Posts tagged civil libertarianism

Publ. Letters from The New Republic

FREE FOR ALL (4/18/2005)
Jonathan Chait is correct that some who support Social Security reform want it abolished, even if this has to happen slowly (“Fact Finders,” February 28). And the reasoning behind this hasn’t much to do with the particular superior results of such reform (vis–vis the national economy, individual retirement benefits, or gross national product), only with the general idea that a free society, one without a bloated public sector–that is, one with a government of strictly limited scope–is superior overall to one wherein government meddles in everything. Yes, this is sort of a priori rather than pragmatic, although not quite in the silly way Chait caricatures it: History shows that freedom is, in the main, a better way to reach desirable goals than coercion. It isn’t a matter of “liberty, come hell or high water.” What is interesting in Chait’s essay is that no mention is made of how most liberals are similarly a priori supporters of various civil libertarian ideas, such as freedom of speech, due process in criminal law, and others. Here it is conservatives who have been more pragmatic: If prior restraint works, let’s use it; if giving up habeas corpus for a while achieves greater security, go for it; if censorship achieves some good, it’s fine; et cetera. Liberals, however, have, in the main, opposed this–that is, after all, what the American Civil Liberties Union is all about.
I wonder why Chait fails to discuss this internal conflict within liberalism and, indeed, within conservatism–why is pragmatism so good when it comes to some policies but should be avoided when it comes to others? At least libertarians tend to have a coherent approach that they can apply to all circumstances: They advocate liberty across the board, as Milton Friedman is quoted in Chait’s essay. They trust the lessons of history and have an understanding of human nature, namely that free men and women will deal with problems better than those who are regimented about by others. Chait hasn’t managed to challenge this truly principled approach in the slightest, and for good reason–it is, after all, the stance of most of the practical sciences in which general principles are relied upon to guide future actions, leaving changes to be made only once the principles have been shown to require rethinking.
Tibor R. Machan
Professor of Business Ethics
Chapman University
Orange, California
———–
First Tierney (4/24/2006)
Noam Scheiber’s putdown of one of the very few visible libertarian columnists in the country, John Tierney of The New York Times, reeks of desperation (“Second Tierney,” March 20 & 27). Tierney’s is a civilized voice that, over the last several months, has produced a stream of difficult-to- answer critiques of the modern U.S. welfare state. And he has done this from a principled libertarian position, not in some haphazard, catch-as-catch-can fashion. For this, Scheiber calls Tierney’s work “boring.” The condescending piece’s aim seems not to be exposing Tierney’s misguided position or even his poor writing. No, the aim is to marginalize Tierney and his libertarian outlook.
Scheiber seems most annoyed that Tierney’s columns all emanate from a principled, integrated political-economic viewpoint. Yet this has sting only because it is now fashionable to be pragmatic, uncommitted, flexible. (Let’s call it what it is: wobbly.) That this approach has gained traction reveals some important developments in recent intellectual history, among them the onslaught of the earlier pragmatic philosophy of Charles Peirce, William James, and John Dewey–and, more recently, the radical pragmatism of Richard Rorty and his postmodernism. All of these have helped discourage respect for coherent, integrated, and principled thinking.
Tibor R. Machan
Silverado, California

Column on the American Right

American Right Wing

Tibor R. Machan

When those on the political Left refer to defenders of the free market
system as “right wingers,” there is understandable concern about how the
term is being abused. Classical liberals, the supporters of both economic
and civil libertarianism, have been anything but “right wingers,” quite
the opposite.

In European political history the Right has been royalists, fascist,
traditionalists, and even militarist, while the Left included mainly
socialists, communists, and welfare statists. Those who champion free
market capitalism do not fall within either of these groups because they
tend, in the main, to oppose statism or the use of the government for
purposes of problem solving. For the classical liberal the problems in a
society are best addressed within the private sector.

In America the classifications are different because America’s distinctive
tradition includes classical liberalism. The right wing in the USA isn’t
mostly fascist or royalists but religious and traditionalist but since a
central feature of tradition in American politics is classical liberal or
libertarian, labeling champions of the fully free system “right wingers”
makes a certain amount of sense. But it can also serve a dubious agenda of
the Left, namely, to associate free market capitalism with right wing
statism, as if the likes of F. A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and so
on had anything at all in common with fascists and royalists. (The Left
here is very eager to make it seem that Milton Friedman “Chicago Boys”
embraced General Pinochet of Chile rather than the other way around!) But
the association serves the not so hidden purpose of smearing them in
virtue of how the Right elsewhere does veer very close toward fascism and
royalism.

In the current dispute about the vast and rapid expansion of the role of
government in society, increasing government’s scope by leaps and bounds,
charging opponents with being right-wingers comes in handy. These
opponents are indeed a coalition of libertarians and American
conservatives because libertarians oppose statism on principle and also
for a variety of practical reasons and American conservatives oppose it as
a matter of the American political tradition–for example, the Declaration
of Independence and the Bill of rights. But the American right is quite
selective about embracing liberty. Mostly American conservatives support
free markets but not so much civil libertarianism. On that score the
American Left is more like the libertarians, although mainly for
opportunistic reasons.

This is evident on how readily the American Left, along with others on the
Left across the globe, supports the likes of Venezuela’s strong man Hugo
Chavez as well as Fidel Castro. In the case of these political figures,
the Left abandons its apparent support for civil libertarian ideals,
mainly because the American Left tends to share the revolutionary goals of
other Left wingers around the globe and any revolution, Left or Right,
would be slowed down by principled civil libertarian policies. So while
civil libertarianism is useful for the Left as it combats general right
wing measures such as those included in the more hysterical elements of
the homeland security, it is likely to be abandoned once the Left gains
power in the USA. For example, the White House’s overt attacks on Fox TV
news, or global warming skeptics, or its badmouthing of the opponents of
Obama & Co.’s health care ideas–instead of doing honest debate with
them–shows how little the American Left cares about civil libertarianism.
Yes, opposition to George W. Bush’s policies vis-a-vis terrorism suspects
has the ring of civil libertarianism about it. But at bottom that does not
seem to be the main reason for it. We can tell that from how readily
similar policies by Leftist governments around the globe do not disturb
many on the Left. Political categorization is not always easy and there
are too many exceptions in nearly all instances of it. (A Left oriented
public figure and commentator such as Nat Hentoff cannot be considered
merely opportunistic about civil liberties!)

In America the category of “right wing” is complicated by the fact that
the American political tradition is classical liberal, not at all royalist
or fascist. But without making this clear, those who label their opponents
right wingers capitalize on the fact that the Right includes racists and
anti-Semites, thus giving champions of free market capitalism a bad name
by including them on the Right.