In a recent article in the Financial Times, Michael Lind argues libertarianism (small “l” is appropriate here as the Libertarian Party has had practically nothing to do with the story of successful libertarian politics to date) is now dead as a vital political force:
Is this true? And what possibilities do you see for a new “third way”?
Small “l” libertarianism is alive and well-- on this MB. 
Don’t worry, though. You, for one, will soon welcome your new libertarian overlords!
Feh. Libertarianism is an intellectual construct, as divorced from human reality as Marxism. It is Anarchy Lite, but cleaned up and scrubbed of all lefty-radical odors, made presentable so you can introduce it to your Mom without her fainting dead away.
The only just form of government is that which depends entirely on the will of the governed. That will is the only governing principle required or desireable. It is the whole of Political Science. What works today is true, what works tomorrow will be true, what worked yesterday is junk. He who believes that and works for that is my comrade, he that does not remains to be enlightened.
Present company excepted, it goes without saying. Of such august company, one would not presume.
So, the Iraq War was a just war, and disallowing SSM is a just legal position? I’m glad we’re finally in agreement on those two issues.
[shrug] Socialism too, but that’s nor here nor there.
Was libertarianism ever alive?
Fortunately, there won’t be very many of them. So you won’t have to learn a lot of names or anything.
I agree that it’s hopeless to wish for small government at this point. People will never consent to having their benefits taken away, and on the federal level, it appears that small-government Republicans have gone extinct. The options, to put it in an intentionally stereotyped way, are tax-and-spend Democrats and tax-cut-and-spend Republicans. I do think we could have a government that is less active in trying to legislate people’s values, and that’s what I would like the most. Perhaps we’ll see a trend in that direction over the next few years, since people seemed fed up with the religious right - but then again, gay marriage ain’t exactly popular.
Every president from Reagan to W was elected on some kind of “smaller government” platform.
And the only one in all that time who ever did anything about it was the lone Democrat…
Not quite. Slower growth of government does not equal smaller government. But you’re correct in that the growth of government was greater under the recent Republicans.
Meh. Butterflies could fly out of everyone’s butts, and so what? Is any political ideal dead? I say it is when it is finally able to exist without any protagonist. We humans love our struggles. These days I’m an independent who has always voted Republican and now voting Democrat. I never thought the day would come, then the Dems laid down like weak dogs and the Reps came to power, then got fat and dumb on it. Yep, no struggle makes us antsy for action.
Lind’s point is that it’s hopeless at any time in the foreseeable future. That as a serious political option in the U.S. (or, implicitly, other developed nations), even moderate libertarianism as as dead as even democratic socialism – because the people don’t want it.
But what about the “third third way”? Will that emerge? What will it be like if it does?
In both cases, why?
That’s what I was saying. Maybe I put “at this point” in the wrong place.
I suppose the easiest way is if people decide they are paying too much for public services and just can’t afford the taxes. Perhaps that will happen more and more as the Baby Boomers age. In theory, maybe they won’t want to pay for a lot of the services they don’t use (like older people in my area, in demographic terms one of the oldest counties in the US, often complain about having to pay school taxes). Or maybe the younger generation will find supporting the large Boomer generation unwieldy.
You’re missing the point entirely. The “third way” choice is not as between big government or small, but as between elite globalizers and populist nationalists.
Is universal health care socialist? If it could be proven that it increases worker productivity and thereby enriches the ruling class, is it capitalist? Do these sorts of terms have any relevance anymore? Is someone who works to overthrow the ruling class of China a left winger, or a conservative?
Which hardly qualifies as saying libertarianism was ever a real political program. Libertarianism was a bunch of half-formed principles that never had a chance of forming a coherent whole.
You’re talking about radical libertarianism (Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy, Reason magazine, the Libertarian Party, L. Neil Smith’s utopian/dystopian novels, and all that forgettable noise). Lind’s point is that even moderate libertarianism – as a minimal-government tendency within the otherwise highly successful post-Goldwater American conservative movement, which is a very different thing from radical libertarianism – has had its chance and has been definitely and permanently rejected.
I would argue that is at least in part because even moderate libertarianism is incompatible with the economic interests of the corporations who really drive and own the Republican (and to an only slightly lesser extent the Democratic) Party. Libertarians are hostile in principle to corporate welfare and bailouts, no-bid sweetheart contracts, etc. When Cheney famously declared “government had nothing to do with” his personal business success, he knew quite well he was lying.
If you’re talking about keeping government out of our private lives without compelling reason to the contrary, that’s not going to go away nor should it.
If you’re talking about “libertopia”, you’re talking about a form of government that has never existed in the history of the planet, nor will it. Except on this message board, libertarians are a fringe group and always will be. I’ve always felt that Libertarians are Republicans that just don’t want the responsibility of actually running things.
The author’s reference to “big-government conservatism” is somewhat misleading, because that term generally refers to issues that are not addressed here (the Financial Times article focuses purely on the economic issues for some reason).
On the social-issue front, the ideology of “big-government conservatism” has gotten approximately nowhere on its big issues (abortion, censorship, etc). About the only accomplishment it can point to is turning back the Gay Marriage Menace, which is merely holding the status quo for a while against cultural shifts (if the libertarians had done so poorly on their economic issues, they would have merely prevented tax increases, not gotten tax cuts).