Greg Sargent wants to believe that criminal justice and police reform-after the unrest of Baltimore-could garner such an alliance.
"Criminal justice and police reform is one area where there is real potential for a left-right alliance between libertarian conservatives concerned about big, intrusive government and civil liberties progressives whose focus is more oriented towards racial disparities in sentencing and victimization at the hands of police. But there are limits to that alliance."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/29/morning-plum-baltimore-riots-enter-the-presidential-race/
There are 'limits'-to say the least. I find this sort of talk almost quixotic. Sargent then talks about Rand Paul(!) as being a possible ally. However, he admits there are problems here:
"Libertarians such as Rand Paul — who is running for president — agreethat sentencing disparities and the over-militarization of the police have a starkly racial dimension. And Senator Paul’s much-discussed claim that the “lack of fathers” contributed to the Baltimore violence is actually in keeping with his criticism of such sentencing disparities, i.e., the idea that it has taken too many fathers out of communities, as Philip Bump shows."
"Criminal justice and police reform is one area where there is real potential for a left-right alliance between libertarian conservatives concerned about big, intrusive government and civil liberties progressives whose focus is more oriented towards racial disparities in sentencing and victimization at the hands of police. But there are limits to that alliance."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/29/morning-plum-baltimore-riots-enter-the-presidential-race/
There are 'limits'-to say the least. I find this sort of talk almost quixotic. Sargent then talks about Rand Paul(!) as being a possible ally. However, he admits there are problems here:
"Libertarians such as Rand Paul — who is running for president — agreethat sentencing disparities and the over-militarization of the police have a starkly racial dimension. And Senator Paul’s much-discussed claim that the “lack of fathers” contributed to the Baltimore violence is actually in keeping with his criticism of such sentencing disparities, i.e., the idea that it has taken too many fathers out of communities, as Philip Bump shows."
"However, libertarians like Paul still tend to view these broader problems as symptomatic of irrevocably oppressive big government, as opposed to seeing federal power and spending as a potential remedy for racial injustice, urban poverty and violence. Meanwhile, all the 2016 GOP candidates are likely to rally behind visions similar to the GOP budgets, which include deep cuts to exactly the sort of spending Obama talked about yesterday. And with Obama likely to continue talking about these issues, the GOP hopefuls will have to stake out positions in opposition to his prescriptions and general posture. So it’ll be interesting to see how hard Clinton leans into the argument as Obama framed it yesterday."
I just have a real problem believing in the sincerity of 'libertarians.' Fundamentally, they are not about liberty. For the most part their alleged concern for liberty is relegated to the economic rather than social sphere. They are much less concerned with social issues even if they claim to believe in liberty there as well.
Somehow they usually manage to end up breaking bread with their conservative Republican brethren with little problem and mostly mute any such libertarian stirrings on social issues. Yes, they may sometimes claim to be for gay rights, the end of the 'War on Drugs' and even for abortion rights-as Barry Goldwater himself did.
Yet, if they really meant this they'd be able to so seamlessly mesh with their conservative brethren much less.
Regarding Rand Paul, specifically, his most well known libertarian position is that he still opposes the Civil Rights Act over 50 years later, as he's very concerned about the liberty of restaurant owners to refuse service to black folks. For someone to be refused service based on their race-or like in the Indiana law, their sexual orientation-that is not a violation of their liberty. After all, if they don't like it they can go to another restaurant-and if every restaurant in the region refuses them service then they can just move somewhere else.
I argued last week that libertarian is a euphemism for conservative and conservatives are not about liberty but preserving traditional lines of authority.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/04/on-americans-and-libertarianism.html
When you read Paul that way, his positions become a lot more coherent.
I do think this election is going to give us a chance to bring the questions of police reform, the drug war, etc. back to the forefront-after being off the agenda for years and this is a very good thing. However, it will be, like every other important issue today, a partisan debate.
Democrats will call for reform, the GOP will do what they can to beat these calls back.
P.S. Basically 'libertarians'and I'd broadly place someone like Sumner here as well-are about preserving traditional lines of authority. Even Rand's comment about the loss of fathers in the inner city can be read in a conservative way as well-as a dig at feminism for breaking up the family.
When you think about conservatives and libertarians,they are consistent. On economic issues the liberty they have in mind usually is the rights of employers over employees, the rich over the poor etc-while on social issues they usually lean against social change. It's actually consistent when you get what it's really about.
P.S.S. Regarding Sumner, his piece here obviously fits my definition as does this piece he linked to from Alex Tabborak
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29253#comments
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29253#comments
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/04/the-false-prophets-of-efficiency-wages.html#comment-158480645
The conservative strand tying both pieces together in their opposition to 'efficiency wages' is that they oppose a higher minimum wage. Why? Because it empowers workers relative to their employers. It's not hard to follow libertarian logic. It's just some clever packaging.
The conservative strand tying both pieces together in their opposition to 'efficiency wages' is that they oppose a higher minimum wage. Why? Because it empowers workers relative to their employers. It's not hard to follow libertarian logic. It's just some clever packaging.
No comments:
Post a Comment