What The Bloody Hell Is A 'Progressive Libertarian'?
The One True bIX
During my occassional trolling through sites that I used to read regularly but don't anymore (which isn't a dis, they just aren't regularly relevant to my interests these days), I came across Doc Searls talking about the crucifixion of the Democratic Party he had recently read.
What Searls termed that crucifixion is this item from Chris Nolan, which actually dissects aspects of both the Democratic and Republican parties and then goes on to describe an alleged movement of "progressive libertarians" -- but I'll get to that part of the story in a moment.
First, since recently I've been harping on the Clintonistas, I want to share some of what Nolan has to say on that count.
The Clintons are corporate Democrats. They place great emphasis on fund-raising, moderately liberal politics and polling to find out what – exactly what – they can get away with as they seek office and craft legislative policies. It's a funny kind of leadership. It's really following loudly. Corporate Democrats give people what they want so they can stay in office all the while telling their core supporter – that'd be the few real Liberals left in America – that compromises need to be made in exchange for staying in office to do the "good" work that needs to be done.
For the sake of transparency, I will note that Nolan also weighs in on the Dean factor. It's not that I'm ignoring that part, but I really wanted to focus quickly on the above Clintonista bit, and then get into this alleged progressive libertarian movement.
Nolan asserts that this group espouses "fiscal responsibility and social tolerance" and an "entrepreneurial 'what works best' approach" and will attract so-called moderates to their way of doing the people's business. In a follow-up post, Nolan says that these progressive libertarians lean towards the "what works best" model "because that's what's worked for them" in their private (sector) lives.
Which may or may not be all very well and good, but it seems to me that this progressive libertarian premise remains, well, a little muddled and fuzzy. You can see why when you read Nolan's bits about the problems they seem to have (and even in those places where Nolan doesn't seem to perceive that a problem exists).
In her original piece on the idea, Nolan claims that progressive libertarianism "solves, among other things, the gay marriage problem because it would let each state make it own rules" -- completely and conveniently avoiding the impropriety of allowing any state to make a rule that says it can discriminate against gays and lesbians when it comes to a civil and secular contract.
In her follow-up piece, she argues that when progressive libertarians "see a problem ... they come up with a solution" -- and apparently offers as an example that "education is big here in California" despite the fact that I'm fairly certain that the issues in public education haven't been solved in California by anybody, let alone these progressive libertarians.
But then it gets even worse and really falls apart. "They haven't really come up with a solution for the increasing economic disparity in this country," Nolan writes. "Their attitudes toward the poor, the ill, the disenfranchised are often dismissive, sometimes cruel."
Nolan also cites their contempt for politics, which is something of a problem because politics is the process by which our system functions. But that's another issue altogether and I won't bother to actually get into it here.
Although in his pointer to the Nolan piece Searls manages to avoid any mention of these fairly obvious and glaring problems with these progressive libertarians, he must have actually read these bits. Why, then, does he conclude his own item by saying that the progressive libertarian approach gives him hope?
Hope for what, exactly? To me, it all simply reminds me of something Malcolm MacLachlan wrote in the Summer 1998 issue of a magazine called In Formation. While he was speaking of the more run-of-the-mill libertarians, it seems to apply just as well to these so-called progressive libertarians.
"There is nothing particularly innovative about short-sightedness and lack of compassion," MacLachlan wrote. "Nevertheless, the way libertarians combine these elements is innovative."
At any rate, what I really suspect is that if there is any sort of coherent philosophy (or even quasi-philosophy) which united the people Nolan calls progressive libertarians, and if they actually overtly realize and practice that sort of unity, they probably will attract some, if not many, of those people I've called the whining middle.
At least by the way Nolan describes this supposedly nascent movement, it sounds to me like they really don't have much idea as to just what they are doing, don't consider it their responsibility to concern themselves with the social contract ("economic disparity" and "the poor, the ill, the disenfranchised"), and like to believe that whatever has personally worked for them in their own private (sector) lives must necessarily translate into doing the people's business as well. All of which sounds right up the whining middle's alley to me.
Original version published at my own weblog on November 13. Minor change in this version due to change of venue.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Nov 16, '04
Combining the term "progressive" with "libertarian" does seem like an oxymoron at first blush.
Libertarians, traditionally, are ideologically opposed to using government force to directly alter economic outcomes in the marketplace. They consider the sole purpose of government to protect individual rights (life, liberty, property) and consider social progress movements the proper function of philanthropy. These rights do not come into conflict (in theory at least) so libertarian debate centers around how to protect those rights most efficiently. In a libertarian society politics are boring.
Progressives do not generally share the libertarian's finite view of individual rights, rather they tend to couch "rights" in terms of "civil rights and privileges" which are borne of an evolving social contract. Such rights and privileges are often at tension with each other, so progressive political debates center around when one should give way to another. Nothing is immutable, so everyone has an interest in every political debate and politics are always exciting for "progressives".
Libertarians worship at the altars of Locke, Rand and Friedman. Progressives burn offerings to Mills, Rawls and Gallbraith.
"Libertarianism" as an integrated political movement has not made giant strides in Oregon or elsewhere, however, it's political themes are reflected in positions of both political parties and with nearly every ballot question confronting voters.
This has led to what I consider the rise of the "pragmatic libertarian" or "mainstream libertarian" voter. It is more of a political subtheme operating in the context of issue politics, rather than any sort of coordinated effort. It appeals in large part to moderate voters who may be skeptical of government solutions by bolstering the traditional libertarian "rights-based" argument with a utilitarian "bang-for-your-buck" approach.
Although I think I understand what Nolan is describing, the libertarian in me flinches at the prospect of having "progressive" grafted onto my political ideology (undoubtedly, many "progressives" react similarly). But I think those reactions illustrate Nolan's point, this segment of voters do not necessarily self-identify with either ideology.
In other words, they are not necessarily disillusioned libertarians or progressives as much as they are socially conscious pragmatists with a healthy appreciation for individualism.
Nov 16, '04
It sounds to me like progressive libertarians and/or libertarian Democrats are basically the same thing as classic Liberals. Liberal in the sense of being in favor of market economics and free trade as well as social freedom, tolerance and civil rights.
See my guest column, "What does "Liberal" mean?": http://www.blueoregon.com/2004/10/what_does_liber.html
Also the Stanford encylopedia definition: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/
In the US, the Libertarian Party is the closest thing to classic liberalism, however they advocate a very extreme, anti-government form of liberalism/libertarianism.
Progressive Libertarians or Libertarian Democrats would be more moderate and not anti-government, while still believing in limited government, as opposed to big government socialism. True libertarians are also opposed to big corporations as much as big government, favoring smaller and medium sized organizations. They are anti large bureaucratic organizations in general, whether government, corporate, or non-profit.
Nov 16, '04
There are so many people out there that say they are "socially liberal, but fiscally conservative." I'm not sure what these people mean by being "fiscally conservative," although I suspect it simply means not spending beyond your means and maintaining balanced budgets. It may also mean that they favor market economics as opposed to socialism.
Without knowing it, these folks are basically classic liberals, or "progressive libertarians." The real silent majority of most unaffiliated voters. Both major parties try to attract them but neither party's ideology matches their beliefs.
Nov 20, '04
Voters who conclude that "Neither party's ideology matches their beliefs".
What a concept!
Why must we have ideology and labels in the 21st century? My guess is that if you went to a crowded place (concert, line to get into a movie, county fair, big box store like Costco, large wedding reception, etc) and randomly asked 10 people "what is your ideology" the predominant response would be either failure/refusal to answer or HUH?
I admire St. Sen. Peter Courtney and also St. Sen.Ben Westlund as elected officials capable of candor and who show civility, common sense, and an interest in problem solving. I think the St. Senate is better run than the State House and the Democratic caucus in the Senate makes more sense than the one in the House. I believe Ted Kulongoski is Gov. because he ran a more intelligent campaign than Mannix. I voted for him in the primary--left 6 years of NAV registration to do so. I had registered that way because neither party seemed to want someone who thought like me. So what is my ideology and how would you label me?
I also wanted to comment on the article at the top. It contained this quote:
This emphasizes the bright and dark sides of the Clinton years. I truly believe that had Kerry had even half of Bill Clinton's people skills and rapid response team (starting as soon as the won the nomination)he would be president today. Clinton has deep personal loyalty from many ordinary people in ways most politicians cannot understand.
The dark side really was the corporate stuff. It was during the Clinton years that the "money is all that matters and only professionals know how the game is played" virus infected the Democratic party. I truly believe that virus did more damage than impeachment ever did.
I would suggest in the future that Democrats go back to talking about positive ideas. For example, I just came across a flier (while cleaning house) from Darlene Hooley's campaign. Sure it had a short snappy slogan "Experience we know. Leadership we trust" on the back. More importantly, the front was a picture of Darlene Hooley with troops dressed in camouflage and the words "More than just TALK" on the front. Inside of this trifold glossy(proof "glossy" doesn't have to mean "devoid of serious content")mailer was information on how she helped Oregon's National Guard troops with the very real problem of inadequate armor, and testimonials with pictures of families who were grateful for the help.
There was a time (back when Darlene was in the legislature?) when Democrats understood the need for substance. Too many consultants forget that now. Or is it just too much hard work to understand issues well enough to produce such a mailer?
As the first Democratic candidate to carry Oregon and break "the Republican lock on the West" which had been there since LBJ famously said, "This is not about ideology, it is about competence!".
If all the time and energy spent on debating theory, ideology, and labels were put into learning the details of policy issues and communicating those ideas to others, politics in this state and nation would be more interesting to those whose lives revolve around other things than politics. Think about the shallowness of the signs and bumperstickers that say things like "Support the troops and president Bush". Suppose someone were to start a conversation with a friend (or a person displaying such a sign) about the treatment of wounded vets, or the level of veteran homelessness, or things like body armor? Would the other person be able to answer a question like "Which of Oregon's members of Congress take an active interest in the needs of veterans?".
Something to think about!
1:51 p.m.
Nov 20, '04
Reminds me of how the War Resisters' League annual picnic would have a softball game between the socialists and the anarchists. Are the progressive libertarians simply a version of anarchists? The agnostics, say, instead of the atheists?
Probably not. But it could reflect thinking about how government is often used as a tool by the powerful to take advantage of those less well off, rather than the opposite... whether there's a cohesive philosophy or not, I don't know. It's hard to find coherent, consistent philosophies in most politics, though.
Nov 22, '04
random thoughts after midnight . . . . . . (as if politics couldn’t get more surreal…)
. . . let me get this straight . . . a typical “progressive libertarian” is currently disguised as a governor and pretends to play politics? . . . as in “I’m not really a politician, I’m just playing one in California?” (and he doesn’t even know he’s really a ‘progressive libertarian’?)
. . . hmmm. . . .
. . . maybe Tenskwatawa is right after all: perhaps there is a “Media Party” and they are just terminators (lacking total recall) masquerading as these ‘progressive libertarians’ that are masquerading as republicans and / or democrats that are masquerading as politicians that are masquerading as . . .
Absolutely surreal…
Maybe when Tom Potter brings back the Bud Ball here in Portland, we could develop our own politico-semantic masquerade guidelines. They could read something like this:
“If you would like to attend the Politico Masquerade Ball and happen to be a republican – please don the “libertarian” mask. Please note that all libertarians wishing to attend the ball will automatically be disguised as “republicans”. (Ball admittance fees for members of this ‘party’ will be waived for the next four years.)
If you wish to attend the politico masquerade ball and happen to be a democrat – please don the “progressive” mask. Please note that all progressives wishing to attend the ball will automatically be disguised as “democrats”. (We regret to inform you that members of this ‘party’ will be placed on an admittance waiting list for the next four years.)
If you are undecided as to how to attend the ball, please don the invisible ‘progressive libertarian’ mask. (Admittance is at the cost of your soul and possibly others.)
Nov 22, '04
Avoiding right or wrong. Alert hearing the new word- prism chords meaning.
<hr/>In the prime example of starting an ideologic political party, the Democrat Party in 1832, no mobs of people were standing around thinking to themselves "we're Democrats, let's start a political Party."
How did it start? The way the essence was communicated among 'themselves' was in the mindframe of being those people who agreed with one position but not others of the Republican-Democrats, and 'their' faction was being splintered off separate from the wider-known group. And taking the 'Democrat' insignia with them. From the subjective point of view, each person decided for themself whether they identified with the idea.
Suppose the Media Party could be a revealing polarized filter when viewing politics. That is, suppose it works. A whimsical thought might be that other ('audience') people decide who is in the Media Party; each so-partisan person is given (somehow) the label and assigned into the party, they don't choose it themself.
<h1></h1>Nov 22, '04
Tenskwatawa?
I don't want to live in the surreal Orwellian world you describe in what-ifs . . . it's . . . spooky.
Lets never discuss the elusive, maleable, 'media party' and its imagined state of constant flux ever again --
lets talk instead of media reform and democrat(ic) party reform and how dangerous the undecided are when they decidedly choose to remain ambivalent.
Dec 1, '04
It is possible to have a truly progressive libertarianism. There are ways to greatly shrink the disparity between rich and poor. Such ideas have been in the libertarian literature for centuries, but they are usually buried in the middle of larger works. For example, Adam Smith wrote on how to reduce the rate of profit and increase wages.
I have collected a large number of these ideas on my site www.holisticpolitics.org