Life in the Middle

When Alex N. Harris ’08 walked into his first Libertarian Society meeting his freshman year, there was only one item on the agenda: “Disbanded!” In the fall of 2004, according to Harris, the then-president of the Society concluded that his senior thesis was more important than a faltering club.

But a year later, a new organization called the Harvard Libertarian Forum (HLF) was up and running. This was thanks in part to the savvy organizational skills of now-President Harris and Vice President John M. Sheffield ’09, but was also the result of a wave of student interest. While the club has only a few die-hard members, according to Harris, the Forum has been steadily growing since its founding and currently boasts a mailing list of about one hundred people.

While this represents a small subset of Harvard’s undergraduate population, FM’s research suggests the existence of a sizeable number of students who don’t label themselves as politically Libertarian but do hold libertarian views on various social and economic topics. But there is a serious disconnect: while the proportion of students who hold libertarian beliefs (with a small “l”) might be growing, the growth of Libertarianism as an organized political party (with a capital “L”) is constrained by the entrenched two-party system and general confusion about just what exactly it means to be a Libertarian.


JUSTICE DID NOT DO LIBERTARIANISM JUSTICE

HLF VP Sheffield remembers a job interview in which his political leanings were questioned. When Sheffield explained his liberatarian views, his employer responded by saying, “I thought libertarians were all gun-toting crazies from Texas.”

Most libertarians believe that most Americans have a pretty inaccurate understanding of libertarianism. To them, the philosophy has more to do with limiting government intervention than it has to do with the protection of the devolution of rights. Instead of the intellectual descendents of Nozick, Friedman, and Hayek, many think of libertarians as ultra-conservative religious types who want absolutely no government regulation of people’s lives.

This is far from the truth. Libertarians believe that the fundamental right of humans is a right to freedom and to protection of that freedom by a very limited government. Classical liberals believe they should be able to do what they want with their stuff and in return they’ll leave other people’s stuff alone. The only reason to create government in this laissez-faire world is for minute regulations to protect this liberty.

Libertarians fall into two categories: the Economic Libertarians, or Consequentialists, and the “Rights Based” Libertarians, or Deontologists. The Consequentialists are less theoretical, and believe that limited government plus a large amount of economic and social liberty would make us rich, happy, and moral.

Deontological Libertarianism is probably the branch more widely recognized among the non-libertarian population. They draw a distinct line between themselves and the consequentialists in that they see certain inherent rights as absolutely untouchable, regardless of costs of noninterference.

According to Senior Lecturer on Economics Jeffrey A. Miron, while most people might come out of Justice with a Deontological idea of libertarianism, the majority of the fiscally conservative but socially liberal demographic fits more neatly into the Consequentialist camp.

“There’s this strong man version of libertarian principles which says that we have rules and rights and we do everything by these rules and rights,” says Miron. “And when you ask them why, they say, well people are happier with these rights. That’s a consequentialist view. What we’re doing is talking about the consequentialist’s arguments.”

These two sects are thought to be the major types of libertarianism, but the range and gradations within the system of thought are extensive. Assistant Professor of Government Eric A. Beerbohm says that “the term ‘libertarianism’ is increasingly an omnibus term. It’s grown increasingly beyond the [High-Churchman of Ayn Rand] and economics.”


SMALL CLUB, BIG IDEAS

Even within the hard core of the HLF, these many different “omnibuses” of libertarianism are represented. Harris, a senior with a knack for the kind of convincing, charismatic conversation usually associated with politicians, firmly aligns himself with the Deontologists. But he does admit that it is tough to believe that some rights should be upheld regardless of situation.

“Pretty much nobody holds that that is absolutely true,” says Harris. “Most people think that there are some situations which say that it’s OK to torture individual people.”

But even with his strong views, Harris is open to both listening to and accepting others. He has to be, considering his family, which he describes as “ranging from Dennis Kucinich on the right to Leon Trotsky on the left.” Harris, who agreed with the libertarian philosophy before he “even knew the name,” learned at a very early age how and when he could win his political battles. Which is probably a good thing, as even the Libertarian Forum’s two major officers (Harris and Sheffield) disagree on significant aspects of libertarianism.

For his part, Sheffield describes himself in a singsong voice as “a libertarian in apostasy with a healthy appreciation for Marx.” By this, Sheffield means that he is opposed to the government regulating the individual rights and welfare of the people, but he definitely does not support the typically libertarian view point that people are responsible for their own well-being. Sheffield calls this the “self-ownership axiom,” but he adamantly believes that the way to raise people out of economic despondency is not through redistribution, but through work by individuals as a community to help the community. This humanitarian view is shared by many members of the club.

“Another libertarian position would be that it is incumbent on an individual, for a number of reasons, to work for the rights and development of the community to which she belongs,” says Sheffield. “The key is that such obligations shouldn’t be enforced exogenously, which is why I find state redistribution and ‘impersonal’ social action problematic. For me, being a libertarian implies dedication to civil society and public action.”

Sheffield practices what he preaches, spending summers working on police violence and domestic abuse research in places like Argentina and his home town of Fayetteville, N,C. As he waxes eloquent on philosophy and his love of Marx (he claims that the two nights after the first time he read Marx he didn’t sleep), Sheffield’s frustration with the perception of libertarianism is clear.

“My criticism of this self-ownership point is that that’s not how things really work,” says Sheffield, chewing on his pen and handling a giant coffee mug. “People don’t live in a vacuum. When people have been systematically taught that rights violation is OK, I don’t think that this whole idea of self-ownership applies.”


ARE WE ALL SOMEWHAT LIBERTARIAN?

Sheffield and Harris are just two of many, as others in the club and student body hold diverse views of libertarianism. Professor Miron, who in past years taught the popular class, “A Libertarian Perspective on Economic and Social Policy,” sees himself and many of his students and colleagues as libertarian, at least in tendency.

“There’s a view that is concience about government both in social areas, and in economic and foreign areas that tries to ask if the government is doing more harm in intervening,” Miron says. This view, based on consequences of government action is, in the opinion of Miron, not so uncommon: “I think that all economists are in a very small way consequentialist.”

It’s a personal opinion, but one that is greatly supported by judgments and polls. The Cato Institute, the leading libertarian think-tank in Washington, also sees a trend towards this broad economically-conservative, socially-liberal class of libertarianism. According to David Boaz, the Executive Vice President for the Cato Institute, “the combination of views that we might call fiscally conservative and socially liberal has substantially increased,” a fact that is supported by national polls. In a policy analysis entitled “The Libertarian Vote” by Boaz and David Kirby, multiple national surveys (including the Gallup poll) find from 10 to 20 percent “giving libertarian answers.”

Furthermore, this tendency is growing within the young voter population as well. Nigel Ashford, senior program officer at the libertarian Institute for Humane Studies, says “There is a growth of libertarian campus groups which arise independently. A few are linked with the Libertarian party, but most are independent, and interested in ideas rather than direct politics.”

Andrew S. Loewer, president of the College Libertarians at Cornell University, sees a similar libertarian trend at Cornell and with peers: “Our generation is a lot more accepting than previous when it comes to alternate lifestyles and differences in choice,” adding in an e-mail that, “Many feel we’ve been betrayed by a government that’s fighting a war most Americans don’t want, spending money without regard to the future and not addressing our nation’s problems. Call us selfish, but that’s not acceptable when it’s our hard-earned money and our reputation that’s at stake.”

This libertarian slant in traditional politics among the college generation seems to have influenced both liberals and conservatives, and Harvard seems to be no exception. In a Crimson poll of 188 Harvard undergraduates conducted in all the river dining halls and in Annenberg, 30 students identified themselves as libertarians, as opposed to 15 Republicans and 143 Democrats.

For example, take Brian J. Bolduc ’10. Bolduc, who is also a Crimson Editorial staff writer, spends hours each week on 2008 Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s campaign. However, even with his evident Republican allegiance, Bolduc identifies himself both in person and on Facebook as a libertarian.


Brian Bolduc '10

Representing a more conservative side of libertarianism, Bolduc simply believes that the government has too many regulatory powers when it comes to both economics and social issues.

On the topic of gay marriage, for example, Bolduc says “It’s a problem that the government has created. They define and put forth what we say are civil unions. That assumes that the government has the right to define our social relationships.”

“Just get the government out, it shouldn’t be involved,” Bolduc says. “At the end of the day, if it doesn’t adversely affect anyone, it’s your choice.”

While it’s up to debate as to why this shift is occurring among students of both parties, Sheffield has his own hypothesis involving the growing importance of the conservative Christian right in the GOP. “Because the economic conservatives who traditionally allied with the Republican party are gradually realizing that the Christian right maintains a strong hold on the party’s nominations for most important elected positions and will continue to be the largest single component of the Republican voting base,” he says, “it is nearly impossible to be both a Republican and a social liberal.”

Regardless of their reasons for doing so, though, it seems that many students are finding a philosophical home in libertarianism—but not often a political one.


RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT? PROBABLY NOT

Although we might be swaying towards libertarianism in theory, don’t expect to see many Harvard students flocking to the Libertarian party anytime soon. Along all levels of the libertarian crowd, there seems to be a consensus that the left-right political dichotomy and dominance of the two-party system isn’t going anywhere.

According to Harris, “the Libertarian Party is a joke,” (another widely-held view amongst “academic libertarians”). Harris thinks that even serious libertarians will continue along traditional party lines.

“More and more people will be libertarian-leaning in their views, but I think the parties will stay the same because the people who vote for parties as independents have much less of a vote,” Harris explains. “Only people who are active in the parties can get people elected.”

Loewer echoes Harris. While Cornell’s libertarian club maintains a healthy 50 member average “on paper,” Loewer believes that Libertarianism as a party and political force is still pretty far away. But he maintains that libertarian philosophy will become a force to be reckoned with in American politics, whether or not it’s under the libertarian banner.

Among the self-declared libertarians, there seems to be two schools of thought as to why libertarianism as an organized force remains weak. The first is the power of the entrenched two-party system. Secondly, and more importantly, it seems that libertarians will not organize into Libertarians any time soon because of a lack of understanding. With such a multi-faceted philosophy, many people are confused as to where they fit into the libertarian spectrum or, even worse, don’t know that they fit into the libertarian spectrum at all.

Boaz of the Cato Institute thinks that the media has a large part to play in this confusion with their emphasis on only the two major parties. Boaz says that “political scientists in the media have tended to ignore people who have fairly coherent views that don’t fall into liberal and conservative.” Which results, in Boaz’s opinion, in a general misplacement of political tendencies.

Harris sees the lack of self-identification and organization as a problem as well. “A major minority are libertarian leaning people,” he says, “but they are a sizable group that is not nearly organized or self identified enough to vote as a block. People have no idea that they are libertarian.”

Harvard represents a microcosm for this general confusion. In the dining hall poll cited earlier, while only 16 percent of those surveyed aligned themselves with libertarian politics, 28 percent considered themselves to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative, a typical libertarian stance. This is a large minority to be sure, and one that could probably grow given impetus and organization.

Furthermore, opportunities are there for libertarians to expand. In a country discontented by government regulation and spending, people are looking for new politics. Plus, at least for students, there are both grants and support available from national libertarian organizations.

Last summer, for example, Harris spent eight weeks with free housing and on a $1,500 stipend attending the Charles Koch Seminar. Through the seminar, he was able to meet other libertarian college students and spend six weeks in an internship at the Cato Institute. The force behind the majority of these libertarian contacts and grants is the Institute for Humane Studies. The Institute prides itself on promoting policies aimed at liberty—typically in the form of libertarianism among college and graduate students. This aid materializes in the form of internships, summer seminars, and annual donations of around half of a million dollars in scholarships for students doing academic work on “liberty” (such as Harris, who was one of the only undergraduates to receive such a grant).

Through its support the Institute is also able to track trends with students. According to Senior Program Officer Ashford, the strict left-right see-saw is not appropriate any longer, especially for young voters. “The political parties, the media, and the government are structured with the idea of liberal-conservative. I think most young people don’t fit into either category. They don’t fit into those labels, but they don’t have a name to identify what they are.”

For now, the Institute for Humane Studies and other libertarian support networks must rely on promotion of libertarian theory as opposed to political agendas. And though Harvard and a number of other schools boast libertarian organizations, the scattered aspect of the philosophy makes it difficult, even with such great support, for these students to mobilize. But the libertarians seem to be hopeful. At the very least, as Cato’s Boaz puts it, “On the broad issue, I definitely think there are more people in the socially liberal, fiscally conservative camp. That means people are ‘broadly’ libertarian.”

Spurred by ideology and supported by basic institutional backing, libertarians have all the ingredients they need to become a political force. All that stands between the little-l libertarians and their capital-L counterparts appears to be a little organization and a renaming that requires massive symoblic change but minimal political reorientation. Whether or not a historically diffuse group has the internal drive to mobilize, however, remains to be seen.