On Libertarian Factionalism, Our Critics, Conservative Associations and State Power

By Anthony Gregory

The generation of libertarians seen in such outfits as SFL excites and encourages me. I especially approve its efforts to cleanse the movement of the type of bigotry that emerged after years of the libertarian movement’s circumstantial alliance with conservatives to battle against New Deal liberalism. Finally, young libertarians seem poised to differentiate themselves entirely from rightwing mythology and error.

I worry, however, that many of the young libertarians, particularly centered around the DC institutions, might lose sight of the importance of radical anti-statism. This all relates to something I can best explain by way of a little autobiography.

I was always a cosmopolitan libertarian. Although I had my origins on the right, I have favored gay marriage and open borders since I was in junior high in the mid-1990s. I have always disliked the notion that white upper middle class men were somehow the most persecuted minority. I have always seen law enforcement’s treatment of people of color as one of the greatest problems in American culture. I have, with varying degrees of intensity, long been sympathetic to such leftish concerns as feminism and the need for the poorest to be liberated from the state infrastructure that keeps them down.

There are many like me who in the 1990s tended to see our values most represented in institutions like CATO and Reason, and who were suspicious of the seemingly conservative tendencies of other libertarians, such as those associated with Ron Paul.

The main reason so many of us were repelled by these cosmo groups and attracted to the paleos in the following decade was simple: 9/11 and the following response by the government seemed to illustrate that we were wrong to assume that CATO-style libertarians were more “liberal” than the paleos. Cato took years to seriously confront the issue of torture. Whereas many libertarians in the beltway began equivocating on border issues just when they got even more important, the paleos, in contrast, began rethinking their earlier skepticism of immigration in the age of Bush. On the police state, the paleos became abolitionists and radicals just as other libertarians became defenders of the FBI and CIA. In the last decade, it was the Rothbardians that radicalized the movement on police abolition, IP abolition, and military abolition.

The most dangerous form of bigotry in American culture from 2001 on, at least at first, seemed to be Islamophobia, and the Randians and mainstream libertarians went soft just as the state was rounding up innocent people and throwing them in dungeons such as at Guantánamo. Starting in the Bush administration, a CATO scholar started defending the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping and John Stossel publicly defended it on the Colbert Report. Efforts to reach out to liberals during the second Bush term often came from the very cosmo libertarians who were for the Iraq war, and who, for what it’s worth, tended to equivocate on abortion rights and immigration as well.

On what I consider the number one issue of the last decade and a half—war and militarism—the cosmo libertarians dropped the ball, time and again: on torture, on bombing Afghanistan, on the timetable in Iraq, on detention policy, on surveillance, on military recruiters on college campuses, on the warfare state as such.

Everyone realizes finally that the war on terror has become the biggest single threat to our liberty, the method by which the state has finally virtually destroyed privacy altogether, the main engine of government growth, the main fuel of the lawless presidency, the reason we have cops with tanks and battle rifles even in small towns. And directly and indirectly, the most bigoted policies in the last generation have been advanced in the name of a cause that too many libertarians have been at best ambivalent on. The war in Afghanistan today seems obviously horrible to almost everyone, but when it most mattered—when we had a chance to stop the bloodshed and the inevitable cascade of unending conflict and death that bombing and invasion would inaugurate—the whole mainstream libertarian movement was busy rubbing shoulders with the most corrupt Republicans since the Nixon administration.

The Rothbardians, even the socially conservative Rothbardians, were always right about these, some of the very biggest issues of our day. They also opened the door to other forms of radicalism, and, indirectly at least, Ron Paul activism has appeared to vastly radicalized the movement and brought in far more women and minorities. The radical anti-state, war-hating, peace-loving, establishment-condemning message of Rothbardian-Paulianism has, in its own way, made the movement far more cosmopolitan. Indeed, I think the welcome change in libertarian demographics to better represent the general population has many roots in Ron Paul activism.

At the same time, fringe cultural conservatives, in all their reactionary quirkiness, can be found in the “respectable” libertarian factions as well. There are famous race realists who hang out with the think tankers. I’ve seen Christian Reconstructionists tabling at a regional SFL event. The Birchers and Patriot types have as much a grip on libertarian activism in the west as in the South. And of course, the Republican impulses of many factions of the movement—even those enlightened enough to support gay marriage—have long tainted the movement with corporate apologia and, by proxy, rightwing culture warring. Before the NYT attacked libertarians for ties to neoconfederates, the New Yorker attacked us for ties to the Koch Brothers, and you had better believe that progressives will remember that exposé long after they forget about the NYT one.

The New Yorker attack was unfair, and brought on a wave of progressive conspiracy theorizing about how libertarians were allying with Republicans to abolish the state according to the philosophical platform of pacifist Robert LeFevre. My point is, we will always be attacked, our unsavory associations will always be cited but they are rarely necessary, most of our enemies hate libertarianism in its pure form more than they have conservatism, and practically every faction of our movement is vulnerable.

I have become far more ecumenical over the last couple years. I have taken a lesson from my model of a libertarian scholar, Robert Higgs. This ecumenicism might lose me some friends, but I don’t want to have any more enemies among libertarians. I see great value in much of what many of these organizations do, and I think there are very important issues on which my biggest allies over the last decade or so aren’t the most correct.

But I do want the younger libertarians to understand something: the mainstream libertarian organs, as great as they are—and they are great—have also made bad associations and have failed to uphold our values as times. Some of them won’t admit it, but many of them were wrong about what became the most pressing issues of our day.

The truth is not to be found in sectarianism. Please consider that.

5 replies »

  1. I’ve always (well, most always) been a proponent of a hyper-ecumenical anarchism, which means I’m widely disliked by almost everyone, lol. As an anarcho-pluralist, I’d say there is room for paleos, cosmos, cultural conservatives, Birchers, Patriots, Randians, neoconfederates, Christian Reconstructionists, race realists, gay Republicans, Rothbardians, cultural leftists, PCers, anarcha-feminists, anarcho-communists, left-libertarians, syndicalists, anti-racists, anarcho-black nationalists, anarcho-Satanists, anarcho-Maoists, and whatever else may come down the pike.

  2. The man in the middle is the first to get shot at sadly. Ultimately attempting to reconcile incompatible groups may not be beneficial to what you wish to achieve – there is too much infighting from those who are unable to accept the opinions of others.

  3. My goal has never been to be popular. If that were my ambition, there are far easier ways to do it than through involvement in fringe politics. Rather, the goal is to articulate various ideas and tactics that a wide assortment of tendencies can seize on and run with through their own efforts. This can happen with groups that are otherwise diametrically opposed to each other, and even with groups that are otherwise hostile to myself.

    For instance, I’ve seen comments in left-anarchist circles where someone says, “Well, Keith Preston is a douchebag…but anarcho-pluralism and pan-secessionism are actually interesting and potentially useful concepts.”

    That’s good enough for me.

    As an elitist and misanthrope, I have no interest in being loved. This is the “pan-anarchist movement employing pan-secession for the purpose of overthrowing plutocratic imperialism” and not the “Keith Preston Appreciation Society.” As a Stirnerite amoralist, I don’t care if people think I’m a douchebag or not (or even if I am a douchebag according to some objectively defined standards of douchebaggery).

    My ambition is to a) advance the revolutionary anarchist struggle; b) advance the wider struggle against imperialism; and c) rise to the challenge issued by the System that has thrown down the gauntlet.

    The anarchist philosophy (broadly defined) fits well with my own personality type and psychological makeup, which is obviously why I’m so intrigued by these ideas. Beyond that, my approach to political struggle is the same as Ernst Junger’s philosophy of war as described in “Storms of Steel.” The struggle is an ideal unto itself, irrespective of its purpose. The will to power and all that. Thou shalt win.

  4. As these kinds of ideas grow, I don’t know that there will be one singular “pan-secessionist” alliance or some broad “grand alliance of dissidents.” Probably a lot of different groups will start popping up here and there, often in opposition to each other. For instance, there might be ARV-ATS affiliated groups, others with similar views working independently of ATS, and even anti-ATS factions engaging in the same kinds of tactics suggested by ATS and de facto sharing the ATS outlook.

    Certainly, there are plenty of areas and issues where ad hoc alliances might form among people who otherwise oppose each other. In a recent podcast, I mentioned the possibility of an alliance of minor parties around the issue of ballot access. There are a lot of economic issues of this kind. For instance, a general strike by fast food workers might attract the interest of folks all over the political and cultural spectrum. There are other such issues as well, like the surveillance state or antiwar issues.

    But I think the main thing that would likely push all sorts of disparate dissident tendencies into a federative alliance would be sheer state repression. The US federal government and ruling class is not going to allow dissidents of any kind to organize on a mass scale. For one thing, I think they learned their lesson from the 60s, and don’t plan on tolerating anything like that again. The incidents in Waco and Ruby Ridge raised red flags even for many on the Left.

    As the system starting clamping down on dissidents everywhere, there might be a greater need for recognition of a mutual self-defense pact. There’s no guarantee that would happen of course, but I think it’s raw repression that would make it the most likely. But even then, the dissidents would need a means of accommodating their very real difference, and even polar opposite values. Hence, the ideas we talk about here at ATS.

  5. The Bloods and the Crips even managed to have a truce during the time of the Rodney King riots. One percenter motorcycle clubs have at times formed pacts for the sake of harboring each others fugitives.

    Of course, what we talk about here involves scenarios where the state has collapsed entirely, or nearly entirely. The religious right and gay rights, black nationalists and white nationalists, libertarians and socialists, Occupiers and Tea Partiers are never going to give each other friendship rings, nor should they. Instead, the idea is to achieve a high level of civil peace while attacking the system that is the enemy of everyone.

Leave a Reply