I’ve always considered myself to be a pragmatic libertarian, as I favor system with a small government and a high degree of freedom. But I don’t feel any special affinity toward other libertarians. It seems to me that their views on political issues are no better than the views on non-libertarians. I doubt whether Ron Paul would have been a better president that Reagan or Clinton, (although I voted for Paul in 1988.) One example of this phenomenon is the substantial support that Jair Bolsonaro received among libertarians when he ran for president of Brazil, despite being a pro-torture demagogue. Now we see the consequences of this Faustian bargain:
Brazil’s president has taken an approach that is strikingly similar to that of Mr Trump — but even more irresponsible and dangerous. Both leaders have become obsessed with the supposedly curative properties of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine. But while Mr Trump is merely taking it himself, Mr Bolsonaro has forced the Brazilian health ministry to issue new guidelines, recommending the drug for coronavirus patients. The US president has squabbled with his scientific advisers. But Mr Bolsonaro has sacked one health minister and provoked his replacement to resign. Mr Trump has expressed sympathy for anti-lockdown protesters; Mr Bolsonaro has addressed their rallies.
. . . Coronavirus hit Brazil relatively late. But the country has the second-highest infection rate in the world and the sixth-highest recorded Covid-19 deaths. The number of deaths in Brazil . . . is now doubling every two weeks.
. . . The hospital system in São Paulo, Brazil’s biggest city, is already close to collapse.
This is not to say that the President has caused the disaster, other factors also play a role:
But is it fair to blame Mr Bolsonaro? The president, who was sworn into office on January 1 2019, is obviously not responsible for the virus — nor for the poverty and overcrowding that make Covid-19 such a threat to the country. He has also not been able to prevent many of Brazil’s governors and mayors from imposing lockdowns in local areas. But by encouraging his followers to flout the lockdowns and undermining his own ministers, Mr Bolsonaro is responsible for the chaotic response that has allowed the pandemic to get out of hand.
It’s hard to say how different things would have been if someone else had been president. I am more confident in predicting that Bolsonaro’s performance will reduce the appeal of libertarianism among thoughtful young Brazilians that are just coming of age. What a pity.
Perhaps my motto might be described as, “Save libertarianism from the libertarians.”
READER COMMENTS
James
May 27 2020 at 5:44pm
This is not a problem with libertarians. It is a problem with pragmatic politics.
There are plenty of rigid libertarians who refuse, on principle, to support any politician that is not libertarian enough for them, even if the alternatives are worse. They are frequently criticized by other libertarians as being dogmatic and unwilling to compromise.
It is the pragmatic libertarians who compromise their principles to support politicians like Bolsonaro in Brazil and usually Republicans here. Then the left wing and the media use the errors of those politicians as examples to discredit libertarianism.
Steve
May 27 2020 at 6:07pm
I like to see – and practice myself – “libertarianism at the margin”. Every issue I vote on or advocate for I just want to see some improvement towards a libertarian ideal. I won’t hold out for perfect legislation at the expense of never seeing anything change.
(Note: this is difficult in practice. The most recent election legalized sports gambling in Colorado but was clearly corrupted as the law set aside x% for “water rights” issues and x% for some other crony cause…I had to pick my poison whether I wanted a poorly written law to succeed or to continue the banning an activity that the government really shouldn’t care about.)
Phil H
May 27 2020 at 9:32pm
Wasn’t this always just a massive misreading of Bolsonaro, though? He’s done some things that seemed to be “pro-business,” therefore he was assumed to be libertarian – but that was just an error.
In general, I think both the non-lib media and libertarians themselves too often confuse being pro-business with being libertarian.
Ricky
May 28 2020 at 10:02am
Whether one’s libertarianism is inspired by Locke’s (natural rights) or Kant’s (dignity) both messages were similar. People have certain universal rights, and we must always seek to preserve them. The government should not be telling President Trump, or anyone else what to put in their bodies.
And I feel we have bigger matters at hand here.
The CCP is exterminating the Uyghurs, the Chair of the Chemistry Department in Harvard was arrested for failing to disclose PLA funding. Inner Mongolians are being beaten daily. A security law has been used to now strip Hong Kong of its democratic freedoms, and businesses in every corner of the world seem prepared to put aside the principles of democracy in exchange for profit. How else can we explain investment in a regime with such an atrocious human rights record.
Why are Microsoft and Apple determining our foreign policy? Why can’t they setup their regional branches in Singapore, instead of Hong Kong? Will the United States continue to be complicit in propping up a regime that is similar in structure to Nazi Germany?
I think these are much more pressing issues, and one’s we should be debating. I could really care less if Trump thinks he looks better wearing orange makeup, previously had hair transplant surgery, or has an affinity for Big Mac’s. Nor should we care what he put’s in his body!
Scott Sumner
May 28 2020 at 1:07pm
Ricky, You said:
“The government should not be telling President Trump, or anyone else what to put in their bodies.”
I agree, but clearly Trump (who favors the war on drugs) does not. Trump’s not the victim here; he’s the person persecuting others for taking drugs.
You said:
“How else can we explain investment in a regime”
Can you provide a single example of a Western firm investing in the Chinese regime?
You said:
“Will the United States continue to be complicit in propping up a regime that is similar in structure to Nazi Germany?”
You don’t help your cause with that sort of hyperbole.
AMT
May 28 2020 at 10:33am
I fully agree with you here. I think that people often see things as a little too black and white and avoid getting into nuance. Although I think libertarianism is generally for the best, it’s easy to see exceptions. Most of the people I know who call themselves libertarians basically eschew the possibility of exceptions. “Could the massive potential negative externalities of a pandemic possibly justify temporarily limiting some freedoms? NEVER!!! End the fascist lockdowns!”
But this also seems to go for the vast majority of people who have any beliefs. E.g. free market economists often seem extremely hesitant to believe that a situation ever calls for regulations, and left-wingers seem extremely hesitant to agree that capitalism would work better in any given situation. Or e.g. “believe all women.” Well, what about simply giving them greater benefit of the doubt than normal, rather than unquestioning belief?
Basically, people arrive at a viewpoint, and then apply a general rule without ever questioning if the situation could be an exception, and refuse to consider that the evidence suggests their initial viewpoint was at all flawed (even just slightly too extreme). There are only rare exceptions where people seem appropriately willing to accept evidence to change their views (Bryan Caplan and Scott Alexander stand out to me).
Michael Sandifer
May 28 2020 at 12:53pm
Yes, those of us on the left who suspected that many self-professed libertarians were really fascists seem to be vindicated. Even some genuine libertarians seem too comfortable with fascism.
I’m much more libertarian than most, but like you, not ideologically so. Economics and political science suggest limited government works better, in general.
Scott Sumner
May 28 2020 at 1:09pm
I don’t believe they are “really fascists” any more than Sanders is “really communist” due to his praise of Castro. I just think they have bad judgment.
Michael Sandifer
May 28 2020 at 6:16pm
Scott,
Yes, but the difference here is that Trump and similar leaders in the world really are fascist. True libertarians would go nowhere near supporting fascists or communists.
Also, I’ve noticed that reactionary religious beliefs, and various forms of bigotry are now openly expressed by these “libertarians” now.
Mark Z
May 28 2020 at 11:45pm
You’re saying Trump is more of a ‘genuine fascist’ than Castro is a ‘genuine communist?’ I honestly just don’t know what to say to that.
Michael Sandifer
May 29 2020 at 1:56am
Who brought up Castro?
Mark Z
May 31 2020 at 4:52pm
Scott did in the comment you responded to. The comparison being between what it says about someone that they like Castro vs. what it says about someone that they like Trump/Bolsonaro.
Mark Bahner
May 30 2020 at 11:59pm
Can you name, say, 5-10 “self-professed libertarians” in the U.S. who are really fascists?
Steve
May 28 2020 at 1:11pm
Where do the block quotes come from? I don’t see any link or mention of source.
Thomas Hutcheson
May 29 2020 at 8:47am
I’ve always considered myself to be a pragmatic libertarian, as I favor system with a small government and a high degree of freedom.
I’d agree with that if “small” excludes transfers. “Small” distortions in market prices except to deal with externalities. But since Libertarians generally do NOT favor greater transfers, I consider myself a Neoliberal.
nobody.really
Jun 1 2020 at 2:16am
“At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has been sometimes disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition.”
John Emerich Edward Dalberg, Lord Acton, The History of Freedom in Antiquity (1877).
“[T]he proper strategy of libertarians and paleos is a strategy of ‘right-wing populism’….
[A]ll real-world politics is coalition politics, and there are … areas where libertarians might well compromise with their paleo or traditionalist or other partners in a populist coalition.”
Murray N. Rothbard, “Right-Wing Populism” (January 1992).
“I thought they were voting for libertarian Republicans. But after some soul-searching, I realized when they voted for Rand and Ron [Paul] and me in these primaries, they weren’t voting for libertarian ideas. They were voting for the craziest son of a bitch in the race. And Donald Trump won best in class.”
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), on the Tea Party
“And I, who said forty years ago that we should have had Socialism already but for the Socialists, am quite willing to drop the name if dropping it will help me to get the thing. What I meant by my jibe at the Socialists of the eighteen-eighties was that nothing is ever done, and much is prevented, by people who do not realize that they cannot do everything at once.”
George Bernard Shaw, The Intelligent Woman’s Guide To Socialism and Capitalism (1928), republished as The Intelligent Woman’s Guide To Socialism, Capitalism, Sovietism, and Fascism (1937).
Comments are closed.