The best explanation of the incongruity of the left and the right I’ve ever seen.

I wish I read Cato Unbound more consistently.  About half the time their articles tackle subjects and involve research I have no depth in, and so I am left struggling with a topic I don’t have the background to comprehend in a way to make the reading enjoyable.  But when they do hit a topic I at least have a passing grasp on I have found their format to generate truly engaging debate.  This month’s lead essay is on whether libertarianism has indeed become the center of the country around which both major parties perform their partisan dance.

I’ve always characterized my struggle in the place of two-party politics as saying that Democrats are appealing with respect to social freedom (social freedom and economic socialism) while Republicans are appealing with respect to economic freedom (although perhaps less so than once upon a time) (economic freedom and social conservatism).  However this month’s Cato Unbound essay phrased it perfectly:

This is the blind vs. blind struggle of the culture wars: one side attacked capitalism while rejoicing in its fruits; the other side celebrated capitalism while denouncing its fruits as poisonous.

If you are struggling to find yourself within two party politics and wonder whether you might be a libertarian–ask whether the sentence above makes sense to you.  If so, there stands a better-than-even chance you lean libertarian, and should add Cato Unbound to your reading list.

I don’t know that I agree with any of the authors this month so far.  I have no faith in the idea that a libertarian core centers our politics, particularly given the rush of each side to satiate their core supporters.  Bush, for example, has now affected the core of the Supreme Court by appointing not libertarian-minded justices (although there was certainly some hope among libertarians that either Roberts or Alito would turn out to have such leanings) but more straight Republican-style conservatives.  While the incidental effect of such appointments may in limited cases lead to libertarian-style outcomes, the general push is going to be towards social conservatism and more centralized government power.

Nothing I have seen in the current political climate indicates anything resembling a fondness for libertarian values among the political “center”.  Were that the case, for example, a Presidential candidate like Ron Paul might be seeing a broader swell of support rather than the (at maximum) 1-2% “wave” he’s riding in most polls.  Even in cases where political parties are not appealing to their base, their refuge from their base seems to be in consolidating their security.  No matter how much Democratic Congresspersons loathe Bush, and even if their base would favor impeachment, there is still enough of a “club” at that level for everyone to want to preserve the power structure.  Sure, a handful of Democrats favor impeachment, but it’s easy to cast your hat into that lot when you know the outcome will be null regardless.  Socialized medicine expanded under Bush despite the fact that he recently vetoed a bill that sought to cover more uninsured children.  There is an instance where Bush falsely claimed libertarian values–where were those values when the prescription drug benefit legislation was passed?  Nowhere to be seen.

No, libertarianism continues to exist solely on the fringe.  I hope that will change, but it will take something more than anything I can see on the horizon to change that.