Imagining Libertarians

Edward Crane, the founder of the libertarian think tank The Cato Institute, wrote of the 1972 Libertarian National Convention held at the Radisson Hotel in San Francisco:

"As a libertarian I was always aware that it was appropriate to be tolerant of alternative lifestyles. But until I walked into that room, I had no idea just how many alternatives there were. There were anarchists dressed in all black. There were Randians holding long, gold cigarette holders. And hippies from the left and conservatives from the far right. I think the only other person there with a suit was Ed Clark, who later ran for president on the Libertarian ticket."

I thought of this over drinks the other day when I complained to a friend that I feel my ambitions are thwarted due to a lack of human material. My vision for many years was the creation of an organisation dedicated to my principles. I call it my Church of the Romantic in jest, but in practice I call it my Salon de Mal, a place where Romantic thinkers, artists, activists, and lifestylers could gather to educate and support each other and further promote the Romantic ideals and values.

Here is the problem. The thinkers I want are into academia. The artists are into aesthetics. The activists follow mainstream politics. The lifestylers are transient souls consuming superficial pop-culture; they are still growing-up and will statistically grow out of what I am offering. I may succeed in collecting the young and the idealistic educated poor (like myself), but what I need are powerful adults, but many are already invested in jobs, families, and perhaps even the status quo. What I want to is unite the strands of philosophy (Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics) in society into a holistic organisation.

This is where my friend pointed out that libertarians lack an aesthetic. There is no cool and recognisable image. In my mind there is, but he was right. There is not one evident in the mainstream.

I once overheard an American student speaking to some Scots in a club who were about her same age. She said, “Do I look like a Republican?” I’d wager we could ascribe an image or stereotype to fit most ideological points of view, but somehow the libertarians fall through the cracks and are often mistaken for Republicans or Torries.

This is when I thought of Ed Crane’s observation. “There were anarchists dressed in all black. There were Randians holding long, gold cigarette holders.” For me, libertarians are Moderns. I’ll explain.

I’ve written before my theory that the Romantic Era ended in 1929 and the Socialist Era began. Other authors use different terms. What I call the Romantic Era is called the Victorian Age, The Enlightenment/Industrial Age, or simply the Modern Age by philosophers such as Jean-François Lyotard, who coined the term Postmodernity. What came after was called The Postmodern, or the state of Postmodernity.

So the postmodern is not defined by what it is but by what came before it. It is the period after the Modern. Lyotard suggested that the “Grand Narrative” collapsed leaving a void to be filled. The old truths that people believed in ceased to have the power to cement and motivate society. So the Modern is characterized by relatively homogenous nation-states with an established hierarchy and national will, but more importantly it believed in an absolute, knowable, and objective Truth.  Postmodern is not.

Postmodernity is the state where you may have more in common with your friend on the internet living 6,000 miles away than you do with your neighbours. It is the state where you might encounter dozens of different ideologies, from sexual orientation, to religious or cultural beliefs, to political beliefs all before lunch and none of them is more “right” than another. It’s a world where truth is not objective but subjective. If that is so, then so is right and wrong. Whatever feels good is right. This is what I call The Age of Feeling.

So within this diverse stew we have representatives of different cultures, zeitgeists, beliefs, and so on. These can be placed into three primary groups: the Pre-moderns, the Moderns, and the Postmoderns.

The Pre-moderns are the hippies, neo-pagans, neo-tribalists, eco warriors, New Agers, feminists, and so forth. You get the picture. The subjectivication of truth has served them well and they have thrived. This is mostly due to the fact that in the wealthy West they have the luxury of playing primitive without all the negative consequences of a true primitive lifestyle. Or to put it this way, they will pay a fortune for traditional Indian remedies while the people of India are in desperate need for Western medicine that actually works. The Pre-moderns are the prime movers of the Age of Feeling and the bastion of the Left.

The Moderns are the bad guys. We are the pro-industry, pro-technology, pro-science, pro-reason, pro-capitalism, pro-nationalism, pro-gender roles, and pro-Christian. Most social conservatives would fit this category, but so would the libertarians who are socially liberal. If that seems odd, remember that both were represented during the Modern Age as conservatives and liberals; the common thread is their desire to return to the Age of Reason. Given the current state of postmodernity, they have more in common than not despite core differences.

Finally, we have the Postmoderns. One book I read ages ago on the subject divided these guys into two categories: the Nihilists and the Players. “If everything is true, then nothing is true” says the Nihilist. The flip side is the Player who just loves it all. He jumps from one fad or ideology to the next. The only downside is when there is nothing new on the horizon. I suppose the author who coined the term may have had the sexual player in mind. He doesn’t care about substance or deeper meaning as long as he gets pleasure from it. When he’s finished, then he will happily move on. What they have in common, the Nihilist and the Player, is the belief that nothing has meaning.

So for me, the image of the libertarian draws from its political roots in Classical Liberalism of the Nineteenth Century and therefore the Romantics of the Modern Era. This seems perfectly embodied in Crane’s description of the followers of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism with their cigarette holders at the Libertarian National Convention. It is classy, charming, and perhaps a bit elitist and anachronistic.

In my dream world, frock coats, waistcoats, and corsetry would be associated with libertarianism just as tie-dye shirts and beads are associated with hippies and the Left. I would love someone to see my style of dress and assume me to be a libertarian because I am dressed as a Modern rather than as a Player who is into “the cowboy”, “Goth” or “Steampunk” look. And while the hippies gather in the woods to sing folk songs, the libertarians are in some elegant café discussing issues.
 

Of course this is just a dream. In real life, if I were to see someone so dramatically and Romantically dressed, then I can only assume them to be a Player without the ideological core that I am looking for in a partner for my salon. Perhaps they are off to a club theme night. I have developed this belief through countless dead-ends and disappointments. Meanwhile, the true image of the libertarian is the somewhat intellectual and geeky guy at his computer. I guess that fits me too.

Yes, libertarians are in desperate need of a make-over from the mad men. Should this ever occur, I can’t imagine my phone ringing. From my experience, I suppose it will one day happen and the final result will be something I heartily disapprove.

My objective through my work has been to take those existing subcultural groups within Postmerdernity whose Aesthetic roots lie in the Modern, such as the Goths, Dandies, Steampunks, and Burlesques and reconnect them with their philosophical roots to form a recognisable alternative lifestyle or counter-culture called Romantic.  In this, I have failed completely.  You can lead a Player to Truth, but you can't make him think.