Libertarians and the Liberal Coalition

In recent years, however, the meaning of liberalism may be returning to its roots. The label has new relevance to describe one of the most important dividing lines in contemporary politics. Trends are converging which suggest new ways of using an old term.

Today, the left is no longer as uniformly enamored with liberal, seeing it as the centrist counterpart to more extreme left-​wing politics. The contemporary right is no longer as focused on demonizing it, either, instead preferring to brand their opponents as socialists or worse. And libertarians have been in need of a term to describe a bigger tent than just our own brand of radicalism, a way to recognize those who are not libertarians but also are not advocates of unrestrained authoritarianism. Is there an opening to reclaim the term liberalism, and if so, how should we think about what it means to be a liberal?

In his critique of the right, “Why I Am Not a Conservative,” F. A. Hayek summarized his terminological discomfort with the available labels to describe his political views.

Since Hayek wrote that lament in 1960, popular awareness of the term libertarian has increased. Some major-​party politicians such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO) are described in press coverage as “libertarian-​leaning” or having a “libertarian streak.” For political junkies, the word is well-​established and generally understood.

But to the average voter, that “flavor of a manufactured term” still lingers, and it’s doubtful how many have even a loose understanding of what it signifies. The number of voters with broadly libertarian views, favoring social tolerance and smaller government, far outstrips the number who self-​identify as libertarians.

How broadly libertarianism should be defined is its own point of contention. At the most inclusive, things like support for free trade, lower taxes, LGBT rights, ending overseas wars, and legalizing marijuana poll majority or near-​majority support. On the other hand, individualist anarchism, the abolition of all taxes, total legalization of all drugs, and wholesale abolition of the modern regulatory state are views that attract such negligible support there is no realistic way to even poll them.

A broader definition of libertarianism has much to recommend itself, including that it encompasses the most influential libertarian theorists, such as Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises, none of whom subscribed to the anarcho-​capitalism of Murray Rothbard or even the ultra-​hardline minarchism of Ayn Rand. Any definition of “libertarian” that excludes some of the past century’s most famous libertarians clearly does not align with the reality of how the label is used.

At the same time, the rise of authoritarian populism has given a renewed need to distinguish advocates of liberal politics from their illiberal opponents. In this regard, even the broadest plausible definition of libertarianism seems inapplicable.

The vast majority of mainstream politicians and pundits who opposed Donald Trump’s lawless efforts to overturn his electoral defeat are not, in any sense, libertarians. Neither are the more centrist and business-​friendly Democrats who have pushed back on the resurgence of explicitly socialist ideology on their party’s left flank. The same can be said in other countries, from traditionalist conservative opponents of Nicolas Maduro’s dystopian socialist dictatorship in Venezuela to left-​wing opponents of the metastasizing one-​party rule of Viktor Orban in Hungary.

Libertarians have strong reasons to sympathize with and prefer these relatively more liberal views as opposed to the more unconstrained statism of their opponents. Faced with a liberal coalition versus explicit illiberalism, which side libertarians belong on isn’t a close call. And it is that word liberal which offers us the much-​needed terminology to speak of this divide, especially when it does not precisely map onto party affiliations and the traditional left-​right spectrum.

Liberalism is the ideological heritage that unites a wide range of more specific political philosophies. Liberal premises built the modern world, inspired the American Revolution, and ushered in an unprecedented era of peace, prosperity, and material as well as moral progress. Liberalism encompasses fundamental principles born of the Enlightenment: individual freedom, equal rights, the rule of law, constitutional government, separation of powers, civil liberties, free speech, free and fair elections, free markets, private property and free exchange, and international free trade.

In this framework, traditional American conservatism, particularly its modern fusionist variety in the vein of William F. Buckley Jr. and Ronald Reagan, can be considered a kind of liberalism, sometimes referred to as liberal-​conservatism. Likewise, most American progressives from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama can be recognized as left-​liberals or liberal progressives. Within the liberal big tent, Christian democrats and social democrats both evolved out of non-​liberal predecessors on the right and left respectively. But they adapted by grafting liberal principles onto those dispositions, becoming committed liberal democrats.

Where do libertarians fit in? Libertarianism is a particular kind of radical liberalism. Taking the principles of liberalism to their more thorough and consistent application, libertarians are in some ways the most direct heirs of 18^th and 19^th-century classical liberalism. We can fairly claim to be the most consistent and most faithful application of that heritage.

But we cannot accurately claim liberalism as exclusively our own. All libertarians might be liberals, but not all liberals are libertarians. We should recognize our cousins on the liberalism family tree. Maybe, we should even show up at the occasional family reunion when the occasion calls for it.

All kinds of liberals share a commitment to certain fundamental rights—personal, procedural, and political guarantees—which are above and beyond the give and take of more mundane policy agendas. “Fundamental rights” is perhaps something of a misnomer, though. It can implicitly suggest that other claims about rights and justice are unimportant when they are anything but. It would be a mistake to relegate debates over war and peace, welfare and housing, regulation and economics, personal freedoms and criminal justice, to mere background considerations. But the value of fundamental rights is their instrumental necessity in pursuing those other goods. Fundamental rights are those which protect your ability to lose the battle and still be free to fight the war another day.

Fundamental rights are better understood not as just extra-​important rights but as a kind of meta-​rights which are a necessary predicate for vindicating all other rights. This bundle of meta-​rights includes a certain minimum of social and economic autonomy for individuals. Without sufficient space for everyone to control their lives in the private sphere outside of state control, there can be no meaningful autonomy as free agents in the political sphere. These rights include due process and the rule of law, the ability to appeal violations of rights to an independent judiciary, the stability and certainty of being free from arbitrary power and personal rule. And they also include free and fair elections, free speech and a free press, checks and balances, and multi-​party democracy, without which there is no hope of escaping a system where might makes right.

Defending these principles is not an endorsement of the status quo. Each of them implies serious failures and injustices which cry out for change. America’s constitutional order may be liberal in its general principles, but it has never fully lived out those principles in practice, and it still does not today. Liberal principles carry a strong current of urgently demanding liberal reforms, not a stagnant defense of existing institutions. But the first step in progress is a shared acceptance that these principles are worth striving for at all, even as we disagree on their implications.

These are the shared principles that unite liberals against their illiberal opponents, those who fundamentally reject liberal premises altogether. Those opponents include ancien regime reactionaries, totalitarian fascists, dictatorial communists, and most saliently in the 21st century, authoritarian populists and nationalists. Today, this is the practical political divide more than the traditional democratic contests between center-​left and center-​right.

The renewed salience of liberalism in its broader sense does not mean libertarians should ditch identifying as libertarians. Libertarianism still describes a distinct ideology, particular policy views, and things that aren’t necessarily shared with other kinds of liberals. That remains the case even if libertarians are not always perfect at managing the brand and keeping our distance from illiberal enemies of freedom. Our claim to liberalism is strong, but it is not exclusive, and so simply adopting it for the purposes of rebranding libertarianism will not do. We must accept that liberalism describes a broader coalition and a wider range of views than does libertarianism.

The error of rejecting the liberal coalition can come from left and right, as well. Too often, progressives are eager to condemn libertarians as irredeemable enemies of democracy. Authors such as Nancy MacLean and Naomi Klein have written volumes smearing prominent libertarian theorists and organizations as irredeemable evildoers, spinning conspiracy theories, and misrepresenting historical and contemporary evidence. Ironically, there are some real examples of the sort of behavior alleged, but they do not make tempting targets. Rather, the temptation is to discredit more prominent thinkers who have much more widespread influence, people such as Nobel laureates Milton Friedman and James Buchanan. To this mindset, libertarians are not just opponents on important policy debates, but should instead be treated as bad-​faith actors entirely beyond the pale of normal politics.

On the other side, in 2016, many Never Trump conservatives who were unwilling to support Hillary Clinton also rejected a third-​party anti-​Trump ticket consisting of two successful former Republican governors, largely because libertarian foreign policy views were too dovish. Instead, they encouraged the candidacy of a little-​known former House staffer who ultimately appeared on the ballot in just 11 states. In effect, they became spoilers for the spoiler, drawing away elite support and muddying the narrative even as Evan McMullin failed to gain traction. Likewise, the Clinton campaign and its allies fell for a grave miscalculation, launching broadsides against the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson in the final weeks of the election. This succeeded in drawing few voters from Johnson to Clinton, but it weakened Johnson’s ability to retain otherwise-​Trump voters, contributing to a steeper decline in the polls than the usual “third party fade.” Thus, hostility to libertarians from anti-​Trump forces on both the left and right ended up boosting Trump’s electoral prospects, possibly by the critical point or two that put him over the top.

When libertarians stand against anti-​democratic authoritarianism, liberal-​progressives and liberal-​conservatives should learn to take yes for an answer. Even for those who strongly disagree with our libertarian policy agenda, they should recognize that there are worse things out there than socially liberal and anti-​war free-​marketeers.

Compared to most other liberals, libertarians are radicals for smaller government, freer markets, fewer wars, lower taxes, less regulation, and the repeal of prohibitions. We are passionate about those views, as well we should be in light of the costs to human flourishing and wellbeing at stake. There is no need to hesitate to vigorously pursue all of those things through peaceful persuasion, including and perhaps especially when we are a tiny minority.

Illiberal authoritarianism is an attack on our ability to pursue our libertarian goals through peaceful persuasion. It also threatens those who wish to pursue conservative ends or progressive ends by the same means. Such a threat forces together coalition partners who would otherwise be vigorous opponents within a liberal-​democratic system. When that happens, we’d all do well to keep in mind the higher priorities at stake. Not all liberals are libertarians, but libertarians should remember that we are liberals, too. And liberals of all stripes should recognize that no liberal coalition is complete without libertarians at the table.