Conservatism and Libertarianism: What does Libertarianism have to offer?

Cameron McLean responds to Michael Sutcliffe's article by asking what libertarianism can bring to the conservative table.

I was reading an article by Michael Sutcliffe which questioned the compatibility of conservatism and libertarianism given the vast difference in societal concerns on issues such as euthanasia, ‘The Burka’ and gay adoption. Whilst he did eventually draw the conclusion that there was a viable alliance to be made, the overall trend of the argument seemed slanted in favor of conservatism needing libertarians onside – rather than libertarians needing to work with conservatives to achieve their political goals.

Looking at the results of the 2010 election seems to highlight this point. Assuming that people who are passionate about a particular issue will vote for a party that best meets their own ideology, the Senate results indicate a very telling statistic in regards to the position of libertarians in the minds of the Australian people: its slightly more popular than the Sex Party and slightly less popular than the Shooters and Fishers Party. With an overall percentage of the Senate vote of 2.31%, it scarcely has the authority from the people of Australia to demand that conservatism surrender on its core principles in order to ensure that libertarian principles reign supreme over the Liberal Party. The majority of Australians did not vote for parties which espoused a distinct set of libertarian principles, but rather for parties which best matched their interests and ideologies.

This is not to say that libertarian principles are necessarily bad: I am a conservative, yet I espouse many libertarian ideas. It was Ron Paul, a man with libertarian principles mixed with social conservatism who ran for the Republican nomination before the 2008 US presidential election, who provided me with the framework for my own political beliefs and ideas on economics. There is no reason why libertarians and conservatives cannot find common ground together in an economic sense. In my discussions with fellow conservatives at university, there is a deep respect for libertarian principles in an economic sense in regards to the free market and taxation, whilst there is deep division over social issues such as drugs, euthanasia and abortion.

The message is simple though. We shouldn’t be in conflict with our ideological neighbors. There shouldn’t be a need for one political ideology to curtail all their policies in favor of another. Politics is based on compromise: as a conservative, I am happy to support deregulation and the opening up of a freer marketplace, even though this is not necessarily a particularly conservative ideal. Are libertarians willing to follow a more conservative take on societal issues? At the end of the day, as bitter as the intellectual battles can be between libertarians and conservatives, there is no reason we can’t work together in developing policy that both meets our own ideological goals as well as providing a benefit to the Australian taxpayer.

Cameron McLean is currently in his third year at Macquarie University, studying B. Commerce (Marketing) with B. Arts. He is passionate about all things related to history and politics.

Comments

[.]

1.

"With an overall percentage of the Senate vote of 2.31%, it scarcely has the authority from the people of Australia to demand that conservatism surrender on its core principles in order to ensure that libertarian principles reign supreme over the Liberal Party. "

The Liberal Party stands for almost nothing. It is nothing like its manifesto and gone are the Chruchillian like principles of democratic conservatism (fiscal responsibility and respecting ones privacy in a broad sense) that are compatible with libertarianism.

If you had a spine we wouldn't be trying to jam a rod up your backside.

[Rog]

2.

Yeah but only 2.31% of people agree with you.

[Cameron]

3.

Just as a follow up to the article, I do think that libertarianism is a positive ideology, and the parties that support these ideals have a lot of good policies - but in the end, you can have the best policies in the world - which is good, but with next to no support it is a bit pointless. The main message I wanted to put forward was that sometimes a bit of compromise is needed to get what you think is really important.

[Mook]

4.

"With an overall percentage of the Senate vote of 2.31%, it scarcely has the authority from the people of Australia to demand that conservatism surrender on its core principles in order to ensure that libertarian principles reign supreme over the Liberal Party. The majority of Australians did not vote for parties which espoused a distinct set of libertarian principles, but rather for parties which best matched their interests and ideologies."

Now I seldom comment here, but I felt this assertion far too outrageous and incorrect for it to remain without refutation.

Just because a percentage of the population voted x, y or z, does not always give you how they feel on an issue: they're vote for x could mean inexplicably little if they did not know much about y. In addition, with 'personality politics' infiltrating the Australian political water supply, even if they did know about y, they may believe that x is nicer/more trustworthy etc. not giving an opinion on the policy of their choice, only the person.

I would contend that most Australian's do not know about Libertarianism, in general. In my experience, Australians do like their personal freedoms, they enjoy little Government, they do not like "big" Government. They just do not know about the political ideology of Libertarianism, and even if they did, they would probably not know about the Liberal Democratic Party, thanks to a lack of media coverage of the Party. And if they did, I would expect a much larger vote for the Liberal Democratic Party.

And you have eloquently demonstrated this point -- can you seriously believe that there are more of the Shooters and Fishers Party persuasion or the Libertarian persuasion?

Many Australians just vote for the Liberals believing they are the better choice over Labor offering smaller government, and that is most certainly true. But they do not know how to take that to the next level, and what party truly represents their beliefs. If there was more media coverage of the Lib-Dem Party (which there really should be, in my opinion), there would certainly be a bigger vote for them.

[Jason]

5.

Conservatives say they believe in individual freedom and liberty, but they don't. Not really. That's why the Australian people don't trust them. They think conservatives are closet fascists, so they vote for closet the communists instead.

[Andy's RANT!]

6.

So long as we beat the progressives (ALP/Greens and other lefties).

[Ben]

7.

While we can always find the living exception to the rule, many people grow out of social libertarianism or socialism when they become parents for some strange reason. Perhaps it relates to their need to protect and defend. Does this explain some voting trends?

Granted, I do think many people have economic libertarian and conservative values but can’t always articulate them, and that explains why the left is in serious trouble.

[Dave]

8.

There are a couple of key differences between libertarians and the Liberal Party - one being that the Liberal Party works in the real world, and while a lot of libertarian ideas/policies are great in theory, they simply aren't workable in government. Which is why, at 2.31% of the vote, you can say whatever you want. The Liberals have the ability to implement some of those ideas, but they would simply be unelectable if they adopted them all. Real world and theory world are very different things.

Also, the Liberals can (sometimes) sell a simpler message that relates to the average Joe. In my experience, most libertarians are political nerds and can't communicate effectively with the wider Australian population on their level.

Anyway, good article and I think you make a good point. It's a compromise situation, not a "conservative need to be more like libertarians" because I'll tell you this one for free - there are a lot more people who identify themselves as conservatives than libertarians. But the point is that compromise in the battle of ideas is essential and will make these two ideological positions collectively stronger.

And, let's face it, they're better than the alternatives to the left.

[Clinton Mead]

9.

as a conservative, I am happy to support deregulation and the opening up of a freer marketplace, even though this is not necessarily a particularly conservative ideal

So what is conservatism? Is it just socialism, with added state funded and enforced social engineering?

Conservatives and libertarians are having trouble working together because those that call themselves conservatives are actually socialists and those that are called libertarians are the real conservatives.

You only have to look at the consensus view on stimulus spending and climate change (where the Liberals are the most socialist with their "green army") and increased government spending to see that both major parties only have a socialist/conservative agenda (I can't see any substantial difference).

[.]

10.

Well said Clinton.

Keep jamming until Ben loses his Old Jellyback persona.

[Cameron]

11.

Clinton, thank you for raising these issues, and I will do my best to try and answer your questions.

Your question about conservatism being similar to socialism is a fair one, but it is also very easily answerable. Socialism is more about economics, as is conservatism. Societal policies between the two are quite different - in a general sense, libertarian social policies would be quite similar to socialism in certain areas (Abortion, drugs, etc), but not in others (Size of government, influence of the government onthe people).

Conservatism is diametrically opposed to socialism on just about every issue, but also in terms of economics - socialism holds that all problems can be solved by bigger government and throwing money at the problem. This isn't a conservative ideal. As a conservative, I believe that it isn't the role of the government to solve all your problems: it is the job of the individual. Just look at Margaret Thatcher as an example, as one of the most prominent conservative leaders of the 20th century, she promoted the responsibility of the individual over that of the government.

The idea of calling a libertarian a conservative and a conservative a socialist is one I have not really seen. Just in my own individual circles, which admittedly would be far from a proper representative sample, the libertarians tend to have the more socialist outlook on social policy, whilst being slightly further to the right economically. It's issues like this that makes the traditional ideas of being 'left' or 'right' quite difficult to fully define.

Mook - fair point. I will admit that it was a bit facetious of me to claim that. Can I get dispensation for it being my first article? I guess the main point I was trying to point out here is that when people feel strongly enough about an issue, they will tend to vote for it - especially in the senate where the person can mark a 1 in the box and rely on the party itself to preference the Coalition (Or, if so inclined, vote below the line and preference whoever they like). As an example, a party which has managed to get its base mobilised and start making inroads to the general population, beyond the core constituents concerns, is the Greens. I compare the Greens and the Libertarians because they both are putting forward an extremist (Loaded word, but I mean in comparison with the policies put forward by Labor/Coalition) point of view. The Greens however, are doing far better despite, in my opinion, libertarianism having better policies overall. People want lower taxes, but they do not want lower services. They want less government, but they still want A government. They want the government to leave them alone, except when they need help.

I definitely agree with some of the more minor parties getting more coverage. The election we just went through was quite flat I feel, and some TV time devoted to the minor parties would have at the very least made the campaigning more interesting - the same old Labor attack ads on the Coalition, and vise versa.

[Cameron]

12.

"With an overall percentage of the Senate vote of 2.31%, it scarcely has the authority from the people of Australia to demand that"

There are at least four reasons your statement about the level of support for libertarianism is flat out incorrect.

1. You don't specify which part of the senate vote you are referring to with '2.31%', but I assume it is the LDP. The fact is, an overtly libertarian party actually exists. There is no 'conservative party of Australia', they didn't even bother to form a party, so should we infer that there is 0% support for conservatism?. The liberal party has always been a 'broad church', and remains so. I infer from your article that you are claiming the whole liberal party for conservatives, if so I believe this is an illegitimate claim, the liberal party contains it's share of social liberals, look at voting on abortion for instance.
2. The sex party is overtly a libertarian party, Fiona Patten has repeatedly self-identified as a libertarian. They should certainly be included in support for libertarianism.
3. The shooters and fishers party are libertarians with niche marketing.
4. I'm skeptical of state intervention in the environment, and I hate socialism, but I voted green for good reason. I don't think I'm alone in this view.

[Clinton Mead]

13.

Ron Paul, who you bring up, is a great example of a conservative.

As you point out, "socialism holds that all problems can be solved by bigger government... ...As a conservative, I believe that it isn't the role of the government to solve all your problems: it is the job of the individual."

For example, this is exactly why Paul's approach to the drug war is conservative, and the current approach is socialistic.

Yet "hard on drugs" politicians say they're conservatives, and Paul gets called a libertarian.

"Socialism" and "Conservatism" are in my opinoin just two sides of the same coin. They do not hesitate about using the government, particularly national government, to solve any problems.

True conservatives (IMHO) or "libertarians", such as Ron Paul, will be critical of the drug war, and critical of affirmative action laws as well.

Thinking of these people in terms of "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" is missing the point, particularly on things such as affirmative action.

Conservatism I believe is about individuals, and more importantly, the structures of civil society, being looked towards first before meddling by politicians.

[Cameron]

14.

Cameron - I've already conceded that it probably wasn't the best measure that I could have used in this regard. However as to a directly conservative party, I'd say that even though the Coalition contain members who would not necessarily be viewed as 'conservative', it is viewed by the average voter as being the conservative party. You would have to dig fairly deep to find someone who wouldn't describe Tony Abbott as a conservative, and in our increasingly presidential style of politics, his beliefs are what the voter is going to associate with the Coalition. I don't know off too many conservatives who would vote for a non Coalition supporting party.

Clinton - you are absolutely right in saying that conservatism is all about individuals and how they operate with society. I guess it is, like everything, a matter of opinion on issues like this. On the drug war, I'm not a fan of making criminals out of the users of the drug - They do that in America, and the evidence shows it doesn't work. I'd prefer that the effort spent on hitting users was spent on the dealers/manufacturers/importers of the drug - especially cocaine and heroin, which are used to fund terrorism in South America and in various parts of Asia.

[.]

15.

It only funds terrorism because of the high price due to the illegality.

Do you know the mark up on medical morphine and street heroin? 100 times roughly.

The only effective way to end drug use is to execute drug users (and less so dealers). This of course is unacceptable.

The only winnable war on drugs is a war against humanity.

Sorry I am applying basic economics here. Buyers are not price sensitive and suppliers are not.

[TerjeP]

16.

Perversely most people want to vote for a party which they think might form government. This gives the two major parties a free kick in attracting votes even before the race begins. Secondly the two majors have been around for eons so they get a free kick with all those small "c" conservative voters that vote like mum and dad did. Comparing the Liberal Party to the LDP and inferring something about what policies the public might prefer is, to be crude, hogwash.

Having said that I think the author is right that libertarians may need conservatives in order to get some of their policies implemented. However for some policies they likely need the progressive left.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

17.

Nice article, Cameron. My article was really inspired by the euthanasia debate. This again highlighted the libertarian perennial: should libertarians throw our support behind whoever is pushing libertarian policy at the time, i.e. the Greens in this instance, or should we try to forge some form of enduring alliance with those closer to our side of politics?

I'm not decided on which way is better for those who want individual choice, lower taxes and efficient government. However, in the spirit of Menzies House, I'm giving some form of Liberal alliance a go.

As for your assertion that conservatives have some sort of majority (or at least very significant minority) support, I think you might be drawing a long bow. That would depend on how you define conservative. If you define things like six months maternity leave, green armies, large public sectors and high taxes on a small percentage of society as conservative then I'd agree, but I'd call it centrist or perhaps 'middle class populist'.

The fact is Australian politics is essentially centrist with, I'd argue, a tendency to lean to the left until things go wrong then quickly jump back to the centre. Libertarians don't have much traction here but neither do conservatives of most flavours: religious, paleoconservative or even those we might loosely call neoconservatives. For a large 'L' Liberal the competition is really in the centre for the small business owner who wants extra protections for his industry, or the middle class family who want their way of life publicly sanctioned and subsidised (while Labor is trying to grab the vote of the guy who wants his 'Rights at Work' and the person who wants more support for their single parent family).

For those who believe this type of politics is a slow race to mediocrity, slowly diminishing quality of life and will eventually result in us looking like the UK, there isn't really much that can be done but accept that you are playing on the fringes, make sure your ideas are out there and enjoy the good times while they last.

So what can libertarians bring to the table? Some support for large 'L' Liberals, that's what. You may have noticed that elections are often very close to 50/50 like the last one. That 2.3% may be what large 'L' Liberals need if they want keep power, but it will require more than the loose promise that taxes will always be lower under a Liberal government than a Labor one. If that's all we're going to get then I'd say libertarians are better off getting into the mix, strengthening their bloc in this country (as their ideas as still relatively new to this former convict colony) and throwing their weight behind whoever is promoting libertarian policy at the time. Not to mention maybe capturing a protest vote should the opportunity arise.

But having said that I am inspired by lots of the comments here, especially by those who identify as strongly conservative, and do believe there is enough common ground to achieve a meaningful synergy. I believe both libertarians and conservatives should identify those positions that they're willing to compromise on - perhaps family values for libertarians and a solid commitment to tax reduction for conservatives - and then get this proposed alliance widely disseminated and known in large 'L' Liberal circles. I believe this is perhaps one of the few chances you'll get to nudge Australian politics from the centre (and what's worse, most of the other chances that emerge would probably nudge it to the left). So I say let's seize the day and make good use of all this good fortune that Australians have inherited, rather than being the another western nation to fall from grace on the socialist promise.

[Brett]

18.

Ron Paul is such a social conservative he is opposed to drug prohibition!

Of course, being economic illiterates, I wouldn't expect you conservatives to support or understand any of this.

[Brett]

19.

Sorry, in what way is MASSIVE GOVERNMENT "libertarian policy"?

[Brett]

20.

What libertarians can bring to conservatism are policies that ACTUALLY WORK, so you don't have to keep playing catch ups with funding when your last plan oh so predictably failed miserably.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

21.

What libertarians can bring to conservatism are policies that ACTUALLY WORK, so you don't have to keep playing catch ups with funding when your last plan oh so predictably failed miserably.

I was going to say exactly this, but I thought it might enrage some of the conservative sensibilities here. It's always nice to know you have no such reservations. :)

[TerjeP (say taya)]

22.

The Liberals may be a broad church including those that identify as conservatives, classical liberals, right of centre moderates, libertarians and the like. However even amongst that group that identifies as conservative it seems to me that there is a lot of variation. It seems to me that a few of them, but by no means all, are truely committed to radically lower taxes. I'd have little hesitation throwing my support behind these conservatives who are committed to sizable ongoing across the board tax cuts. However I don't see any sense throwing support behind conservatives in general. Certainly not the ones like Howard and Abbott that are interested in ramping up handouts and who regard tax cuts as a mere tool for election campaigning.

So in summary I think libertarians should only compromise and work with conservatives when those conservatives are actually seriously committed to smaller government. In practice most conservatives are not, even if they are hostile to bigger government.