A libertarian look at Harvey Milk.

Above is a 90-minute documentary The Times of Harvey Milk. Milk, though he was once a Goldwater supporter, came on to the American political scene as a candidate of the Left. So why would a libertarian admire and respect Milk?

There is a false assumption, a grossly false assumption, that libertarianism is some sort of Right-wing philosophy. I would assert most strongly, it is not. Properly understood libertarianism in its “classical liberal” incarnation was the original Left wing of politics. The Right wished to “conserve” the prevalent social order. Liberals did not. They wished to reform it in many different way including ending the feudal system, abolition of the church/state alliance and ending the government coddling of certain business interests through subsidies, monopolies and protectionism. There was very, very little which classical liberals though worthy of conserving. The advocates of conserving the social order were called conservatives and their method for doing so was the use of State force.

When the socialists arose they embraced many of the goals that true liberals were seeking. But these socialists thought it possible to achieve liberal ends through the use of State force, in other words while adopting liberal goals they clung to conservative means. As the socialist/communist movement evolved certain erroneous premises which they had embraced pushed many into a totalitarian camp. At that point these “Leftists” had ceased seeking even liberal ends and had become full-fledged conservatives preserving the political power structure through coercive means.

This created a crisis within the political Left. Many in the Left still passionately embraced the ends of the classical liberals. They opposed the totalitarianism of the conservative Left yet they were having problems giving up the idea that state power was the best method of achieving liberal goals. Most of modern Leftists, Harvey included, fall into this category. For the libertarian they are as confused as the modern conservative. Neither consistently advocates freedom yet neither consistently wants to undermine it. Whether their premises undermine such freedom is a different matter, but neither does so intentionally, with the exception of the more extreme elements.

Conservatives today want economic liberalism but shy away from social liberalism. Socialists and Progressives want social liberalism, and the results of economic liberalism but cling to State power. So, for the true libertarian, both the Left and the Right share similar flaws and have similar virtues. But many libertarians, who came from the Right, still cling to irrational hatred for the Left. This blinds them to the common ground that libertarians share with our friends on the Left.

A rational discussion of modern politics, from a libertarian perspective, requires us to understand, and appreciate, the common ground that we share with the Left as well. Yet this is inadequately done.

It is from this perspective that I wish to discuss the impact of Harvey Milk.

One thing that is clear from this documentary is that Harvey did passionately believe in trying to help those who were hurt, or oppressed, by the legal/political system of his day. He spoke of the needs of the various minorities to work together to defend their rights. This passion comes right out of the historical natural of classical liberalism. Unfortunately it is a passion that many libertarians have forgotten, to the detriment of libertarianism in general.

Classical liberalism originated, not as an economic philosophy, but as a philosophy that defended the rights of minorities. Freedom of religious dissent was a battle that the nascent liberals were fighting well before Adam Smith penned his Wealth of Nations (1776). Milton’s neo-liberal defense of free speech, Areopagitica, was published in 1643. John Locke’s essay, A Letter Concerning Toleration, was published in 1689. Both of these documents, while pushing boundaries for freedom, still made compromises to state control that modern libertarians (or many left-liberals) would no longer make. But certainly in their day they were radical calls for expanding individual freedom.

It should be remembered that these early liberals, arguing for expansion of freedom of thought, faced obstacles that later economic liberals did not face. While advocates of free trade were opposed by the landed interests and big business of the day, they did not face the Holy Inquisition, trials for heresy, mob violence, or execution. Of course, even today, modern libertarians find it easier to defend economic liberalism as “conservatives” will still do their level best to punish us for any forays into social liberalism—hence the reason so many “libertarian” think tanks and organizations don’t talk about the social aspects of freedom. But, for a libertarian to avoid social freedom, it is like a sprinter trying to run with just one leg. You can do it, but is it really worth the effort?

Classical liberals were in the forefront of the Abolitionist movement, a cause that was very unpopular when they started. But the evil of human slavery, defended by Scripture and conservative interests, was eventually abolished. After the successful campaigns regarding religious freedom, freedom of conscience, and the abolition of slavery, we see the first real move toward economic liberalism. Freedom of markets did not lead the liberal movement until the creation of the Anti-Corn Law League in 1839—slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1807 but Vermont had banned it in 1777 and Massachusetts in 1783.

Even when Richard Cobden and John Bright, created the Anti-Corn Law League the emphasis of much of their work was on the dire effects that state protectionism had on the working classes and the poor. Much of the impetus for promoting economic freedom was that it was necessary if poverty and hunger were to be abolished. That passion, to see the most vulnerable in society, made better off was a primary motivation of our liberal forefathers. And even our promotion of economic freedom was intimately tied to this desire.

State power always has been, and always will be, the sanctuary of the rich and powerful. It protects them from the competitive nature of markets and from the wishes and will of the consumers and workers. This is why true liberals have opposed efforts by pseudo-liberals on the Left to expand state power. We believe that such power is inherently counter-productive and destructive to the well being of all of but a rich and powerful elite. Such power structures, however, are particularly destructive to the well being of the most vulnerable groups in our society.

True liberalism was aligned with European movements that sought to end the ghettoization of the Jews, something promoted by the Church and religious elements of society. Liberalism worked to extend the franchise and legal rights to women. It was closely involved with the movement to extend equal rights before the law to African-Americans as well. And, for all ages, classical liberalism was a major force in opposition to imperialism and war.

Classical liberalism has always been about the emancipation of all people and the legal equality of all people, in regime of freedom. Economic liberty is incredibly important, but not as an end in itself. Economic freedom is necessary to achieve the social goals of classical liberalism. Economic freedom means that the power elites can’t confiscate the wealth of the working classes. Economic freedom makes emancipation of the Jews, women, gays, and even “illegal” immigrants possible. Economic freedom is always a necessary component in the real liberal’s agenda: the full emancipation of the individual to live their life, as they wish, provided they respect the equal rights of others. Economic freedom is the means to the social goals of liberalism. Classical liberals would argue that economic freedom is the necessary means for achieving those goals.

When one studies the life of Harvey Milk one finds that the passions he shared were, for the most part, liberal passions—and I mean classical liberal passions. In his short political career he broke ground for the rights of gay and lesbian people and opposed the horrendous efforts of the bigots around the Briggs Initiative. It should also be noted that many libertarians were very active in the campaign against Briggs and that the libertarian-leaning Ronald Reagan even opposed the measure and wrote an editorial against it.

Previously I quoted Nathaniel Branden as saying:

I think it’s unfortunate that Libertarians so often leave the initiative to the Leftists. For example, it was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to oppose our involvement in Viet Nam. It was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to oppose the draft. It was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to denounce racism in this country.

Never mind that the Leftists had their own motives for doing so and that those motives would not be the motives of Libertarians. The fact remains that we should have never have involved ourselves in Viet Nam, the draft is evil, and racism is contemptible. Libertarians—the true defenders of individual rights—should have been the first to speak up on these subjects, loudly and clearly and publicly.

I don’t mean that these are the only issues to which Libertarians should address themselves. Far from it. But it would have been immensely important had Libertarians been the first to speak up on these problems. I think it’s unfortunate that Libertarians so often leave the initiative to the Leftists. For example, it was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to oppose our involvement in Viet Nam. It was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to oppose the draft. It was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to denounce racism in this country.

It is vital, if modern libertarianism or classical liberalism is to remain true to its roots, that we revive this passionate defense of those most under threat by the expansion of state power. We are the only consistent advocates of freedom for the oppressed and the powerless. And when we see others, even those who fail to understand the link between social and economic freedom, who are passionate about individual rights we ought to applaud them and encourage them. There were aspects to Harvey’s political program that real liberals could not support. But we can appreciate his passion for the oppressed and embrace that aspect of who he was. We can acknowledge the important role he played in helping further individual rights in modern America. We can do these things—and we should.

Rating the states on freedom.

One of the major problems with the two annual publications which rate economic freedom around the world is that they only rate economic freedom. They ignore freedom in other areas of human life — mainly in order to secure conservative funding and conservatives hate social freedom.

It is encouraging to see the Mercatus Center, at George Mason University, has issued a more comprehensive freedom index (pdf) for the 50 US states which includes social freedom. I would hope that other such ratings follow suit. An index of economic freedom is very misleading when it comes to freedom in general. For instance, Hong Kong and Singapore both rate very highly in economic freedom but would fall dramatically on any list that included social freedom.

One can argue with the authors about how they rank various factors in both economic and social freedom. But the index is still useful in comparing the states. It also appears that they have not considered state legislation in regards to censorship. That is a major failing in my view and leads to certain states, such as Texas, rating higher than they deserve. From what I can see, regulation of sex plays very little in this personal freedom index. Arrests for prostitution are factored in with some consideration to rights for same-sex couples, but not other important factors. The idea that Texas, which continued to defend sodomy laws, which arrests people for selling vibrators, for "pelvic thrusts" and porn, is the fifth best state for social freedom is absurd.

Considering the important role that sexuality plays in the lives of humans, the dearth of material on the topic, in this study, is a real disappointment. I certainly believe they need to look at the censorship issues and the regulation of sexuality far more carefully. While they attempted to avoid the conservative bias of most such reports their, personal freedom index considers gun rights and smoking bans but not censorship. Even there, the personal freedom rating is biased in a conservative direction because it largely ignores the area where conservatives are worst: the regulation of the bedroom.

With those provisos, here are the 10 states that ranked highest in the nation for freedom.

1. New Hampshire
2. Colorado
3. South Dakota
4. Idaho
5. Texas
6. Missouri
7. Tennessee
8. Arizona
9. Virginia
10. North Dakota

I suspect if the regulation of human sexuality were actually factored in Texas, Missouri, and Tennessee would see their scores decline. Perhaps most of these states would. And some states, which fall closer to the bottom of the pile would see their scores improve. Whether they would improve enough is another question.

The ten least free states (from least free to most free) are:

1. New York
2. New Jersey
3. Rhode Island
4. California
5. Maryland
6. Hawaii
7. Washington
8. Massachusetts
9. Illinois
10. Connecticut

Below is the map showing how the states rate on economic freedom. Click to enlarge.

Racists, Barr and the shifting tides of social opinion.

It appears that Mr. Barr got an endorsement from one of the truly lunatic fringe types over at the racist Stormfront discussion group. It was done on the premise that Barr would “stop supporting wars for Israel.” The Nazi in question is apparently unaware that Barr’s VP candidate is Jewish and a staunch supporter of Israel.

Barr’s campaign does deserve a half a cheer for repudiating the endorsement. Russ Verney, Barr’s non-libertarian campaign manager said: “The Barr campaign is not going to be a vehicle for every fringe and hate group to promote itself. We do want and will not accept the support of haters.” Barr operative Steve Gordon said: “We denounce anybody who doesn’t want to treat everybody equally under the law.”

Some people are cheering this loudly. But really folks, this is 2008, does it really take any guts or principles to denounce Nazis today?

I am glad Barr did it. When Ron Paul got such support he refused to denounce it and that itself became news. The Right tried to defend Paul on that but if the shoe were on Obama’s foot, and he were endorsed by some radical Islamic group, his refusal to denounce the endorsement would be loudly proclaimed. The issue only became news worthy because Paul was unwilling to denounce it and tried to make the issue go away for some time before, I believe, finally saying he didn’t want their support.

Refusing the support of Nazis is not a particularly brave political move. It doesn’t necessarily show anything about Barr except to show that his people are savvy enough to know that the support of such blatant bigots is political poison. Still I’m glad he did it.

Mr. Gordon’s comment is an interesting one. He said the Barr campaign will “denounce anybody who doesn’t want to treat everybody equally under the law.” I hope so. But will this really apply if some major figure on the Religious Right comes out in support of Barr. The Religious Right tends to refuse to treat gay people equally -- in fact they are campaigning on unequal treatment for homosexuals. Will Barr denounce the support such people? Time will see.

It is, of course possible that he will. Even John McCain is doing that these days -- having rejected the support of two prominent ministers in the fundamentalist Right. With Barr’s background, in matters like the Defense of Marriage Act, it is even more necessary for him to denounce any whiff of bigotry. He is more vulnerable than McCain.

I would also note that there is another story here as well. It is one which I think the media has not notice and it is not about Barr though Barr’s alleged change of heart on social matters is indicative of the change. That story is that America has shifted directions on social matters. Cultural conservatism is on the way out and cultural liberalism is gaining.

The pendulum is going in the opposite direction. We saw a big shift in the mid 60s toward social liberalism -- or things sometimes considered social liberalism which weren’t. Two decades later the country shifted in the other direction. It is now shifting back. Here are things which I see as indications of this cultural shift:

South Dakota Republicans passed legislation outlawing abortion but the voters in South Dakota repealed the law almost immediately.

Republicans in Arizona but an antigay marriage amendment on the ballot in the last election only to find that voters rejected it.

Gay marriage repeal attempts in Massachusetts failed badly and support for marriage equality increased substantially in a very short time. Nationally support for gay marriage has almost doubled since 1998 from 27% to 46%.

States like Vermont, Connecticut and California have made giant moves in favor of marriage equality for gays. While an attempt to overturn the rights of gays to marry in California will be made this Fall by the Religious Right polls indicate that a majority of voters now support marriage equality for the first time.

America, the most religious modern nation in the world had a spate of books on the best-seller list espousing atheism. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris all wrote best sellers which open championed the non-religious value system.

Polls of young Americans show that in the last ten years the numbers who admit to being atheists has doubled.

Recent polls of evangelical young adults show that a large segment of them are unhappy with the social positions of their own churches. They say that Christians come across as hateful and bigoted and they don’t want to have any part of it.

Only a few years ago 60% of Americans said that government should support “traditional morality”. As 2006 it was down to 48%. I suspect it is lower today but couldn’t find a more recent Gallup poll on the issue.

What I think this means is that the culture war is over, at least for the time being, and the Religious Right lost. Americans are moving rapidly and quickly toward social liberalism. I give much of the credit to Republicans, and to Mr. Bush in particular. Anything Bush has embraced has been discredited. Almost no one outside the hard core fundamentalist camp gives Bush much credibility on anything. (The downside is that Bush was falsely perceived as being pro-free market so he has also done a lot to discredit markets.) The hypocrisy of Republicans and Religious Right leaders, caught in numerous sex scandals, also helped discredit this movement.

The American people got tired of the culture wars and they seem to be abandoning the cultural conservatives.

This is no time for Libertarians, or libertarians, to play down their social positions. If anything those positions should go to the forefront of the campaign. Great gains can be made for social freedom over the next few years.

The problem, of course, is that the Left will also be using the new social tolerance to try to push a statist agenda on these issues. So they won’t want just marriage equality for gays but will work to stifle free speech with hate crime laws for instance. Libertarians, if they lead the charge for expanding social freedom, can do a lot to deflect the statist advances in those fields. If they mute their voices, or only act after others have done so, they will lose any chance of directing this cultural shift.

There are three areas in particular where I think social freedom can be advanced and should be:

1. The country is on the cusp of complete acceptance for the equality of rights for homosexuals. Libertarians should not be shy in demanding this. Stop pandering to the Right, they are the losers in this war and when a war is ending it is stupid to ally yourself with the losers.

2. Libertarians need to double their efforts to abolish the war on drugs. This will be a hard issue to promote, even with the new social liberalism I am expecting, but this is a good time to make the effort. At the very least we can repeal bans on marijuana -- and not just for medicinal purposes either. Libertarians should not take the conservative view of state’s rights and downplay the issue or ignore it. They ought to be in the front lines demanding a total end to the war on drugs.

3. America’s sex laws have gotten out of control with numerous unimportant or benign behaviours being classified as a “sex offense”. When kids are arrested for having sex with each other, and charged with being child molestors and put on trial, you know the laws have gone too far. The entire “sex offender” bogeyman is ripe for deconstruction. This does not mean there are no legitimate sex offenders but politicians have not made things better and are creating more victims than they are preventing. This was a politically created hysteria much as the “Satanic child abuse” scare in the 1990s. That one passed in a few short years and died. It is time for this hysteria to die out as well. More importantly many of the recent laws ought to be repealed.

I believe that we will see a major shift in social attitudes in the United States over the next few years. And libertarians ought to take advantage of that. It may be that the theological conservatism will make a comeback at some point but I sincerely doubt they will ever see the days of influence that say in the last two decades. America is moving toward a post-Christian culture, much the way all the other advanced nations of the world have done. And that is good for social freedom. Whether it is good for libertarianism depends on whether they lead the change or merely go along with it.