‘Liberty conservatism’ is much ado about nothing

Get FREE US Politics & Policy Updates

we will send you one myFT Daily Digest Latest Email Rounding American politics and policy News every morning.

The writer is executive director, American Compass

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher’s agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, trade expansion and union-busting emerged more than 40 years ago as a remedy for the economic struggles of the 1970s. But with success came dogmatism, as a generation of conservatives believed that capitalism required only “economic freedom”.

Such blind faith inevitably led to policy failures. Unnecessary tax cuts fueled deficit instead of growth. Loose regulation invited a global financial crisis that led to the Great Depression. Free trade with China resulted in massive imbalances and de-industrialisation. Wages stagnated due to loss of labor power. Now this worn-out conservatism, unresponsive to the challenges of the new era, is fading into obscurity.

The problem is not with this trajectory—there’s no shame in the intellectual exhaustion of a successful conceptual project—but with the despair for those left behind. The movement is based on the belief that victims of a changing economy can easily relocate to new industries and Jobs is now facing that challenge.

A statement of principles Issued last week by an “old right-wing” person, sums up the plight. The group includes leaders from business-aligned institutions such as the American and Competitive Enterprise Institutes, editor of National Review, anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, strategist Karl Rove and commentator George Will. They have a brand, “Liberty Conservatism,” and even a logo. What do they lack, nothing to say.

This narration sounds like a classic episode of the sitcom seinfeld, a show about nothing. For example, who disagrees that “the president should nominate only policy makers and judges who are committed to upholding (constitutional) rights” or that “most individuals are happiest in loving families”?

The principles are not policy propositions, but to be useful they must accept trade-offs and give some direction on implementation. Instead, the signatories offer high-pitched prayers that invariably dissolve into indistinct hums. “Skyrocketing federal debt. , , It is a potential threat to the future prosperity, freedom, and happiness of Americans.” Thus, libertarian conservatives are committed to “creating a constructive reform agenda that can restore America’s financial stability”, without giving the slightest indication of how to accomplish that task.

The statement declared that “America is exceptional because anyone – from any corner of the earth – may want to live in America and be an American”. But it only calls for immigration policy to be “rational” and “built on the rule of law”. Under the title, “The Shining City on the Hill”, the statement says: “Americans are safest and freest in a peaceful world led by the United States, in which other nations uphold individual liberty and the sovereignty of their neighbors.” It’s the think-tank equivalent of aging rockers singing “We Are the World.”

The issues here are important, hotly debated on the American Right. After decades of lowering tax rates, is there a call for fiscal responsibility now? Should immigration be accelerated in the pursuit of higher growth and lower prices, or restricted to sectors of the labor market where wages have lagged behind? Nations don’t really always retain independence and sovereignty, so what best ensures the safety and freedom of Americans? Other conservatives are working on more robust responses to contemporary challenges that can actually solve America’s problems. But there is little concrete thinking in libertarian conservatism beyond a desire to appear thoughtful.

To be fair, they also have a desire to defeat “authoritarianism”, which the statement warned is “on the rise both at home and abroad”. From that vantage point this exercise probably makes more sense. Liberty conservatives are promoting an aesthetic that affirms their tribal loyalty and virtue. Market fundamentalism has little to say about the economic challenges of the 21st century, but, by turning the conversation to rising authoritarianism, readers of the undisputed truth can declare themselves brave truth-tellers. Unless they really want to remind us of their disdain for Donald Trump, they don’t need to use so many words.

Ironically, to the extent that unstable politics has opened the door to undemocratic forces, the old right-wing market-based dogma is largely responsible for this instability. And by refusing to offer any coherent alternative to what they see as authoritarianism, libertarian conservatives only make its rise more likely.