I've been meaning to write this for a long time.
Like anyone who is of the left in the U.S., I'm consistently frustrated by discussions that invoke "the Left" Generally these discussions turn out to be more than meaningless. Even at dKos I find them more frustrating than enlightening, though the community always manages to bring insight to this well-worn topic every time it comes up.
For years, we've been assessing The Right as one of the problems of the Left. The Left has also gotten (some would say more than) its fair share of criticism for this set of circumstances.
I'm here to suggest that the problem, instead, may lie with the center, and even more specifically, with Libertarianism.
I just came from the Political Compass website (again). Having taken the test and ended up to the left of Nelson Mandela on the Economic Scale and far, far below Mahatma Ghandi on the Social Authority scale, it seems appropriate to voice some of my disquiet about both that scale and the over-exaggerated role that Libertarianism plays in US political and cultural political circles. I've argued with the folks at Political Compass before. In fact, they've even responded to my questions about the use of "libertarianism" as a pole on their scale. As supportive as I am of individual rights, I can't help but note that the dimension that is missing in US political culture is not the freedom of individuals as much as it is a sense of social and collective awareness, something I believe, the original Progressive movement captured and developed. In many senses, then, Progressivism is opposed, not to Conservatism, but to Libertarianism. Progressivism is a force and a social movement that came together to counter and offer alternatives to the Social Darwinism that came to dominate traditionalist's politics in the early 20th Century. That Social Darwinism most often manifests itself today in both the Libertarian and Conservative policies that eschew collective action and/or government intervention.
This, I believe, will be the death of US democracy. Libertarianism, I fear, will effectively put to rest any hope of a collective consciousness and sense of community among the US populace.
The ways in which Libertarianism has been put into practice in the US suggest that hyper-individualism will lead to greater freedom and democracy. But logically, that simply cannot be. There can never be a democracy of one. There can never be "liberty and justice for all" when the focus lies solely with the individual, especially coming from an individual. Striving for individual rights and for individual success does not guarantee a system-wide expansion of rights and opportunities.
It disturbs me that the folks at Political Compass choose to juxtapose Libertarianism from Authoritarianism. I think the polar opposite of Authoritarianism has to be something that we don't yet have a name for, something we haven't yet fully recognized, even. It can't be so individual as to eschew taxes and with them a collective responsibility both for societal actions and to each other. Like Amatai Etzioni, I do believe that there must be a solution somewhere away from the hyper-individualism that the American political and economic system gives rise to as well as away the oppressive nature of the more traditional forms of tribalism that often traveled as "communitarianism.. But unlike Etzioni I have less faith in those more traditional forms to be truly democratic, truly equitable, truly multi-cultural and truly just.
Truth be told, Libertarianism scares me. I believe that it, even more than Conservatism, is the true enemy of Progressivism, even though there is considerable overlap in the support of certain socially liberal issues. In the end, the Libertarianism that gets put into practice in US culture is one of the forces that brought together the Progressive movement in the first place. And here is an important political lesson: practicality alone can never replace the need for an ideology, for an intent and a goal, no matter how much Liberals and Libertarians want it to. Even though desired outcomes may be similar, or even fully shared, the overall goals are not. The key to understanding the hows and whys of politics lies not so much in looking at outcomes, but in looking at intent. This is an important lesson for a Party which is trying to find a position, and a constituency, so listen well Democrats.
It is for this reason that the scale at Political Compass disturbs me. Why must the only alternative to an authoritarian government be one where the individual roams free and unencumbered? Excessive individuality, especially the version that accompanies Libertarian politics, cannot alone overpower the forces of authoritarianism. For that,
collective action is necessary. And Libertarianism does nothing to encourage a sense of social belonging or mutual responsibility It seeks, instead, to undermine such an approach.