Reinventing Libertaria
Gary Cruse, The Washington Dispatch, May 27, 2003

Should the Libertarian Party, a party that barely shows up on political radar as it is, be further split? Has the LP written itself out of post 9/11 America? In a country moving perceptibly to the right, does a retrenched, leftist Democratic Party open up middle ground for its own replacement to the right?

As a small 'l' libertarian, I increasingly find myself at greater odds with the LP than I am with conservatives. When social conservatism is replacing the Tenth Amendment (the powers not delegated to the United States ...are reserved to the States) with any number of Commandments, a party of individual liberty and responsibility should be highly visible. The Democratic party has been equally contemptuous of the Tenth when that party has been in power. Are the pieces there for assembling a real party of Liberty?

The Libertarian Party might be poised to make such a run, but not in its present incarnation. A couple of planks in the party platform are serious anachronisms and must be dealt with first.

Completely out of step with America today,a 'foreign policy of non-intervention and peace' sticks out and resonates with recent anti-Iraqi war sentiments. Isolationism was almost a necessity when the oceans made dealing with the rest of the world more nuisance than blessing, but not any more. Anti-terrorism cannot be a winning hand without the cooperation of nations capable of harboring future Osamas. As to an announced policy of peace, let the lambs be silenced. There is an insidious, woolly-headed thinking among the naifs of society who are willing to settle for lack of conflict, for now, and call it peace, without regard to the wolfy machinations on their doorstep.

France and England had a treaty with Poland to come to each other's aid if attacked. When Germany invaded Poland, the treaty was enforced to the extent that war was declared but nothing else was done, bringing about the Phony War that allowed Hitler to gobble up someone else (it's always someone else who needs to sacrifice for the common good) while Poland's friends worked to restore the 'peace.' We used to call that appeasement, but now it's peacekeeping. The subtle shift in emphasis from defending what is worthwhile to redefining 'necessary' as 'expendable' isn't negotiating, it is surrender. Well, maybe it's negotiating. "I'll give you everything you want, but that's my final offer," might be dressed up enough to dance with, if you're that desperate.

As road maps go, expecting Israel to give up the Golan Heights, a strategic sacrifice of elephantine proportion, for useless promises of peace from those who unfailingly call for her extinction, secures a peace that passes understanding, not to mention overtaking credulity. The Libertarian Party's notion of peace is appeasement in Birkenstocks.

The other disconnect I have with the LP platform is the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, which, coming from the Libertarian Party of Texas is a 'kick me' sign I wouldn't want to wear around the Alamo. I'd still be laughing at that if I didn't know they were serious as a front yard fiesta del tercer mundo.

Can the Libertarian Party even coexist with War on Terrorism? The party platform seems singularly incapable of keeping suicide killers out of the country or doing anything pre-emptively to stop the creation of terrorist cadres not already here. The primary mandate of sovereignty is survival, a principle easily translated into libertarianism's recognition of the individual, with his full complement of rights and responsibilities. At the national level, this is vaporized without border control and amounts to shattering the individual writ large.

That's why I got the 'L' out of Libertarian in favor of raising a little 'l' of my own. Being a libertarian may be a step in the direction of conservatism, but being a Libertarian puts me in the pocket of people out to kill me.

As constituted, the LP will remain off the political radar, and small 'l'ers will agonize over how far down the ticket the silliness has to be before one can safely vote for it. So far, dog catcher is not far from the ceiling. A party rethought without these suicide clauses might do well as the major parties peel away from each other. The Republicans look to have a lock on 2004, so there's plenty of time to get a new dog ready. This one won't hunt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Cruse is a steely-eyed photofinisher living in Texas.

Copyright-free artwork by Brazilian cartoonist Latuff.

WHAT IS "NEO-LIBERALISM"?

A Brief Definition
by Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garci­a
Updated: February 26th, 2000

"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.

"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Right-wing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neo-liberalism.

"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, an English economist, published a book in 1776 called The Wealth of Nations. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished.

Economic liberalism prevailed in the United States through the 1800s and early 1900s. Then the Great Depression of the 1930s led an economist named John Maynard Keynes to a theory that challenged liberalism as the best policy for capitalists. He said, in essence, that full employment is necessary for capitalism to grow and it can be achieved only if governments and central banks intervene to increase employment. These ideas had much influence on President Roosevelt's New Deal -- which did improve life for many people. The belief that government should advance the common good became widely accepted.

But the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it "neo" or new. Now, with the rapid globalization of the capitalist economy, we are seeing neo-liberalism on a global scale.

A memorable definition of this process came from Subcomandante Marcos at the Zapatista-sponsored Encuentro Intercontinental por la Humanidad y contra el Neo-liberalismo (Inter-continental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neo-liberalism) of August 1996 in Chiapas when he said: "what the Right offers is to turn the world into one big mall where they can buy Indians here, women there ..." and he might have added, children, immigrants, workers or even a whole country like Mexico."

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminish profits, including protecting the environment and safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. It is raging all over Latin America. The first clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile (with thanks to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman), after the CIA-supported coup against the popularly elected Allende regime in 1973. Other countries followed, with some of the worst effects in Mexico where wages declined 40 to 50% in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by 80%. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have been privatized in Mexico. As one scholar said, "Neo-liberalism means the neo-colonization of Latin America."

"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all."-John Maynard Keynes