7 Examples of How Liberals Misrepresent Libertarianism

by Micah J. Fleck

[dropcap size=small]F[/dropcap]ull disclosure: I really like Greta Christina. I’m a fan. She and I have a lot in common – we are both irreligious, we are both sex-positive feminists, and we both seem to value the power of critical thinking and skepticism more than many of those around us. She even has a kick-ass blog that I highly recommend if any of the descriptions so far possibly relate to you, dear reader. But for all her awesomeness in all these regards, there is one aspect of Christina’s character that is undeniable – she is really, really liberal.

Like any personal bias, political affiliation can sometimes take someone who is otherwise extremely fair-minded and intellectual and reduce him into a baseless apologist for a cause – and, transparently, with no objectivity to offer. All of us political types fall victim to it – conservatives, liberals, and yes, even my fellow holier-than-thou libertarians. But each time this happens, most of us, regardless of our ties, would try to utilize facts and logic to get to the bottom of any given dispute and end up with the clearest image possible of what in fact is going on. With Greta, however, she seemingly cannot separate her own liberal perspective and the reality that sometimes conflicts with it.

Nowhere was this more clear recently than a few days ago when Christina, writing for the Raw Story, produced a list of 7 things she claimed could prove that socially liberal, fiscally conservative people like myself are “W-R-O-N-G” in our views (apparently we are illiterate, as well). In my estimation, she failed at this task. I admit I found it a little saddening to see a fellow skeptic stumble so horribly in this case, but I also found it my duty to point out (in not nearly an exhaustive fashion, admittedly) some of the most glaring issues that stood out to me from Christina’s article.

So, without further ado, I give you my reluctant-yet-necessary rebuttal to my respected fellow writer’s list. Pull up a chair and stay awhile.

Starting off on a baseless tangent claiming that fiscally conservative policies do “enormous social harm,” and adding (as if to give credibility to this claim) that “even” David Koch calls himself a social liberal, Christina goes all-out and postulates the notion that such policies are, in her own words, “racist, sexist, classist (obviously), ableist, homophobic, transphobic, and otherwise socially retrograde.”

Woah! These policies must be just horrible!

Christina also suggests that because one cannot separate social issues from economic issues, one cannot in fact be on two ends of the spectrum, respectively. Keep in mind that so far, no evidence has been cited to back up any of these claims – broad or narrow – yet already the damning proclamation of horrible things like racism and other bigotry has tainted any of the issues Christina could possibly focus on in her list – this is a rhetorical trick that is designed to precondition the readers to already be antagonistic toward the opposing view, even before the details of which have yet to be revealed.

Finally, we get to the list itself. For the sake of easy comparison with the original article, the rebuttals to each item on said list will be likewise numbered.

1: Poverty, and the cycle of poverty.

What Christina refers to as “the big one” is this cycle of poverty that she claims the statistics show is really, really difficult to pull oneself out of. Well, yes, that’s true – a straight reading of statistics will always show that most people born into certain situations in life will likely always stay there. But does that indicate that there is anything innately wrong with the system as it currently is? Do we want a socialist-based system where everybody is given an equally minimal amount of everything, or do we want to have the freedom of social mobility within this stratified system that absolutely abides by Thomas Jefferson‘s immortalized words promulgating the right to only pursue happiness?

The problem with Christina’s point is that she actually doesn’t seem to have one. She talks a lot about different issues such as transportation, education, etc. that affects the poor, then she cites an article that talks all about how minority groups lack access to the best options among these things. Curiously enough (and very telling), she fails to mention that big government overreach and artificial limitation of choice of such opportunities in impoverished areas is largely to blame for these conditions in the first place. So if she’s trying to argue for even more government overreach and regulation as a solvent to this problem, she is sorely mistaken. And none of this directly connects to poverty like she promised it would, but never fear – she has an answer for that. “Well, duh,” she writes with true intellectual fervor. Everything about poverty, she argues, is affected “by fiscal policy.”

Well, I’m glad she cleared that up.

In the end, Christina attempts to bring her point back around to how being fiscally conservative is evil:

“Fiscal policy affects poverty. And in the United States, “fiscally conservative” means supporting fiscal policies that perpetuate poverty. “Fiscally conservative” means slashing support systems that help the poor, lowering taxes for the rich, cutting corners for big business, and screwing labor — policies that both worsen poverty and make it even more of an inescapable trap.”

Once again, no sources are provided to support this claim.