Jonah Goldberg Has It Ass Backwards

[Matthew Gaylor]

[Note from Matthew Gaylor:  Last Thursday I sent a posting titled 
"Cultural libertarianism the real threat to America?" See: 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/message/1416> by National Review 
Online Editor Jonah Goldberg where he made the claim that good 
character is fostered by limiting freedom". Goldberg was quick to 
point out however that he personally has "done lots of things in 
[his] life that are "un-conservative." His hypocrisy aside, Goldberg 
again restates his belief on the merits of limiting freedom by 
writing "Without character-forming institutions which softly coerce 
(persuade) kids - and remind adults -...", paradoxically claiming 
that such "coercion" is needed to foster our "open, free, and 
tolerant culture over others."...  Ay caramba!  Here we have what is 
colloquially referred to as compassionate conservatism, the notion 
that government is a loving father and that it's citizens are it's 
children. Goldberg aspires to an ideology that isn't even American, 
an ideology antithetical to liberty, and which is the underlaying 
ideological underpinning of the totalitarian state.  The great 
American author James Fenimore Cooper wrote that "Individuality is 
the aim of political liberty.  By leaving to the citizens as much 
freedom of action and of being as comports with order and the rights 
of others, the institutions render him truly a freeman.  He is left 
to pursue his means of happiness in his own manner."  Goldberg has it 
ass backwards, it is freedom and the respect of the rights of others 
that is inculcated in our institutions not the removal of freedom by 
our institutions that makes American culture superior.  It is said 
that the road to hell is paved with good intentions or as the great 
American libertarian writer  H.L. Mencken opinioned "Whenever A 
annoys or injures B on the pretense of saving or improving X, A is a 
scoundrel ."  So to Jonah Goldberg, I say go to hell.]


<http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg121801.shtml>


The Libertarian Lie By Jonah Goldberg, NRO editor
Responding to Nick Gillespie and Virginia Postrel.

Jonah Goldberg can be reached at (JonahEmail at aol.com).

December 18, 2001 3:35 p.m.

 

EDITOR'S NOTE: Yesterday I responded to Andrew Sullivan. Today I 
respond to the libertarians, primarily Reason magazine editor Nick 
Gillespie and former Reason editor Virginia Postrel. Virginia, whom I 
consider a friend, has also linked to numerous other sites taking me 
to task. I know that many readers are uninterested by these doctrinal 
squabbles. But others are, and I think they're worthwhile. 
Regardless, I promise this is the last you will hear from me about 
such things for a while. I'll be getting back to meat-and-potatoes 
G-Files starting tomorrow.

Lighten Up, Libertarians

Before we get to the heart of all this, let me address perhaps my 
biggest peeve about libertarians. Trust me, it's relevant. They are, 
without a doubt, the most defensive and thin-skinned group on the 
Right - far more so than Christian conservatives, gay Republicans, 
whoever. Maybe it's because so many of them became libertarians in 
the first place in order to escape criticism of any kind, or maybe 
it's because there's something about libertarianism that excites the 
region of the brain responsible for religious utopianism, or maybe 
it's the accumulated resentment at being in the backseat of the 
right-wing coalition - I don't know. But I am continually amazed by 
how so many libertarians can maintain a tone and posture of reflexive 
defensiveness and moral superiority, simultaneously.

Out of the hundreds of e-mails I got from angry libertarians, a 
sizable majority simply asserted that I didn't understand 
libertarianism. Not that I was wrong in the application of my 
analysis, or that I was being unfair or overly broad - but that I 
simply don't "get" it.

Now, as I conceded yesterday in my response to Andrew Sullivan, last 
Wednesday's column was not surgical in its argumentation, so I'm open 
to some thoughtful criticism on that score. But I get these letters 
anytime I write anything critical of libertarianism. Liberty magazine 
runs regular squibs mocking me for my obtuseness. Harry Browne, the 
2000 Libertarian Party candidate, went out of his way to lecture me - 
on NRO - to explain how I don't get it.

Virginia Postrel suspects that my "anti-libertarian outbursts" stem 
from a desire to get her and other libertarians to link to my site. 
Well, we can put aside the suggestion that it's a web-traffic bonanza 
to get linked on something called "Libertarian Samizdata" (I actually 
lose traffic when I indulge my anti-libertarian bent). But Postrel 
seems to believe my arguments are so silly that they're better 
explained by some sort of cynical ploy. Hell, I've even got my own 
Greek chorus at LewRockwell.com, which can barely go a week without 
singing some tune about how I'm slow on the uptake (or how Abraham 
Lincoln tempted Eve into taking a bite of the apple).

So let me just say once and for all: I'm sorry, but your philosophy 
ain't that complicated. I think I've got a handle on it: The 
government uses force, so we should keep it limited; open society; 
maximize human freedom; respect contracts; free minds, free markets, 
blah blah blah. I get it. Good stuff. Thanks.

In fact, I thought the whole point of libertarianism was that it's 
simple. I mean, whenever I hear libertarians trying to convert 
people, they always make their creed sound so uncomplicated. They 
begin their sentences with, "We libertarians simply believe X"; or, 
"Libertarianism is just a partial philosophy of life." Harry Browne 
says conservatism is worse than libertarianism because it can't give 
you "one sentence" answers on every political issue. In fact, he 
makes libertarianism sound like a warm bath you can slip into to melt 
all your political cares and concerns away.

And that's all fine. Except for the fact that when criticized, all of 
a sudden libertarianism becomes this deeply complex body of thought 
with all sorts of Kantian categories and esoteric giggling about 
"rational fallibility" flying all about (many of my blogger critics 
actually sound like self-parodies). On offense, you guys are like the 
"Drink Me" bottle in Alice in Wonderland, or Morpheus's pill in The 
Matrix. But on defense, you turn on the smoke machines and cloud the 
room up with faculty-lounge verbiage. You can't have it both ways.

And besides, there's nothing particularly wrong with simple 
philosophies - which is why I'm pretty much a libertarian when it 
comes to the federal government. Regardless, please spare me the 
more-sophisticated-than-thou crap. When smart people (and I've always 
said libertarians are very smart) - whether they're Marxists, 
libertarians, whatever - claim that other smart people "just don't 
get" very simple ideas, they only lend credence to the impression 
that their intellectual adherence is the product of a religious 
impulse. Or, they just sound obnoxious.

Gillespie's Pose

Which brings me, inexorably, to Nick Gillespie's response to my 
column last Wednesday, which Virginia Postrel tells us is "the best 
so far (of course)." To his credit, Nick doesn't resort to a fog of 
jargon, merely a typical tone of smirking self-amusement and 
condescension (but who am I to criticize tone?). We do actually agree 
on quite a bit. I've long argued that libertarianism will be the real 
challenger to conservatism, and I've long conceded that I'm - to use 
his word - "anxious" about it. Nick makes this observation sound like 
this is some sort of penetrating analysis of the subtext when in fact 
it's pretty much just the text.

Let's be clear about a few other observations Nick seems eager to 
pass off as penetrating insights. He chuckles, "It's a funny thing, 
but conservatives are never so quick to call Rorschach on one of 
their own: For instance, when it came to light a few years ago that 
George Roche III, the fabled president of conservative Hillsdale 
College, had been carrying on with his unstable and suicidal 
daughter-in-law for years, that twisted scene carried no definitive 
ideological import."

It's an even funnier thing that Nick uses this example - since it was 
National Review, specifically my colleague John Miller, who broke the 
story of George Roche III in the first place. Not only did NR make a 
big deal about Roche, we did it first and more than once - despite a 
long association with Hillsdale College and Mr. Roche. If Gillespie 
cannot find the "definitive ideological import" in National Review's 
integrity in policing the Right, that's his shortcoming, not ours.

But then Nick has, I think, a much harder time "getting" National 
Review than I have understanding Reason. "Nothing exercises National 
Reviewers quite so much as the sense that despite their standing 
athwart history yelling stop, it still keeps on a rollin' without 
them," Gillespie writes. He later adds: "[I]t only makes sense that 
conservatives and libertarians would start to line up on different 
sides of the barricades that surround the battleground of individual 
choice and autonomy."

That's all cute and fine, and I'm sure it plays well in letters to 
subscribers. But it's worth noting that while I am against drug 
legalization, Bill Buckley and the editors of National Review called 
for - and continue to call for - an end to the drug war, and for the 
legalization of drugs, when Reason was little more than an obscure 
pamphlet.

Nick might read a bit deeper into Hayek as well. Like so many other 
libertarians, Nick pulls out Hayek's excellent essay "Why I am Not a 
Conservative" as some sort of grand trump card. I admit this is 
another peeve of mine, but Hayek did not call himself a "libertarian" 
in that essay, as Nick gamely suggests. In fact, he explicitly 
rejected the label, calling it "singularly unattractive." "The more I 
learn about the evolution of ideas," wrote Hayek, "the more I have 
become aware that I am an unrepentant Old Whig - with the stress on 
the 'old.'"

Old Whig just so happens to be the same appellation the founding 
father of conservatism, Edmund Burke, used for himself - as Hayek 
approvingly notes several times.

More important, the conservatives in "Why I Am Not a Conservative" 
aren't even the ones Nick has so many problems with. Hayek was 
referring to the conservatives of the European tradition (de Maistre, 
Coleridge, et al), and he was a great deal more generous even to them 
than the folks at Reason are to the American conservatives of today.

Which is a shame because, as I pointed out in my column last 
Wednesday, Hayek argued that United States was the one place in the 
world where you could call yourself a "conservative" and be a lover 
of liberty - because we want to defend those institutions which 
preserve it. And that's why - despite a lot of propaganda from the 
folks at Reason - most conservatives are closer to classical liberals 
than a lot of Reason-libertarians.

Cultural Libertarians, Again

And that gets us, finally, to the meat of our disagreement. I say 
"cultural libertarians" are people unwilling to draw value judgments 
between various personally defined lifestyle choices, or "personal 
cultures." In response, legions of libertoids cry: "Not fair!" 
"You're talking about 'libertinism,'" say some. "Libertarians are 
just unwilling to use the state to coerce others into subscribing to 
our value judgments," say all.

Again, fine, fine - I get it. But I'm also not talking about most of 
the people who read my column and refer to themselves as 
libertarians. Most of these folks are fairly conservative people; 
they want a smaller government, and, hey, so do I. That's why I put 
the word "cultural" in front of the phrase in the first place. I'm 
beginning to think we should simply call such people " anti-state 
conservatives" and let the Reason types have the "singularly 
unattractive" label of "libertarian" all to themselves.

The people I am talking about are people like Nick Gillespie and the 
chirping sectaries on these various blog sites. These people quite 
proudly proclaim that maximizing individual liberty, and minimizing 
coercion by the state or the culture, is their mission. It's shouted 
from the rooftops in just about every issue of Reason. In fact, it's 
odd that Virginia cites Nick's rejoinder as the best so far - for a 
number of reasons, among them that he more or less concedes the 
lion's share of my argument. Nick concedes that he wants to maximize 
the "right to exit from systems that serve them poorly."

Porn Versus Christianity

Take this porn thing. Virginia is fighting mad at me for writing that 
she won't draw distinctions between pornography sales and 
Christian-bookstore sales. But she admits that she has no opinion on 
the issue, and concedes that many of my libertarian critics think 
Christianity, even in a liberal order, is a "bad thing." Meanwhile 
she also raves about this fellow Will Wilkinson who, according to 
Virginia, "makes the good (and obvious but not to Jonah) point that 
'If you ask whether porn or Christian books are better, you have to 
ask "better in what respect?"'" "Goldberg owes us moral arguments 
against pornŠ if he wants to be taken seriously."

Touché, I suppose. But doesn't this make my point? Cultural 
libertarians are uncomfortable with, and quite defensive about, 
drawing distinctions between such bedrock components of Western 
civilization - in this case a little thing called "Christianity" - 
and the latest installment of On Golden Blonde. According to these 
guys, the burden is on me to explain why and how porn is worse than 
Christianity. I'd be glad to do it sometime (though I'm hardly an 
anti-porn zealot); it doesn't sound too tough.

Meanwhile, let's stay on track. Cultural libertarians, as Nick 
readily concedes, don't "blindly respect 'established authority' the 
way conservatives tend to." The "blindly" is, of course, a cheap 
shot, but we'll let it go. That's my point. We're not talking about 
the state here; we're talking about the culture - the thousands of 
ingredients which, in various amounts, combine to form the recipe for 
Western civilization generally and American culture specifically.

Virginia even faults me for not making the positive case for Western 
civilization in the same column - which, aside from being a fairly 
high standard for any argument, also seems to underscore the point 
that these folks don't see its superiority as a given. To the 
cultural libertarian, all authoritative cultural norms should be 
scrutinized again and again.

But just to be clear, some of the ingredients for Western 
civilization I have in mind are such categories as Christianity and 
religion in general, sexual norms, individualism, patriotism, the 
Canon, community standards of conduct, democracy, the rule of law, 
fairness, modesty, self-denial, and the patriarchy. Obviously, all 
cultures have these things (or their equivalent). But it is the 
combination of ingredients - and their relative potency toward one 
another - that make the recipe for Western civilization unique.

The Libertarian Dodge

It's also obvious that - just like conservatives, liberals, and the 
unaligned - cultural libertarians like some of these things a great 
deal, and some only a little, and others not at all. We all have our 
own suggestions for how we should improve the culture. But when 
criticized on their cultural priorities, they get all defensive and 
claim they aren't making a subjective cultural argument. "We're just 
neutral. We just want the state out of things." But then they go 
right along mocking the cultural choices of conservatives, and of 
anyone who respects the established cultural authority more than they 
do. Nick makes it sound like it's a concession to allow cultural 
conservatives to make their arguments at all, though I doubt he would 
be so grudging about allowing a polygamist make his arguments.

Because I won't brag about my past experiences with drugs or 
extrapolate from those experiences a pro-drug stance, Nick 
grandiosely says that my hypocrisy is "the vice virtue pays to 
tyranny" (taking, in effect, the position that current or former 
gluttons should always proclaim that gluttony is good for everybody). 
Well, if hypocrisy is such a crime, what about the persistent 
hypocrisy of those libertarians who say that they are "neutral" on 
cultural questions while they constantly make undeniably cultural 
arguments?

Nick is on record denouncing America as a "grotesquely prohibitionist 
society" when it comes to drugs, and he's nigh upon orgiastic about 
the spread of pornography. If the anti-state conservatives who prefer 
the label "libertarian" want to tell me that the editor of Reason is 
unrepresentative of libertarianism, fine. But maybe you should 
consider the possibility that it's you who are unrepresentative of 
libertarianism.

Look, the libertarian critique of the state is useful, valuable, 
important, and much needed. But, in my humble opinion, the 
libertarian critique of the culture - "established authority" - tends 
to be exactly what I've always said it was: a celebration of personal 
liberty over everything else, and in many (but certainly not all) 
respects indistinguishable from the more asinine prattle we hear from 
the Left. (The great compromise between libertarians and 
conservatives is, of course, federalism see " Among the Gender 
Benders").

Personal liberty is vitally important. But it isn't everything. If 
you emphasize personal liberty over all else, you undermine the 
development of character and citizenship - a point Hayek certainly 
understood.

Kids are born barbarians, as Hannah Arendt noted. Without 
character-forming institutions which softly coerce (persuade) kids - 
and remind adults - to revere our open, free, and tolerant culture 
over others, we run the risk of having them embrace any old creed or 
ideology that they find most rewarding or exciting, including some 
value systems which take it on blind faith that America is evil and, 
say, Cuba or Osama bin Laden is wonderful. That's precisely why 
campuses today are infested with so many silly radicals, and why 
libertarians in their own way encourage the dismantling of the 
soapboxes they stand on. For cultural libertarians this is all 
glorious, or at least worth the risks. I just wish more libertarians 
had the guts to admit it. I disagree. I also wish some of them had 
the guts to admit it.

###
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
---

**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt at coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722  ICQ: 106212065   Archived at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************