Neolibertarianism
Neolibertarianism is a political philosophy combining elements of
libertarian and
neoconservative thought that embraces
incrementalism domestically, and a generally interventionist foreign policy based on self-interest, national defense and the expansion of
freedom.
Neolibertarianism holds that the best form of national government is one that promotes liberty (
free markets and
civil liberties) and strong national defense policies, including the use of pre-emptive military engagements only if it is against a threat to freedoms and a danger to the nation. It also holds that the federal government should concern itself with these issues above all others, while leaving nearly every other issue to more local political entities: state/provincial and municipal governments, communities, and individuals. Neolibertarians are sometimes described as "pro-
capitalist conservatives" or "libertarians who support the
War on Terror." Some libertarian celebrities that fit into this neolibertarian category include talk radio personalities
Larry Elder,
Neal Boortz, and comedian
Dennis Miller.
The term
neolibertarian is undergoing a shift in meaning post-
9-11 and post-
Iraq War. Originally it indicated a libertarian who embraced the alliance with the
New Left, whereas now it is often used to describe a libertarian who favors an interventionist foreign policy, as opposed to an
isolationist course of action. In this sense the term is related to
neoconservative.
Similar terms
The creation of the term
republitarian is usually attributed to
Larry Elder, an American political pundit, radio talk show host, and author who defines "republitarian" as "a member of the
Republican Party who holds libertarian ideals." [
1] Another example would be
Neal Boortz, who describes himself as a neolibertarian. Another similar term is
liberventionist, the term used by isolationalist libertarians to describe interventionist libertarians.
Presently, republitarians are represented in the Republican party by the
Republican Liberty Caucus, joining such codified groups within the GOP such as the
Log Cabin Republicans and the
College Republicans.
The first neolibertarians to use the term did so in response to the
Iraq war.
Jonathan Henke began popularizing the term "Neolibertarian" on the weblog he created, QandO [
2], along with
Dale Franks and
Bruce McQuain. Distancing themselves from the generally
anti-war response of the
Libertarian Party (LP) and the mainstream libertarian movement, Henke and his fellow neolibertarians set out their reasons for supporting a vigorous
war on terror and an effort to secure the freedom of Iraqis.
Incrementalism in general is a common
hallmark of neolibertarians, who tend to avoid over-association with the LP itself. The most obvious neolibertarian instance of taking a practical course to serve a moral goal is the Iraq war, though this is a common approach to many political issues.
Some neolibertarians see themselves as pragmatic and calculated compared to
idealistic,
ivory-tower paleolibertarians. Others would cast themselves in the role of committed to
pragmatism only in service of idealism and would say their foreign principles are more idealistic than the paleolibertarian-favored isolationism. Since anti-war libertarians see themselves as the idealists and because neolibertarians embrace pragmatism in method if not in goal, the vision of neolibertarians as pragmatic tends to be over-emphasized.
To describe neolibertarians,
Dale Franks says this: [
3]
When given a set of policy choices,:* The choice that maximizes personal
liberty is the best choice.:* The policy choice that offers the least amount of necessary government intervention or regulation is the best choice.:* The policy choice that provides
rational,
market-based incentives is the best choice.:In foreign policy, neolibertartianism would be characterized by,:* A policy of
diplomacy that promotes
consensual government and
human rights and opposes
dictatorship.:* A policy of using US
military force solely at the discretion of the US, but only in circumstances where American
interests are directly affected.
Putting a different spin on it, the website "Neo-Libertarian" says that neo-libertarianism: [
4]
...means making a political commitment to combat the initiation of force and fraud by the most effective and moral route possible; paleo-libertarians deal in words and thoughts, while neo-libertarians commit themselves to expanding freedom from the rhetorical world to the real world. It's the difference between saying something for freedom and doing something for freedom.
Moreover, it's a commitment to the
universality of freedom; just as calling oneself 'The Government' cannot legitimately add to one's
natural rights, drawing an invisible line on a
map and calling it 'The Border' cannot legitimately subtract from one's natural rights. People in foreign lands have the same natural rights as people in the house next door; neo-libertarianism is about finding the most practical ways to stop infringements against the liberty of those around the globe, including the use of force if necessary, just as we would use local police and courts to stop infringements of liberty next door.
Put more succinctly:
Individuals are the only morally significant unit of
political economy. Individuals are imbued with infinite liberties circumscribed only by the rights of others to not be coerced or defrauded. The central right of humanity is the right to resist an aggressor, even if you aren't the victim.
Historical roots
Historically, the neolibertarian/paleolibertarian debate was more a question of incrementalism vs. a no-compromise, strict adherence to a principled position in matters of government interference, and the paleolibertarians' rejection of the
Vietnam era alliance with the
New Left in favor of an alliance with
paleoconservatives. As the definition of the terms and the debate has shifted, today the divide is far more between neolibertarians and much of the rest of the libertarian movement. The most crucial and watershed issue in this divide has been the
Iraq War.
Anarcho-capitalists,
paleolibertarians, ultra-
minarchists, and "mainstream"
Libertarian Party types generally came out very strongly against the Iraq war specifically and
war in general, consistent with libertarians' historical support of either a
non-interventionist or
isolationist foreign policy (on both principled and practical grounds), while some Libertarian Party members, neolibertarians, and
libertarian Republicans generally were in favor of the war. The debate ignited has been one of the most bitter in the ~40 year history of the modern
libertarian movement.
The Civil War
Paleolibertarians are more likely to adopt isolationist positions in issues and matters of war, while neolibertarians or those dubbed neolibertarian range anywhere from ambivalent to strongly for intervention. The largest debate is actually the
American Civil War, where the paleolibertarians take the side of the Confederates against the Union, generally holding that the right of
secession in principle trumps other concerns. The 'neolibertarian' position favors the intervention, usually for the reason that freeing the slaves represents a moral justification for libertarians to support the war (there are complicated and often ambivalent arguments on both sides). The
Iraq war and to a lesser extent the
U.S. invasion of Afghanistan represent ongoing disputes between these factions. Common arguments and insults tend to characterize paleolibertarians as cowardly or racist and neolibertarians as murderous or fascistic.
The philosophical foundation of this debate is relatively thin, having much to do with one's interpretation of events, but the clearest dispute between the sides is when a war is justified and whether pre-emptive war or war for the sake of other peoples and countries is morally justified.
Paleolibertarians and incrementalism
The original and longest-running point of contention in the
Libertarian Party is incrementalism. The 1980 LP nominees for President and Vice-President,
Ed Clark and
David H. Koch, as well as Koch's brother
Charles and campaign manager
Ed Crane represented the faction closest to neolibertarian (though at the time this term was not used in relation to the Clark/Koch/Crane group). Crane was the founder and President of the
Cato Institute, with financial support from the billionaire Koch family, and this faction within the LP is generally known in relation to the Cato Institute.
Clark came off a 1978 run for California Governor where he pulled 5% of the vote, in a campaign also managed by Crane, and tried to craft his 1980 campaign platform as 'low-tax liberalism.' He was making a move for the young, affluent socially liberal voters. He achieved the highest vote to date for a Libertarian presidential candidate, both percentage-wise and in absolute numbers. The paleolibertarians, primarily the Radical Caucus, greatly disagreed with his strategy, which they saw as philosophically watered-down.
The paleolibertarians disliked the political tactics, the DC connections and the rhetorical incrementalism of the Clark campaign. At the 1983 nominating convention they maneuvered to defeat the Cato faction's favored candidate. Attacking the Koch family as a Kochtopus and stressing the ideological purity of the LP's candidate, they succeeded in defeating the Cato candidate and nominating the Radical candidate (though they had to dismiss their first candidate, a radio talk-show host, after it was found he had made some militaristic comments that he would not retract). The Cato faction largely left the party and focused on think tank strategies to affect the Republicans. The LP since the 1983 convention has generally favored candidates that present unadulterated campaigns that try to include the entire platform in the campaign theme instead of narrower themes or incremental proposals.
The party was weakened as a political force as the supporters of Clark and Crane left, with perhaps as much as or more than half the party's support leaving. Despite a greater number of voters in 1984, Clark received four times as many votes in 1980 as
David Bergland received in 1984. Paleolibertarians, however, would argue that the party is stronger for its purity, even if it did become smaller and less able at winning votes. The difference in either case is small since neither Clark nor Bergland was close to winning a single state.
Conservatism and neolibertarianism
While neolibertarianism derives primarily from libertarian thought, a significant influence was also exerted on it by
neoconservatism, a brand of conservatism favoring interventionism in protection of freedom and democracy. Neolibertarianism also overlaps to a lesser extent with
paleoconservatism and other brands of conservatism, although it does not historically originate from them. As with other forms of libertarianism, neolibertarianism shares with conservatives generally an aversion to federal social programs and interference in markets, and differs with conservatives generally with regard to a number of personal and social freedoms.
A common critique of neolibertarians is that their core beliefs contain in themselves an inconsistency -- how can a government powerful and interventionist enough to fix problems abroad be trusted not to try to "solve" problems at home? Historically, there are no known examples of a State with "big" government abroad and limited government domestically. Critics often quote
Randolph Bourne: "War is the health of the State." Neolibertarians typically respond to this criticism by saying that they only support military engagements that remove impediments to capitalism and consensual government, and only in the most extreme situations, i.e., where American interests are directly affected.
Neolibertarians also argue that a policy of either neutrality or isolationism is, in some cases, antithetical to both American interests, and counterproductive in ensuring the spread of both consensual governance and free-market capitalism. In short, neolibertarians believe that war, irrespective of the powers it bestows upon the state, is, when faced with an existential threat, preferable to national extinction, and that a dogmatic anti-war policy is not only ineffective, but actively immoral, in that it denies that a responsibility exists to fight for personal liberty and consensual government.
This is an area where neolibertarians and neoconservatives slightly differ. Where neoconservatives strongly support the building of democratic governments in the wake of militarily defeated governments, neolibertarians are equally concerned with letting individual liberty, including
free-market capitalism, operate after any military victory. If
capitalism is allowed to operate, they argue, the former subjects of militarily defeated governments will naturally arrange governments (whatever the form) which are, if only out of political expediency, more friendly to their subjects' newfound economic freedomsand therefore much less likely to jeopardize the benefits which neolibertarians believe capitalism and consensual government offers.
Moreover, neolibertarians argue that consensual government alone is not, in and of itself, a solution to extremism. Neolibertarians argue that it is not enough that a government be democratic, but that it also must be classically liberal. As
Dale Franks notes
[Democracy] is a wonderful method for ascertaining what the people want, and selecting leaders to carry out the people's will. It is not, however, in and of itself, a particularly good way of ensuring that what people want is the right thing.
Neolibertarians, therefore, advocate a more holistic solution than neoconservatives, in that it that incorporates both personal and economic liberty as an antidote to
Totalitarianism. Neolibertarians believe that political and economic liberty are naturally complementary and mutually reinforcing, and that a concentration on political liberalization alone is not a complete answer to reforming totalitarian states.
*
Neal Boortz*
Larry Elder*
Dale Franks*
Jonathan Henke*
P.J. O'Rourke*
Neoconservatism*
Paleoconservatism*
Paleoliberalism*
Paleolibertarianism*
The New Libertarian - Online journal relating to neolibertarianism
*
Neolibertarian Network*
The QandO Online Magazine*
Neo-Libertarian*
The New Libertarian*
The Individualist on MSN Spaces
