The Problem with Liberaltarianism

I agree-- the market is set by the government and governed by their rules.. It is NOT the natural selection of things, because they have so much of their hands on everything. All the rules and regulations that have to follow affect the "normality" of the market.
-Sylvia

Why give Progressive Leftist Political Science majors the word Liberal?

Classical Liberals are Libertarians, and I think it would do far to make that distinction abundantly clear. Modern Liberals have no conception of what Liberal was before the 1930s.

Bravo Will.

First of all, I think the liberaltarian project has already been partially successful. Liberals, in my experience, mostly now think and speak, roughly, in a classical economic framework. When Gordon Brown proposes a government intervention, he'll talk of externalities. Educated liberals tend to understand the deadweight cost of taxes. It's important to remember how unheard of this would be a few decades ago, when the left was really the Left.

The thing is, those "Harvard types" Arnold Kling so despises do tend to have a healthy respect for science, and economics is a science. It's far easier to convince people of an empirical matter (heavily regulated economies are often associated with less prosperity) than it is to convince people to change their moral framework (homosexuality isn't wrong.)

I'm a liberaltarian convert myself. I found, after doing some reading, that what I take to be the essential goal of liberalism (increasing human welfare for everyone) is actually better served by pro-market policies much of the time. It's much easier to recognize that your ideals can be reached by different means, than to actually change your ideals.

As for timing: yes, liberal wonks aren't inclined to meet anybody halfway in their moment of triumph. But what I see isn't so much among professional partisans, but among educated people who are only semi-political. They're Democrats -- Sarah Palin and the religious right make them crazy -- but they understand the subtleties (perverse incentives in bailouts and health care, deficit issues, etc.) Picture the young founder of a tech start-up. Those people are naturally liberaltarians. And sometimes they have a passing influence on policy, and a clever idea or two.

Libertarians, who have ideas but no electoral momentum, should provide Tea Party protesters, who have electoral momentum but no ideas, with ideas – or so Kling argues. The argument predicts that Tea Party protesters will nab a few seats of true bloods (or install a few opportunistically deferent Republicans) and then have the opportunity to shape policy. Kling would prefer that such policy changes truly combat the perilous centralization of power rather than have a largely symbolic impact.

But that is doubtful so long as libertarians steer clear of Tea Party protesters because the Tea Party protesters are guzzling Bud-Lite down by the Wal-Mart while the libertarians are debating the Gold Standard at the brie-and-caviar club uptown. So Kling’s critique of libertarian reluctance to mingle at the Palin protest is really a critique of elitism; kicking it with the cool liberal kids and shooting the breeze about the Chronicles of Narnia is so much more fun than talking shop at the Home Depot with the dude in the overalls. Hence, Will’s comment that high school never ends and the implication that (1) Harvard types can be taught to love free markets and (2) Tea Party protesters can be taught to love libertarian intellectualism.

My response is that would take an awful lot of savvy marketing, and libertarians are terrible typically at recruiting converts. But my real issue is with Kling’s prediction that Tea Party protesters will acquire any power. The likelier outcome, in my view, is that in certain primaries libertarian ideas will have transient currency, knocking out moderate Republicans or Republicans with a conciliatory style. The 2010 general election season will thus be more harsh and negative than would otherwise be the case. But that negativity – which will reduce turnout – will not translate into a mandate to accomplish even symbolic libertarian goals. Rather, it will lead to increased partisanship in the Senate, more obstructionism in Congress, and renewed calls to modify filibuster rules.

Libertarians, who have ideas but no electoral momentum, should provide Tea Party protesters, who have electoral momentum but no ideas, with ideas – or so Kling argues. The argument predicts that Tea Party protesters will nab a few seats of true bloods (or install a few opportunistically deferent Republicans) and then have the opportunity to shape policy. Kling would prefer that such policy changes truly combat the perilous centralization of power rather than have a largely symbolic impact.

But that is doubtful so long as libertarians steer clear of Tea Party protesters because the Tea Party protesters are guzzling Bud-Lite down by the Wal-Mart while the libertarians are debating the Gold Standard at the brie-and-caviar club uptown. So Kling’s critique of libertarian reluctance to mingle at the Palin protest is really a critique of elitism; kicking it with the cool liberal kids and shooting the breeze about the Chronicles of Narnia is so much more fun than talking shop at the Home Depot with the dude in the overalls. Hence, Will’s comment that high school never ends and the implication that (1) Harvard types can be taught to love free markets and (2) Tea Party protesters can be taught to love libertarian intellectualism.

My response is such a transformation would take an awful lot of savvy marketing, and libertarians are terrible typically at recruiting converts. But my real issue is with Kling’s prediction that Tea Party protesters will acquire any power. The likelier outcome, in my view, is that in certain primaries libertarian ideas will have transient currency, knocking out moderate Republicans or Republicans with a conciliatory style. The 2010 general election season will thus be more harsh and negative than would otherwise be the case. But that negativity – which will reduce turnout – will not translate into a mandate to accomplish even symbolic libertarian goals. Rather, it will lead to increased partisanship in the Senate, more obstructionism in Congress, and renewed calls to modify filibuster rules in the Senate.

I don't understand Will's comment either. It sounds like he admires the US version of crony capitalism.

I could have sworn I left a comment here, did it get removed? I don't recall it being particularly offensive. Just pointing out that Arnold could just be thinking realistically, making the "illiberal liberalism" of seasteading a far more viable option for libertarianism than democratic folk-activism.

More generally, you can’t expect a way of thinking to become popular with the elite if you concede from the outset that it appeals primarily to losers.
He doesn't expect it to become popular with elites. If it appeals primarily to losers, that may be just the way things are. I don't expect it to become popular with the masses either, they are generally quite unlibertarian. That's why I think the "illiberal liberalism" of seasteading is the only halfway-reasonable prospect for libertarianism.

In response to Freddie: I admit to currently living in a Illinois (through no fault of my own!), but I'm trying my damndest to get a job in Utah. Apparently I'm not that unusual among Americans, net migration seems to be from blue to red states (blue states receive more international migrants though).

Yeah, whatever. I'm a liberal, blue-state life-long Southern Californian. However, my state is in the fiscal dumps and yet I still have very liberal values. I am now a liberaltarian. You convinced me Will :)

The main problem with liberaltarianism, as I see it, is for the most part liberals aren't interested. All of the energy behind the idea comes from libertarians who are frustrated with the old fusionist approach and want to try something new. While there are some moderate liberals willing to engage with libertarians, I think the fact is that the standard mainstream liberal is content with muddling though with what they have now (a coalition of progressives, blue dogs, and various interest groups) to influence public policy. They don't want to meet libertarians halfway, especially when Democrats control both chambers of congress and the presidency.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winnah!

Living downtown in a major metro area, I have socially interacted with left minded folks for the past ten years. They were more amenable to libertarian ideas when their party was on the outside looking in. Now? Not so much.

The main problem with liberaltarianism, as I see it, is for the most part liberals aren't interested. All of the energy behind the idea comes from libertarians who are frustrated with the old fusionist approach and want to try something new. While there are some moderate liberals willing to engage with libertarians, I think the fact is that the standard mainstream liberal is content with muddling though with what they have now (a coalition of progressives, blue dogs, and various interest groups) to influence public policy. They don't want to meet libertarians halfway, especially when Democrats control both chambers of congress and the presidency.

I'll raise my hand as someone else who doesn't understand this post. It's undeniable that the Harvard Economics Department is largely hostile to free markets, and it's further undeniable that a lot of people on the left interpret the last election as a mandate for more expert oversight of the economy. So is the point that Kling is saying something so obvious it's useless? Or is the point that Kling should embrace some weaker form of the Harvard line - libertarian paternalism maybe? Is that what we're to understand by "people can learn to have better taste if someone shows them how?" What advice, exactly, are you giving to Arnold Kling about his post? What would you have preferred him to say? "High school never ends" isn't insightful commentary.

"It's undeniable that the Harvard Economics Department is largely hostile to free markets"

No, actually it's not undeniable. If the Larry Summers worldview is hostile to free markets you're farther out in crazy town than you probably think.

Like it or not, the "Harvard types" that commenters keep criticizing happen to be keenly aware of the importance of the market. They're not socialists. They believe in certain forms of regulation, addressing major externalities like carbon, and various other forms of government intervention into the economy.

These aren't radical left-wing ideas.

As a liberal, I'm open to being convinced by the Will's and Tyler Cowen's of the world, over time, to move rightward on economic policy, if the case is made well.

But the comments on this post don't give me much hope for that Rawlsekian/Liberaltarian project.

So many of the comments seem to chastise experts for thinking they know it all, while at the same time seemingly expressing total confidence that their own extreme views on economic policy are quite obviously correct.

It doesn't matter so much if I don't know it all, since I'm not trying to run it all.

I'm not so sure about that. If you were in a position of power and could either "run it all" or sit back and let it run itself, in either case you'd have to know a lot about a lot to have confidence in one over the other, right?

So expressing confidence that NOT intervening in the economy is better than intervening in the economy still requires a lot of information it would seem.

There's a paradox here for Kling's argument which isn't all that important but I find interesting:

If he's right that experts don't have as much information as we think, that would seem like a good reason not to trust his expert opinion.

But if his argument is right, that is if he, the expert, is on the right track, that seems to defeat a portion of his argument.

You are forgetting the market is the natural state of things. More often than not, I, and any government entity have no idea how to tinker with it in a way to improve efficiency or welfare of participants.

That is completely wrong. The market is not at all the "natural state of things." It's a system set up and enforced by a government. It rests on laws, cultural norms, etc. It isn't just the default for social organization.

So you think trade is an artificial construct?

It certainly isn't a necessary condition of human existence. In the state of nature doesn't come equipped with property rights.

Do you realize that "the pursuit of happiness" was code for property rights? Jefferson thought "property rights" were too gauche to put in the Declaration of Independence, but all the founding fathers and philosophers of the time were pretty much in agreement that enforcing property rights were/are the main reasons for having a gov't.

So you would be fine with a government only enforcing property rights?

Of course not. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about though, so good job. I'm officially signing off and don't plan to comment again. Still a Wilkinson fan and look forward to continuing to read him but I'm reminded of the reason I seldom wade into comment sections.

If my job in both situations were limited to expressing confidence then your equivalence would hold. But if I decide to run it all myself, then my work is only beginning once I decide I have confidence; now I need the knowledge required to actually run it rather than leaving the job to others.

"The Harvard narrative is gauche." Perfectly demonstrates Kling's point about preferring to associate with Harvard types who use words like "gauche".

Yes Will: please stick to the prescribed 10 adjectives in future so that the affectedly lowbrow can affect to keep up.

Yes, high school never ends. I await the revenge of the nerds.

Will, how do you overcome a shit street like this? http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k1...

"Their work illustrates that the magic of the marketplace is partially an illusion based on faulty assumptions and outmoded approaches."

That sounds like a conference Will Wilkinson ought to attend.

I don't understand your response to Kling's post.

It's really very simple. The leftist self-identified "elites" will continue to take more and more rights away from the productive classes, until we kill them.

They are far too ignorant and self-important to ever be able to listen to reason. Reason is hopeless with people as arrogant as these idiots.

Indeed. The sooner The Enlightened become The Extinguished, the happier I'm going to be.

But the Harvard narrative is gauche. People can learn to have better taste if someone shows them how.

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you just flatly denying Arnold's point that educated elites believe that they can control the economy better than "market forces" can? I think the elites are harder to convince than you think they are.

I don't think you can completely discount the "cult of the expert" notion in Kling's argument, however gauche it may be.

However, the larger problem with liberaltarianism is that all of the persuasive"work" is on the shoulders of Libertarians--you have to bring liberals to the realization that free markets work, whilst simply acquiescing to them social and foreign policy. Furthermore, you assume that today's liberal has a laissez faire social agenda-when in fact most want to use the state to control behavior as much or more than any social conservative. I think these are two insurmountable problems with the Liberaltarian notion.

Of course the burden of persuasion is on us, liberals have power and we don't. They can rule without us, we can't rule without either them or the conservatives so we have to persuade one of them to ally with us when they're in power.

However, I do agree with your second point. Of course since the Republican core doesn't have a laissez faire economic agenda either, I don't know how to deal with that problem.

Bingo!

And yet Kling's arguments about the distribution of political power relative to the distribution of information will be more appreciated at Harvard than at the next Tea Party.

As someone who (I think) falls pretty squarely into Will's demographic for recruitment for his Rawlsekian/Liberaltarian project, I have to say I think it would be better for both liberals and libertarians if the latter gave the Tea Partiers a wide berth.

Well, you see, you've cracked the code.

Because however much many libertarians might prefer to deride liberals than conservatives-- and, truly, the Reason.com set, animated as they are by anti-leftism above all things, very much prefer that-- well, they would much, much rather live in the world crafted by liberals than that crafted by Tea Partiers.

Not I.

There's a difference between sharing aesthetic preferences and sharing foundational principles. as long as we have a pluralist society, I'm quite happy sharing the world with tea partiers, even though I'm a left coast cosmopolite.

That's the problem with the tea party types. There's a very prominent "pluralism = societal collapse" thread running through that movement, which I suspect trumps any actual anti-state leanings they may hold.