About seven or eight years ago I was browsing through the politics section of my local Borders bookstore and came across a book on libertarianism. I had heard of libertarianism before, and I was definitely interested in learning more about it. So I pulled the book off the shelf and opened it to a random page. The chapter I turned to was titled, “Stop the Drug War.” I read the title, closed the book, and put it back on the shelf. I didn’t think about libertarianism again for at least another four years. Now, of course, I wish I had just opened the book to page one like a normal person. It would have saved me a lot of time, and I would be a lot farther along in my studies than I am now.
At the time, though, I just wasn’t interested in considering the arguments against the drug war. And like most people, I wrongly equated opposition to the drug war with support of drug usage. Once I finally returned to libertarian political theory, I came to understand the distinction being made and have since accepted the logic of the arguments against prohibition.
Thinking back on that day at Borders made me consider some of the things that we libertarians (myself included) do that may often be counter-productive. So in the spirit of a little healthy self-reflection, I’d like to suggest a few libertarian “opportunities for improvement.” I realize that in so doing it will be impossible for me not to over-generalize, so take this post with a grain of salt. I don’t mean to imply that all libertarians do all of these things all of the time, or even that these tendencies are always and forever wrong. Nevertheless, there’s room for improvement in any endeavor, and libertarianism is no exception.
The episode at the bookstore illustrates one such opportunity for improvement. When speaking with non-libertarians, we sometimes make the mistake of leading with the conclusion. When I first opened that book, I was presented with the conclusion to the argument against the drug war, and I missed all the points leading up to that conclusion. That was not the author’s fault, of course. When you’re writing a book, you have to assume that the reader has sense enough to start at the beginning. I’m sure he made a very powerful case for his position, but I skipped all that and was confronted with a conclusion I wasn’t prepared for.
And let’s face it – our conclusions can seem pretty “out there” to someone hearing them for the very first time. After all, it’s not as if the libertarian philosophy is spoon-fed to people daily on CNN, Fox News, or Oprah. We speak of things that simply aren’t part of the modern political lexicon – things like individual rights, private property, and the non-aggression principle. All of our positions flow logically from these foundational elements, but we should keep in mind how alien such concepts now sound to most Americans and remember to work from the ground up whenever possible.
Let’s take a hypothetical example involving Bob, a hypothetical libertarian. Bob is meeting Fred, a non-libertarian, for the first time and says, “Hi, I’m Bob. I’m a libertarian. We have to legalize drugs!” Bob is not helping. That’s not to say that Bob is wrong, it’s just that his approach is more likely to cause Fred to put up mental barriers that prevent him from giving Bob’s position serious consideration. I think a more productive approach is to lay the groundwork of individual rights and build gradually to the conclusion rather than trying to jump there straightaway. It’s always better to “show your math” whenever possible.
A second area for improvement involves what I refer to as “the libertarian pissing contest.” This refers to the tendency that we libertarians have of trying to purge the ranks of anyone deemed philosophically impure. This phenomenon usually manifests itself in the never-ending minarchy/anarchy debate, but it also pops up in some internecine rivalries among the various elements of the freedom movement. This is not entirely a bad thing, of course. There’s definitely value in having challenging debates in which we can hone our arguments and push the conceptual envelope. But it can also be overdone, and may sometimes lead to alienating people who might otherwise be very good allies in the effort to expand liberty.
Whereas these first two points – starting with the conclusion and trying to “out-libertarian” each other – relate mainly to small-l libertarianism, the last points I’d like to make are more relevant to the big-L libertarianism of the Libertarian Party. And here I would like to make two observations. The first is that I’ve noticed a tendency to equate the term “radical” with “shocking.” This is most often seen in discussions relating to the LP platform. The hardcore libertarians want the position statements to be more “radical” in order to differentiate the LP from the two major parties, and also to maintain as much philosophical purity as possible. To the degree that they use the word “radical” in its original Latin sense, meaning “get to the root of,” then I tend to agree with them. God knows the LP doesn’t need any more watering down. But at times I get the feeling that the intent is simply to shock people into paying attention. If that’s the case, then I think it’s a counter-productive strategy. Again, I prefer a more foundational approach that builds upon the core concepts of individual liberty. That’s just my opinion, of course, and I realize that different people respond to different communication styles.
The second suggestion I would like to make with regard to the LP relates to the candidates, and it is simply this: clean it up. We libertarians obviously celebrate individualism, and our membership reflects that. But when we enter the political arena, the goal is to communicate libertarian ideas in a way that resonates with voters who may be hearing them for the first time. If we want them to take our ideas seriously, then they have to take us seriously as well. Like it or not, our personal appearance affects how we are perceived by others. With that in mind, it’s probably more effective to show up to the candidates’ debate wearing a suit and tie rather than looking like you just got back from the Sturgis rally.
As I mentioned at the outset, these are merely anecdotal observations that certainly don’t apply to everyone. To the degree that they do apply, though, they are largely controllable. There are some elements of the freedom philosophy that have broad appeal, and some elements that have a very narrow appeal. That’s probably an uncontrollable constraint that we will simply have to accept. What we can do, however, is work on the controllable elements in order to more effectively communicate our ideas.
