Is it Time for the LP to Take a Moderate, Populist Approach?

by Robert Capozzi

Posted May 4, 2005

First, a story.  It’s 1983, the LP National Convention in New York.  I’m in a hallway outside the auditorium.  Dave Bergland, the soon-to-be nominee for the top of the LP’s ticket, is standing there, being interviewed by a TV reporter.  As a young libertarian public policy operative, I move in closer to hear.

The reporter asks something like: “Are libertarians anarchists?”

Bergland, a well-spoken, poised California lawyer, answers, saying something like: “Yes, some of us are anarchists and some of us are minarchists."

It was then that it occurred to me:  Many Libertarians simply do not understand politics and the media.  Philosophy?  Absolutely.  Politics?  No.

Non-aggression is a principle.  But it implies absolutely nothing about how we undo aggression and coercion.  Nor does it imply anything about how fast coercion is undone, or how quickly and what parts of the State are rolled back first.

The LP suffered in 1983, and apparently today, from the same dilemma that Bergland faced:  They can approach politics in an unvarnished, confrontational way, describing the full philosophical implications of the non-aggression principle.  Or they can conduct politics with the real-world goal of advancing liberty and reducing the State.

What is clear to me, at least, is that confrontationalism is, paradoxically, unprincipled.  It’s unprincipled because the past 20 years have largely (not entirely) been wasted.  The State is bigger than ever.  

By taking extremist positions, the LP continues to alienate the vast majority of Americans.  The tragedy for me is that I sense—and there is some data that suggest—that substantial minorities of Americans support moving in a libertarian direction.  Not as far and as fast as the current LP, certainly.  But it would be a start, like a snowball at the top of a hill.  Small, at first, the snowball gains speed and momentum as it rolls downhill.

Let me answer the question, Is it time for the LP to take a moderate, populist approach?

Of course, the answer is: yes!

To begin to illustrate what I mean by a moderate, populist libertarian approach, had Dave Bergland adopted this view, his media-savvy answer might have been:

“Libertarians agree with Thomas Jefferson who said ‘Government which governs least governs best.’  We are in the center of American politics.  When Libertarians are elected, we take the oath of office and the US Constitution seriously.  We invite all Americans to join with us to take our country back from the politicians and the special interests.”

While an “anarcho-capitalist” might have some small quibbles with such a statement, I submit that what appeals to an anarcho-capitalist matters not one iota if the goal is liberty.  Because – bluntly – the road to liberty goes through the general public, and the general public is not  anarcho-capitalist.  

Some meat on the bones…what do I really mean by “moderate”?  

I was drawn to the Libertarian Reform Caucus, in part, for the following point:  

A platform that proposes a realistic vision for the next few years, as opposed to an idealistic vision of a libertarian future. The public expects a party platform to show what a party's candidates intend to do during the next term of office.

Of course, this requires subjective assessments about what is “realistic” in the short term.   I submit that that’s what politics is, making your best attempt to get elected and to make political change.

Not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater, the more important test is:  does a policy position increase liberty and lessen coercion in aggregate?

With these two tests together, Libertarians could take positions that could well garner majorities.  At a gut level, many Americans believe that government is too big and taxes too high.  On civil liberties, many Americans might support laws that expand, at least, the recognition of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And many Americans believe that war should be a last resort.  It is those sorts of potential majority positions that Libertarians should be pursuing.

I submit that politics is marketing.  If few are buying, there’s a problem with the packaging and selling, for I take it as a matter of reason – as well as on faith -- that our principles are sound.

Libertarians have – perhaps unfairly – carved out a reputation as being “heartless,” especially toward lower income people.  It’s unfair and inaccurate, yet libertarians open themselves up to such a charge.  In the world of realpolitick, I suggest that aspects of the Reagan Administration were heavily influenced by libertarianism.  At high levels in that administration were people who openly identified themselves as “libertarian.”  I personally knew several.

At the time, however, the “supply side” phenomenon was also ascendant.  While I find much of what supply side-ism says to be true in isolation, it does not take into account the realities of politics and socioeconomic forces still at play in America.  Specifically, supply siders argued that reducing marginal tax rates at the high end will unleash economic risk taking and spur economic growth.  I agree.  However, in the process, significant tax relief was effectively offered only to the wealthy.  The lower end of the economic strata simply had to wait to benefit from the rising tide lifting all boats.

So, the 1982 tax rate reductions were quickly offset by the 1983 “loophole” closures.  The net effect: Taxes and spending continued to grow.  Twenty years later, that is still the case.

My view is that the forces that agitated for the 1983 tax hikes were in no way disarmed.  Supported by the media, they made the case that the deficits were too large, and revenues must be raised.  The Republicans had simply “given” tax cuts to their rich buddies, and now the rest of the population needed to be served.

In short, economic elitism invariably emboldens economic populists.

But what if Libertarians took the populist perspective?  What if less government and emphasizing relief for those with lower incomes could somehow be married?

Say, for example, that Libertarians stood for raising the personal exemption dramatically, thereby taking millions off the federal tax rolls.  And what if we started rolling back the State by slashing corporate welfare and by closing military bases on foreign soil?

The dynamic would change dramatically.  Libertarians would be “champion of the little guy,” rather than “heartless anarchists.”  Freedom and compassion would be linked in a meaningful way.

Libertarian populism, then, says that we should support measures that roll back the State in a targeted way that helps the most people and takes away benefits from the fewest.  Rather than advocating rolling back the State across the board, we identify programs where we stand to garner the greatest popular support.  Of course, as our success grows, we would continue to push the envelope, sweeping the State back to, at least, its Constitutional bounds.

They say you can’t win if you don’t play.  It’s time to actually get in the game.  Moderate, populist libertarianism is a means to do so.

11 Comments

Printer Friendly Version
Top of Page