1. Libertarianism

Category Archives: Libertarianism

JAMES POULOS: For the GOP, fusionism is back

Posted on by

In recent years it has been fashionable to think that fusionism, once the Republicans dominant ideological framework, is dead. (The key to that framework, forged by Frank S. Meyer and William F. Buckley at National Review, was that mainstream libertarianism and mainstream conservatism work hand in hand, animating a coherent political program.)

In fact, until very recently, it has also been reasonable to hail the death of fusionism. Although both libertarians and conservatives think of themselves as constitutionalists, on key issues, they differ sometimes profoundly.

And throughout Barack Obamas presidency, the differences have often attracted more attention than the similarities. Despite Tea Party solidarity among grassroots activists, libertarians have been seen to pull the GOP to the left on security and social issues. In the run-up to a presidential election year, thats seen by most mainstream conservatives as a big problem. Its an article of faith among the party faithful that when Republicans become more like Democrats, they lose elections. The desire to stay fused with libertarians has been greatly weakened by the perceived leftward lurch of the libertarian base.

But today, despite all odds, fusionism is back. And its probably here to stay. Surprisingly enough, the reason for that is simple: foreign policy. Even more surprising, theres one presidential candidate in the whole Republican field whose quiet advantages sum up why. Its not Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, or even former Florida governor Jeb Bush. Its Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

What does Marco Rubio have to do with the power of foreign policy to resurrect a political coalition? To be sure, Rubio falls squarely in line with a long tradition of Republicans who whatever their domestic agendas voice a robust and assertive view of Americas role in the world. In that sense, he would seem, at first glance, to drive libertarians even further away from the fusionism of the past.

Today, however, Republican and American anxieties over foreign policy are reaching a critical point. Midway through the Obama presidency, the global outlook was murkier than it is now. Mitt Romney couldnt effectively use foreign policy as a cudgel against the president, try as he might. What a difference a few years make. Rubio has a unique opportunity to steer the GOP back toward old-style fusionism. Some disagree, of course. From the standpoint of a candidate like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Rubios domestic agenda is far too establishmentarian to satisfy the constitutionalist yearnings of libertarians or conservatives.

But Cruz himself is proof that you can establish a reputation for being tough on security without sounding, to put it crudely, like an old-style neoconservative. Like voters more broadly, Republicans are increasingly nervous about the libertarian approach to foreign policy.

Theyre torn between the versions of Reaganism offered by Cruz on the one hand and, say, Mitt Romney on the other. The grassroots idea of Reagans legacy differs from the establishments so sharply that its easy to see how each is a bit too out of step with the times. On domestic issues, the sort of viewpoint offered by Sen. Paul has a broader appeal than Cruzs, yet deeper appeal than Romneys. In sum, they want a more libertarian domestic policy than Reaganauts offer but a more Reaganesque foreign policy than the libertarians offer.

At this moment, its easiest to see how Rubio could position himself in that way. Hed simply have to move to the alleged left on domestic issues libertarians tend to care about.

Rubio doesnt need to shift on foreign policy in order to do this. Its still unclear exactly where to find Rubios center of gravity on domestic policy. He rode into power as a Tea Party favorite. Now, hes much cozier with the establishment.

Excerpt from:

JAMES POULOS: For the GOP, fusionism is back

New political party a Reality in Manitoba

Posted on by

A new fringe political party in Manitoba wants to disband government-run schools, scrap smoking bylaws, and get rid of seatbelt laws.

The Reality Party of Manitoba is closely akin to libertarianism and its values, and leader Francis Trueman said it has significant financial backing from a small group of people.

In a letter sent to media, the party criticizes the established three democratic socialist parties for crawling all over us.

Scrapping provincial control over liquor, gambling, auto insurance and rent controls is also part of its opening salvo.

The party, run by the Winnipeg contractor, has 117 members, most of whom live inside the Perimeter.

Were not telling people what they want to hear, Trueman said. Were not out to curry favour. Were dealing with principle people can agree with it or not agree with it.

Trueman, a contractor for 50 years, ran in the 1995 provincial election in Springfield for the now-defunct Manitoba Libertarian Party.

The Reality Party wont run in the 2016 provincial election, but has its sights set on 2020.

Wed like to run a slate in the next election, Trueman said.

We will restore the liberty and privacy of the civil society, the letter reads, as well as its property rights and contract rights.

Excerpt from:

New political party a Reality in Manitoba

Learning the History of Liberty from the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism

Posted on by

In an interesting discussion of social change and especially the best ways to spread classical liberal ideas at Liberty Funds Online Library of Liberty, historian David M. Hart has high praise for the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism(published by Sage in conjunction with the Cato Institute):

The Encyclopedia of Libertarianismprovides an excellent survey of the key movements, individuals, and events in the evolution of the classical liberal movement.

One should begin with Steve Davies General Introduction, pp. xxv-xxxvii, which is an excellent survey of the ideas, movements, and key events in the development of liberty, then read some of the articles on specific historical periods, movements, schools of thought, and individuals.

He goes on to suggest specific articles in the Encyclopedia that are essential reading for understanding successful radical change in ideas and political and economic structures, in both a pro-liberty and anti-liberty direction. Heres his guide to learning about the history of liberty in the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism:

Theres your college course in the history of liberty right there, all for $125 (or a trip to a good library). You might also start with Chapter 2 of The Libertarian Mind, which is sort of a brief outline of what you could learn from all these articles.

Excerpt from:

Learning the History of Liberty from the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism

The Fix: Ted Cruz is a conservative icon. But plenty of Republicans dont care for him.

Posted on by

Sen. Ted Cruz will announce Monday that he will run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, becoming the first major official candidate in the race.

And as our own Philip Bump noted Sunday, despite Cruz's popularity with tea party conservatives, the Republican from Texas will start off in the 2016 polls as something of an also-ran -- averaging just 5.5 percent support.

This is at least somewhat understandable for two reasons: 1) Cruz isn't that well-known nationally to casual followers of politics, and 2) there are a lot of viable potential GOP candidates. This makes it difficult for any one of them to look very strong in early polls, relative to past years when fewer big-name candidates were splitting up the vote.

But Cruz's ballot-test numbers aren't the only ones that don't look great for him -- or perhaps more accurately, aren't as good as you might think. No, you also could make a pretty strong argument that Cruz's take-no-prisoners style(on display during the 2013 government shutdown) has alienated plenty of Republicans, too. And overall,his national brand is a little less sterling than you might think for a supposed conservative hero.

This has been shown in a few different polls. To wit:

1) An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released this month showed that 38 percent of Republicans said they couldn't see themselves backing Cruz, with40 percent saying they could support him. The only other top-tier candidate with a worse ratio of potential supporters to non-starterswas New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (32 percent to 57 percent),whose issues with the GOP base are well-established.

And the number of Republicans who said they couldn't back Cruz was on par with former Florida governor Jeb Bush (42 percent), former Texas governor Rick Perry (40) and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky (40), all who have much clearer reasons for their detractors -- Bush because of his more moderate positions on immigration and Common Core, Perry because of his disastrous 2012 campaign, and Paul because of his libertarianism and non-interventionist foreign policy.

2) A January poll of the Iowa caucuses from Bloomberg News and the Des Moines Register showed that 20 percent of likely caucus-goers considered Cruz "too conservative," compared with 48 percent who said he was "about right" ideologically (others were not sure, and a few curious souls said he was too moderate). Only former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee had more people say they were too conservative.

3) A Bloomberg News/Saint Anselm College poll of likely New Hampshire primary voters showed Cruz viewed favorably by 43 percent and unfavorably by 16 percent. That seems like solid territory, but it's pretty much on par with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (41/12), Perry (52/25), Santorum (45/21) and Scott Walker (44/10) before Walker became a surprise early GOP front-runner.

The most curious question all of this raises is: Why? Cruz, while in office for just more than two years, has been a high-profile senator in Washington from Day One, including on some pretty high-profile issues such as the government shutdown and his 21-hour anti-Obamacare filibuster. And his conservative credentials are without compare in today's national GOP.

View original post here:

The Fix: Ted Cruz is a conservative icon. But plenty of Republicans dont care for him.

Libertarianism in the U.S. – The Pros & Cons, What is the Movement About? – Video

Posted on by


Libertarianism in the U.S. - The Pros Cons, What is the Movement About?
PhilaU professors Michael Galganski and Evan Laine discuss at this Arlen Specter Center for Public Service Roundtable the meaning of Libertarianism and debate with students the pros and...

By: Arlen Specter Center for Public Service at Philadelphia University- Roxboro House Roundtables

Continued here:

Libertarianism in the U.S. - The Pros & Cons, What is the Movement About? - Video

Interview #22 – Keir Martland on Libertarianism in the UK and the US, Mass-Immigration and More – Video

Posted on by


Interview #22 - Keir Martland on Libertarianism in the UK and the US, Mass-Immigration and More
We chat about the current state of libertarianism in the UK, if individualism is making a comeback with younger people, the illusion of living under capitalism, the differences between libertariani...

By: Greening Out Podcast

See the rest here:

Interview #22 - Keir Martland on Libertarianism in the UK and the US, Mass-Immigration and More - Video

Why science denial is about much more than corporate interests

Posted on by

Its not An Inconvenient Truth yet. But for a movie focused on climate change, Sony Pictures Classics Merchants of Doubt based on the widely read book of the same name by historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, and directed by Robert Kenner (Food, Inc.) is already generating a huge volume of discussion. It seems poised to become a must-watch film in the climate debate.

The film, which opens today in Washington, D.C., explores along history of challenges tothe science behind a variety of environmental and public health risks. Smoking. CFCs. Acid rain. Climate change. In many cases, these challenges were linked to corporate interests thus the tobacco industry, for many years, questionedthe emerging science of smokings risks.

Merchants of Doubtis certainly landing in the right news cycle. It comes out in the wake of reports includingby The Washington Post about energyinterests funding of climate skeptic researcher Willie Soon, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. In a statementposted on the Web site of the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, Soon responded thathe had been the subject of attacks in the media, but acknowledged that his research had been partly supported by some energy producers something he said had long been a matter of public record. Soon added that in submitting my academic writings I have always complied with what I understood to be disclosure practices in my field generally, consistent with the level of disclosure made by many of my Smithsonian colleagues.

It all plays into a common narrative: That industry doesnt want government regulations, so it tries tocast doubt on the science behind them. Many of those who go to see Merchants of Doubt will, I suspect, go with such a narrative in their minds.

But the film itself presents a more complex picture. True, Merchants of Doubt focuses a great deal on the role of industry in supporting scientific argumentsthat are consistent with less regulation. But it alsoshows that denial of science on issues like climate change is about much more than that. Its aboutcertain deep seated beliefs and ideologies particularly those championing the free market and individual liberty (which we tend to call libertarianism).

None of this is about the science, says Oreskes, a Harvard historian and co-author of the book behind the film, in the movie. All of this is a political debate about the role of government.

In another segment, the film follows libertarian-leaningSkeptic magazine founder Michael Shermer as he tries to convince his ideological compatriots that climate change isnt just something that liberals made up. Shermer concludes that the whole issue has become tribal. Indeed, you can see the emotion on screen at one point as Shermer is challenged from the audience at a libertarian gathering, where hes gone to present the case for climate change being real.

So whatreallydrives attacks on certain bodies of environmental and public health science? Is there a root cause?To address that question in the context of Merchants of Doubt, Icalled the woman behind it all Oreskes. In our conversation, I asked Oreskes whom Ive known for a long time about my concern. And she brought up what I considered a very goodanalogy to help both address it and also explain it.

Thats the chicken and egg thing, she explained. Theres two stories to be told: One is the supply of disinformation, and the other is the demand, why do people accept it, and buy it. Our book is definitely a supply side story, because we stumbled across a supply side story. I think the demand side is also important to understand.

Supply and demand.It fits the situation nicely.Supply in this context would refer to the volume of arguments and claims in the public arena that challenge mainstream science with respect to environmental or public health risks. For many of these issues, these claims take a similar form. Scientists have asserted the existence of a risk say, smoking causes lung cancer and the claims in question then sow doubt about this conclusion. (Hence the film and book title.)

View original post here:

Why science denial is about much more than corporate interests


  1. Libertarianism