Will self-proclaimed classical liberals resist a right-wing assault on democracy in America? Don’t hold your breath.
Classical liberalism has an uneasy relationship with democracy. Friedrich Hayek, for example, argued in The Constitution of Liberty and in Law, Legislation, and Liberty that democracy might need to be suspended to preserve liberal economic institutions. And he meant it, as his support for Pinochet in Chile made clear.
Democracy in America is now under serious threat due to the increased radicalization of the Republican party. Donald Trump continues to assert that the 2020 election was stolen. Most Republican members of Congress refuse to contradict him or hold him accountable. Election workers are being terrorized. Republican state legislatures are threatening to politicize the administration of elections, and even to set the results of elections aside. The right to protest is under attack.
If Republicans undermine elections to entrench themselves in power, will classical liberals stand up for democracy?
Don’t hold your breath.
Here is outspoken classical liberal Donald Boudreaux:
Freedom of choice is wonderful, and democracy – properly understood and constrained – can be a blessing. But democracy becomes a heinous curse when its ethos is reduced to nothing more than the belief that the majority is free to choose whatever it fancies unconstrained by higher law, such as a constitution, and by social norms that protect the rights of all, both as individuals and as members of minority coalitions.
OK, but is democracy in danger of becoming a “heinous curse”? Well, you judge:
Illiberal people also excel at slathering the worst interpretations on the actions and words of anyone suspected of not towing the party line. Not only ignorant of history, but disdainful of it, illiberal people destroy mindlessly. Chanting diversity, equity, and inclusion, illiberal people are utterly intolerant of anyone who does not willingly chant in their choir. They demonize all who through merit differentiate themselves from the crowd, and insist that anyone who dissents from their party line be outcast. Illiberal people are as allergic to subtlety and trade-offs as they are to humor and fellow-feeling.
Today’s woke legions are people who are as illiberal as people become. They are – let’s not mince words – both stupid and uninformed. And they are motivated overwhelmingly by hatred – hatred of what they do not understand and of the monsters that exist only in their juvenile imaginations. They are comatose to reality.
. . . the woke’s self-righteous eagerness to re-write history, to destroy so much of what has come down to us from the past, and to restructure civilization with brute force make the woke very much akin to the Bolsheviks and to so many of the other barbarians throughout history who mistake their fevered passions as being commands from God.
Over the past year, Boudreaux has incessantly warned his readers that the Covid-19 pandemic is leading the world into tyranny. He has worked tirelessly not just to undermine trust in government, but to instill terror of democracy in his readers. His fears are absurd: the idea that “the woke” – perhaps 10 or 20 percent of the population – are going to destroy liberty and democracy is literally unhinged, as is the notion that Covid-19 policy is putting us on the Road to Serfdom. But I do not doubt that Boudreaux is indeed deeply fearful.
Of course, an excessively fearful person would not necessarily be a right-wing reactionary. Conceivably, Boudreaux could be fearful of racist totalitarian impulses coming from the right, as well as the excesses of the woke left. If so, he has done a good job hiding it. A simple sign in a bathroom is enough to remind how much he fears that Covid-19 will destroy liberal society. Yet he has been largely if not completely silent on the anti-democratic words and actions coming from the American right.
Boudreaux is an extreme case, but if you expect classical liberals and libertarians to step up for American democracy, I strongly suspect you will be disappointed. Go to any libertarian think tank. You may see an occasional article critical of the Republican assault on election integrity or the January 6 assault on the Capitol. But for every article like that, you will find far more about cancel culture, critical race theory, threats to freedom coming from the Democratic party, etc., as well as articles downplaying threats from the militant right and drawing false equivalences between the left and right.
These think tanks look suspiciously like a propaganda arm of the Republican party. If the Republicans seize power, it is all too likely that classical liberals and libertarians will be right there with them.
“. . . but if you expect classical liberals and libertarians to step up for American democracy, I strongly suspect you will be disappointed.”
“Libertarians” in America are mostly just right-wing extremists and middle school boys who cling to the libertarian brand in the belief that it provides an objective philosophical veneer for their right-wing beliefs. Rand “Aqua Buddha” Paul is a case in point of phony libertarianism. When Paul declares himself pro-choice on abortion and in favor of abolishing the INS, he will be embracing actual libertarianism.
As for “democracy” in American, most of the founding fathers (pace Thomas Jefferson) feared pure democracy. They set up America as a democratic republic, in the belief that elected representatives would temper the extremism of the demos. The Senate, for example, is far from a democratic institution, as is the electoral college. Also, they only intended white, property-owning males to vote, which falls fall short of “democracy.”
I’m not ignoring a central premise of your post, that the institutions of our democratic republic are being threatened by Trumpism and the right-wing extremism of the modern GOP. The “conservative party” in the US today is the Democratic party. There is no significant “liberal party” in America today.
Some things just go to trash. Not sure why. When I seem them I restore them.
Interesting factoid . . .
FAIL: Media Claims Low Unemployment In US Is ‘Alarming’
John Amato
I’m not so sure about Thomas Jefferson. Did he run Monticello on democratic lines, pure or not pure? Did he in any way champion women as human beings?
On the other hand, Aaron Burr (and Alexander Hamilton) worked for the rights of blacks, and Burr was perhaps the only real champion of women-as-human-beings among the founding fathers, which may be why women loved him, and Hamilton (not to mention Jefferson) hated him. As for the suffrage of white men without property, Burr got over that impediment by selling dollar shares in his property to working men, enabling them to vote enabling Jefferson to carry New York and win the Presidency, and earning Burr the hatred of good property-owning Patriots to this day.
“libertarianism” is no more a philosophy, veneer or otherwise, than Ayn Rand is a writer. It is, as you suggest, where slightly older than middle school boys get to before they have ever thought about anything other than the injustice of not being allowed to drive the family car.
I guess labels like liberal, libertarian, conservative, like words in general, are useful to point us vaguely in the direction of something to start us thinking about it. but without actually thinking about the-thing-pointed-at, they are completely meaningless. it’s almost as bad as modern day Republicans calling themselves the Party of Lincoln.
Classical liberalism has an uneasy relationship with democracy. Friedrich Hayek, for example, argued in The Constitution of Liberty and in Law, Legislation, and Liberty that democracy might need to be suspended to preserve liberal economic institutions. And he meant it, as his support for Pinochet in Chile made clear….
[ Brilliantly important. ]
When Naomi Klein wrote in criticism of the support of the Pinochet government by Milton Friedman, she was literally cursed * by Brad DeLong and ridiculed by Tyler Cowen. Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman supported Klein.
* Klein was a chaired professor at Rutgers at the time.
well, yes. but it ain’t all that easy.
the co called “centrists” have always been a slightly more intellectual branch of the Republican party.
The insane Right has made itself all too visible a threat to anti-facism (not Antifa…who believe, apparently, in fighting fire with fire)…if not “democracy on their terms. And the True Left has not made it any easier by embracing hate speech outward while decrying it incoming.
and, in an apparent non-sequitur, William Seward, lost his chances of becoming President by citing a higher authority than even, gasp, the Constitution, opening the way to an obscure Illinois lawyer who was careful not to mention any higher authority until after he got elected, and after he won his war.
Anyway, i’m sure he meant toeing, not “towing.”
right now, it looks as if the insane Right is going to leave us no choice.
twelve men (or women?) unanimously decided, to the cheers of an anxious (re)public, that you can threaten a person with a gun, and shoot him if he tries to take it away from you, and the law in all its majesty will decide you had no choice. self defense, you see.
and this time there will be no witnesses.
Classical liberalism has an uneasy relationship with democracy. Friedrich Hayek, for example, argued in The Constitution of Liberty and in Law, Legislation, and Liberty that democracy might need to be suspended to preserve liberal economic institutions. And he meant it, as his support for Pinochet in Chile made clear….
[ Brilliant passage. ]
All too true article and comments. Perhaps a classical liberal is just a moron dressed up as an ox.
Ron
yes.
from my word pointer, a classical liberal is what we used to call “conservative,” when we meant Republican, while “conservative was a useful lie Republicans pretended to believe because it got them votes from people who believed in classical lies. Now people who call themselves Republicans are fascist in all but name only. They will tell any lie, without concern for consistency or even credibility, if it will get them votes enough to get them in power, which power they will use, including mob power and brute-force police power ==essentially the Mao understanding of power, to stay in power until their wandering eyes drift across the sea and provoke some not-nice countervailing power.
oops, forgot the new days “liberals” who to avoid confusion call themselves “progressives.” they don’t believe in power at all. they believe that if they just shut their eyes and believe very hard, and wave their wooden swords, and chant hey, hey, ho, ho, a mighty children’s crusade will will overwhelm the orcs with shame and they will wither away, leaving behind a world of sunshine and flowers and equality which the rich will pay for, in justice, according to the order of time.
Coberly,
Yes sir. Completely agreed and entertained from conservatives to Mao in drag to flower children.
What is that fowl smell? Happy Thanksgiving Mate.
Thanks.
well. now i know why turkeys say, “Gobble, gobble.”