America's selective libertarians
There's an old rule in journalism: All you need are three good examples to prove a trend.
By that measure, writer Robert Draper had more than he needed to declare a new “libertarian moment” in American politics. In a New York Times Magazine cover story, Draper made exactly that case. His chief evidence: Young people are more libertarian today and libertarian ideas are having a renaissance on the right. Also, self-described “libertarian-ish” Sen. Rand Paul's star is on the rise, thanks in part to national exhaustion with foreign interventions. Plus: recent victories for legalized weed and gay marriage.
These things are largely true, but Draper is still wrong or at least not quite as right as he would like.
As liberal writer Jonathan Chait notes, much of the polling showing that young people are libertarian has been done by organizations eager to find that result. So while it is true that young people are more “libertarian” on social issues and foreign policy, they are also more progressive on the role of government. Pew finds that 53 percent of millennials favor “bigger government.” Chait writes, “That young voters actually favor ‘bigger government' in the abstract is a sea change in generational opinion, not to mention conclusive evidence against their alleged libertarianism.”
On the other hand, it's also true that young people are more libertarian than ever before. How can that be? First, as The Federalist's Ben Domenech points out, the millennials are the biggest generation in American history. It can be collectively more socialist while still containing more libertarians than ever before.
Second, it's the most diverse generation in history and non-whites favor bigger government by wide margins.
Last, not only is the millennial generation collectively inconsistent, most individual young Americans are inconsistent, too.
Everyone considers himself libertarian on the issues he's libertarian about. If you think government shouldn't collect your email and phone logs, you're libertarian on national security issues. If you think you have a right to carry a firearm, you're libertarian about guns. And so it goes with drugs, property rights, free speech, health care, etc.
In principle most Americans simply want government to do good where it can and do no harm anywhere else. Moreover, people want to maximize freedom in the abstract, but they are loath to pay much of a price for it in their own lives.
People tend to be libertarian only after it's demonstrated to them that the government can't deliver the results they want. And that, I think, is the elephant in the room Draper largely misses.
Example is the school of mankind and they will learn at no other, Edmund Burke observed. What he meant was that you can't just tell people X won't work; they have to see and experience the failure of X on their own.
To the extent that libertarian ideas are gaining new currency outside the GOP, it's because of government's failures. Particularly for young people, the yawning chasm between the efficiency of the private sector and the haplessness of the public sector is poisonous to faith in government. The VA scandal, the clownish rollout of the ObamaCare website and the near wholesale inability of Barack Obama to deliver on his economic promises have done more to breathe new life into libertarianism than a thousand lectures about Friedrich Hayek's “Road to Serfdom” ever could.
Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and editor-at-large of National Review Online.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Padres snap Pirates’ 7-game win streak
- Steelers nose tackle McCullers finds performance, fitness go hand in hand
- Paddleboard classes focus on fitness
- Driver dies, students hurt in school van crash in Indiana County
- Point Park graduate’s ‘mugshot’ photos hit nerve on racism
- Hurdle says Pirates must eliminate defensive gaffes
- Pittsburgh roots shape former Md. governor’s outlook in run for president
- Judge dismisses UPMC ‘data breach’ lawsuit
- Pittsburgh’s HealthyRide system begins launch Sunday
- Seton Hill won’t manage new apartment project for student housing in city
- Delay sought in enforcing regulation to make mortgages easier to understand