I am a big fan of Brink Lindsey and Will Wilkinson and their proposed “liberaltarian” hybrid of modern and classical liberal policy visions. As I understand it, the aim is to articulate the big-picture common ground for liberals of all stripes (even the conservative stripe).
In the long term, this may lead to a centrist reform coalition coordinated on coupling a dynamic market economy AND a robust but affordable social safety net; on coupling a strong military AND strict rules of engagement; and on coupling more negative AND positive individual liberties in social policy.
But for now, the focus is on articulating the modern and classical liberal common ground.
In this post, I supply some background links. In my next post, I discuss one path from here to there, where “there” is “a centrist reform coalition initiating and sustaining policy.”
Some descriptions of the project:
1. Brink’s initial article on the idea, “Liberaltarianism“, originally published in The New Republic online December 4th, 2006.
2. Some of Will’s blog commentary on the idea: “Is Rawlsekianism the Future?“, December 2006; “Liberaltarianism Back to the Future”, May 2008; and “Liberaltarian Reactions”, February 2009.
3. Brink’s review — “Another Culture War? No Thanks” — of the new Arthur Brooks book, The Battle: How the Fight between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America’s Future, published in the American Prospect last Friday, July 2nd, 2010.
Some criticisms of the project:
1. Libertarians don’t see compromise with liberals as advantageous. Most libertarians are focused on economic policy (where they align better with Republicans) than on social and foreign policy (where they align better with Democrats). This point is made by Bruce Bartlett in “Liberaltarians?” Forbes, May 28th, 2009; and by Jonah Goldberg in “Whither Liberaltarianism?” NRO, February 11th, 2009.
2. Liberals don’t see compromise with libertarians as advantageous. Liberals and libertarians could rally around their dislike of the Bush administration. But liberals didn’t need libertarians to win (and couldn’t count on them anyway), and so they prudently cater to their base. This point is made by Matt Welch in “The Liberaltarian Jackalope“, Reason, April 2009; and by Ed Kilgore in “It’s You, Not Me: Liberals and Libertarians Finally Break Up,” in The New Republic, February 12th, 2010.
3. Liberals and libertarians have no way to enforce mutually advantageous policy compromises. This is a point made by Brink himself. Here is Bryan Caplan’s account of that: “What I Told the Liberaltarians“, July 22nd, 2009.
Some responses to these criticisms:
The project is about articulating the liberal common ground, not about forming a short-run tactical alliance. Will Wilkinson: “Missing the Point of Liberaltarianism.” February 11th, 2009. Also: “The Hope and Horror of Liberaltarian Alignments.” February 16th, 2009. Also: “Could Liberaltarianism Matter?” April 8th, 2010. As I understand it, Brink and Will are working on a book-length treatment of the idea, which will include a refined proposal as well as a reply to critics. Look for it!
My take: Liberaltarians are crafting policy compromises that could be broadly advantageous if initiated and sustained, but we lack institutional means to do that. In my next post, I lay out why I think turn-taking institutions offer a potential pathway to quasi-liberaltarian outcomes…
