A month ago, I answered a question about reconciling the absence of libertarian societies with the supposed superiority of libertarian principles.
I gave an uncharacteristically optimistic response, arguing that the world in many ways has become more free thanks to libertarian policies (or, to be more accurate, a decline in statism).
This led to several follow-up questions, mostly premised on the notion that I must be smoking crack to think government has become less of a burden. My defense would be that the world is more free than it was 40 years ago, but probably less free than it was 10 years ago, so it depends on your benchmark. And I definitely agree that the world is trending toward less freedom (with these charts being a very sobering example).
But the question that caught my eye, and makes for a good follow-up, comes from a reader in Missouri: “Why aren’t libertarians more persuasive?”
To elaborate, the question assumes that libertarianism is the right approach and that the evidence supports libertarian policies, so another way of phrasing the question is: “What is wrong with libertarians that they can’t sell libertarian ideas?”
The easy and simple answer is to say the problem is that the people are too susceptible to being bribed by politicians. As illustrated by the chart, more and more Americans are getting hooked on the heroin of government dependency.
And as more Americans adopt the moocher mindset found in Vermont, libertarians have a hard time developing a winning message.
But I think the reader is really asking whether the problem with libertarianism is…well, libertarians.
This is a fair question. Having given hundreds of speeches and engaged in thousands of conversation, I can say that many people make the following assumptions about libertarians.
1. On economic policy, libertarians don’t care about the poor. Since I work on fiscal issues, this is the one I deal with all the time. I try to explain – ad nauseam – that we want smaller government and more economic freedom because faster growth is the only effective way to lower poverty and help the poor. But a lot of people think we’re defending the status quo.
2. On social policy, libertarians are libertines, embracing and endorsing hedonism. This is probably the most common stereotype, and there definitely are libertarians who are motivated by a desire to get rid of laws that impinge on their freedom to do things like smoke pot. But the libertarian position is not that pot is good, but rather that prohibition is bad.
3. On foreign policy, libertarians are oblivious to external threats such as al Qaeda. I’ve had several people, for instance, complain about Ron Paul opposing the killing of Osama bin Laden, and they assume that means libertarians are somehow the modern-day equivalent of Soviet appeasers. Yet our message is that we favor national defense, but that we think we’ll have far less need to defend ourselves if we stop intervening in ways that have nothing to do with national security.
4. And in general, libertarians are ultra-individualists who reject concepts such as community, family, and nation. While it’s true that libertarians are motivated by individual freedom, opposition to government coercion does not imply that people can’t be good neighbors or good parents. Indeed, we would argue that a free society promotes private virtue. And there’s nothing inconsistent with patriotism and libertarianism, as illustrated by this t-shirt.
Looking at what I’ve written, I realize I haven’t answered the question. All I’ve done is identified some stereotypes and explained why they’re not accurate.
So I’ll simply conclude by making a rather unremarkable observation that overcoming these perceptions is a big challenge for libertarians – assuming that we want to make greater inroads with the masses.
P.S. I got nagged by several readers for not posting a “Question of the Week” last weekend. What can I say, I’m old and forgetful. But you can always peruse previous versions if you’re somehow suffering.
But I’ll try to compensate for my oversight with some humor. Since this post is about the supposed shortcoming of libertarians, here’s some self-mocking humor. We’ll start with a video portraying Somalia as a libertarian paradise, followed by cartoons on libertarian ice fishing and libertarian lifeguards, then an info-graphic showing 24 types of libertarians, and close with a poster showing how the world sees libertarians.
Recently turned Libertarian.
Quick answer: The arguments and messages take way too long to develop.
We need a quick hook to at least draw people in, and then let the rest take place. We all see the same problems and we all care about them. The difference is that the proper course of action of more economic freedom requires some thought and explanation. Most people are reacting with their emotions, which is way too quick and not thought out, and only steers people in the wrong direction.
Solution: Have a concise and quick knockout punch.
luckily, after perusing lots of articles on this site, I found it. Its a quote from Thomas Sowell:
I’ve often said there are three questions that would destroy most of the arguments on the left.
The first is: ‘Compared to what?’
The second is: ‘At what cost?’
And the third is: ‘What hard evidence do you have?’
Sow the seeds of doubt, let it lead to thought, the rest will be history.
One candidate in the earlier California recall election understood it was rigged, yet ran so that the entrenched parties would remember his (dumb) single plank and take it seriously. Our job is not to elect candidates, rather, to defeat the ones most opposed to our original platform. The Prohibition and Income Tax Amendments caused the Great Depression after coercive bigots got 1.4% of the vote in 11 campaigns. That is the spoiler vote leverage revealed by the 1955 Solomon Asch experiment. persistent integrity uses under 5% of the votes to change laws for better or worse.
[…] The bad news is that our quirkiness seems to limit our ability to persuade. […]
[…] sometimes wonder why libertarians aren’t more persuasive given that there’s so much evidence for our […]
[…] P.P.S. I’m no Cal Ripken or Lou Gehrig, but I have a personal streak. I’ve written a column every day since November 10, 2009. I realize the world won’t end if I skip a day, but maintaining this streak is a way of forcing myself to stay productive. Now I have to figure out how to be effective. […]
[…] often tend to be quirky and unconventional (or even “autistic dorks“), which makes it more challenging to win new […]
[…] wonder we have a hard time getting others to agree with our […]
[…] My goal in all this is to figure out how nerdy libertarians can be more persuasive. […]
[…] no desire for government sanctions against peaceful people who are different than you are, and that should be a very popular stance. You can be a libertarian who is also a serious fundamentalist, yet you have […]
[…] In the fight for libertarian policy, we face several obstacles, including the “public choice” pressure for ever-growing government, as well as the fact that we simply need to learn how to be more persuasive. […]
[…] not easy being a libertarian, especially in election […]
[…] not easy being a libertarian, especially in election […]
[…] not easy being a libertarian, especially in election […]
The reason is because they are not allowed to participate in the debates. Simple as that.
[…] no desire for government sanctions against peaceful people who are different than you are, and that should be a very popular […]
[…] no desire for government sanctions against peaceful people who are different than you are, and that should be a very popular […]
[…] like a reasonable governing philosophy to me, but some people object to being treated like adults and they lash out with very silly attacks on […]
[…] Unfortunately, libertarians are the exception. There are lots of other people in the world who think they should be able to impose their values on others. Oh, well, I never claimed it was easy to be libertarian. […]
On foreign policy, I think the premise that non-interventionism is the key to greater peace and stability is questionable. Power abhors a vacuum. If America doesn’t promote its values abroad, others will promote theirs.
Those who lose the cultural, ideological, economic, political and military initiative to other powers by hunkering down and becoming reactive (basically applying the Objectivist concept of “no initiation of coercive force or fraud” to international affairs – ala the Pauls) will find themselves increasingly exposed to enemies who’ve built up infrastructures in our absence.
Our allies will be few, as they’ll soon realize that the “first punch” we’re waiting for in order to respond to a growing potential threat will likely hit them hard enough to wipe them out (e.g. Israel). If we continue with a bunker mentality, the first punch we’re awaiting to provide us moral sanction may hit the US so hard it’s catastropic.
Couple that with other Libertarian policies such as open borders and free trade and we will find ourselves occupying a porous, unsecure bunker that’s been economically hollowed out, making the foregoing all the more tempting for adventurous despots.
Deterrence requires preemptive action at times. The worst thing we could do would be to lock ourselves into the Randian “no initiation” policy in foreign affairs. That moral code works when you are dealing with other honorable and rational operators, or within a framework where such operators can control outcomes. The present international geopolitical order is “law of the jungle, might makes right, survival of the fittest.” We sadly have to accept that reality and behave in a more Machiavellian fashion, and the world is lucky that we are both the rightest and the mightiest and can remain so if our will is strong. Maybe someday we will help give birth to a new order that could follow Rand’s precepts, but that order does not yet exist, and if we let the West collapse, we will lose decades if not centuries of progress towards that goal.
The problem with libertarians is that there are people who confirm the stereotypes. For example, I heard Yaron Brook talk at my college. He argued strongly against private charity and for an ethics based on selfishness. He basically was preaching objectivism like a revivalist.
Libertarians need to understand that persuasion needs to start from some place of agreement. I’ve moved from viewing libertarians as my mortal enemy (I work in government handling compliance with government regulations) to appreciating their role in holding off a tyrannical yet incompetent state. Creating distrust of government is not a bad thing – reminding people that laws mean the use of force is very good.
Beating the drum about drug legalization is not a strong opening argument, nor are purely economic arguments. Going after government is a better target – a lot of people are disappointed in government, even those in or reliant on the government. Give it a moral dimension – making most citizen guilty of three felonies a day is outright evil.
[…] Unfortunately, libertarians are the exception. There are lots of other people in the world who think they should be able to impose their values on others. Oh, well, I never claimed it was easy to be libertarian. […]
[…] I know there are stereotypes about libertarians being a bunch of dorks. […]
[…] thankful that there are some libertarians willing to raise a stink about government even if the rest of the world thinks we’re a bit odd. As we’ve seen dozens of times, most recently with the IRS and NSA, bureaucrats and politicians […]
[…] thankful that there are some libertarians willing to raise a stink about government even if the rest of the world thinks we’re a bit odd. As we’ve seen dozens of times, most recently with the IRS and NSA, bureaucrats and politicians […]
[…] Last but not least, if you decide to be a libertarian, I hope you can figure out how to make our cause more popular. […]
As soon as one creates a label one departs from imparting deep and rich meaning that is so useful., Furthermore labels soon become targets hence defeating the purpose of the works. It is then that one is rendered powerless.
Go Libertarian International, but my goodness man if you want it to do some work or have to be specific. Please don’t just talk in generalities. Save the cause. Just like using the term “Tea Paty,” no one really know what the hell they mean when they use it. It is principles underneath Tea Party that are powerful specifics, like founding principles of virtue, value, honesty, mutual exchange, reliance, reliability, integrity, durability, confidence, self reliance, credit, tender, legal, contract, enforceable, goods, verification, fungible, trade, warranty, render, rent, hypothecate, writ, expunge, subordinate, bond, fund, asset, liability, debt, owe, pay, admonish, arrest, leverage, compute, account, relief, acquit, pledge, promise, draft, instrument, basis, interest bearing, amortize, depreciate, sell, collect, receivable, payable, equity, balance, truth-in- lending, legal tender, and many more. If one does not clarify what one means by what one says there is very little impact of lasting value to the communication.
Subjective coercion!
Until you solve for facts, meaning, and definitions you are confusing potential supporters. So far you are allowing multiple and unlimited meanings and definitions to facts or vocabulary words. Too many meanings! Chaos is unlimited meanings to one fact. Vocabulary man, vocabulary. Please define your vocabulary. Guess what Obama and his minions are about creating Chaos through destroying reliability even in vocabulary. Get it? Libertarians mean well but are being horn-swagled by their own entangled esoteric
meanings. One can’t practice libertarian if one doesn’t know what it is. Lack of definition is subjective politics or subjective coercion!
[…] Last but not least, if you decide to be a libertarian, I hope you can figure out how to make our cause more popular. […]
[…] Last but not least, if you decide to be a libertarian, I hope you can figure out how to make our cause more popular. […]
[…] Last but not least, if you decide to be a libertarian, I hope you can figure out how to make our cause more popular. […]
Looking at the commenters and the article I would say the problem is confusing conservatism with Libertarianism. Those are also often the nutcases.
They don’t get that most Lib-oriented in the US are democrats. They put Obama in: Space privatization, guns in parks, medical marihuana and LGBT advances, middle class tax cuts, and Obamacare if it were Social Security would be hailed as a triumph of Lib-oriented ideas with exceptions for medical co-ops, state plans and so on. Oh, and he’s Black. Obama would have been the Libertarian extremist in 1973. That’s where progressives are:-50 years behind.
Most of these people here seem unaware of how far Libertarians have dealt with issues such as police privatization and elevator inspection because the live in a right-wing bubble where most think GLBT and medical marihuana are losers as the nations is changing around them.
The Libertarian International movement began with a few pledged people in 1969 and today is at 8 million worldwide. They’ve transformed every government on Earth including the Vatican. They’re taking out the last dictaorships while everyone else theorizes about what is going on.See: http://www.libertarianinternational.org
This was done without any serious spending, and most pro-libertarians are in China and India–very tough sells in 1969. The don’t even think civics is the main issue.
In 1973 people thought Libertarians were Librarians. now they debate how much Libertarianism they want. From a handful to 8 million.
Seems persuasive to me.
[…] be thankful that there are some libertarians willing to raise a stink about government even if the rest of the world thinks we’re a bid odd. As we’ve seen dozens of times, most recently with the IRS and NSA, bureaucrats and […]
[…] to admit that part of the problem is that libertarians (like me!) tend to be a strange breed and we occasionally rub people the wrong way. Needless to say, this sometimes makes it difficult to gain new […]
[…] I’m not under any illusion that everyone is open to our ideas. Particularly since, as I wrote a couple of weeks ago, we get falsely stereotyped as being heartless, hedonistic, anti-social, and naively […]
I think that at least part of the problem is that libertarians have a tendency to focus on the issues where they are most at odds with the general public. When libertarians talk about low taxes, most Americans agree. When they talk about reducing commitments to foreign countries, most Americans cheer. When they talk about reducing regulations, it’s a winnable battle, at least if you start with the dumbest regulations.
But very, very often, when a libertarian is given a chance to present his position, he starts out with the toughest sells. Like, not long ago I went to a libertarian web site and the main page highlighted two issues: drug legalization and gay marriage. Does anybody seriously think that those are the two strongest issues for libertarians? I regularly hear libertarians talk about their plan to privatize the roads and police protection. Surely these are among the toughest areas for a strictly free-market approach to be implemented.
If you want to win somebody over to your cause, you should start with the areas of greatest agreement. Show them how they are already at least partly on your side. Then move to issues where they are not too far from you, and try to nudge them a little your way. Way, way down the road, when you have won some important initial victories, it will be time to move on to the tougher issues. Start with controlling taxes and spending, cutting regulation, and protecting basic freedoms, and I think you could easily win a lot of support. When those battles are won and libertarian policies are in place, THEN it will be time to talk about how to privatize local roads.
Moisés Naím´s arguments on the “evanescense of power” can give some reason for optimism to the “hippies of the right” 🙂 http://www.economist.com/news/business/21573522-powerful-do-not-stay-way-long-transience-power
“then why are people today susceptible to statist bribes?” It’s not just “statist bribes”. Americans have been conditioned this way due to the many luxuries and distractions present in our First-world economy. Take a vacation at any time to a Third-world economy and stay there for a few months and then come back. You’ll find out very quickly that the US has become a highly organized culture, to put it nicely, with many things in front of us that make thinking or caring about things other than ourselves increasingly challenging. From food to technology, cars, houses–and there’s beauty all around us. Americans tend to think of themselves as “special” as conditioned by both parents and the culture of state-monopolized education. So making the jump from these issues to gov’t entitlements isn’t a huge leap for many. Like I said earlier, the problem isn’t just government. The problem is us. Beyond the message, technology should be seen as the bridge to resolving all or part of these issues, and that is the correct channel given our propensity to rely on it for so much.
Also see: https://www.facebook.com/FreedomThroughTechnology
A large percentage of the population, when polled with the abstract question “Is the answer to our problems more government programs?” will say “No.” If this is the case, then why are people today susceptible to statist bribes? Why don’t they see that demanding “their share of the pork” will damage them with the rest of the country in the long term? Why aren’t they concerned with the relevant economic and moral principles?
It’s because they never learned to think in rational principles in the first place. They were taught by their parents, schools and college professors (especially in the humanities) that principles don’t work, and that moral principles, such as individual rights, are most useless of all. Moral principles are the province either of subjective societal convention, personal whim, or mystical revelation. “Who is to say what’s right or wrong, in morality or economics?” the subjectivists will tell you (or imply). “It’s all just a matter of opinion and emotion, and I feel like we need government to provide minimal help to the needy. By the way, I need my Medicare benefits.”
“God commanded that we all should help the needy,” many of the religious will tell you. “We think that most help should be given through private religious charities, but we acknowledge that there are some indigent people that need welfare. This is because people are naturally selfish bastards, and there aren’t that many truly selfless and virtuous people who will give enough to charity voluntarily. By the way, my church and my charity need their tax-exempt status, and my local farmers need their subsidies.”
Advocates of liberty have to be able to confidently say, “No, moral and economic principles are not subjective or mystical. They are objective, rational and have real, destructive consequences when violated at all, even a little bit.” The philosophy that can teach people this is Objectivism.
I believe we,and I will say for myself…I am tired of being tred upon. Clasification between the two parties are now on the same projectory. We have become so lyberial that we can’t give up anymore ground. This is why libertarianism is not flexible.
vv has it and V-MAX needs to read Lawrence Wright’s new book, Going Clear.
The real political scale is from anarchy/individualist on one end to socialist/totalitarian on the other end. Most people also need to believe in a god or secular authority. Libertarianism is difficult because it’s like not believing in a god or secular authority. There’s no answer/alternative as there is in “you’re wrong and my plan is right”. Decentralized/individual belief and decisions with personal responsibility (under stable rule of law) is no answer to the “do something” mentality and the “government-can-never-be-wrong-or-the-source-of-the-problem-and-the-answer-is-always-more-government-or-more-money” crowd. Why aren’t libertarians more persuasive? They don’t have answers. They only have opposition to what doesn’t work. It’s hard to run or “govern” on that. What would a real libertarian elected President do? Try to overturn existing laws and veto new ones. How is that going to go over?
libertarians are creepy… the political equivalent to scientologists… it’s the “creepy” factor that prevents wider acceptance of the libertarian message… they largely read as self absorbed misfits perusing a radical political and social agenda… based on personal freedom and the pursuit of happiness… subversives one and all…
It’s still the wrong question, which should be: If a libertarian world would be better, how do we get from where we are to where we want to be?
Over the last 100 years, progressives have created a dependent society by bribing voters. Reversing that will take at least a generation. However, there is hope. We can use the enormous pool of redistribution funds to bribe voters to get rid of the nanny-crats that manage the current process, by going direct.
Before we can move toward a better future commitments to those currently dependent on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid must be satisfied.
Having done that, we can establish a highly progressive tax code, using a flat tax (25%) plus citizen only cash payments. These cash payments would be the same for all (over 21), regardless of income. This universal safety-net would be paid for using funds from current deductions ($1 T) means-tested programs ($700 B) and 1/3 of current entitlements ($500 B).
Everyone would keep 75% of what they earn, with employers filing annual tax forms. For those currently paying taxes, cash payment replaces deductions. For those receiving support, cash payment replaces federal means-tested support. Each state would make up the difference [or not]. Blue states might make up the difference for Julia’s Mother, whereas red states might opt for charities to handle special cases. Those receiving entitlements would have a 1/3 cut, for no net loss in benefits. Legal immigrants would receive tax rebates.
Going forward the cost of cash payments would decrease relative to GDP, since increases due to inflation adjustment and population growth should be less than GDP growth. Entitlements would be reduced incrementally over a 30 year period.
Over time our population would transition from dependence to independence.
For more on this see:
I would also add, on the issue of persuasion and message–how to go about transforming libertarianism not just as a political philosophy, but as a brand.
Libertarianism needs to be more than just a set of policy proposals, web site, or a party–it needs to become an idea with a compelling narrative: that [for example] individualism is the central theme to lasting freedom, etc. Too many people have that idea mixed up with being synonymous with the Democrats and some Republicans. For as much as I love Cato, Reason, et al, I don’t think that’s been effectively accomplished to reach a mass audience. At least not yet.
My issue with libertarians, Dan Mitchell excluded, is that they are generally rude bullies. I’m a radio talk show host and an activist and my experience has been largely, though not entirely, that libertarians insult and attack other conservatives over every minor difference. It isn’t the policies or principles, its the condescending and self-righteous attitude.
A big part of the problem, as can be seen in your list of stereotypes, is that people’s political and economic ideas are largely shaped by their more basic philosophical views. Their views on morality and human nature–and their general disregard for principles–cause them to ignore your economic arguments as just a bunch of “ideal-world theory” that can’t hold up in the real world.
The battle must be fought with a union of moral and practical/economic arguments. The argument must courageously uphold the validity of moral principles. Only then, do advocates of liberty have a chance at convincing a large number of people to embrace the principle of individual rights.
Here’s a talk by Yaron Brook that I highly recommend: Yaron Brook: Free Market Revolution.
I think it’s much simpler (and, unfortunately, more depressing). The principles that bind and propel libertarian society forward (free exchange, for ex) are cognitively more difficult than the alternative (that the right central planner with enough power can make my life better).
FWIW, I don’t think that even historically, American’s deeply understood this particular causality — they embraced “freedom” & “independence” more as a cultural prerogative than a Hayekian organization one. BUT, regardless of “why” they preferred this policy, as a libertarian, I’m happy they (generally) voted that way.
Minus that particular common cultural fabric, we’re left trying to make the intellectual case, which, unfortunately doesn’t line up with the “folk economics” most people assume to be true….
Another answer is that for every sane, reasonable libertarian, you have two or more who are nuts. They often start out persuasive and then run off the rails. For example, our local libertarian candidate sounded great until she insisted that one reason to get government out of our lives is so the truth about UFOs would be exposed.
For the more down to earth libertarian, proposals like getting rid of elevator inspectors and the problem will resolve itself are inhumane and patently absurd. At its core, pure libertarianism elevates the individual beyond reason, which will lead to anarchism because that’s human nature. If society truly went libertarian, it would exist for a fleeting moment before the strongmen took advantage and enslaved everyone.
Hence why I am actually a classical liberal (as were Hayek and Friedman) for which there is no movement and that’s because classical liberalism (and libertarianism, to be fair) doesn’t provide a way for those in power to sustain that power in a predictable manner.
The more I know about Libertarianism, the more I know that I am one. In my perfect, or “better” world, there would be no democrats or republicans. There are major philosophical problems with both. Instead, Libertarian and Tea Party. And don’t waste any breath on socialism, communism or fascism. They should be religated to the trash bin of history. That’s my theory about beginning a solution to our problems.
Interesting perspective, Dan. I really enjoy this blog and read it often. I’m glad that you continue to post on important issues such as this.
My opinion is that the spread of libertarianism is not just a policy challenge, it is a communications challenge. As for libertarians, many of them are VERY wonky, at least for my social circle. What we as a movement suffer from is a thin talent pool, and a bit of hubris coming from the policy crowd who somehow believe that by sticking to your principles, everyone will eventually get it. WRONG ANSWER.
The problem that all political parties suffer from is creative thinking to solve the ever-growing list of complexities brought on by the state. So while we may argue for smaller government, there still remains a LONG list of issues to be dealt with that won’t simply be resolved by cutting programs. That may be a start, but as you’ve just mentioned, when there are so many within our country who want someone to take care of them when the chips are down, the problem is more than just the role of government. The problem is US. We the people.
As a movement, we have to be more engaged, and to use this moment in time where so many are dialed in to their laptops and smartphones to find unique ways to use technology to collaboratively find solutions to our problems, and leverage developments on the Internet (youtube, facebook, etc.) to get the message out.
The more I understand about Libertarianism, the more I know that I are one, and the more I think Democrats and Republicans are in desperation mode. In my perfect world there would be Libertarians and… Tea Partiers. That should be sufficient to represent our people. Don’t waste any breath on socialism, communism, fascism. They should be in the dust bin of history as total failures! Now, I don’t register as a Libertarian because as such, there would be no primary election.
We need to fix the “primary problem.” Anything we citizens could do about that situation?
Since public schools, police protection, and paved roads and highways are all government “benefits,” I think your chart is off by about 50%.