I plan to argue that libertarianism is likely to shift from being a right wing ideology to a centrist ideology. To do so, I’d like to revisit a post I did back in 2011, which proposed a three part ideological framework. The post was a bit half-baked, so I hope to improve it here by grounding it in more clearly thought out principles.
Here’s the graph I proposed, drawn by commenter Vlad Tarko:
Why not a two side ideology—left and right? Or how about the four-quadrant approach favored by many libertarians? Why do I have three ideologies, each combined with two value systems, leading to 6 outcomes?
Let’s start with the left/right ideological axis, which has been around since at least the French Revolution. Intellectuals on the left would probably define “right wing” as follows: The right supports government policies that favor the stronger groups in our society. These might be economic policies that protect the rich. They might be ethnic nationalism that favors the dominant ethnic group. They might be rules that enforce the moral values of the dominant religion. They might be pro-military policies. According to this view, the left supports government policies that favor the weak and downtrodden.
This perspective has a grain of truth, although of course the left also favors policies that support groups such as intellectuals, educators, public employees unions, and others that are hardly weak and downtrodden. Nonetheless, this left/right dichotomy does make some sense.
Then I’d argue that modern political systems tend to move society toward a “two tribe” structure. Even in the multiparty democracies in Europe, you often end up with one governing coalition and a primary opposition party. And of course referenda are even more intrinsically binary. Thus a society with 13 tribes ends up with a political system with two super-tribes, each of which is a coalition of smaller tribes. This is how the left/right spit forms.
But then why three ideologies? There’s a third option—government policies that do not directly favor any tribe—the minimal state. (Yes, I know that laissez-faire indirectly favors some people, I’ll come back to that important point later.)
But why not four ideologies: Government policies that favor tribe A, policies than favor tribe B, policies that favor neither and policies that favor both? On closer inspection, it’s not really possible for policy to favor both. Consider the four policy regimes:
1. Tax everyone $1000 and give all the money to tribe A.
1. Tax everyone $1000 and give all the money to tribe B.
3. Tax everyone $1000, and give $1000 to everyone.
4. Tax no one.
On closer inspection, option 3 and 4 are basically identical. So in a two-tribe polity, there are three possible ideologies. Have policy favor A, have policy favor B, or laissez-faire (do nothing.) Just as a math set with {0, 1, -0 and -1} is identical to a set with {0, 1 and -1}.
Back around 1800, laissez faire ideology (classical liberalism) was viewed as a left wing ideology. That’s because governments had traditionally extracted taxes from peasants to provide a more lavish lifestyle for aristocrats. By the late 1800s, classical liberalism began to be seen as a more right wing ideology, which allowed “robber barons” to exploit downtrodden workers. In America, it has continued to be viewed as a right wing ideology (often called libertarianism), even in recent decades. But this may be about to shift.
In a recent post, I pointed out that many conservative intellectuals are becoming highly dissatisfied with ideas associated with laissez-faire, such as “neoliberalism” and “radical individualism”. These new conservatives are increasingly willing to embrace a strong state that promotes conservative values. This might include nationalism, protectionism, immigration restriction and enforcing religious values. If this shift becomes real and sweeps most of the conservative movement, then the libertarian position will no longer be seen as particularly right wing. It may not be seen as left wing (as progressives are moving left in recent years), but it will be seen as more centrist than before–at least in a left/right sense. A sort of radical centrism. That idea is probably more understandable to Latin Americans.
Let’s apply the three ideologies to housing policy:
1. The left: Nimbyism to protect low-income neighborhoods from gentrification.
2. The right: Nimbyism to protect affluent neighborhoods from construction of apartments for the working class.
3. Classical liberals: Yimby!
The previous post also posited that there are two value systems for each ideology. For the left and the right there are both “corrupt” (i.e. selfish) and idealistic proponents of their ideology. It makes less sense to use this dichotomy for libertarians, as their ideology forces them to oppose interventionist policies that favor their own financial interest. You might object, “But don’t low taxes favor the rich?” Yes, but a truly corrupt rich person would not be satisfied with low taxes, he’d demand affirmative government policies (tariffs, subsidies, etc.) that favored his financial interests. But that policy would not be libertarian. He’d become a right winger who hid behind “pro-capitalism” rhetoric. We’ve all met that sort of person.
Instead of an idealistic/corrupt dichotomy, in the 2011 post I found it more useful to divide libertarians up into “consequentialists” (such a utilitarians) and “deontologicalists” (who believe freedom is a “natural right”). To be clear, I’m not arguing that libertarian intellectuals are more pure than left or right intellectuals. Indeed true believers in any of the three ideologies tend to be idealistic, and the corrupt part of the left and right tribes barely pays any attention to principled arguments.
To the extent that a few people seemed to find my wheel to be clever, it was because of the way the six groups related to each neighbor. This is the part of the post that The Economist (Will Wilkinson?) chose to excerpt:
My goal here is to set things up in such a way that each group has a values affinity to those on one side, and an ideological affinity to those on the other side. So you could circle any two adjoining groups, and describe a common feature:
1. Progressives/Pragmatic libertarians: Both tend to be secular utilitarians, or at least consequentialists
2. Pragmatic and dogmatic libertarians: Both favor very small government
3. Dogmatic libertarians and idealistic conservatives: Both are nostalgic for the past, and revere the (original intent of) the Constitution.
4. Idealistic conservatives and corrupt Republicans: Both are Republicans.
5. Corrupt Republicans and corrupt Dems: Both believe in realpolitik, are disdainful of fuzzy-headed, idealistic intellectuals.
6. Corrupt Democrats and idealistic progressives: Both are Democrats
Thus on values there are three pairings: utilitarian, natural rights, and selfish. On ideology there are three different pairings: Democrat, Republican and libertarian.
READER COMMENTS
Garrett
Aug 13 2020 at 9:03pm
This framing helps me to understand one of the reasons why I have more respect for local politicians than national politicians: they’re more likely to be idealistic than corrupt because the corrupt people care about climbing the ladder.
It’s also supported by quotes such as “any man [or woman] who wants to be president is either an egomaniac or crazy” and “any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so”.
Daniel Klein
Aug 13 2020 at 11:47pm
Scott writes: “Back around 1800, laissez faire ideology (classical liberalism) was viewed as a left wing ideology.”
Who in 1800, exactly, viewed it as left wing?
And in what sense?
(As for terminology, the language of left/right didn’t come into the English language until the 20th century. Check ngram viewer.)
Your post offers a definition of “right” according to leftists.
What is your definition of left?
Scott Sumner
Aug 14 2020 at 12:34pm
My understanding is that at least as far back as 1800 the term ‘left’ was being used for radical reformers (in France) and ‘right’ was being used for defenders of the status quo, which protected the privileges of the aristocrats.
But you know much more about this that I do.
Yes, I did give the left wing perspective on ideological differences, but then amended it according to my own view, which is that the left wing view is a bit self-serving.
Daniel Klein
Aug 14 2020 at 10:26pm
But is it true?
Salem Al-Damluji
Aug 14 2020 at 5:10am
It’s true that conservatives are creeping away from libertarian economics. But “liberals” are running away from libertarian social ideas. I think it likely that the libertarian embrace of social individualism is going to put them ever more firmly in the “right” coalition, even as they lose influence over its economic policy.
Scott Sumner
Aug 14 2020 at 12:38pm
Salem, I’m not convinced on that point. The left is more supportive of drug legalization than the right, for instance.
robc
Aug 14 2020 at 8:44am
I was prepared to disagree with this, as a deontological libertarian, but I don’t. Seems about right to me. I would prefer deontological to dogmatic, but good enough.
I also am willing to consider pragmatic libertarians the corrupt end.
Scott Sumner
Aug 14 2020 at 12:37pm
You may think “pragmatic libertarians” are misguided, but if you view the term ‘pragmatic’ as equivalent to ‘corrupt’ then you are simply wrong. That’s not what the terms mean, not even close.
Christophe Biocca
Aug 14 2020 at 9:47am
I think treating tax-and-redistribute as representative of the way governments implement policy to be a mistake here. Let’s pick some examples of actual policies that aren’t laissez-faire and yet enjoy broad bipartisan support:
Social Security and Medicare.
Export-Import Bank.
Price gouging laws.
Government-built-and-operated transportation infrastructure.
Federal regulatory authority over just about anything anyone can ingest, from LSD to milk.
All of these are largely fueled by the belief that “policies that benefit both tribes/everyone” exist. To economists, that sounds ridiculous (outside of public goods and externalities), but the voting public are not economists.
I’d argue your “corrupt” label is actually “dirigiste”.
Scott Sumner
Aug 14 2020 at 12:41pm
I don’t disagree with your examples, but to the extent they are supported by both sides they tell us nothing about the ideological divide in modern societies. So those issues are unrelated to this post.
robc
Aug 14 2020 at 12:44pm
If he changes “corrupt” to “dirigiste”, I think he could get those it describes to agree to the model.
Just as I would prefer “deontological” or “moral” to “dogmatic”.
Looking at it again, I think making one word match all around would work.
Dirigiste Progressive
Dirigiste Conservative
Idealistic Conservative
Idealistic Libertarian
Pragmatic Libertarian
Pragmatic Progressive
Swami
Aug 14 2020 at 3:03pm
This is a huge improvement to an excellent framework.
Thomas Hutcheson
Aug 14 2020 at 11:18am
I have what I think may be more semantic than substantive disagreements.
If “secular means respecting different religious faiths equally, I’m on board. Sometimes, however, “secular” means dismissing all equally and maybe the plurality religion more equally 😊 than others.
I’m not persuaded that it is particularly “pragmatic” for liberals to favor “small” government. I think providing public goods (health and safety regulations), taxing/subsidizing externalities (revenue neutral taxation of CO2 emissions), some “buying off” of opposition to pareto optimal policies (e.g. of NIMBY-ism, wage subsidy for minimum wages), and even moderate amounts of transferring of consumption downward (subsidized health and unemployment insurance, retirement consumption) would produce a pretty large state. These functions are presently done so inefficiently that it’s hard to say if their efficient execution would result in a “larger” or a “smaller” state.
Matthias Görgens
Aug 14 2020 at 1:28pm
The model seems like it wants to be both some kind of universal classification, but it is also deeply American.
It seems a bit like every family has eg a funny uncle, even though some families are much more somber as a whole than others.
Ie Americans and American politics are weird. There’s no reason to expect them to span any kind of logical space of possibilities in full. Especially if you restrict to the contemporary area.
Eg where would the guy who came up with the ‘dismal science’ moniker fit?
Kailer
Aug 14 2020 at 6:06pm
Glad you brought this one back Scott, about a year ago I spent over an hour trying to comb through MoneyIllusion archives to find it!
Eugene Lee
Aug 14 2020 at 6:15pm
Where would something like left anarchists or other types of libertarian socialists fit in this wheel?
Phil H
Aug 15 2020 at 1:27am
I like this cycle a lot, and feel like I can comfortably place myself on it (in the block that runs from progressive idealist to pragmatic libertarian).
The observation about how laissez-faire has changed wings chimes with my experience: Living in China, in this country the “radicals” are right wingers who favour more market freedom. They are often socially progressive as well. This makes many western political discussions absolutely impenetrable to young Chinese people, even those who are politically aware, because the groupings of viewpoints just don’t match up with what they see around them.
BC
Aug 15 2020 at 9:56am
“According to this view, the left supports government policies that favor the weak and downtrodden. This perspective has a grain of truth”
It’s also contradictory because, by definition, government policies always favor the politically strong. How else can one define political strength other than by one’s ability to get the government to enact policies that favor oneself? By definition, government taxes the politically weak and spends on the politically strong. Scott gets at this point when he notes that laissez-faire is neutral. Government policies tautologically favor the politically stronger tribe while laissez-faire means minimizing the outcomes (allocation of resources, “winners vs losers”, etc.) that are determined by government.
So, Scott’s wheel has two axes. The left side of the horizontal axis are those that want government to favor one tribe over the other(s), and the right side are those that want laissez-faire. The vertical axis seems to be about thinking in terms of outcomes at the top and rules and processes at the bottom. (Aside: “income” does not contrast with “outcome” in the way that “input” contrasts with “output”.) It seems to me that “rules/processes” contrasts more naturally with “consequentialist” than does “nostalgia”, although I can see why a consequentialist like Scott might argue that affinity towards rules/processes correlates with 19th Century nostalgia! 🙂
Comments are closed.