Libertarian Populism: Positive Step or Chicken's Homecoming?

[CrowEpistemologist]

I was curious what people thought of an apparently growing (?) movement known as libertarian populism.

 

On one hand, people can be enthusiastic, imagining that while its imperfect and muddled, it's a sign that principled pro-liberty ideas are moving forward in the USA.

 

On the other hand, it could be a sign we're going backwards, wherein principled change is being occupied and killed from the inside out by this new movement.

 

Which is it, and why?

 

 

[Reidy]

On the strength of Jay Cost's article I'd say that the content of the notion (a revolt against mixed-economy elitism) is praiseworthy but that the name "populism" has unfortunate associations with redistributionism and resentment of success.  I expect that the chances the latter has of prevailing are less than even, so I'm optimistic.  We'll see.

[2046]

Neither really. I think it's largely a manufactured term from confused beltway-types and establishmentarians, but in the sense of the above, that it's a reaction against mixed-economy cronyism and favoritism towards big business, then I'd say that's a good thing. In that case, I'd recommend David D'Amato's recent article on Mises about it.

[thenelli01]

It certainly is positive that people are turning away from big government and towards limited government. It is as positive as the Tea Party, maybe even more so. Now all that is necessary are leaders that are principled and understand what they are talking about. It is not necessary, nor is it practical, for the mass public to fully understand free market principles to bring positive change. As long as the leaders understand them and apply them properly is what is most important.

 

The issue here is that this "libertarian populist" movement doesn't fully understand capitalism and neither do its leaders, if you wish to call the Paul's the leaders, which I think is proper to do so. Mixed into this movement are conspiracy theorists, anarchists, and pacifists--and the result is a platform full of contradictions. It is similar to the issue with the Tea Party, which was mixed in with the religious right.

 

I think it is mostly a reaction to the Great Recession, growing government interference in the economy and our personal lives, and people are realizing that the Repubs and Dems are two sides of the same coin.

 

If a great leader comes along that can articulate free market principles properly, this could be an opportunity to create positive change. The stage is practically set. It was almost set in 2012, but Ron Paul flubbed it of course (mainly because he isn't a great speaker and his foreign policy, specifically on Iran) and Gary Johnson wasn't given enough serious attention.

Edited August 18, 2013 by thenelli01

[CrowEpistemologist]

On the strength of Jay Cost's article I'd say that the content of the notion (a revolt against mixed-economy elitism) is praiseworthy but that the name "populism" has unfortunate associations with redistributionism and resentment of success.  I expect that the chances the latter has of prevailing are less than even, so I'm optimistic.  We'll see.

 

This is an interesting article, and I think it's jumping in trying to define the new movement more than report on it--which in this case is a good thing from what I can tell.

 

"A practical program for libertarian populism would address this frustration, above all using the word that Jefferson and Madison used: corruption."

 

Now this is a movement I can get behind, and one that would truly cut across party lines. The movement should be a war on corruption in every form, both in the form of government handouts to big companies or tax loopholes to individuals. It should be a war of special favors and push for a system that treats citizens equally before the law--and yes, leaving aside other issues for now which will get zero political traction.

 

An example of this dropping the home mortgage deduction. Yes, it's a "tax increase" but its also corruption: it allows citizens to act in a certain way to decrease their taxes, to the detriment of those who do not act that way. It has the side effect of distorting the real estate market, etc. etc.

 

LibPops should push for absolutely flat taxes, and not worry about the "tax increase" problem for now. Then they can push toward more usage-based taxes which can be framed under this mantel as well. This will piss off constituents on both sides of the spectrum, but it could galvanize the opposing segment of both as well, which is an opening for a new popular movement.

 

The thing I like about a fight against corruption is that it's inherently an appeal to reason and truth. "Take the bullishit out of politics" is a great rallying cry, but it will only work if they really mean it, and it will be stillborn if their positioning is, "we're going to cut taxes but still give you your social security", etc. Like I said, on those issues LibPops should just leave them be.

 

There's no guarantee you could really make a movement like this popular, but the alternatives seem to be guaranteed to fail.

[CrowEpistemologist]

 

[...] Mixed into this movement are conspiracy theorists, anarchists, and pacifists--and the result is a platform full of contradictions. It is similar to the issue with the Tea Party, which was mixed in with the religious right..

 

 

If that mix continues then LibPop is road kill, just like the Tea Party is. The Tea Party's inherent contradiction is that it's a bunch of old people on social security and medicare fighting to eliminate the role of the federal government. It's based on bullishit, and it leads to an assault on reason.

 

That said, Ron Paul is vintage lib-conspiracy, which is decidedly UNmainstream and UNpopular. So if he's it's leader, then its game over for that movement before it even begins... Oh well...

[Dante]

Robert Tracinski, an advocate of Rand's ideas and a contributor at RealClearPolitics, has become one of the writers associated with libertarian populism, and has commented on it several times in his running column "The Daily Debate."  See, for example, his comments about Paul Krugman's dismissal of libertarian populism.

Personally, I tend to agree with Tracinski that libertarian populism represents an important facet in the case for liberty. In particular, the fact that 'populism' is commonly associated with redistributionism points to one of the key messages of libertarian populism: that government handouts are not the only thing that a populist political movement could ever offer to the poor. Another type of populism is possible, one that advocates capitalism as the ideal political system for everyone, not just for wealthy business owners.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Dante
phrasing

[Dormin111]

This is an interesting article, and I think it's jumping in trying to define the new movement more than report on it--which in this case is a good thing from what I can tell.

 

"A practical program for libertarian populism would address this frustration, above all using the word that Jefferson and Madison used: corruption."

 

Now this is a movement I can get behind, and one that would truly cut across party lines. The movement should be a war on corruption in every form, both in the form of government handouts to big companies or tax loopholes to individuals. It should be a war of special favors and push for a system that treats citizens equally before the law--and yes, leaving aside other issues for now which will get zero political traction.

 

An example of this dropping the home mortgage deduction. Yes, it's a "tax increase" but its also corruption: it allows citizens to act in a certain way to decrease their taxes, to the detriment of those who do not act that way. It has the side effect of distorting the real estate market, etc. etc.

 

I disagree, this is not corruption, nor should it be labeled as such. This is our current political system functioning according to its legal parameters. To call it corruption implies that it could be fixed so maybe there could only be some corporate welfare and redistribution in the right places. If it is legal for the government to support companies, then that is what will happen, and ultimately I don't particularly blame companies for trying to grab a piece before their competitor does. This is not corruption, it is systemic evil.

[CrowEpistemologist]

Robert Tracinski, an advocate of Rand's ideas and a contributor at RealClearPolitics, has become one of the writers associated with libertarian populism, and has commented on it several times in his running column "The Daily Debate."  See, for example, his comments about Paul Krugman's dismissal of libertarian populism.

Personally, I tend to agree with Tracinski that libertarian populism represents an important facet in the case for liberty. In particular, the fact that 'populism' is commonly associated with redistributionism points to one of the key messages of libertarian populism: that government handouts are not the only thing that a populist political movement could ever offer to the poor. Another type of populism is possible, one that advocates capitalism as the ideal political system for everyone, not just for wealthy business owners.

 

Yes, "populism" is going to mean something different that it has. However, it still needs to be "popular". In the context of LP--wherein the word, "libertarian" is attached to the front of it--I take it to mean, "something you can pull out of the wider (little l) libertarian political approach which will appeal to a lot of people in today's context".

 

This is important since that definition precludes touching social security and medicare, for instance--both instant death sentences for any popular political movement in today's context.

 

I'm assuming here, of course, that LP is not just yet another exercise in mental masturbation, and they are actually trying to make it work in the short run. I could be wrong about that though.