Policies that fit into a small “l” libertarian framework can be popular–even broadly so–and help deal with the problems Austin Bramwell describes in his response to Jonathan Rauch’s article “The Tea Party Paradox”. But, these policies must both packaged right AND actually do something about the problems they are intended to solve.
Packaging has gotten a fair amount of intellectual attention but has caught on to a surprisingly small extent in practice. You can rally the troops by saying “repeal Obamacare,” or “abolish Social Security/Medicare” but these proposals will almost never actually resonate with broad sections of the public. Even when they do (as repealing Obamacare might have a few months ago), they are nearly impossible to implement since they involve very diffuse benefits and very concentrated costs. Instead, solutions need to be stated in positive language. It’s important for people with libertarian leanings to say what they favor: “free choice in healthcare,” “a public-private retirement system” rather than what they oppose. This is a simple lesson that most people anywhere in the libertarian movement know intellectually but, to a large extent, it’s not followed in practice.
But packaging isn’t enough. People have to be convinced that libertarian solutions will work and do something about the problem. And simply saying “well, the free market or private charity will solve the problem” is NOT a solution. Instead, libertarian solutions often have to involve the rejiggering of the public sector rather than unrealistic and probably inadvisable ideas of abolishing it altogether. For example, giving cash to the working poor via the Earned Income Tax Credit or some other negative income tax is a much better way to provide every working person with a minimum standard of living than a bureaucratic welfare state. Vastly increased efforts to support meals and wheels and other support for shut-ins could reduce Medicaid long-term care costs a great deal. A system that scaled back Social Security–higher retirement age, means tested benefits—would make most people better off if it were combined with flexible, easy-to-use private accounts. And details matter, libertarian-minded people also have to care about how these things are run. In addition, simply saying that one wants to shrink government isn’t a substitute for trying to run it well.
So Rauch’s basic ideas can work. But they need better packaging and, just as importantly, need to BE solutions to problems rather than simple efforts to abolish programs.
Oldskool // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Reasonable and irrelevant. No matter how good or bad the ideas or intentions, the Right has an image problem. A spokeswoman du jour was on Larry King last night and came off as shrill as the news bunnies on Fox and the loudmouths on AM radio. As long as they’re the face of the Right, policies really don’t matter, imo.
Annikan // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:48 pm
There needs to be a lot of repealing all right…not so much of social security but how about repealing some of this stuff??? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/14/attacks_on_freedom_106299.html
I think a candidate for governor in Kansas pushed the idea of creating an Office of the Repealer, to get rid of old, outdated or just plain dumb laws (and there are quite a few still on the books, some that date back to the 1700s). What’s so bad about that? I think its an excellent idea! Politicians just keep adding new law after new law but never get rid of old laws that are outdated. Some never are enforced, other get selectively enforced.
And if you think outdated laws are no big deal, please read this: http://www.theagitator.com/2010/01/21/new-orleans-copsprosecutors-tagging-prostitutes-as-sex-offenders/ No, instead just brand libertarians as a bunch of selfish, paranoid kooks.
easton // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:49 pm
“People have to be convinced that libertarian solutions will work and do something about the problem.” Which will be pretty damn impossible since there are no effective libertarian solutions that will work. Mandating coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, nope, can not do that and say it is libertarian, the same with ending rescission. Certainly we can hold down costs by allowing millions of people to die who do not have health insurance, but we also have to get rid of the Hippocratic oath and allow hospitals and doctors to allow people to die who can not afford care.
There is a reason why every other nation in the OECD spend much less than the US with many having better outcomes, they all have significantly more Government intervention into health care. Now why does anyone suppose this is? Are non Americans somehow superhuman? Do they live longer by magic? Or could it be that most other developed nations realized that some sectors of the economy are better served by government, things like public education, military, and yes, healthcare. Oh, shocking.
Giving tax credits will not solve problems for a huge segment, it will only encourage insurance companies to ensure young healthy people by cherry picking and let others out to rot. What good is a credit when no sane insurance company will take it? And why would they, why would an insurance company take a few thousand dollar voucher for a child that has MS? Their goals are profits.
It all comes down to what society we want to be, one that is moral (ok, technically we are not Christian, but Jesus Christ was pretty explicit about our obligation to care for the sick and I, for one, see nothing bad about this) or selfish and narcissitic?
easton // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Annikan, just brand libertarians as a bunch of selfish, paranoid kooks.
Fine, thanks for the idea. Don’t mind if I do. Of course they are, it is fundamentally a juvenile philosophy. I get college students being into it since it means being able to smoke dope and get laid, but eventually people grow up.
Annikan // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:34 pm
easton, if all I cared about was smoking dope and getting laid, then I could just do that and ignore politics altogether.
Did you even read those links I posted? Excellent examples of how a top down government bureaucracy ruins peoples’ lives. And if you want to get all Christian morals on me, what did Jesus say about a) caring about prisoners & b) draconian punishments (ie casting the first stone).
easton // Jul 30, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Annikan, I am sure you are aware of what Jesus said about caring for prisoners and draconian punishments and I happen to agree with Jesus.
There are a million conservative solutions I can accept, like more state and local control over education for example, because these recognize the legitimate function of Government, just that it is more effective since it is more localized and responsive, it doesn’t call for the public education to be abolished. Our system of Representative Government is the greatest system there is, by far. I am not railing against sensible solutions to problems of Government, I am railing against the idiocy if we got rid of Government life would be “jus wunnerfool” Advocating straightening up the books, getting rid of old and useless laws, I have no problem with. That is not the same as saying lets get rid of most laws.
And, I am sorry, but do you really believe that no corporations have ruined lives? BP has just done a smashing job of destroying tens of thousands of peoples lives all in the name of expediency, and if not for Government these people would have no remediation.
Richard Stands // Jul 30, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Which is more “selfish”, I wonder? Advocating less government intrusion and micromanagement in the lives of all citizens of a “free country”, or lobbying the federal government to coercively redistribute outcomes based on my particular view of equity.
John Q // Jul 30, 2010 at 5:24 pm
“For example, giving cash to the working poor via the Earned Income Tax Credit or some other negative income tax is a much better way to provide every working person with a minimum standard of living than a bureaucratic welfare state.”
We could also consider the Austrian approach to unemployment insurance: if you’ve worked at your job for long enough, you get your UI payout as a lump sum rather than monthly payments.
See http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/improving-ui-with-lump-sum-payments/
JonF // Jul 30, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Re: if you’ve worked at your job for long enough, you get your UI payout as a lump sum rather than monthly payments.
Interesting idea, but what would be the difference from a practical POV? Same amount of money would paid out, presumably.