3, 2010
Radical libertarians, especially libertarian anarchists, have long since noted that the libertarian movement in America has been co-opted by the conservative establishment in various ways. But at another level it could be argued that this association isn't reducible to a co-option, that it was there all along when libertarianism was given a new meaning in the 1960's and formed by people who were originally fleeing from the conservative establishment while taking some of its ideological baggage along with them. In other words, it's partly the fault of at least a notable segment of libertarians themselves, who romantisized and aligned themselves with the political right from the beginning.
Libertarianism is put foreward by many libertarians as being "neither left or right", but it is often hard for them to maintain this claim when the ideological baggage comes out. Sometimes the ideological baggage that comes out is basically American conservatism as it was during the 1st half of the 20th century, repackaged for a new generation. And due to the pet peeve issues that standard libertarians often emphasize, which largely are anti-leftist sentiments, it is no surprise that the public often percieves libertarianism as a sort of frankenstein of the right. Being "anti-government" is framed in superficial, narrow terms.
This is partially a matter of rhetoric. American libertarians have inherited the rhetoric of the old right, rhetoric that stems from a cold war mentality and a romantic conception of early America. But I do not mean to suggest that standard and mainstream libertarians should change their rhetoric in order to better sell themselves to the left while keeping their positions substantively identical. This is because some substance was also inherited along with the rhetoric, and that substance is questionable. The substantance is a ridiculous narrative of American capitalism as a glorious bastion of freedom that is being eroded by the alien forces of communism, multiculturalism, and assorted bugaboos.
It is sometimes rather revealing and disillusioning to see the kinds of issues that some libertarians choose to prioritize: complaining about the civil rights act, doing Lincoln and civil war revisionism, attacking minimum wage laws, argueing that monarchy is better than democracy, and things of this nature. This isn't to say that they are necessarily wrong about these issues (although I beg to differ with Hoppe about monarchy), but their motivations may be wrong. They give the impression that they are mainly anti-state because of its egalitarian face, out of a desire to defend some past tradition or circumstance, or because they favor some special interest or power structure. This is precisely what gives libertarians the reputation of being "wingnuts".
As a result of this, libertarians are largely the laughingstock of most political discourse, and that's unfortunate. But in spite of this libertarianism has internally spawned a revival of more coherant radicalism at its own margins, which is slowly growing and gaining a voice in opposition to the bastardized libertarianism that gets the most press and is marginalizing itself out of existence. This has the potential to change the public face of libertarianism, and I think it's important for libertarian radicals to emphasize the difference between themselves and the right-wing frankenstein that mainstream libertarianism seems to be.
Posted by Brainpolice at 1:49 PM
Labels: Conservatism, Libertarianism, Tea Party Movement
No comments:
Post a Comment