I’m quite interested these days in the relationship between right wing, conservative “libertarianism” / fake anarchism and authoritarian fascism, linked by anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style. Let’s discuss that again this week.
The usual litany of objections to democracy one hears from right wing “libertarians” is that democracy is ethically illegitimate, equivalent to a dictatorship, fascism, or alternatively to “mob rule,” collectivism, authoritarian communism, etc. Those sorts of arguments seem quite often to equate to the generalized anti-government arguments of true utopian anarchism, which makes one suspect confusion or bad rhetorical intent. However, I did recently encounter a somewhat more nuanced position. According to this fellow, “libertarianism” / fake anarchism wasn’t about the wholesale rejection of government or even just democracy, did not falsely pose as true utopian anarchism, it just saw certain “limits” to democratic government, a position he supposed I must support as well. In this fellow’s view, “libertarians” are special in the sense they’re “principled” about these limits of democracy, implying others have just informal or inchoate limits in mind. Yes, basically, it was yet another form of the conservative “everyone is doing it” argument. Of course, I pointed out that no, not everyone is doing it. In our current USA system, the ultimate and only real justification for law and government is the will of the people, and we can change every law, even the US Constitution, using democratic political mechanisms.
What I think was going on was a conflation of personal support for particular laws, especially those involving defining the sphere of personal choice versus the restrictions of law, on the one hand, and support for the political mechanism for deciding that, on the other. Surely everyone has ideas, ultimately based in subjective and potentially idiosyncratic ethics, about what he or she thinks should be proscribed by law and what allowed, the proper relation of the individual and society, etc. Support for the democratic ethos involves the notion that in a society everyone’s views matter and thorny ethical disagreements temporarily, contingently settled by democratic government in law, potentially scrapped or revised in the future if the views of voters change, evolve. The authoritarian ethos, the general umbrella category of which fascism is one sort, says particular ethics of particular individuals should prevail, no matter the views of the rest of society. It leads to all manner of distinctive pathologies involving lying, control, etc.
Wanting to work within democracy to persuade voters to expand the realm of personal choice as much as reasonable, especially when no interpersonal conflicts are involved, but sometimes using ethical arguments even when they are, is part of traditional American “liberalism.” A great deal of social conflict in the 1960s and 70s was between “liberals,” who wanted to expand individual choice, get law out of areas they felt inappropriate, and “conservatives” whose wanted to maintain or enhance restrictions of personal choice by law in those areas. We can still see a pale reflection of that conflict today, with conservatives wanting to establish a state religion, supporting restrictions relating to discussing racism and other issues in schools, opposing sexual and gender minorities, etc. I might oppose their efforts in the context of our present imperfect democratic system, but maybe they have the votes and maybe not, maybe they’ve gotten enough of their own on the Supreme Court and maybe not, maybe we have the votes to change the Constitution and maybe not, etc. I talk that way because I support democracy. Indeed, I wouldn’t mind making our system rather more democratic than it already is, if other voters agree. But alas not everyone supports the democratic ethos. Some people are egoists, authoritarians, fascists, “libertarians.” When they suspect democracy, other voters, may go against their views in certain areas, mostly relating to the definition of economic power (legal property “rights”), distribution of economic power, or use of economic power to resolve particular interpersonal conflicts of preferences (extent of the market), they reject democracy itself as the mechanism to resolve such issues.
And what “principles” do those rejecting democracy suppose they’re expressing? Is it just whatever their personal ethics recommends on those particular issues? The same sort of “principles” everyone else uses to argue for their positions in the context of political democracy? Or do they purport to have principles of non-democratic government to match the principled basis of democratic government? There is only one objectively correct, timeless, True Ethics, and I know what it is? My way or the highway? Not sure I can take those all that seriously.
How do right wing “libertarians” get from point A to point B? How do they start out fretting about government power intruding into areas they don’t approve to supporting government power immune from the ethical opinions and beliefs of others, authoritarianism, fascism? I would suggest anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style plays an important role. It reduces understanding of the role of democratic government in providing necessarily normative inputs to market systems, treats democracy as unethical, unfortunate, unnecessary. One might say a great deal more about the yeoman work of purveyors of anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style in undermining support for democracy, increasing support for authoritarianism, fascism, but let’s talk more about that another day.
