---------------------
The author fails in his analysis, because first he either doesn't understand or is unable to correctly present libertarianism; and second because he filters his analysis through his leftist world view. As such, he is unable to engage in a nuanced understanding of the issue, or, he prefers to misrepresent it in order to further his agenda.
Read on:
---------------------
Why are libertarians so overwhelmingly white and male? ("Overwhelmingly?" As we will find out, there are plenty of libertarian women and minorities. No where enough, of course, but this is to be expected regarding a less well known political world view. And given the constant misrepresentation of libertarian perspective in the leftist media, it's no wonder. If they're not misrepresenting it, they're ignoring it.
And the Libertarian Party itself was only formed in 1971. Thus it is not surprising at all that people are only now discovering what libertarianism really is. As a result, the numbers are growing, especially among those who are dissatisfied with the wishy-washy Republicans.
Pew took a poll, which the author later misuses. This poll reveals that about 11% self-identify as Libertarians and can accurately tell what Libertarians believe. Pew also supplies us with this helpful chart, which must be terribly alarming for the author:
Pesky facts like these are always the downfall of the Left. They happily spout their regurgitated talking points ad nauseum without regard for any real facts. Remember this as you read the rest of the article.)
This is a question that Jeet Heer of The New Republic explored last Friday, after a new CNN poll found that presidential hopeful Rand Paul, who happens to be the favorite among libertarians, is very competitive in the primaries amongst male voters, but almost completely rejected by females. (Um, no. We will read in the next paragraph that the ratio is actually 2 to 1 male to female. This is far from being "completely rejected by females.")
This is a problem that has long haunted conservatism, but it is even more drastic for ultra-right wing libertarianism. (His next error. Libertarianism is not ultra-right wing, which is an area that belongs to control freaks and morality-based societal engineers both Left and Right. Libertarianism, to the degree it can be pigeonholed into a single ideology, is characterized by personal and property rights with minimal government interference into the private choices of people.)
In a 2014 Pew poll, (Which the author is hoping you do not actually read.)
it was found that about one in ten Americans describe themselves as libertarian, and men were more than twice as likely to be libertarians.
In a 2013 Pew poll that Heer states in his article, it was found about two-thirds (68 percent) of American’s who identify as libertarians are men, and 94 percent are non-hispanic whites. Compare this to “steadfast conservatives,” who were found to be 59 percent male and 87 percent white, or “business conservatives,” found to be 62 percent male and 85 percent white, according to another survey done by Pew. Clearly, the entire conservative movement is dominated by white males, but libertarians are the most male-dominated. (Whoops. We now see how the author cherry-picks his statistics to bolster the narrative.)
Obviously this is a major problem for anyone who is hoping for libertarianism to take off in American politics. So why are libertarians mostly white guys? (Most certainly, it has to be because of racists.)
Heer points out a few different possibilities that some libertarian writers have offered. One of them being that libertarianism has attracted many male-dominated subcultures, like computer programming (think Silicon Valley), gaming, mens-rights activists, and organized humanism/Atheism, and another, argued by Katherine Mangu-Ward, that libertarianism has long been a fringe movement, and fringe movements tend to be dominated by men. (See? It's fringe, extreme, outside-the-mainstream white guys intent on taking over American politics who are Libertarians. And the first thing they will make us do once they have a majority is, well, nothing. Because Libertarians want to take the thumb of government off of law-abiding citizens so that they can lead their own lives without government interference. How diabolical!!!)
Okay, so libertarianism attracts nerdy white males, but surely these are not the only ones making up the dedicated crowd? While looking at the larger conservative movement, it becomes a bit more clear that the hostility towards government and collective movements in general tends to attract white males who want to preserve their dominance in a society where they are quickly becoming minorities. (Ah, so it's hate. Those eeevil nerdy white males, finding themselves threatened by women and minorities, become libertarians for power reasons? While at the same time the libertarian philosophy rejects power? Wha?
And could the author explain the presence of females in the group, as well as minorities? Are they also threatened by women and minorities?)
Take the following passage written by a young libertarian activist:
“[E]very piece of anti-discrimination legislation passed over the past few decades, ignores one of the basic, inalienable rights of man — the right to discriminate. [Though] eliminating racial and sexual prejudice [had] noble aspiration, [anti-discrimination laws] necessarily utilize the ignoble means of coercive force.” (Hmm. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Libertarians hate coercion. Anti-discrimination laws coerce.)
That young activist? Rand Paul in 1982. Sure, that was more than three decades ago, and its not fair to go after someone for something they wrote back in those naive college days. But has Paul’s outlook changed at all? Not really. In his now infamous interview with Rachel Maddow, he admitted that he had a major problem with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly the provisions that “harbor in on private businesses and their policies.” In other words, he didn’t like the government telling businesses that they had to serve black people. According to libertarians, this is a clear violation of one’s freedom to discriminate; that if a business owner does not want to serve a black person, that is their right. Of course this kind of philosophy is going to be very attractive to those racist business owners. (The "right to peaceably assemble" means that "Congress shall make no law" that impedes that right. We get to choose with whom we assemble. If society finds fault with those choices, society can react by not patronizing those businesses. There is a penalty to be paid for being a racist, and rightly so. But no law is required to sanction badthink.
In addition, it appears that the author needs to be reminded that the law in the south forced business owners to exclude blacks. Now the law forces business owners to include blacks. It's still coercion.)
Libertarianism is inherently opposed to collective movements, and collective movements have long fought to achieve equal rights for women, minorities, workers, etc. (Yes, coercion. The lack of "equal rights" has invariably been perpetrated by government. It was government that had to be restrained from prohibiting women and minorities to vote, via constitutional amendments. Which is a bit ironic, because government never had the power to decide who can vote to begin with.
Had there been a libertarian philosophy in government, the amendment would have been unnecessary. Libertarians would never think to forbid someone from voting.)
Is it any surprise that libertarianism attracts white (and generally privileged) men? (Now the author extends his misrepresentation of the statistics to make a universal "all libertarians are white privileged males" assertion.)
If we take a look at the larger conservative movement, a similar story presents itself. (This is the second time the author has attempted to conflate conservatism with libertarianism. While they share some beliefs, libertarians share some beliefs with leftists. But we don't see the author even mentioning this.)
Last year, a study at Northwestern University (The research is full of weasel words like "may have" and "could be." It posits a leftist theory [that whites gravitate to conservatism in the face of increasing minority presence], which must assume as a premise that conservatism, and by extension, libertarianism, is a racist philosophy.
Thus a leftist misrepresentation is being tested, and the results happily coincide with the researchers' bias.)
found that white, independent-minded American’s (sic) tended to shift towards conservatism when they found out that demographic changes would be making them minorities. “Perceived group-status threat, triggered by exposure to majority-minority shift, increases Whites’ endorsement of conservative political ideology and policy positions,” wrote the researchers, Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson. (Hm, psychologists, biased Left at a ratio of 14 to 1. These two "researchers" seem obsessed with race, and have written more than one study about it. Ms. Craig is a doctoral student in psychology, and Ms. Richeson is a professor of psychology and African-American studies at Northwestern University. World view is critical when dealing with research methods, and it seems clear that leftist bias inhabits their work.)
This study seems to confirm that conservatism, for many white Americans, is the last bastion of hope against the inevitable decline of white dominance.
Libertarianism is especially alluring to these individuals, though there are cutthroat strifes within the libertarian movement itself, between the more studious and tolerant factions, like the folks at Reason magazine, and the more reactionary and bigoted groups, like the “neo-Confederates,” largely influenced by the libertarian writer Lew Rockwell. You may remember hearing about Rockwell because of his association with Ron Paul. Reason reported back in 2008 that Rockwell had ghostwritten Ron Paul’s newsletter, which had written some extremely distasteful and downright racist stuff, like the following comment on the L.A. Riots:
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” (Not a particularly sensitive statement, and one that should be criticized. Unlike leftists, of course, who say the most egregious things, but always get a free pass.)
So, while the libertarian movement as a whole is not inherently bigoted, (Which is exactly what the author has implied throughout...)
and many believers despise intolerance, the ideology itself does attract many bigots who see the freedom-obsessed culture as a way to protect their “right” of intolerance, (A right whole-heartedly embraced by the Left.)
and crack down on collective movements that fight for equality. (Let me rephrase that statement: "and oppose big-government advocates who claim to fight for equality, but really just want to force people to do things.")
Many of these folks would like to return to the good old days, when robber barons and white men ruled. (Unwarranted non-sequitur, playing to leftist memes and false characterizations designed to evoke Pavlovian salivating.)
The free market ideology is particularly well-suited for the robber barons, while the freedom to discriminate comforts the neo-Confederates. (Whew. Breathtaking idiocy. "Robber barons" have absolutely nothing to do with free market ideology or limited government as espoused by libertarians. Likewise race oppression is completely opposite of libertarian doctrine. Thus we can be certain that the author either doesn't know what libertarians believe, or he doesn't care.)
Like the larger conservative movement, 3rd conflation with conservatives.) libertarianism is a sanctuary for nostalgic white males. Fortunately, (Fortunately???) nothing can prevent the white mans inevitable fall from dominance, and in the future, many white males may very well change their mind on the so-called “right to discriminate.”
No comments:
Post a Comment