Conservative commentator and
former Bush speechwriter David Frum is a
pot-prohibitionist and anti-gun
crusader who believes that “the
bank bailouts probably saved the world economy from a great
depression” and that on foreign policy, “there
is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust.” In
other words, he treats libertarianism like an infection to be
quarantined. And no, I’m not being metaphorically hyperbolic–this
is how Frum reacted
when the future junior senator from Kentucky won his first
Republican primary back in 2010:
How is it that the GOP has lost its antibodies against a
candidate like Rand Paul?
So Frum’s distaste for any talk of a “libertarian moment,” which
Nick Gillespie
noted earlier this week, is as surprising as a day ending in
“d-a-y.” But in his rush to isolate the sickness within a
discrete subsection of professional Republican politics, Frum
misses an important point that his Atlantic colleague
Conor Friedersdorf crystallizes nicely in
this post. Namely, that libertarianism’s promise and relevance
to modern life goes well beyond the question of ballot-box
considerations and GOP infighting. Sample:
Washington, D.C., insiders who’ve dedicated themselves to
improving America through the mediating institution of one
political party are often blind to different approaches. A
substantive policy victory that does nothing to boost movement
libertarianism, or the Libertarian Party, or a particular
libertarian politician, or libertarianism’s place within the
Republican Party, may not seem like a “libertarian moment” or
“libertarian victory” to an institutionalist like Frum. He may find
libertarianism important only insofar as it affects the Republican
Party.
Yet many who think of
themselves as libertarians (or who are friendly to many but not all
libertarian goals, like me) don’t particularly care who is
ascendant in Washington, or what party affiliation appears beside
the name of a legislator. If fewer people are caged for inhaling
the smoke of a plant, that’s a libertarian victory. If fewer
people’s doors are kicked in late at night by police officers
dressed in combat fatigues, that’s a libertarian victory. If more
cancer patients can legally obtain a substance that alleviates
their suffering, that’s a libertarian victory. If fewer assets are
seized by police without proof of guilt, that’s a libertarian
victory. […]On issues where libertarians have a somewhat realistic chance of
winning over their fellow citizens—reining in the NSA, eliminating
the most inane professional licensing laws, insisting on due
process in the War on Terrorism, avoiding foolish wars of choice,
ending the war on drugs, reducing the prison population and the
militarization of the police—a “libertarian moment” would have a
salutary effect on American life. Commentators like Frum, [Jonathan]
Chait, and [Paul] Krugman don’t see this in large part because, if
their output is indicative of their beliefs and priorities, they
aren’t particularly troubled by NSA spying, or inane professional
licensing laws, or civil asset forfeiture, or foolish wars of
choice, or the war on drugs. For them, the path to a better America
is further empowering an enlightened faction of technocrats within
the political party to which they’re loyal. On particular issues,
their respective prescriptions are sometimes worth trying. But I
notice egregious incompetence and abuses—and lots of innocents
dying needlessly—on the watches of the leaders they’ve
overzealously supported. Libertarians have concrete policy
proposals to protect against such ills. One needn’t embrace their
entire philosophy to see the wisdom in them.
There are things I disagree with in Friedersdorf’s
post—including short shrift for truly fiscal conservative
budgeting, which has broad public support that (IMO) was
squandered by the
dumb Obamacare government shutdown—but it’s certainly worth
reading in full.
As is this BBC piece by Anthony Zurcher titled “Is Ferguson the
start of a ‘libertarian moment.‘”
Zurcher collects a bunch of libertarian-world
responses to the outrages in Missouri, and posits that
post-Ferguson comments from the likes of
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) “mark a sharp break from the
previous conservative embrace of government authority when it comes
to public safety issues.” He’s right about that.
There are plenty infinitely more important considerations in
Ferguson aside from how it might reflect on a New York Times
Magazine article. But it’s also true that 2014 has the
potential of being the year when the excesses of the four-decade
War on Crime
start getting rolled back. And part of that movement, as I
discovered at this year’s
Conservative Political Action Conference, is attributable to
increasing openness to libertarian arguments within the GOP.
Rand Paul has proposed a half-dozen real reforms to the criminal
justice system over the past 12 months. Should even some of those
improvements become law, that would mark a more significant
advancement of human freedom than the entire life’s work of many
anti-libertarians out there. Ultimately
that’s the stuff that matters more than which team wins the
next Most Important Election Ever.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1yCaZ0Z
via IFTTT