The post focuses on US politics, but first I’d like to comment on recent events in the UK. The Conservative Party recently purged 21 of its members, due to their opposition to Boris Johnson’s willingness to contemplate a no-deal Brexit. These included some of their most accomplished members, such as former Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond. The ousted group held political views that were mainstream by the standards of the Conservatives circa 2010-16, when Prime Minister Cameron headed the party.
The UK Conservative Party is obviously changing, but not necessarily in what Americans would regard as a “conservative” direction. Thus Johnson has reversed the austerity policies of Cameron and May, and decided to boost government spending on social programs. It’s becoming more like an Eastern European nationalist party, although Johnson himself still has a few “liberal” instincts.
Over in America, the Republicans have traditionally been viewed as a “big tent” party, including economic conservatives, social conservatives and foreign policy hawks. President Trump doesn’t exactly represent any of those three groups, although he had to rely on their votes in 2016.
Now there are signs that the libertarian wing of the GOP is about to be purged. Here’s Reason:
“I respect what Justin has done,” said his best friend in Congress, Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), while sitting on a FreedomFest panel with Amash and Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah). “But what I say is, if you read the Republican platform, there’s really nothing wrong with it, if you’re for smaller government and for liberty and support the Constitution. The problem is, if you follow the Republican platform as a Republican when you get to D.C., you will be reviled for it.”
Massie, a four-term libertarian-leaner, has experienced what it’s like to be reviled by your own team. In early July, the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Massie will likely face a primary challenge backed by national Republican leaders who are angry at his ideological obstinance.
Utah’s an unusual state, and I believe that Lee can survive. But Massie may well be purged from the GOP. The small libertarian wing of the GOP is likely to shrink further, as this group is no longer welcome in the big tent.
And this is part of a broader shift on the right:
FreedomFest, a largely libertarian gathering in Las Vegas with a significant conservative presence, has been tacking in a noticeably Trumpian direction since the future president spoke there in 2015.
Given Trump’s opposition to free speech, free trade and immigration (both legal and illegal), as well as his support for the War on Drugs and higher spending on social programs, it’s hard to see why “FreedomFest” would want to move in a Trumpian direction. While I’ve never attended that event, I do receive an enormous amount of material (both paper and e-mail) from various free market organizations. In the past two years I’ve seen a big upswing in hard right nationalist advocacy from traditionally libertarian-leaning groups. Now I see calls for things like “industrial policy” and protectionism, which libertarians would have opposed even 5 years ago. I’m not clear as to whether this represents a turnover of personnel or a change of views of people who previously supported libertarian positions, but the change is quite pronounced.
As conservatism changes its focus from the previous free market/religious/hawkish coalition to a more nationalistic posture, there is a danger that the movement will become more intolerant of dissent. Throughout history, nationalists have favored controlling information in such a way as to impose one view. Thus history books are re-written to glorify the homeland, and are sanitized of events that make the nation look bad. (Of course the left has its own problems when it comes to writing history—PCism.)
Nationalism differs from patriotism in terms of how they think about the “nation”. For patriots, the nation is a political entity, whereas for nationalists it’s the dominant ethnic group that matters most.
It should be noted that America’s diversity does help to insulate it from more extreme forms of nationalism, and I presume that nationalists in places like India, Italy, Hungary, China, Turkey and elsewhere would regard our version as “weak tea”, not sufficiently ethnocentric. Our nationalists tend to rely on “code words”, as there is still not majority support for the more explicit European-style nationalism.
Nonetheless, increasing intolerance of dissent is a worrisome trend. In this blog and elsewhere, I’ve openly rooted for China to win the trade war with the US. I wouldn’t be surprised if my views are eventually characterized as being treasonous. Fortunately, at this stage of my career I have nothing to lose. I’d be happy to retire.
It will be worse for those within the GOP. Those who oppose the party leadership will become increasingly viewed as traitors. In fact, the President recently used similar language in reference to government officials who truthfully and legally reported on a controversial phone call.
Perhaps we will eventually reach the point where it won’t be enough for GOP members to refrain from criticizing the leadership. They will be required to affirmatively back untruthful statements made by the leadership.
Will a similar purge happen in the Democratic Party? That seems entirely possible, although it’s too soon to say. Certainly 1990s-style neoliberals are no longer popular. Yet it remains to be seen as to whether they will actually be purged by the leadership of the party. Barack Obama remains an influential figure, and is much more popular with Democrats than is George Bush among Republicans.
In the UK, the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn (who likes the Venezuelan model) is much more extreme, and also more nationalistic than our Democratic Party. (Our Democrats are more like the UK’s Liberal Democrats.) But the far left does not have complete control of the Labour Party, at least in Parliament.
Do the libertarians have a home outside of the GOP? Right now the Democrats are trending sharply to the left on economic issues. On the other hand, the Democrats are moving in a more libertarian friendly direction on immigration and drugs. Trade is an interesting case, with rank and file Democratic voters moving toward free trade at a very rapid pace, while the leadership lags far behind. But don’t discount the rank and file—the GOP rank and file moved toward an anti-immigrant stance well before the party leadership. And we know where that led . . .
The next decade will be a very challenging time for libertarians.
PS. This post looks at broad trends. I’m well aware that politics is quite complicated, and that one can find similar examples from earlier periods of history. It’s a question of scale. But from my perspective, things have definitely changed. We won’t really know how much until the post-Trump period begins, probably in 2025.
READER COMMENTS
Benjamin Cole
Sep 28 2019 at 9:28pm
Interesting post.
What is missing is the question, “Why”?
It seems that developed nations do not pay the employee classes enough to reproduce, resulting in declining populations. This is an empirical observation and relies on the rational man decision making model .
The globalist elite says that’s not a problem, we can just import an employee class.
Of course, the importing of a low-cost employee class may lower wages below that which allows the extant employee class to reproduce.
This squeeze on the employee class, I believe, plays a role in nationalism.
And yes, there does appear to be less and less tolerance for slightly different viewpoints among certain websites and political groups.
Mark Z
Sep 28 2019 at 10:30pm
“Trade is an interesting case, with rank and file Democratic voters moving toward free trade at a very rapid pace, while the leadership lags far behind.”
Is this from polling data? Because as far as electoral politics is concerned, leadership (and even more so the new, up-and-coming politicians slated to be its future leaders) isn’t really lagging behind on trade; it’s retrogressing on trade. Perhaps because either it’s not an important enough issue for the rank-and-file to affect who they vote or, or – my opinion – people who oppose Trump will say they like something in a poll if they know Trump doesn’t like it. I think preferences for politicians is more of a ‘revealed’ preference than opinion polls. Of course Condorcet’s ‘paradox’ makes it hard to tell which preferences are being revealed. Perhaps Warren’s star rising over Biden’s falling star really is despite her attitude toward free trade rather than because of it, but I’m doubtful of that.
Scott Sumner
Sep 29 2019 at 12:41pm
Yes, there are a number of polls that show Democratic voters moving very strongly toward free trade. One recent poll showed that overall support for free trade has risen from 51% to 64% over the past 4 years, but support among Dems has risen much faster.
Mark
Sep 28 2019 at 11:55pm
Unfortunately (and I say this as a libertarian myself), I think there was always a bit of a racist strain in the libertarian movement. Remember the Ron Paul newsletters? Libertarianism was an intellectually respectable way to oppose anti-discrimination laws and any social welfare programs (which was justifiably seen in the past as primarily benefiting minorities). Now, those people feel like they can advocate their true views more openly.
Also, no ideology is really immune to nationalism. I’ve been reading some history regarding the interwar years recently, and one interesting trend is that many liberal parties and politicians ended up backing the Nazis in Germany and the Bolsheviks in Russia for nationalist reasons once it looked like those factions were going to take power.
Scott Sumner
Sep 29 2019 at 12:42pm
Good points.
Mark Brady
Sep 29 2019 at 1:18am
“The Conservative Party recently purged 21 of its members, due to their opposition to Boris Johnson’s willingness to contemplate a no-deal Brexit.”
It would be more accurate to say that the 21 Conservative MPs who voted in favour of the plan to try and stop a no-deal Brexit, and thus against Conservative government policy, had the parliamentary whip taken away from them and will not be allowed to stand as official Conservative candidates at the next general election.
Scott Sumner
Sep 29 2019 at 12:43pm
Sure, that’s more precise. But isn’t that a purge?
Mark Brady
Sep 30 2019 at 12:27am
Maybe, but it’s very different from what most people think of as a “purge.” Think Stalin. Think Hitler. And however we want to describe the event, none of the 21 MPs were “libertarians.”
Mark Brady
Sep 30 2019 at 10:54am
Take the case of David Gauke who was one of the 21 “purged.” He is attending the Conservative party conference “as a Conservative member and MP – but not as a Conservative MP.”
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2019/09/david-gauke-we-would-not-leave-the-eu-on-october-31st-and-johnson-will-be-blamed.html
Scott Sumner
Sep 30 2019 at 11:13am
I never said they were libertarians. I said they were conventional conservatives.
And you may think of Hitler when you hear the term “purge”, but I don’t.
Mark Brady
Sep 30 2019 at 8:22pm
“I never said they were libertarians. I said they were conventional conservatives.”
Agreed. I was somewhat puzzled as to why you began your post “Are libertarians being purged?” with this news story from the UK.
“And you may think of Hitler when you hear the term “purge”, but I don’t.”
I was thinking of Hitler’s Night of the Long Knives (June 30, 1934).
Mark Brady
Oct 11 2019 at 9:28am
Revealed: The potential route back for some of the 21 Conservative MPs who lost the Whip
An obscure, unused agreement struck by Cameron and the 1922 Committee back in 2006 is set to come into play.
LM Carver
Sep 29 2019 at 3:14am
On what are you basing the claim that the UK Conservatives are “becoming more like an Eastern European Nationalist party”? Johnson’s stated vision for post Brexit Britain is as a “global” free trade hub, with a bunch of “free ports”. He’s proposed income, payroll and corporate tax cuts, and already relaxed immigration rules. It’s true he’s pledged spending on hospitals, education, infrastructure, and police, and the chancellor has made a fuss about “the end of austerity”, so I think it’s fair to say they’re not exactly big on fiscal conservativism. But it’s hardly “nationalism”. Not like Orban’s Hungary or anything.
Scott Sumner
Sep 30 2019 at 11:14am
Carver, I am not basing this on Johnson’s personal views, but rather the drift in the Conservative Party as a whole.
David Henderson
Sep 29 2019 at 10:23am
Scott,
You write:
The evidence on 4 of 5 of those is clear. Do you have evidence that Trump opposes free speech?
Scott Sumner
Sep 29 2019 at 12:53pm
Yes, He’s often said that he’d like to reduce press freedom. Here’s one example:
“Donald Trump said on Friday he plans to change libel laws in the United States so that he can have an easier time suing news organizations.
During a rally in Fort Worth, Texas, Trump began his usual tirade against newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, saying they’re “losing money” and are “dishonest.” The Republican presidential candidate then took a different turn, suggesting that when he’s president they’ll “have problems.”
“One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we’re certainly leading. I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected,” Trump said.”
https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866
Or this:
“At the very same forum, he dismissed the free-speech rights of independent media. “To me free speech is not when you see something good and then you purposely write bad,” he insisted. “To me that’s very dangerous speech, and you become angry at it. But that’s not free speech.”
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/trump-free-speech-twitter-google-facebook-authoritarianism.html
There are many other such comments. That’s not to say he wants to repeal the 1st amendment. But he’s made many comments about reducing press freedom, and also using government power to get back at media organizations that he doesn’t like:
“While his own powers of suppression are far weaker, Trump is happy to use government authority to punish independent media (like CNN and the Washington Post, whose owners he has punished with unfavorable regulatory actions)” [From second link]
And I think we know he’s willing to use government power for personal gain.
David Henderson
Sep 29 2019 at 1:00pm
Wow! Thanks, Scott. Way more evidence than I had thought.
Craig
Sep 30 2019 at 8:52am
Now, perhaps one might support NY Times v Sullivan. I do respect that position. But one does need to acknowledge that this was a 1964 case. For the majority of this country’s history, up until 1964 that was NOT the law and somehow the press persevered.
TMC
Oct 1 2019 at 10:42am
Libel is recognized as not being protected by the 1st amendment, and right now the NYT has engaged in it largely with impunity. There are editors who’ve left the Times complaining about it. Make the claim when Trump actually does something that weakens free speech. If the NYT would stop printing false stories, and not correcting stories they’ve run that later turned out to be false, they have nothing to fear.
Jon Murphy
Oct 2 2019 at 11:10am
However, public officials are largely exempt from libel/slander legislation on 1st Amendment grounds. That’s Trump’s big complaint and why he wants to go after these folks.
Note also that the NYT, even if they are printing fake stories, is not necessarily committing libel. To commit libel, you need three elements:
-Writing something that is false
-Knowing that thing is false
-That printing does real and positive harm to the person in question.
It’s not clear that the NYT is intentionally writing false stories about Trump (satisfying the first two conditions) and they certainly do not appear to be causing him any real and positive harm (in some cases, the opposite. I know a fair few folks who are sympathetic to Trump because of the viciousness at which the mainstream media goes after him).
If the NYT prints a false story and later it is discovered the story is false, that is not libel. If the NYT prints a false story and later it is discovered the story is false and the NYT does not issue a correction, that is not libel. These are signs of lack of journalistic integrity, yes, but they are not libelous.
Warren Platts
Sep 29 2019 at 5:10pm
BAM! There it is…
If you want to understand why Libertarians have lost political traction in recent years, the answer is succinctly expressed in that sentiment. And it doesn’t even make sense. Scott: How can you support in any way the most murderous, totalitarian empire in world history? And that is not hyperbole.
Libertarians ought to be for human liberty everywhere on Planet Earth. Yet apparently, they are for liberty for themselves: and screw Chinese, Hong Kong, Tibetan, Uighur, Taiwanese human beings as long as they–American “Libertarians”–can buy cheap Chinese widgets. It is not a good look; the hypocrisy is obvious to the non-tone deaf.
And never mind that working class Americans know full well the disdain Libertarian Wall Street apologists have for them.
Also, people who happen to think the U.S. national interest should be the top governmental priority are tired of being called racists.
The Libertarian “purge” is a good thing, actually. If that seems dysfunctional in the extreme, remind yourselves that when democratic politics appear to be at their most dysfunctional, that is precisely when the system is working at its best. You guys had your chance: 40 or 50 years to prove your neoliberal philosophy was the best in actual practice; and frankly, you blew it–although, granted, from the view from leafy suburbs that can be hard to discern, so your surprise is warranted. But sorry, Trump is here for a reason..
P Burgos
Sep 29 2019 at 6:19pm
It is looking increasingly like the Trade War is a pretense for some of the US national security elites to try to harm China economically and to try to reduce its geo-political power relative to the US. Though it was sold as about trying to make trade more fair and balanced and about American jobs, it turns out that was “bullshit” in the Henry Frankfurter sense (claims made without any regards for their truthfulness). The factory jobs that are leaving China due to the trade war (and rising Chinese wages) aren’t going to the US, but to other places in Asia, as almost everyone with any knowledge of sourcing and logistics predicted. It is hard to believe that China will respect US IP more after having seen that the US is hostile to its rise. And finally, there is very little that the US or anyone outside of the CCP can really do to change the country’s authoritarianism. The bet made in the past by libertarians, conservatives, and liberals that a wealthier China will be a freer China is still correct. However Orwellian and alarming China’s response to separatists and a large cohort of Uighur jihadists returning from Syria is, their response is still much better than it would have been forty or fifty years ago, when the “solution” wouldn’t have been merely surveillance and incarceration in re-education camps, but would have been policies of either simply massacring those suspected of sympathizing with the jihadists and separatists, or some kind of policy that would have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. Also likewise with Hong Kong. It is very unlikely that the CCP has any appetite for a massacre there, unlike in 1989. China has been liberalizing, and is much likelier to continue doing so the wealthier it becomes and if it’s leadership and people do not feel that the world is hostile to it.
Jon Murphy
Sep 30 2019 at 9:00am
You raise a good point that a wealthier China would be a freer China. there’s lots of evidence out there that indicates opening trade, even in the less-than-perfect manner of China, leads to greater economic and political freedom in other areas of the country (see, for example, Ross Sobel’s 2017 paper “The Rise and Decline of Nations”)
MarkW
Sep 29 2019 at 10:02pm
Scott: How can you support in any way the most murderous, totalitarian empire in world history? And that is not hyperbole.
Yes, it is hyperbole. The current regime in Beijing is clearly repressive. But it is nowhere close to the most murderous, totalitarian empire in history. Xi is not Mao (or Stalin or Hitler) — not even close. And I think you mistake Scott’s words. I do not like many aspects of the Chinese regime, but I too would like to see Trump’s tariffs fail and be repealed. I think the idea of one country ‘winning’ and another ‘losing’ a trade war is a fundamental failure of economic understanding (in a trade war, everybody loses), but I would like to see free trade win and protectionism lose, and right now, China is more on the side of free trade than is the Trump administration. So, yes, I would like to see Trump lose this ideological battle over free trade vs protectionism.
Craig
Sep 30 2019 at 7:09am
Lorenzo from Oz
Sep 29 2019 at 8:34pm
Society and politics are becoming more polarised. Libertarians are the betwixt and between folk, so they are suffering from the effects of increased polarisation. Sad, but not surprising.
Mark Z
Sep 29 2019 at 10:26pm
I think that’s pretty true. Of course most libertarians (including me) wouldn’t describe it as merely being between the two sides, but a consistent worldview in its own right, but politics is mostly social rather than intellectual. No one likes being the only person at the party or convention who deviates from the group. There’s mounting pressure to ‘pick a side and fall in line.’ Even among academics the desire to hold correct opinions is weaker than the desire to fit in and feel that one belongs to a group. Secondary ideologies don’t really have the critical mass of adherents to provide that, so they’re tend to get pulled apart by those that do.
Lorenzo from Oz
Sep 30 2019 at 8:33pm
Yep, to all points. The libertarian viewpoint has a high level of consistency, but overlap the two sides, which is what makes them betwixt and between.
This video, although it does not expressly discuss libertarianism at any length, does usefully touch on the polarisation issue and changes on the right side of politics.
Robert EV
Sep 29 2019 at 11:01pm
A general comment:
Scott, I don’t always understand what you write, but when I do it’s educational and a pleasure to read.
Thanks!
Tony
Sep 30 2019 at 12:42am
A lot depends on the candidate the GOP choses in 2024. It is an open question whether someone other than Trump can carry the populist-nationalist torch in the GOP.
Mark Z
Oct 1 2019 at 1:52am
It seems fairly likely to me that Trumpism will wane after Trump. His base is old and has little future. Unlike with Democrats – where the younger tend to be more extreme – younger Republicans tend to more moderate. Perhaps people will shift toward the right (in the populist sense) as they age at a fast enough rate to sustain the phenomenon, but I doubt it. And what viable successors does Trump have? There’s no young Trumpist ‘squad’ gunning up enthusiasm in Congress. It may just be Ted Cruz vs. Marco Rubio again in 2024.
Thaomas
Sep 30 2019 at 6:17am
Unless their idea of “small government” means lower personal income taxes and not much else, Libertarians never (at least post Nixon) had a place in the the Republican party. Although there is some awareness in the Party of the usefulness of markets compared to the average Democrat, they are paralyzed in offering solutions to social/economic issues because they would mean substituting explicit taxation for hidden taxation. Tax credits to individuals instead of tax exemptions for employers for purchasing health insurance, EITC instead of minimum wages, and taxation of net CO2 emissions are prime examples.
Mark Z
Oct 1 2019 at 2:01am
There was also deregulation, privatization, and certainly during the Reagan era, free trade (relatively speaking).
I’m also not sure what ‘post-Nixon’ means. Nixon was possibly the least libertarian Republican in recent memory. Nor was the pre-Nixon Republican Party more libertarian than during the 80s and 90s, maybe with the exception of Goldwater. I’m not sure how Eisenhower could be called more libertarian than Reagan.
Comments are closed.