“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism,” Ronald Reagan said, “is libertarianism.”
The modern Republican Party is truly the House that Reagan built. It is not my intent here to genuflect at the altar of Reagan, sacred cow, as too many persons calling themselves conservatives are known to do. Rather, I admit his place as one of the sharpest political operatives of the twentieth century.
Reagan, better than any American politician since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, understood the need for coalition building in politics. By 1980, he had fashioned a broad party of disaffected liberals, conservatives, independents, and libertarians. By 1988, that coalition was nothing short of a juggernaut.
Now at some point, the labels become meaningless; and, to his credit, Reagan understood this too: “I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories.” Instead of drawing himself into an elite and irrelevant corner, Reagan galvanized a vast contingency of voters around a broad set of ideas that struck at the very heart of American society: Individual autonomy, liberty, the rule of law, and moral integrity. True, he was not able to reach every American; but a forty-nine state landslide would suffice.
Reagan was able to bring this coalition together, because the thirst for individual liberty is bigger than any political label. People claiming the titles conservative, liberal and libertarian all desire liberty (whether applying the titles accurately, or inaccurately). Yes, even the Occupier and the Tea Partier share common cause in a love of liberty.
Notwithstanding the labels, on a fundamental level of philosophy, there is nothing contradictory about being both conservative and libertarian. Indeed, one can ascribe to a view of conservatism that traces back to the prudence of Edmund Burke, who Russell Kirk held to be the watershed of modern conservatism. In a word, the conservatives of Burke’s time stood with the “right” as opposed to the “left” with respect to the French Revolution. This colloquial political distinction is literally based on a seating arrangement: On the left side of the French National Assembly sat the Jacobins and proponents of the revolution, while on right sat the proponents of the Ancien Régime. This distinction holds deep meaning to this day, for on the right remain those who prefer the collected wisdom of their forefathers while on the left remain those who strive for liberal reform and perpetual social progress (hence, Barack Obama’s rallying cry of “change”).
It was not merely for love of the current monarch or for disdain for moderate reform that the right stood by the regime, but rather for want of what is surely a society’s greatest asset: Stability. The monarch was more than a man; it was the rock of French society. And the Jacobins obliterated it.
No doubt there are intellectual strengths and shortcomings on both sides (reform on the left, stability on the right), but the conservative errs in favor of prudence and prejudice: Don’t tear down the wall your father built, if you don’t even know why he put it there to begin with. Better to live with an apparently superfluous boundary long enough to weigh the costs and benefits of keeping it, lest we rashly tear it down and find pandemonium on the other side. Surely, says the conservative, the grim history of France from the Reign of Terror, to the beheading of the monarch, to the rise of dictatorship and the campaign across Europe, through an endless host of revolutions, finally, up to the relative stability of the post WWII era a century and half later, has vindicated the cautious conservative: Told you so.
But what is a conservative, in the practical political sense? What does it mean to be “conservative” on narrow issues of public policy? It can’t be enough to be against reform in every case. Indeed, what we now call libertarianism seems to lend itself to public policy and legislation much better than the socio-cultural philosophy of conservatism. Anchored in clear economic principles, libertarianism is rarely as amorphous as conservatism. Yet again, a conservative’s love for stability and prudence, and his deference to ancestral wisdom presents the boldest case for the U.S. Constitution, as a societal imperative and bulwark against turmoil.
It should not surprise us, then, that when candidates for the presidency get up and bluster about being “authentic conservatives” they are often making such claims with no solid foothold in any definable principle. For it is not conservatism per se that stands for limited government (Reagan himself oversaw the expansion of government, in some respects). Often, what these forgivably ignorant candidates mean by conservatism is more akin to libertarianism: Limited government, free markets and low taxation and regulation. Unlike most Republican politicians calling themselves conservatives, a libertarian can explain these concepts from a place of unmoving principle.
In lieu of principles (or knowledge), so-called conservative candidates provide sound bytes and glib commentary steeped in the rhetoric of past conservatives. It is a shallow undertaking. As dissatisfied voters recognize the contradictions and fallacies these candidates fall into, they become rightfully cynical: How can Romney be a conservative, when he supports government health care? How can Gingrich be a conservative when he supports TARP and cap and trade?
Hence, we have seen no less than five candidates (other than Mitt Romney and Ron Paul) claim front-runner status. The perception being that Romney is an “establishment” candidate, while Ron Paul is a libertarian “out of the mainstream,” while the other five (Gingrich, Cain, Bachman, Santorum, and Perry) are all vying for the “conservative” voters.
Poppycock.
In fact, the differences between Gingrich, Cain, Bachman, Santorum, Perry AND Romney are negligible. Romney is simply seen as an establishment-man because it is his second time running for president, and because his money and name-power made him the man to beat from the beginning of the primary. Truly, he is no more “establishment” than Gingrich or Perry.
Yet, to his credit Romney is the only candidate, aside from Ron Paul, to actually hold onto a stable base of supporters.
This notion that the other five are the anti-Romney vying for the “authentic conservative” voters is total nonsense. They are no more or less conservative than Romney. And the constant flux, and false conflict between Romney and the rest, is testament to the fact that modern elections are little more than races for homecoming court: Substance be damned, personality is king.
Rick Santorum did not tie for first in the Iowa Caucus because people suddenly realized he was the authentic, anti-Romney conservative. Some may have thought he was and even voted for him on that belief. Yet to the contrary, this big-spending, somewhat authoritarian former-legislator simply benefitted from being the last man standing: Bachman and Perry’s stars fizzled instantly, Cain dropped out, and Gingrich was exposed as a vain hypocrite on the eve of the caucus. Romney and Paul held their bases steady. Santorum was all that was left. So people can tell themselves he’s the real conservative until they’re blue (or red) in the face. The same people have been jumping from personality to personality for months, falsely believing that Paul is extreme, that Romney is more “establishment” than the rest, and that everybody else is poised to be the next Reagan. Santorum is just the latest pick for homecoming queen.
But Ron Paul is actually something different. We’re told he is a “dangerous” because of his insistence on principled positions, that would lead to fundamental changes in the status quo on drugs and military policy (never mind that the status quo on both of these issues, is itself a departure from historical precedent). We’re told that his followers are “cult-like” because of their undying support (ironically, we’re told this by people who speak as if “Ronald Reagan” is a synonym for conservatism). To the contrary, his followers simply concluded, long ago, that the uncharismatic seventy-five year old is the only principled and consistent candidate running. That figures since he’s a libertarian who understands Austrian economics. (As opposed to, say, Rick Perry who was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat until his early forties; or Gingrich who supported TARP and cap and trade; or Santorum who helped expand Medicare and the federal education regime, and supported Arlen Spector for senate; and so on.)
No, Ron Paul didn’t find his principles in a regurgitation of the finest rhetoric of [the great] Ronald Reagan; he found his principles in the same place Reagan himself often did: Austrian economics.
Yet, because of his dissent on foreign policy, many persons calling themselves conservatives (who are in fact Neoconservatives) have declared libertarians to be anathema to the whole conservative movement. Holding positions of power in media, academia and government, they have waged an all out campaign to thwart any serious inspection of the libertarian positions on foreign policy. In so doing, they have branded Paul and his supporters a mob of racist, drugged-out, America-hating lunatics.
Paul came in third in Iowa, despite at least five years of active concealment of his candidacy by the same media. And anytime during that period in which Paul has broken through the media’s iron curtain of horse-race presidential politics, he has been met with slander, libel, and distortions of his every word and position. Whether or not the Iowa caucus was above-board, Paul’s third-place finish is some vindication: There are more of us than some like to imagine, and the smear-campaign didn’t work on us. Unfortunately, the attack on what used to be accepted positions in the Republican Party has made it impossible for him to win the nomination.
Now many say, after five years of slander and libel, that if Paul runs third party or so much as declines to endorse the eventual GOP nominee he will be dividing the base and handing Obama a victory.
Pardon?
First, it is exceedingly arrogant for Republicans (mainly Neoconservatives) to act as if libertarian voters and supporters of Ron Paul owe their votes to the Republican Party; especially after years of being called racists, conspiracy theorists and lunatics. Second, the party has been divided by exactly those (Neoconservatives) who drew a line in the sand and said non-Interventionists who are tired of the war spending and war fever are not welcomed at the debate table.
Alas, it is best not to alienate people if you expect them to join you on election day. So, as the caucus in Iowa was wrapping up last night, Sarah Palin had the most prescient comment on the treatment of Ron Paul and his supporters. Demonstrating eminent political sense, the often derided former Vice Presidential nominee, whose positions on drugs and foreign policy are sharply different from Ron Paul’s, delivered her wisest contribution to contemporary politics, to date: The GOP had better not marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters.
Good for her.
Now to be sure, Palin has a lot of evolving to do on foreign and domestic policy before I would be willing to cast a vote for her. Although, if she did move in the libertarian direction on a few issues by 2016, her charisma and political sense would easily position her to embark on the first fifty-state campaign since 1984. I won’t hold my breath on that. But unless somebody repairs the damage the Neoconservatives have done to this once implacable coalition, Reagan’s House will become a Tower of Babel, as Obama’s House mounts the summit of victory.
As of now, Gary Johnson has my vote.