Rand Paulâs admirers, and more than a few of his enemies, believe the country is having a âlibertarian momentââfrom Tea Partiers in Topeka to Silicon Valley techno-separatists who dream of going Galt. Weâve had these moments before, but each time they come and go without the elevation of a libertarian to high office or the advancement of libertarian ideas. Thereâs a reason for that, and Sen. Rand Paul is just learning why now.
The problem for libertarian politicians is that Americans hate libertarianism. They like Social Security and minimum-wage hikes, they are still somewhat wary of free trade and they resent that the world is full of conniving and frequently swarthy foreigners who are scheming to provide us with goods and services in exchange for little green pieces of paper. Four times as many Americans support pulling out of NAFTA or renegotiating it as support staying in. Paul, on the other hand, wants to make the whole world a free-trade zone: He scores 100 percent on the libertarian Cato Instituteâs free-trade index. Libertarian ideas might appeal to voters on principleâin a poll last fall, 22 percent of Americans said they identify as or âleanâ libertarian. But in the voting booth Americans donât have principles; they have interests.
Nearly every election cycle, a poll comes out suggesting that many Americans, and a big chunk of swing voters, think of themselves as âfiscally conservative but socially liberal,â and therefore possibly open to libertarian candidates who want to police the deficit but not your sex life. These voters are the political equivalent of people who describe themselves as âspiritual but not religious.â Itâs basically an empty formulation to avoid picking a side or a fight; itâs shallow, but it sounds good. The problem, at least for Rand Paul, is that âfiscally conservative but socially liberalâ is not a long way of saying âlibertarian.â Paulâs libertarianism is intended to offer a little something for everybody, on the left and rightâspending cuts for the Republican base, legal relief for potheads, a presidential pat on the head for gay people. But if he gets serious about substantive reform along these lines, his libertarianism is instead going to offer something to outrage everybody.
Start with the so-called fiscal conservatives. Spend a few hours listening to second-tier talk radio or engage with some real-life American voters for a few hours, and you will discover that there is practically no market for fiscal conservatism. Ask them how they think we should go about balancing the budget, for instance, and theyâll inevitably respond: by cutting foreign aid, which American voters believe makes up about a third of the federal budget. Rand Paulâs repeated calls to end foreign aidâto Egypt, to countries where the American flag is burned, to anybody else he can think ofâis a reliable applause line for the gentleman from Kentucky; giving away aid is just one more of those foreign entanglements George Washington warned us about. But what many of his admirers do not understand is that his opposition to foreign aid isnât principally fiscal but ideological: Foreign aidâs portion of the budget is actually minisculeâcloser to 1 percent. Even if we cut it all, the savings would be trivial.
When it comes to balancing the budget, Paul is more likely to cut off aid to your mom. Thatâs where the money is. We spend almost all of the federal budget on a handful of programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense. So any plausible, politically sustainable campaign to impose some sanity on Americaâs national finances is going to mean reformingâi.e., cuttingâall of those. How unpopular is that? Solid majorities of Americans oppose cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits and raising taxes to pay for them, even though a larger majority also believes that the cost of those programs will create economic problems. The number of people who think we spend too much on the military hasnât topped the 50-percent mark since the Vietnam War. Think about George W. Bushâs attempt at Social Security reform, which left him the loneliest man in Washington. Or consider that in 2012, fiscal conservative wonk-emperor Paul Ryan ran for the vice presidency on a campaign that blasted the Obama administration for making Medicare cuts. Which is to say, even the man in Washington most associated with the words âfiscal conservativeâ knows better than to run as one. Fiscal conservatives might applaud Rand Paul when he talks about getting Afghan President Hamid Karzai off of welfare, but theyâll scream if he comes within five miles of their Social Security checks. Any candidate whoâs serious about fiscal reform is going to be a hard sell in 2016âor any other year.
If the fair-weather fiscal conservatives donât like Rand Paul, the phony social liberals are going to loathe him. Hereâs where the English language fails us: âLiberalâ and âlibertarianâ come from the same linguistic root, meaning âliberty,â and many libertarians will describe themselves among friends as âclassical liberalsââpolitical heirs to the Whigs and the Manchester free-traders. But âsocially liberalâ and âsocially libertarianâ today mean almost precisely opposite things. If there is one thing our âsocial liberalsâ hate, it is liberty. In their view, youâre free to do as they please.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-hates-liberterians-104858.html#ixzz2wmM57XBr
The problem for libertarian politicians is that Americans hate libertarianism. They like Social Security and minimum-wage hikes, they are still somewhat wary of free trade and they resent that the world is full of conniving and frequently swarthy foreigners who are scheming to provide us with goods and services in exchange for little green pieces of paper. Four times as many Americans support pulling out of NAFTA or renegotiating it as support staying in. Paul, on the other hand, wants to make the whole world a free-trade zone: He scores 100 percent on the libertarian Cato Instituteâs free-trade index. Libertarian ideas might appeal to voters on principleâin a poll last fall, 22 percent of Americans said they identify as or âleanâ libertarian. But in the voting booth Americans donât have principles; they have interests.
Nearly every election cycle, a poll comes out suggesting that many Americans, and a big chunk of swing voters, think of themselves as âfiscally conservative but socially liberal,â and therefore possibly open to libertarian candidates who want to police the deficit but not your sex life. These voters are the political equivalent of people who describe themselves as âspiritual but not religious.â Itâs basically an empty formulation to avoid picking a side or a fight; itâs shallow, but it sounds good. The problem, at least for Rand Paul, is that âfiscally conservative but socially liberalâ is not a long way of saying âlibertarian.â Paulâs libertarianism is intended to offer a little something for everybody, on the left and rightâspending cuts for the Republican base, legal relief for potheads, a presidential pat on the head for gay people. But if he gets serious about substantive reform along these lines, his libertarianism is instead going to offer something to outrage everybody.
Start with the so-called fiscal conservatives. Spend a few hours listening to second-tier talk radio or engage with some real-life American voters for a few hours, and you will discover that there is practically no market for fiscal conservatism. Ask them how they think we should go about balancing the budget, for instance, and theyâll inevitably respond: by cutting foreign aid, which American voters believe makes up about a third of the federal budget. Rand Paulâs repeated calls to end foreign aidâto Egypt, to countries where the American flag is burned, to anybody else he can think ofâis a reliable applause line for the gentleman from Kentucky; giving away aid is just one more of those foreign entanglements George Washington warned us about. But what many of his admirers do not understand is that his opposition to foreign aid isnât principally fiscal but ideological: Foreign aidâs portion of the budget is actually minisculeâcloser to 1 percent. Even if we cut it all, the savings would be trivial.
When it comes to balancing the budget, Paul is more likely to cut off aid to your mom. Thatâs where the money is. We spend almost all of the federal budget on a handful of programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense. So any plausible, politically sustainable campaign to impose some sanity on Americaâs national finances is going to mean reformingâi.e., cuttingâall of those. How unpopular is that? Solid majorities of Americans oppose cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits and raising taxes to pay for them, even though a larger majority also believes that the cost of those programs will create economic problems. The number of people who think we spend too much on the military hasnât topped the 50-percent mark since the Vietnam War. Think about George W. Bushâs attempt at Social Security reform, which left him the loneliest man in Washington. Or consider that in 2012, fiscal conservative wonk-emperor Paul Ryan ran for the vice presidency on a campaign that blasted the Obama administration for making Medicare cuts. Which is to say, even the man in Washington most associated with the words âfiscal conservativeâ knows better than to run as one. Fiscal conservatives might applaud Rand Paul when he talks about getting Afghan President Hamid Karzai off of welfare, but theyâll scream if he comes within five miles of their Social Security checks. Any candidate whoâs serious about fiscal reform is going to be a hard sell in 2016âor any other year.
If the fair-weather fiscal conservatives donât like Rand Paul, the phony social liberals are going to loathe him. Hereâs where the English language fails us: âLiberalâ and âlibertarianâ come from the same linguistic root, meaning âliberty,â and many libertarians will describe themselves among friends as âclassical liberalsââpolitical heirs to the Whigs and the Manchester free-traders. But âsocially liberalâ and âsocially libertarianâ today mean almost precisely opposite things. If there is one thing our âsocial liberalsâ hate, it is liberty. In their view, youâre free to do as they please.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-hates-liberterians-104858.html#ixzz2wmM57XBr
