David Boaz

The Libertarian Party presidential nominating convention is coming up this weekend, with Donald Trump as a featured speaker. This is apparently the first time in US history that a political party has had another party’s nominee at its own nominating convention. And what a choice!

The Libertarian Party was founded to “challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual” and to specifically run candidates for office on a platform of personal liberty, economic liberty, and a peaceful foreign policy.

Needless to say, that’s not Donald Trump’s platform, nor does it describe his actions as president. Which is why most libertarians, except the LP faction that won control of the party in 2022, are mystified and appalled about why a self‐​proclaimed libertarian party would invite a would‐​be autocrat to dominate media coverage of its convention.

Cato libertarians have always operated outside of the political system. We do not support politicians or political parties. However, we stand ready as always to work with Republican or Democrats when we share common ground and objectives and oppose them when we disagree.

Just posted at the Washington Post is a column by Cato president and CEO Peter Goettler exploring this mystery. Goettler explains what libertarianism is:

Libertarianism, at its core, is the modern manifestation of classical liberalism, the transformative movement that, beginning in the 18th century, challenged monarchs, autocrats, mercantilism, caste society, slavery and religious persecution. As heirs to that tradition, libertarians believe in individual freedom, equality under the law, pluralism, toleration, free speech, freedom of religion, government by consent of the governed, the rule of law, private property, free markets and limited constitutional government.

And how Trump differs (as if it wasn’t obvious):

He allowed government spending and debt to continue to spiral upward, increasing the national debt by $8.4 trillion. Federal outlays soared from $4 trillion his first year (2017) to $6.8 trillion in his last year. He persists in railing against immigration and free trade, supports further expansion of presidential power and seeks to crack down on political enemies.

He also points out how sadly un‐​libertarian the LP’s current leadership and its messaging are.

Read the whole thing.

Ideological labels are challenging. They change over time. They often originate as terms of abuse for one’s opponents. The proto‐​liberal Levellers in the mid‐​1600s got their name from critics who accused them of wanting to “level” society, rather than simply to establish equal rights. Both “Whig” and “Tory” were originally used to criticize their opponents in the late 17th century. These days, what do conservatives want to conserve? Are liberals still liberal?

Still, labels are a way of making sense of the political world. And we should use them as carefully and accurately as we can. One linguistic confusion that’s been bothering me lately is the increasing use of “far right” in the mainstream media to refer to people with very different views. In a letter to the editor of the Washington Post, I urged journalists to recognize the stark differences between libertarians and the “far right”:

Post reporters frequently use the term “far right.” But I wonder whether they might be more discriminating.

Take the Nov. 26 news article “Dutch vote shows far right rising, transforming Europe.” It called both Argentine President‐​elect Javier Milei and Dutch Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders “far right.” But Milei is a free‐​trader who wants to downsize a bloated Peronist government that has brought Argentina 80 years of economic decline. He wants to legalize organ markets and supports same‐​sex marriage. True, he’s antiabortion, but it’s not exactly extreme to hold a position that almost half of Americans hold (if you include both no abortions and some restrictions). Meanwhile, Wilders’s party says this: “The Netherlands is not an Islamic country: no Islamic schools, Qurans or mosques.” He has shown no interest in smaller government. In fact, given what I can see, I might call Milei liberal and Wilders illiberal. Are those candidates and parties really the same movement?

The Post has sophisticated readers. They can make distinctions if reporters will lay them out. It seems facile to lump every challenge to the social democratic establishment as “far right.”

For more on these issues, see “A New, Old Challenge: Global Anti‐​Libertarianism” and “Rejecting Equality Means Rejecting Libertarianism.”