It seems like libertarian in the Tea Party/Ron Paul sense is more or less a mirror opposite of Marxism. Do you think it’s essentially based on fear of socialism and big government and could be thought of as McCarthyism in action?
First off, ‘libertarian in the Tea Party/Ron Paul sense’ isn’t a coherent thing- while some people might describe themselves that way, libertarianism as a political ideology doesn’t match up well with the Tea Party’s ideology, there are fundamental differences particularly with regards to ‘social issues’ like gay marriage, use of drugs, abortion, etc. If you look at the candidates the tea party has endorsed for political office, and Ron Paul isn’t one, the comparison goes even further askew.
As to it being a reactionary movement opposed to Marxism, again, it would be easy to find people who will proudly identify as either Libertarians and/or Tea Partiers who hate ‘Marxism’, but in my experience they usually define Marxism very differently than a Marxist.
More importantly, there is a strong sense of populism in both groups, and a conviction they are being economically persecuted by elites who run the government and society. Both groups would readily agree with the statement that the people who do the ‘real work’ like farmers and plumbers and so on should get to make the decisions.
Arguably, in practice, the tea party is more the right wing equivalent of marxism than it’s opposite. That said, this whole thread is likely to end up elsewhere fairly quickly, although hopefully that means great debates and not the pit.
To me the term ‘McCarthyism’ doesn’t mean anti-socialism or anti-Marxism but rather refers to the overly zealous and purely politically motivated ***persecution ***of someone holding leftist views. IOW it’s a synonym for ‘political witch hunt’ rather than a political position.
Yes, the progression is there.
Basically, the tea party goes around saying " governments that introduce controls on the market are communist, so therefore we should get rid of all controls".
You cannot say that they would not be spouting Mccarthyist attitudes if they were facing a literal “Communist Party” as an enemy, you didn’t test them !
One example of a required control, that is forgone for McCarthyist logic. is to prevent Ducth disease
(McCarthyist logic: anything that says "“its better to appear anti-communist,what ever the cost, than to be practical or results based…”)
See
It happened in Australia recently.
The rise in the sale price of coal and iron ore caused a change in the Australian dollar, which then meant that it was difficult for export or import-competion market manufacturers to continue … factories shut down…
Now with the drop in the coal and iron price, mines , and future projects, are shutting down…
but no factory is re-opening.
IF they had successfully slowed down mining, they might have 1. kept the price up, AND 2, kept the factories working.
But no McCarthy is alive and well …
I think it’s more than just persecution. I think it’s also the paranoia itself, which of course led to the persecution.
Since Libertarians usually start out with Ayn Rand as a basis, and Ayn Rand’s entire philosophy was formed due to her family’s experience at the hands of Communists, it would see it at the very least is parallel to McCarthyist anticommunism.
I’m not sure why the qualifying phrase is needed. One of the things I find most endlessly irritating about self-designated libertarians and groups of them is that they are almost impossible to pin down on coherent thought and strategy.
- “So you…”
- “Naw, that’s them other guys. [We | Real Libertarians] don’t…”
- Repeat.
Something like coherent conversation occurs only when they are allowed to control the topic and accept only agreement from the audience.
In that respect, I am not sure that there’s all that much difference between L’s and McC’s - in tactic and net value of their pronouncements, if not in political or social agreement. Unfortunately, both are also a lot like quite a few other movements that “have the answer” as long as no one asks inconvenient questions.
I don’t know where anyone could get the impression that McCarthyism is in any way related to libertarianism. It was the very essence of thought control, something libertarians abhor.
I don’t see McCarthyism as ‘the essence of thought control’ - at the least, it would be inferior in that respect to its foe, Stalinist communism. It’s a lot more about notions of loyalty and Us-v-Them and paranoia and threats both real and perceived; I’d say it’s the essence of circling the wagons to protect the wimmen and children from those evil savages. All good '50s fun, kids.
I’d agree that the Libs abhor thought control, but we’re probably thinking of different bumper stickers. 
An aside to the mod/visors - quite a few of the above posts did not appear until after I’d posted the last note. I’ve noticed before that there seems to be some discontinuity between posters submission time and the appearance in everyone’s display list. Particularly bad in this small case. Must be them Commies again.
Not really. By Stalin’s time the Communists had a couple of decades to perfect it. HUAC (or at least the Red Scare) sprang up more or less overnight.
Libertarianism is really just classical liberalism whose origins predates McCarthy, Ayn Rand, etc.
Not at all: Libertarianism is — like every other current political position ---- the child of Bolshevism, in the Randian version Bolshevism’s mirror image.
McCarthyism was ( small-town ) political opportunism, making it’s humble living by attacking enemies, which goes to the very heart of Democracy, since ancient Athens, and no doubt before.
It also owes much to the French Revolution. Which Marxism did not.
Only in the sense that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Both are opposed to socialism, but McCarthyism was basically all about protecting America by trampling on the Bill of Rights, a document which Libertarians tend to regard as sacred.
Not at all. It was a reprise of Attorney General Palmer Red Scare from the post-WWI period.
Communism grew in popularity during the Depression because so many people believed that capitalism was irreversibly broken. They were to the left of mere liberals, but were often conflated because they wanted some of the same outcomes for workers and the underprivileged.
It was that pent-up hatred that was finally let loose after WWII, when conservatives seized practical power even under Truman. They were paying liberalism back for their “suffering” under its yolk. The Cold War gave them an excuse and the political popularity to ride wild. It was the opposite of overnight.
I can’t imagine what this thread is still doing in GQ. My opinion, though, is that today’s libertarianism is not a descendent of McCarthyism. That had nothing to do with their views of government. On the contrary, the conservatives wanted - then and now - government to use as a big stick to beat on everybody who disagreed with them. Libertarians just want to use government to make their lives safe and comfortable and then deny every else those rights.
Even I think that’s a little harsh. Libertarians don’t want any government oversight, control or limits… on them. But they want those *other *people controlled so they don’t bother their freedom.
Let’s just make sure we start with the premise that anyone who doesn’t support gay marriage, legal drugs, freedom from religion, reproductive freedom, and euthanasia isn’t a libertarian.
Now, what were you saying about the Tea Party?
Here’s one way to draw an iffy line from Communism to Libertarianism (passing thru anti-Communism):
Start with early 20th century supporters of Communism. They become disenchanted with Stalin and become anti-Stalin leftists. They somehow get really peeved at the New Left by the 1960s. Then then jump into their own flavor of Conservatism: These are the Neoconservatives of Reagan/Bush fame. Note that the majority of this jump happened well after McCarthy. (Cecil did a famous column on some of the background of this.)
Now the even weirder part: A few Neoconservatives (not a lot) have migrated into Libertarianism.
Given the small numbers involved and the tortured route, I wouldn’t directly link McCarthyism and Libertarianism using the above path as a major factor.
But do note that there are standard (Paleo) Conservatives who see the Libertarians as a group of gullible people who can be recruited to their cause. “Hey, we’re against big government, too!” (Nevermind the actual opposite stances on almost all issues.) Hence you have fake Libertarians with talk shows, trying to put their candidates on the ballot, etc. You can definitely link these Paleoconservatives (with definite McCarthyism roots) to fake Libertarianism, but not to more mainstream Libertarianism.
(Note that the Tea Party has been infamously co-opted by Conservatives. The original movement had nearly polar opposite stances once the Koch brothers and such took it over. The Libertarians have been only slightly more successful at avoiding this.)
We’re saying the same thing. Libertarians want a secure system in which private industry relies on the government for military and court protections and for major infrastructure so that they can hence do what works for them. Without the secure system none of that is possible. A few libertarians say that private military and courts and infrastructure is possible but for most that’s pushing the fantasy too far. It’s wish fulfillment all the way down.
None of this is connected to McCarthyism, though. And the “iffy” line drawn by ftg seems to be disavowed by him in his fourth paragraph so that’s another road not taken.