There's a debate about how libertarian Americans care. Krugman says not very. At FiveThrityEight, Harry Enten wants to suggest otherwise:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/rand-paul-and-the-empty-box/?_r=1
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/there-are-few-libertarians-but-many-americans-have-libertarian-views/
Enten's point is that not many Americans would call themselves libertarians but that many take certain libertarian positions. A big part of Krugman's point is that there is no natural constituency for Rand Paul which I think is right. His problem is to the extent that he seems to be so critical of the use of US military force. If he continues to sound like his Dad-and sometimes Noam Chomsky-he certainly will have no such constituency in the GOP
At to Enten's argument, there's some truth as far as it goes. However, what it seems to me is that in US politics the term 'libertarian' has been rather degraded. It's just a euphemism for a conservative. Certain leading conservative thinkers have actually claimed to be libertarian,but, when you examine it they're libertarianism is mostly on the economic side. When libertarians have supported things like gay rights or abortion rights-even Barry Goldwater-they've muted these positions and focused on the common aims of the GOP Right.
More from Enten:
"Does this make any sense? Why should views on (for example) gay marriage, taxation, and U.S. policy toward Iran have much of anything to do with one another?2 The answer is that it suits the Democratic Party and Republican Party’s mutual best interest to articulate clear and opposing positions on these issues and to present their platforms as being intellectually coherent. The two-party system can come under threat (as it potentially now is in the United Kingdom) when views on important issues cut across party lines."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/rand-paul-and-the-empty-box/?_r=1
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/there-are-few-libertarians-but-many-americans-have-libertarian-views/
Enten's point is that not many Americans would call themselves libertarians but that many take certain libertarian positions. A big part of Krugman's point is that there is no natural constituency for Rand Paul which I think is right. His problem is to the extent that he seems to be so critical of the use of US military force. If he continues to sound like his Dad-and sometimes Noam Chomsky-he certainly will have no such constituency in the GOP
At to Enten's argument, there's some truth as far as it goes. However, what it seems to me is that in US politics the term 'libertarian' has been rather degraded. It's just a euphemism for a conservative. Certain leading conservative thinkers have actually claimed to be libertarian,but, when you examine it they're libertarianism is mostly on the economic side. When libertarians have supported things like gay rights or abortion rights-even Barry Goldwater-they've muted these positions and focused on the common aims of the GOP Right.
More from Enten:
"Does this make any sense? Why should views on (for example) gay marriage, taxation, and U.S. policy toward Iran have much of anything to do with one another?2 The answer is that it suits the Democratic Party and Republican Party’s mutual best interest to articulate clear and opposing positions on these issues and to present their platforms as being intellectually coherent. The two-party system can come under threat (as it potentially now is in the United Kingdom) when views on important issues cut across party lines."
"That’s bad news for candidates like Rand Paul. Nonetheless, the rigidly partisan views of political elites should not be mistaken for the relatively malleable and diverse ones that American voters hold."
What I think is that I-and most liberal Democrats-tend towards the libertarian side on social issues-but libertarians, again, either don't focus on social issues or minimize them.
What I think is that I-and most liberal Democrats-tend towards the libertarian side on social issues-but libertarians, again, either don't focus on social issues or minimize them.
That they have no trouble getting into bed with conservatives who have some of the most reactionary positions imaginable on social issues makes me skeptical that they're libertarianism on social issues is very strong or they wouldn't be able to keep the alliance.
Another thing I tend towards a more libertarian position on is steroids-why should they be banned in baseball-much less HGH? Yet libertarians never extend their argument here.
Or how about gambling-even-or even online poker? Why does libertarians not defend the right of adults to play online poker? It just shows that such libertarianism is indistinguishable from conservatism.
UPDATE: Krugman actually has the answer for Enten here if he had read it:
"Well, the best story I have is Corey Robin’s: It’s fundamentally about challenging or sustaining traditional hierarchy. The actual lineup of positions on social and economic issues doesn't make sense if you assume that conservatives are, as they claim, defenders of personal liberty on all fronts. But it makes perfect sense if you suppose that conservatism is instead about preserving traditional forms of authority: employers over workers, patriarchs over families. A strong social safety net undermines the first, because it empowers workers to demand more or quit; permissive social policy undermines the second in obvious ways."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/rand-paul-and-the-empty-box/?_r=1
I don't get Enten's puzzlement of why opposition to gay marriage, your position on Iran diplomacy, and tax cuts for the rich tend to go together if he read Krugman here. Maybe he would have read the whole thing first?
It perfectly answers my point about why libertarians don't defend the right to even gamble or play online poker. They are phony upholders of 'liberty' even on economic issues they often take the anti-libertarian view. Looking back, the most consistent believer in an unadulterated free market was Marvin Miller and his baseball players union but no GOPers or 'libertarian's jumped in against socialists like Bud Selig.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-funny-thing-about-baseball-why.html
This is actually the best way to describe the Republican party: on the side of all forms traditional forms of authority-whether this be an 'economic' 'political' or 'cultural' issue.
UPDATE: Krugman actually has the answer for Enten here if he had read it:
"Well, the best story I have is Corey Robin’s: It’s fundamentally about challenging or sustaining traditional hierarchy. The actual lineup of positions on social and economic issues doesn't make sense if you assume that conservatives are, as they claim, defenders of personal liberty on all fronts. But it makes perfect sense if you suppose that conservatism is instead about preserving traditional forms of authority: employers over workers, patriarchs over families. A strong social safety net undermines the first, because it empowers workers to demand more or quit; permissive social policy undermines the second in obvious ways."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/rand-paul-and-the-empty-box/?_r=1
I don't get Enten's puzzlement of why opposition to gay marriage, your position on Iran diplomacy, and tax cuts for the rich tend to go together if he read Krugman here. Maybe he would have read the whole thing first?
It perfectly answers my point about why libertarians don't defend the right to even gamble or play online poker. They are phony upholders of 'liberty' even on economic issues they often take the anti-libertarian view. Looking back, the most consistent believer in an unadulterated free market was Marvin Miller and his baseball players union but no GOPers or 'libertarian's jumped in against socialists like Bud Selig.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-funny-thing-about-baseball-why.html
This is actually the best way to describe the Republican party: on the side of all forms traditional forms of authority-whether this be an 'economic' 'political' or 'cultural' issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment