The end of the credibility of beltway libertarian culture
Justin Raimondo writes far better than I could on the fifth column nature of the beltway libertarians. It is getting very obvious that many of these "libertarians" have spent too much time in D.C. and absorbing its culture.
The quickness to denounce the Ron Paul campaign is solid evidence that these "libertarians" are establishment creatures, with establishment values. For all of their vaunted talk of tolerance, a disturbing number of libertarians were savagely hawkish in coming down on Ron Paul. This is inability to stomach ideas they find offensive long enough to even hear someone out, is decidedly non-libertarian. The alacrity that they displayed, and the natural ease of the denunciations are strong signs that their libertarian views are simply bolted onto the modern secular ethic for all human interactions, "say no hurtful thing, screw no child." Indeed at times, I think they are far more concerned with racism, sexism and anti-homosexuality than such passe' goals as bring about an end to the welfare-warfare state.
It's patently obvious that the libertarian movement is now divided between left-libertarians, as represented by the beltway crowd, and right-libertarians which are the base of supporters that Ron Paul is drawing from. This is a contest for who will define libertarianism, and the left-libertarians are losing because most "small l libertarians" are either right-libertarians or close enough to be just not left-libertarians. In many respects, this is just like the neoconservatives scrambling to delegitimize small government conservatives of all varieties from their think tank and publishing perches. We all know that conservatism has been a "big tent," but it has not been so obvious until now that libertarianism has worked in a similar way.
Ironically, it will be "right-libertarians" that will give the libertarian movement the shot in the arm that it needs to become a force unto itself, if it is ever to really become one, because we have a better connection to common American culture. Unlike left-libertarians, we have, as a faction, at least a vague notion that outside of the major cities, there is a real American culture, and that the mulitcultural major cities are the exception that are not to be emulated. If any faction is qualified to take over, and embed libertarian ideas into the culture, it will be the Ron Paul right-libertarians, not the beltway left-libertarians.
Did you read the comments at the article? Matt Welch, Carol Moore, and Eric Dondero all showed up. They must have some kind of "Raimondo alarm" or something. Raimondo responded to Welch; there's obviously no love lost there.
I figured Dondero would show up at my blog post, too; that guy is everywhere.
Anyway, this whole newsletter thing has been a real eye-opener for me. My opinions of Cato, Reason, etc. are much lower now than they were before. They are all establishment organs in libertarian clothing.
I began to realize there was a problem when Reason began to focus mostly on elections and petty libertarian issues like sex issues, and vice consumption. Don't get me wrong, I believe that it is an important right to be able to control one's body, but there are bigger, more important libertarian issues at stake. To go after the "fun" ones first, the way they often seem to, they end up encouraging libertinism, not libertarianism.
The final nail in the coffin for me was when Reason began to hire people who really do talk about feminism in the general sense, as though it can be part of the libertarian movement. Feminism, as it is known by pretty much all of its "thinkers" is a collectivist movement. Cathy Young was the exception among the female Reason contributors after Postrel left in that she actually seriously believes in equality, and has written volumes about how the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. When I saw Kerry Howley's article trying to use women's rights to justify illegal immigration, I knew it would be a cold day in hell before I'd ever spend a dime on Reason again.
For me, libertarianism requires a certain radical mindset that doesn't begrudge others their dark quirks. These "libertarians" have a serious problem with prejudice and bigotry. It reveals some amazingly coercive tendencies in them, in the way that they so powerfully attack those they think are bigots.
The real lesson here is that professional conservatives and libertarians have to be constantly scrutinized because their existence is no longer viable should the left fundamentally lose out. If God forbid people actually learned from history and permanently stopped the individualism-collectivism cycle, they'd be out of a job in no time. It's like the DEA. Do you really think the DEA will ever want to see the drug war ended?
There has always been a rift in the Libertarian party. On one side there are the social libertarians and on the other are the fiscal libertarians.
The SL's are concerned primarily with social freedoms and can easily be confused with democrats or other left leaning groups in that "social justice" or civil liberties issues are of the greatest importance. This end of the party is what has given Libertarians a bad name as "those people who just want to do drugs". These are the Libertinians of you will, people such as Bill Maher.
The FLs are often more "conservative" in their social views, often along the lines of traditional Republican rhetoric (tho not actions obviously) but their focus is more on a constitutionally restrained government and fiscal issues. I think our group tends towards fiscal-libertarianism.
Its really just an example of the American people but perhaps to excess. The difference between the Repugs and the Dems is along much those same lines but to a lesser extent.
I don't see this rift in the party going away anytime soon. Its a shame because if the Libertines could be persuaded to focus more on actual freedom we might be able to get some badly needed momentum.
Is it something in the water in DC, perhaps?
This sort of thing would be airborne, not in the water. We drink too much bottled water around here for it be waterborn.
What exactly do you mean by this?
"Unlike left-libertarians, we have, as a faction, at least a vague notion that outside of the major cities, there is a real American culture, and that the mulitcultural major cities are the exception that are not to be emulated."
So are you saying that the different races living together in the same cities is somehow a BAD thing? And since when has the United States ever NOT been a cultural melting pot?
The bulk of our population already lives in cities. The numbers of people who live in rural areas, combined don't match that of those who live in urban areas. So yes of course there is life outside the cities, just not much. How is life INSIDE the cities somehow not Real American culture? Is it not Real just because you may not like it or want it to be? Is that all it takes?
Who said anything about races? You ought to consider a little introspection if you see culture and think race.
The United States is not integrating most of its immigrants the way that it used to be. A melting pot, for all of its problems, at least integrates. What we have today is a beef stew, not a melting pot.
You mean cities and towns. The majority of America does not live in major cities like New York City or Los Angeles.
In major cities there is no real sense of a distinct American culture, nor community. In places like Northern Virginia, where most of these beltway libertarians live, this is especially the case. There are so many distinct cultural influences and small communities, that it is absurd to suggest that there is a common culture of any sort beyond speaking English in public. Drive outside of Northern Virginia, and you will find that most of Virginia is quite different, and can be hardly called sparsely populated.
But then again, all of this is meaningless since adjectives like "multicultural major" got conveniently left out of your comment. Your comment was little more than a strawman, and a bad one at that.