Libertarianism Is Real Conservatism
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
During a question and answer session at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, one man opined “One thing I’ve learned here at CPAC is that the ‘C’ actually doesn’t stand for ‘Libertarianism,’ it’s not ‘L’PAC.” When Congressman Ron Paul won the annual straw poll at CPAC, talk host Rush Limbaugh made a point to tell his listeners that CPAC wasn’t conservative this year because a libertarian had won.
Both men are worse than just wrong. They’re on crack.
Probably the most popular and cited history of American conservatism, George H. Nash’s book The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America begins in 1945 — and it begins with libertarianism. Titled “The Revolt of the Libertarians,” the second paragraph of Nash’s first chapter states “For those who believed in the creed of old-fashioned, classical, nineteenth-century liberal individualism, 1945 was especially lonely, unpromising, and bleak. Free markets, private property, limited government, self reliance, laissez faire — it had been a long time since principles like these guided government and persuaded peoples.”
Chronicling the intellectuals who tried to rectify this bleakness, Nash begins his history with two men — economists F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises — and explains how these two libertarian heroes kick-started the American conservative movement. Few actually used the word “conservatism” in 1945, a term that began to gain popularity when Russell Kirk’s book “The Conservative Mind” was published in 1953 and with the founding of William F. Buckley’s National Review in 1955. Nash notes that even Kirk, who later had his own squabbles with fellow National Review writer and libertarian Frank Meyer, was first inspired by both Hayek and Mises, writing to a friend that these men represented a “great school of economists of a much sounder and different mind.”
After Hayek and Mises, Nash then cites Albert Jay Nock, publisher of the unabashedly libertarian magazine “The Freeman,” in the 1920’s. Writes Nash “Nock came to exert a significant amount of influence on the postwar Right,” yet was so libertarian that “Nock verged on anarchism in his denunciations of the inherently aggrandizing State.” Noting the impression Nock made on a young Buckley, Nash explained that “It was Nockian libertarianism in fact, which exercised the first conservative influence on the future editor of National Review.”
Nash’s entire book is a grand history of the mixture of conservatism and libertarianism, with the two often being indistinguishable. The American Spectator says of this work “Nash’s seminal book will remind today’s hotheads that the modern conservative movement was made possible by a coalition of traditionalists and libertarians…” Says president of the Heritage Foundation, Edwin J. Feulner, Jr. “Nash’s work is one of the very few books that must be read for a full understanding of the conservative movement in America.”
Feulner’s Heritage Foundation advertises on Limbaugh’s show, and yet the talk host is seemingly oblivious to the fact that the American conservative movement could not have existed without libertarianism. Furthermore, pundits like Rush often claim to be “Reagan conservatives,” yet said Reagan, a man whose conservatism was developed during the same time that Nash chronicles “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
Dismissing libertarianism as not real conservatism is like dismissing filet mignon as not real steak — an attempt to marginalize a particular aspect of something that many have believed to be, as Reagan did, the meat of the matter. Indeed, advocating for “limited government” without employing some degree of libertarianism would be logistically impossible.
Which is exactly why so many of today’s so-called “conservatives” are so quick to dismiss it. If there is an interloping ideology on the Right today, it is not libertarianism but neoconservatism, an ideology born not of limited government philosophy, but ex-Socialists who migrated Right as a reaction to the 1960’s counterculture, and who today are devoted to promoting the maintenance and expansion of America’s global empire.
Whereas traditional conservatives considered war — and the massive bureaucracy necessary to wage it — an occasional, necessary evil (as Buckley conceded with the Cold War), neoconservatives consider perpetual war a positive good precisely because they believe it is America’s mission to export democracy around the world. Nash notes the divide “Whereas, for instance, conservatives had resisted Communism in the name of Western civilization, the neoconservatives of the 1980’s did so in the name of a neo-Wilsonian ideology of ‘global democratic capitalism.”
Questioning the cost or wisdom of waging perpetual war is considered unconscionable or even “unpatriotic” to neoconservatives, which is why they are so dismissive of libertarians who insist on questioning foreign policy. Most neoconservatives also instinctively realize that their ideology is incompatible with libertarian’s pesky obsession with limited government, giving neocons good reason to marginalize or expel any hint of libertarian influence that threatens to expose the statist nature of today’s mainstream conservative movement.
It was no accident that the Bush-Cheney administration offered zero, traditional, limited government conservatism, but a healthy dose of neoconservatism in the form of unprecedented, preventive war and massive government growth. It is also no mistake that would-be future “conservative” leaders like Mitt Romney now write books explicitly promising more war and implicitly more government, while continuing to enjoy the support of pundits like Limbaugh.
Considering their new, radical definition, it’s easy to see why Rush and other mainstream conservatives don’t consider libertarians part of their movement — because they’re not. And while it remains to be seen how the irreconcilable differences will play out between limited government libertarians (whose numbers are growing) and big government neoconservatives (whose ideology still dominates), let there be no more ignorance about which philosophy is truly more alien to the historical American conservative movement — and let there be no further delusions about which philosophy was most responsible for creating it.
Filed under: ideas
An important essay! There is nothing in the billowing bloat of the Republican party that is even reminiscent of conservatism except lip service to limited government and the rank hypocritical prattling of their virtue talk. It is important because words matter. The word had been debased and probably can not be restored. It leaves conservative minded people rooting around for something to call themselves, other than thoughtful. Worse, because the debased currency is the currency that has been forced into circulation, the real thing has been driven out.
Libertarianism is real Declaration of Independence-conservatism.
Libertarianism is also real liberalism. Both words mean a belief in the importance of individual liberty. Please look it up if you don’t believe me.
There is little, if any, relationship between conservative and libertarian thought. Libertarian want small government and they would structure government to meet that goal. The founding fathers of the US were by and large libertarians (called liberals in those days). What they setup has been largely undone in equal measures by socialists and conservatives.
The conservatives try to make sure no one notices that they are pro big government by talking about Liberals and socialists a lot as if they are the only ones that build big governments while they are as bad, and often worse when in power. Some uninformed people fall for this and assume conservatives care about small government, but not people who based their opinions on watching actions as opposed to believing politicians talking.
[...] Jack Hunter’s latest column (you can also read it here): [...]
I would urge people to read Hayek’s article “Why I Am Not A Conservative” written in 1960. Google it.
This sure seems to explain why the Republican Party powerbrokers are determined to keep traditional Constitutionalist/libertarian conservatives on the Libertarian Party side of the fence – where their influence at election time can much more easily be controlled, marginalized, and voters lured away with the “don’t waste your vote” appeal.
Very well done, and said. I posted a link to this article at The Liberty and Economics Review.
Its so nice to read such sentiment in fairly mainstream publications these days. Its been a long time in the wilderness.
[...] Libertarianism Is Real Conservatism (or Rush Limbaugh's on Crack) [...]
Excellent essay.
Excellent article.
I would add that an emerging big brother type ruling class controls both political parties and there is really only one big question and differing opinions within the American ruling class, that is, should we rule the masses through a Marxist or Fascist management system.
This ruling class dismanatled the Constitution quite a while ago and controls or rahter owns the corporations, the government, the military and to a greater extent everyday; you.
We need a mass third party movement replete with civil disobediaince Gandhi style to recover our Constitution and re-establish the free markets and free civil society the Founders intended.I don’t believe anything less will be effective to dislodge our new masters.
[...] Libertarianism Is Real Conservatism Probably the most popular and cited history of American conservatism, George H. Nash’s book The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America begins in 1945 — and it begins with libertarianism. Titled “The Revolt of the Libertarians,” the second paragraph of Nash’s first chapter states “For those who believed in the creed of old-fashioned, classical, nineteenth-century liberal individualism, 1945 was especially lonely, unpromising, and bleak. Free markets, private property, limited government, self reliance, laissez faire — it had been a long time since principles like these guided government and persuaded peoples.”Chronicling the intellectuals who tried to rectify this bleakness, Nash begins his history with two men — economists F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises — and explains how these two libertarian heroes kick-started the American conservative movement. Few actually used the word “conservatism” in 1945, a term that began to gain popularity when Russell Kirk’s book “The Conservative Mind” was published in 1953 and with the founding of William F. Buckley’s National Review in 1955. Nash notes that even Kirk, who later had his own squabbles with fellow National Review writer and libertarian Frank Meyer, was first inspired by both Hayek and Mises, writing to a friend that these men represented a “great school of economists of a much sounder and different mind.” [...]
Self-identified libertarians appear to me to be mostly tax-resenting pagans whose great god is the “free” market, Walmart their messiah, unions their nemesis. They seem unable to talk about anything else. Their prescription for liberty would leave goverance to the corporate winners of market selection, since, obviously, to them, only the market can truly decide. Said government would be what is incrementally being imposed on us today, a police state oligarchy. When so-called libertarians can provide some details about their solutions to real world practical problems, such as road maintenance, or criminal violence, that make more sense than the current public agency approach, maybe the electorate will take them more seriously. Having said that, at least they posit an intellectual argument for their theory, in contrast to the psuedo-conservatives, whose sincerest motive seems to be resentment that voters would consider themselves deserving of some return on their taxes before they slurp up their share of no-bid contracts at the public money trough. Small wonder their supporters are the talk radio audience. They lack the capacity or curiosity for research and analysis of the theory of modern conservatism, in the event one existed. It’s so much easier and satisfactory for them to listen to angry patriots feeding their collection of resentments. Neither libertarians nor conservatives have provided an answer to the question of how we recover our country from the kleptocrats ruining it. I’m with Dan Yarish, but how do we get there?
Excellent essay. I’ve always considered myself as a Libertarian and Conservative.
Brilliantly done! Kudos to you, Jack.
[...] concerning the differences between libertarians and conservatives (esp neo-conservatives). Is Libertarianism Real Conservatism? Give this a read, see what you think. Considering their new, radical definition, it’s easy to [...]
I think Ayn Rand effectively eviscerates Conservatives as intellectually bankrupt and paralyzed in that they have an insolvable conflict between desiring Capitalism (based on who knows what: tradition or mysticism) as an economic system, but tacitly accepting Socialism (altruism) as an ethical one.
Great article.
I came to Libertarianism 40 years ago, via Hayek, Friedman, Goldwater and Buckley. I’ve always voted Libertarian, except when I voted for Reagan, who was clearly a Constitutionalist Libertarian.
I’m well aware of the influence 3rd parties have had over our political history. In a closely-divided polity, dominated by two parties, even a small number of 3rd-party voters can cost one of the dominate parties elections. (If not for the Libertarian vote, there would be 3 more GOP Senators and 8 Congressman as we speak). If that happens often enough, the dominant party, if they’re paying attention, will try to accomodate our views. That happened with the Progressives and Dems, Greens and Dems (Nader cost Gore the Presidency, and the Dems responded by veering way Left)
Now, finally, it appears the GOP is waking up and realiziing that of those Independent voters aren’t “moderates” after all – they’re Libertarians.
Problem is, the GOP establishment has gotten quite comfy with big-government “conservatism”. And they are in hock to the religious rights, whose social views are at odds with Libertarianism.
With the sudden prominence of Ron Paul and the rush to his banner by young, newly-minted “Libertarians” for whom the appeal is too often about such issues as legalizing drugs, the question of “who is a Libertarian?” has become muddied.
I would maintain that true Libertarians are guided by the Constitution – particularly Article 1, Sec 8 and the 10th Amendment. The problem for so-called conservatives in the GOP is that some of their “social conservative” base’s pet issues – principally abortion and gay rights – gain no purchase at the Federal level from a proper reading of the Constitution. Those are issues for the States and localities. So you have people who call themselves conservatives and who truly do fear an enormous Federal government, turning right around and demanding that Federal legislators bow to their whims on social issues.
What’s heartening about the Tea Party movement is that Obama’s Socialist agenda has focused people’s attention of the small-government issues. You don’t see anit-abortion, anti-gay-rights signs at Tea Parties. This terrifies the GOP leadership, because they’ve maintained their power by pandering to social conservatives with one hand and doling out pork with the other. That doesn’t work with Libertarians, who have taken prominence in the Tea Party movement.
As for making war and nation-building, one needs only to go, as one always should, back to the Constitution, which states that Congress must declare war. And, under the Constitution, the Federal government has no power to take our tax money and buy influence in foreign countries. With those restraints swept away, we have become a very expensive imperial power.
So…how to define a Libertarian? Simple; someone who reveres and upholds the Declaration and the Constitution, even when it’s, um, inconvenient.
How to define a Conservative? Honestly, I don’t know anymore, because so many self-proclaimed Conservatives blatantly ignore the Constitution.
“Can Libertarians Be Conservative?”
Broadly speaking, yes (and the reverse).
However, pace Mr Paul, self-respecting genuine libertarians cannot honestly be Republicans. Then again, nor can self-respecting genuine conservatives.
Neither neoconservatives nor libertarians are conservatives. The former for reasons well known to TAC readers. But it would be equally misleading to consider the latter as conservatives.
Libertarianism represents a radical antithesis to conservatism. Among other things, the real conservatism stands for monarchy, aristocratic rule and established church. It resists paganism and democracy. It is skeptical of free market capitalism and does not automatically consider taxes as bad.
European Conservative:
“Among other things, the real conservatism stands for monarchy, aristocratic rule and established church. It resists paganism and democracy.”
This is your idea of conservatism. The essence of conservatism so far as I’m concerned is scepticism about rationalist or absolutist theorising that claims to have answers to the basic problems of life. Hostility to big or interventionist government follows directly.
Libertarianism is not, and cannot be, any “antithesis” to conservatism, because the two fall within entirely different categories. True conservatism is a general disposition of the character, whereas libertarianism is a political theory. Libertarians of a conservative disposition (such as myself) will, consequently, accept the general conclusions of libertarianism that are plausiblyly demonstrable (respect for person and property, recognition of the non-special status of government) whilst retaining a reserved scepticism about the radical theorising and anti-religious dogma of, for instance, the Randians.
“It is skeptical of free market capitalism and does not automatically consider taxes as bad.”
The only reason conservatives are often not opposed to excessive and income taxes is that inherent weakness in conservatism that causes it to accept evil once it has been established for long enough (as Hayek pointed out). Likewise for “free market capitalism”, which was fundamentally merely respect for property rights but is today complicated by generations of state interference to create and sustain corrupt corporate and family fortunes.
[...] publication (Pat Buchanan was one of the founders), The American Conservative, an article entitled Libertarianism Is Real Conservatism (author unknown) appeared on March 9th, 2010, arguing that at its inception in 1945 the modern [...]
The biggest problem we have in this country is that we have only two parties and we have people who don’t fall in only two catagories. I am a social liberal and a fiscal moderate. Libetarians are social liberals and fiscal conservatives. Others are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives or social moderates and fiscal liberals. THIS IS WHY CONGRESS NEEDS TO VOTE ON ISSUES, NOT ON PARTY LINES. It means that a lot of times consensus could be met.
[...] I couldn't find the original essay, but I believe this link is a reprint of the article. TAC TV Libertarianism Is Real Conservatism In the essay, is a quote from Ronald Reagan. “I believe the very heart and soul of [...]