The Republican Party, and by implication freedom in general, has suffered a grievous setback with the explicit abandonment of all conservative principles by the Bush Administration in its oversea aggression against a defenseless and impoverished Iraq and its abandonment of all pretenses of adherence to a “limited” government ideology in domestic affairs. The complicity of the Republican-controlled congress makes the situation even worse, for here we have the spectacle of a Republican President and Republican-controlled congress, together for the first time in fifty years, doing the exact opposite of what was promised pre-election and which has been the fodder of conservative talk-show hosts, speeches, and think-tank press releases from time immemorial: the growth in the ability of our federal leviathan to control our lives and make the world a more dangerous place for all of us.
If the anti-capitalist social-democratist left needed anything to boost their flagging ideology, this is it. It has now been proven to the general population beyond a shadow of doubt that what the socialistic left has been saying for decades is true; capitalism is inherently corrupt and those who espouse its tenets in government are the shills of corrupt big-business types who would like nothing better than to exploit third-world labor and resources as best they can to the hilt. The supposed protectors of individual rights and the freedom of trade amongst individuals without which personal freedom is a sham have done more than anyone to damage the cause of freedom. The renaissance of classical-liberal thinking which has taken place in this country since the early 1970’s has now been almost entirely sold out in the political realm. It is not possible for free-market think tanks like CATO to gain more influence then they currently have with the Republican Party and the public at large. “Been there, done that” is the attitude free-marketeers now face in light of the failed “free-trade” scams like NAFTA which these groups supported. As Ayn Rand once perceptively said with regard to the same political party, freedom has been sold-out by its own protectors, who bear heavily the burden of guilt in her passing.
For anarcho-capitalists (defenders of the natural order, Lockean or Rothbardian anarchists, call us what you will) such as myself, the idea to approaching politics has typically been to select the lesser of two evils. The Republican Party is bad, one might think when looking at electoral choices, but the Democratic party is a hell of a lot worse. Ergo, the best idea in advancing the cause of freedom would be to elect a mushy self-effacing and self-contradicting Republican over a devoutly egalitarian power-worshipping leftist Democrat. This kind of thinking has a certain plausibility to it. It’s rather analogous to being on a sinking ship in the middle of the sea or among the victims of a medieval siege; if one doesn’t join the bucket brigade or attempt to help “hold the lines,” what else is one to do?
Unfortunately, as has historically been the case with those who seek to strictly limit the use of force in human affairs, this strategy has proven to be extremely short-sited and has back-fired big time. By supporting people who mouth the slogans of limited government while acting on the opposite of principles the defenders of liberty have once again been out-maneuvered by the left. Freedom has been discredited and the ideology of all those who pretend to protect minority interests against the machinations of power (whether this power be “economic” or “cultural”) by, paradoxically, using the power of violence, but cause strife and faction where it would not naturally exist, has gained the day.
If you disagree with me and think I’m mistaken in predicting this (because this is a sort of prediction; I speak in the present tense because I believe the groundwork is there ready to be exploited by the left), I can only say I hope you’re right. But much like the hope expressed by school-voucher advocates that the implementation of their program won’t lead to the very opposite of their goal and eliminate private schooling in this country altogether, I think it is the hope of fools.
At this point, one might ask, what strategy should the defender of liberty and freedom adopt? Is there anything one can do short of giving up the game and waiting for the next revolution which may or may not take place in our lifetime?
I think two strategies present themselves, one devious and risky, but sure to expose the impossible distopian nature of modern leftism, and a second frank and open but fraught with pains and difficulties and no sure guarantee of success.
The first strategy would be to stick to one’s principles in explicitly rejecting statism and totalitarianism in all of its forms, but to vote for and support the left with the idea that the sooner the immorality and unworkability of a massive leviathan intruding into all of our affairs becomes obvious to even the most intellectually slavish portion of the public, the better. Kind of the opposite strategy enunciated above. This has the advantage of giving explicit empirical reality to the consequences of socialism and interpersonal state interventionism.
No one could doubt the results of statism then. Or could they? I think history has shown the need of the public to find a scapegoat for national tragedy and the willingness of their temporal leaders to deliver one up. With the apparent intellectual decline in public discourse over the last fifty years in this country, the possibility of this happening has only been increased, in my opinion. Even ignoring the probable bloodshed and chaos such a strategy could result in, its simply too risky of a venture. In letting the disease run it’s course, we run the risk of killing the patient. The cost is simply too high, even putting aside (for a brief moment) the moral conundrums involved.
The second strategy would be to advocate a clear and concise political platform of adherence to principle while refusing to support Republican candidates for office who either have a history of speaking with a forked-tongue or who explicitly reject the principles of individual rights and limited government. What this means in reality is backing away from the Republican party as currently constituted and, while not forsaking politics altogether, it does mean refusing to participate in the electoral process when none of the candidates, be they on the right or left, fit the bill. While this strategy if acted upon by a large-enough number of people would mean, in the short-run, more political power for the left, what it could result in, in the long-run, is a reconstitution of the right along classical-liberal lines. But this strategy could only be enacted if enough of us throw off our political apathy vis-à-vis the daily grind of political action and participate in the Republican party, speaking out against Republican candidates who do not regard principle as inviolate, and making our views known to the general public as best we can.
This would naturally be a long and slow, possibly torturous, process which again might not come to fruition for decades to come. But I think it’s one that is eminently worth undertaking, if only for the fact that once a man realizes that reality demands of him a certain course of action, no matter how difficult the undertaking, he really has no choice in the matter. His values and his principles guide him.
In saying all of this I don’t pretend to be ahead of the tide here. I’m simply riding the wave of a new political undercurrent of which LewRockwell.com and antiwar.com are a big part. I also grant many of us are already engaged in just this process of which I speak. But I seek something further, albeit undefined as of yet. Whether this something further be a loosely-organized group led by someone with the ability to make it work, like Justin Raimondo, or whether it be enacted solely on the individual level with people engaging in this type of activity with an understanding of the common end towards which they work, I have no idea which is best. But I do know that a new, explicit and, especially, enunciated strategy is called for. And that this strategy should include both participation in political processes and an uncompromising stand on principle.
The future of liberty depends upon its protectors. It's a job that can only be accomplished by people of principle and understanding. People like those of us who read and support LRC.
That is, by people like you and me.
June 6, 2003
