Following up the last post — Conor Friedersdorf writes that libertarians are not all selfish jerks. “Countless libertarians are working to advance the freedom and fair-treatment of people other than themselves,” he says.
Some of his examples are, shall we say, suspect. For example, an article at Reason that calls for dismantling teacher’s unions presents itself as being pro-education, but it is really an argument for ditching public education in favor of voucher schools. And I think this exemplifies a big flaw in libertarianism, which is that whenever reality does not square with theory, reality is tossed out the window.
The article assumes that “widespread school choice” is the key to mending ailing public school systems. But real-world studies that are not conducted by right-wing think tanks show that “school choice” has no significant impact on the quality of public schools. Further, there is no evidence found by independent researchers that voucher students receive a better education than they would have had they remained in the public school. (See in particular “When Reality and Expectation Don’t Meet.”)
The right-wing think tanks frantically crank out “studies” that argue otherwise, but of course these institutions exist to fabricate data in favor of whatever their big-money benefactors want us to believe.
And this takes us back to what I was arguing yesterday — the “liberty” cherished by libertarians is a fig leaf for promoting the class interests of the mega-wealthy. What’s really behind “school choice” and the No Child Left Behind program is a private sector education industry that is attempting to siphon tax dollars away from public schools and into their own pockets.
It’s true that libertarians do stand with liberals on a number of issues, such as opposition to the expansion of the surveillance state. But as Digby points out, the article discussed yesterday about libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick was about libertarian economic philosophy. “So, using civil libertarianism to sell libertarian ideology, particularly in this case, is a misdirection,” Digby says. See also Jonathan Chait.
I just went through the comments on the previous post and really enjoyed them a lot.
“Countless libertarians are working to advance the freedom and fair-treatment of people other than themselves,†coupled with description of the “pro-education” agenda is very telling.
I think virtually any ideology presents a risk when it is confused with reality. Ideologies are models that represent the projection of a specific philosophy or principle on a simplified concept of reality. They are theory as opposed to praxis. (Am I sounding like Lenin?) When the time comes to apply them in the real world the unforeseen consequences and complications come to bear. But, the simplicity of an ideology is seductive because it provides the comforting illusion that we understand things we don’t and that the logic that underlies the world and society is a clean and knowable logic. These are difficult comforts to give up, and what’s more, they are so fundamental and self-edifying that they insinuate themselves into our identities. We are who we are because we understand the world in a way that is specific to ourselves.
When a believe system or ideology begins to crash and burn in the empirical world desperation, denial and identity crisis ensues. “Horses run back into a burning stable” as Maha once put it so well.
Today, the ideology in question is Libertarianism. I love the illustration of “improving education” by carrying out the free market fundamentalist agenda. Because Libertarians always want to advance the Freedom and far treatment of people other than themselves” as long as they have the sole right to determine exactly what those freedoms are and precisely what is “fair”. Businesses can form consortia, trusts and monopolies in the name of freedom and efficiency, but when labor forms an alliance, it is somehow necessary to destroy it. In whose name are they destroying it and for what purpose? For their equivalent of the “common good”, the free market and “meritocracy”, you know, plutocracy.
I think of Alan Greenspan who believed so fully in the Rational Choice Theory” that it simply didn’t occur to him that the financial sector would act dishonestly and toward its own collapse. Here is a very intelligent person, well educated and successful beyond my imagination. When he made his “confession” in the Senate hearing, I thought, “I wasn’t that naive when I was sixteen years old.” His status as a true believer put him on the gravy train, but it made him blind to what any simpleton would have seen. Of course that’s what made him so well suited for the job.
Well, as far as education goes, I think we should go back to what made us the most educated country in the world – from right after WWII to the beginning of the Reagan era.
And, since none of us went to public schools or colleges, but instead were all in private schools using vouchers in those halcyon days, we should return to the program that served us so well for over 30 years, before that socialist craze of public school education swept across the nation.
What?
Really?
Mostly public?
Hmm…
Whodathunkit?
Never mind…..
Slightly OT – Even Lenin, ideologue that he was, started to incorporate back elements of Capitalism in the early days of the USSR – because the people were suffering, and he thought bringing bringing back some elements of Capitalism and working Communism in more slowy would work better in the long run. Then he died, and Joseph Stalin came into power.
And Stalin didn’t give a shit. He did forced collectivization and 5 Year Plans at every level of the economy. Yes, he modernized Russia and brought it into the 20th Century – but at the cost of tens of millions of dead Russians, Ukrainians, Belrussians, Chechens, etc..
Mao did the same thing in China. He brought it into the 20th Century alright, but with a body count that even put Ol’ Joe’s record to shame, making him green with blood envy.
Todays American ideologues remind me of Stalin and Mao. Purity of purpose, no matter the cost or body count.
What’s really behind “school choice†and the No Child Left Behind program is a private sector education industry that is attempting to siphon tax dollars away from public schools and into their own pockets.
Heavily seasoned with anti-government, religious sectarians who have an agenda that melds pretty smoothly with that of the pro-business libertarians.
My favorite Uncomfortable Family Thanksgiving was the one where my sister-in-law, an excellent teacher in the Shawnee Mission, Kansas, public school district, ripped into her cousin from New Mexico, who sat over his pumpkin pie trashing public schools in his state and everywhere else. Dude, do not mess with public-school teachers, and do not piss off your cousin. She can take you.
“It’s true that libertarians do stand with liberals on a number of issues, such as opposition to the expansion of the surveillance state.”
And in every such case, they vote against what they believe.
The description of libertarians as “Republicans not against drugs” is telling. Libertarians vote almost exclusively Republican, in my limited experience, leading to the conclusion that, while they are ideologues, they are particularly uninformed ideologues…
The fact that libertarians have self-selected themselves to be auxiliary members of the Republican Party says a lot about their priorities. They may be in favor of civil liberties, but it’s the economic agenda that’s really important to them.
Again, I ask, “Has anyone ever met a poor Libertarian?”
‘Nuff said…
While I agree with most of the critiques of libertarians and libertarianism above, I know for a fact that there are some libertarian party members who mostly side with (and frequently vote with) democrats, because I used to be one.
What motivated me when I was a libertarian was the observation that the government kept hurting people. Some well-meaning liberal would give the government the power to, let’s say, help poor people by providing housing assistance–something I saw as an entirely reasonable and appropriate use of taxpayer money–and then along would come some fucking conservative who’d use that power to hurt people with: in this case, by funneling millions of dollars into the pocket of a slumlord campaign donor who give people roach-infested apartments with cardboard walls to live in and pocket the profits. I because to feel that you simply couldn’t do real lasting good with government power: it was toxic, and would eventually spoil everything it touched; human beings sucked too much to be trusted with it.
What stopped me from being a libertarian was a couple of things. Part of it was disgust with myself when it dawned on me that I was on the same team as people who genuinely wanted to dismantle public schools and libraries (man alive, that one caused me some serious existential nausea when I finally grasped it). But more important, though, was realizing that if you refrain from using government power to check and limit the power of rich people and corporations, you’re just giving rich people and corporations all of the power.
Realizing that, I rediscovered my faith that human beings can do good things by working together (which is all government is)… even if they don’t do it every time. And so I went back to being a loud and proud liberal.
No, most libertarians don’t come at it from that perspective. I’ve known many who just plain hate to pay taxes and don’t give a shit about anything else. But I’ve also known a lot of libertarians who genuinely do think, and care, and work hard to make the world a better place (some of the most generous philanthropists I’ve known, people whose charity puts mine to shame, are libertarians). It’s not always about apathy, self-centeredness, or covert authoritarianism. I am not defending it as a political philosophy; it is a profoundly stupid one. But it’s not always mean-spirited in intent.
BINGO.
You are probably right, but at best there is a kind of blinkered obliviousness about it.
Don’t piss off a public school teacher.
Amen to that. Six recalled state senators; one recalled governor in our sights. We’re coming to getcha.
I love it when people make statements about how bad public schools are, when they have never been in one. The recent study out of Milwaukee has proven how, even given their horrible societal situation, they still WAY outperform private schools who are taking the state’s money. Where’s the free market operating on that, or at least the state government saying that we’re not going to waste our tax payer money on inferior education, no more vouchers. I’m actually a nominal supporter of vouchers, but my thing has always been that we all play by the same rules. If you take voucher kids you take all voucher kids that walk through your door. If you can do a better job than me, great, have at it.
But always remember, of course, don’t piss off a public school teacher.
I am not and never have been an expert of American history; but, what I do remember is that those pesky Founding Fathers believed that the only way the country they were creating could work and work well was if all Americans had access to a good, free education. Our public education system was designed to give all Americans equality through education for free. To me, the Republican effort to destroy America’s once very good public school system has been a concerted effort to stop having an informed citizenry. And, they are winning the battle. As a result, I believe that the attitude the Republicans have about public schools is decidedly un-American.
Evan,
Thank you for your thoughful comments. They were every interesting and reminded me that when it comes to people, you can’t use a broad brush on everyone.
Buckyblue, I’m sure you also know that public-sector workers (teachers, firefighters, etc.) in other states are pulling for their sisters & brothers in Wisconsin. As are many, many of us who work in the private sector.
Evan — what Gulag said. Not all libertarians are Randian so-called “Objectivists” (a dishonest term if ever there was one; “Objective: ME”), although way too damn many are, or act like it. Thanks for the reminder.
“What’s really behind “school choice†and the No Child Left Behind program is a private sector education industry that is attempting to siphon tax dollars away from public schools and into their own pockets”
Exactly, that’s what is behind all these so called “austerity measures” as well. The wing-nuts are not really proposing to spend any less on healthcare or social security, they are just proposing that the money be distributed through “private” insurance companies (for healthcare) and wall street hedge funds (for SSI). This is what is so maddening, the media never reports what is really going on, they just take the talking points and run. Why the “leadership” in the Democratic Party can’t get in front of this scam is beyond me. Maybe they are on board the public to private gravy train too?
twtfltrd,
Well, Democrats didn’t abandon Main Street for Wall Street for the view alone – follow the money!
“I am not and never have been an expert of American history; but, what I do remember is that those pesky Founding Fathers believed that the only way the country they were creating could work and work well was if all Americans had access to a good, free education. Our public education system was designed to give all Americans equality through education for free.”
Actually, when the country was formed, there was [almost] no free/public education. That came much later, when cities started seeing large gangs of out-of-work teenagers (and younger) hanging around, causing a disturbance in commerce. Public schools (compulsory, free education) were first tired in these urban areas as a way of getting the ruffians off the streets. The idea spread rapidly as it succeeded far better than the initial utility would have suggested.
I’m sure there was voluntary public education before this, but not on any widespread scale, merely what enlightened localities provided.
That’s what they taught us in Public Education Law class!
Public education started in New England, where Massachusetts was one of the first states to require communities of a certain size to set up common schools. Public education did not start in the South until after the Civil War.
I spent my day today at a seminar for criminal defense attorneys, at which I heard from an extraordinary array of fiercely committed civil libertarians. These people aren’t complaining about energy efficient lightbulbs, low-flow toilets and showerheads, or emission standards. They are standing up to government at its most dangerous to human liberty. They are resisting the machinery of government power directed at the powerless. This is the key difference between left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism. When the rubber hits the road and government presents a real threat to freedom, when government employs real police-state tactics against intimidated citizens, it’s the progressive left that stands up and fights, while the right either stands mute or actively supports government authority.
DKF, excellent point. You’ll notice we never see the word “civil” modifying right-libertarianism. It’s a different animal entirely.