Logan Ferree on William F. Buckley:
Buckley's conservatism may have made some traditions of libertarianism respectful, but not those advocated by either Murray Rothbard or Ayn Rand. Milton Friedman made the cut, but if his negative income tax, school vouchers, and privatized Social Security accounts are all held up to be the standard of libertarianism, there should be no debate in calling Barack Obama a libertarian Democrat.
Sheldon Richman makes a similar point:
The primary consequence of his long career (which included a stint in the CIA) was to seduce budding radical libertarians into an insipid "hip" conservatism that functioned largely as a defender of big business and the intrusive national-security state. We are eternally grateful.
Buckley was a genteel and penetrating master of rhetoric. More than any other political movement, libertarians thrive on debate, so it does not surprise me that Buckley garners the respect of many. But it does demonstrate the problem: too often, libertarians wish to be accepted by the establishment and admired for their thought. When libertarians fail to recognize the radical nature of their beliefs, they are quite succeptible to the call of the status quo.
Yes, sometimes working within the system is the best approach. But that doesn't mean that one invests one's political loyalties in the system; rather, it means one uses or discards the rules and mechanisms according to strategic expedience. Too often, Buckley and other quasi-libetarians demand a realism that goes beyond grudging acceptance of the state into identifying with it. If care is not taken to keep one's eyes on the prize (not to mention if the prize is mere "low taxes") it is quite easy for libertarian critiques of the state to become reforms that simply make the state more acceptable, thereby helping our oppressors determine the precise psychology required to exact our compliance. The libertarian goal is not fair, non-violent, small government, and the realization of such is not the point at which our struggle stops.
Buckley demonstrates that what libertarians need is exactly what his type gives us so often: a sense of marginalization and disdain. Our ranks are not filled with the elite, the privileged, the aristocratic, the "well bred" (in fact, I think we should look very suspiciously at any wealthy libertarians, who too often share Buckley's go-along-to-get-along attitude; are they truly prepared for the free market?). We should not see his type as an ally, nor worship the god he worships. We are not the establishment, and we should not expect to be taken seriously by it. When we are, we should question the motives.
Perhaps Brad Spangler's call for the dissolution of the Libertarian Party would indeed be the best way to ensure that libertarians maintain their radical credentials and don't get swallowed up in the institutional identity of statist politics. Personally, I haven't quite decided whether dissolving the LP would, in fact, assist the cause of liberty. Too many, including yours truly, u-turned on the road to serfdom as a result of that organization, however status quo they may in fact be. Perhaps the answer is for us radical libertarians to work harder to build an alternative institution to the LP that can expedite getting people out of the suffocating political process.
Read this article
