Libertarian Solutions: Why Libertarians must talk about the morality of freedom
by Bill Winter
LP News Editor
What do Americans want from politicians? Surprise: They want moral values, says a survey taken before the 2002 elections.
According to a Greenberg, Quinlin, Rosner Research, Inc. poll (July 9-14, 2002), 16% of Americans said "moral values" would be among the most important issues they considered when voting for Congressional candidates.
To put that in context, more Americans say moral values are a defining issue than say taxes are important (12%), or federal spending (9%), or the environment (8%), or crime and illegal drugs (7%).
In a related question, 11% said moral values should be a top priority for Congress and the president.
The poll results are somewhat ambiguous, since they don't make a distinction between Americans who want politicians who are moral (the "impeach-Bill-Clinton" crowd), and those who want politicians to impose morality on others (the "run-Pat-Buchanan-run" crowd).
In fact, voters probably want a bit of both.
Americans look at government, and they see politicians tarred by scandal -- from Richard Nixon caught not being a crook with the Watergate burglars to Bill Clinton caught not having sexual relations with "that woman."
And they see a nation beset by social problems -- crime, teenage pregnancies, broken homes, intergenerational welfare, school shootings, drug abuse, corporate malfeasance, and "vulgar" pop culture.
What do those problems have in common? They're caused by a breakdown of what many Americans see as traditional moral values: Decency, chastity, honesty, commitment, and hard work. Americans yearn for a simpler, more decent time, when crack was something that happened to your windshield, XXX was a winning strategy in tic-tac-toe, and Eminem was a candy.
So it's not surprising that 11% say moral values should be a "priority" for Congress and the president. It's not surprising that Americans see morality as a political issue.
Despite this, Libertarian candidates have been curiously silent on the subject. As a result, some critics have charged that Libertarians don't care about morality. Or, pointing to Libertarian positions on abortion, pornography, and drugs, they charge that Libertarians are immoral libertines.
Joseph Farah, editor of WorldNetDaily.com, echoed this all-too-common assessment when he wrote on June 18, 2002: "Libertarians fail to understand the moral dimension so critical to self-government. Too few [Libertarians] comprehend a laissez faire society can only be built in a culture of morality, righteousness, and compassion. A libertarian society devoid of God and a biblical world view would quickly deteriorate into chaos and violence."
Farah is wrong; most Libertarians do understand the moral dimension of liberty. They embrace "morality, righteousness, and compassion." And they certainly don't want a nation beset with "chaos and violence."
But Libertarians view morality differently than Farah -- and differently than most liberals and conservatives.
"Many libertarians are 'socially conservative' in the sense that they believe in traditional moral values like monogamy and two-parent families," noted the introductory libertarian website, Libertarian.org.
"But a libertarian believes that moral values must be freely chosen. If someone else doesn't agree with your morality, you may avoid them, argue with them, or verbally condemn them, but you should not physically control them."
In other words, Libertarians see morality as intensely personal or religious -- and outside the scope of government. That's one reason why so many Libertarian candidates have been reluctant to talk about morality.
And Libertarians pride themselves on being tolerant, so they are loathe to impose their views of morality on others.
However, since many Americans see morality and government as intertwined, it may be time for Libertarians to end their squeamishness -- and start using the "M" word in campaigns.
In fact, it's past time for Libertarians to proudly extoll the link between morality and freedom. Here are some points they can make:
* Giving the government the power to impose morality is dangerous.
Getting politicians to impose your vision of morality has a seductive allure -- but it is a fool's game, argued 1996 and 2000 LP presidential candidate Harry Browne in The Great Libertarian Offer.
"When a politician promises to raise moral standards, it's easy to think he's referring to the moral standards in which you believe," wrote Browne. "You think you've found someone who's going to use the force of government to impose your moral values on others.
"But when government acts, the values imposed won't be yours and they won't be mine. Moral values will be set by whoever has the most political power -- people like Teddy Kennedy or Newt Gingrich."
That's a sobering point. Consider:
If conservatives control the levers of power, we face increased censorship, new laws against gays and lesbians, an escalation of the War on Drugs, and mandatory prayer in schools -- all in the name of "Christian" morality.
Conservatives want to use government to make sure you're not bad.
If liberals gain power, we face mandatory racial sensitivity training, greater redistribution of wealth, more anti-hate crime laws (read: "thought crimes"), and more affirmative action programs -- all in the name of "compassionate" morality. Liberals want to use government to make you good.
The moral agendas of liberals and conservatives are quite different. But they have one thing in common: They both know what's best for you.
In his 1996 book, Moral Politics, George Lakoff wrote that conservatives hold a "Strict Father Model" view of government. Liberals, he writes, have a "Nurturant Parent Model."
But in both models, government is the parent. You are the child.
That could be why Rev. Robert A. Sirico of the Acton Institute wrote that Americans make a serious mistake when they "suppose that virtue is something that can be enacted by politicians and implemented by bureaucrats."
Sirico is right. When government dictates morality, your morality is at the mercy of whatever amoral gang is in power that day.
* There is a profound difference between individual morality and politicians who use the power of government to do "moral" things.
Former LP Executive Director Steve Dasbach touched on this in a 1997 press release commemorating the death of Mother Teresa.
"The life of Mother Teresa was a rebuke to everything politicians stand for," he said. "Mother Teresa reached into our hearts -- while politicians reach into our wallets."
The difference is even more clear, said Dasbach, when you compare the typical politician to the Nobel Peace Prize-winning nun.
"Mother Teresa kissed the hands of dying lepers, she slept on a thin mattress, and she picked maggots from the wounds of Calcutta's homeless," he said. "By contrast, politicians make speeches in the air-conditioned luxury of the Capitol Building, they attend $5,000-a-plate dinners, and they spend other people's money on political causes that will get them re-elected."
Maybe, speculated Dasbach, "that's why politicians are held in such contempt, while Mother Teresa was revered by millions of people."
And maybe that's why Jimmy Carter gained far more respect when he wielded a hammer for Habitat for Humanity than when he wielded the gavel of power as president of the United States.
Individual morality is about investing your time, spending your money, and demonstrating your values. Government "morality" is about casting a vote, spending other people's money, and posing for a photo-op. It's not the same.
* Many government programs subvert morality -- usually by undermining personal responsibility.
In his 1996 essay, "The Rise of Government and the Decline of Morality," James A. Dorn of the Cato Institute argued that government has "weakened the nation's moral fabric."
The most obvious signs of that decay, he wrote, "are the prevalence of out-of-wedlock births, the breakup of families, the amorality of public education, and the eruption of criminal activity. But there are other signs as well: the decline in civility [and] the lack of integrity in both public and private life.
"One cannot blame government for all of society's ills, but there is no doubt that legislation over the past 50 years has had a negative impact on virtue. Individuals lose their moral bearing when they become dependent on welfare, when they are rewarded for having children out of wedlock, and when they are not held accountable for their actions."
In the past, when government was much smaller, "family and social bonds were strong, and civil society flourished in numerous fraternal and religious organizations," wrote Dorn.
Today, after the government has spent over $5 trillion on welfare programs, "Self-reliance has given way to dependence and a loss of respect for persons and property," he wrote. "Virtue and civil society have suffered."
What's the solution?
"If we want to help the disadvantaged, we do not do so by making poverty pay, by restricting markets, by prohibiting school choice, by discouraging thrift, or by sending the message that the principal function of government is to take care of us," wrote Dorn. "Rather, we do so by eliminating social engineering and welfare, by cultivating free markets, and by returning to our moral heritage."
* Ultimately, liberty and self-responsibility are the only way to promote a truly moral nation.
Laws can't make people moral.
"In the arena of peaceful behavior, morality and compassion mean nothing when they are the product of force," argued Jacob G. Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation. "They are meaningful only in the context of voluntary, willing choices of individuals."
Exactly, agreed Harry Browne. "Only free people have an incentive to be virtuous," he wrote. "Only people who bear the consequences of their own acts will care about those consequences.
"A free society rewards virtue and punishes irresponsibility. Government does just the opposite. We need to do only one thing to induce people to act more responsibly: Set them free."
According to the polls, Americans want politicians to do something about morality. Libertarians can respond with a simple equation: Freedom plus self-responsibility equals morality.
It's not a perfect formula. Some people will always make immoral decisions. The free market will still produce products that some find offensive. And Republican and Democratic politicians will continue to wallow in scandal.
But without freedom, there will never be morality.
Civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
Similarly, government force cannot drive out immorality; only freedom and self-responsibility can do that. |
