LIBERTARIANS AND CONSERVATIVES NOT ALL THAT DIFFERENT

Like any columnist, I always peruse the Letters page of The Toronto Star to
see what people are saying about my column. Not surprisingly, most of the
letters have been negative, written by left-wingers who claim that this
newspaper has reached Armageddon since my arrival.

But one letter particularly caught my attention. It was written by Karen
Selick, a lawyer and well-respected columnist for Canadian Lawyer magazine.
She is also a libertarian by politics, always anxious to point out that she
is neither conservative nor right-wing.

More to the point, Selick claims that libertarians often ``recoil'' from
the political label of ``right-wing.'' Although libertarians believe in
reducing the size of government, she writes, they also ``necessarily''
support the legalization (but not the engagement) of drugs, prostitution
and so forth. In her mind, such ``policy positions are traditionally
associated more with the left than the right.''

Selick is, pardon the pun, right, to a point. In David Boaz' book
Libertarianism, the executive vice-president of the Cato Institute states
that libertarians are neither on the left nor the right of the political
spectrum because ``they believe in individual freedom and limited
government consistently.'' In terms of economic and personal freedoms,
libertarians believe in the rights of the individual over the state in any
case scenario.

However, much like life itself, the nature of politics is not always clear
cut. Perhaps unfairly, political scientists have placed libertarians on the
political spectrum under two different designations: left-libertarians and
right-libertarians. The left-libertarians tend to be socially and
politically left-wing, thus favouring ideas such as legalizing drugs. The
right-libertarians tend to be economically right-wing, favouring less
government and more individual wants and needs.

The reason for creating political labels for libertarians was to avoid
further confusion. Why? Here are a few self-professed libertarians:
talk-show how Howard Stern, the late drug guru Timothy Leary, economist
Milton Friedman and writer P.J. O'Rourke. These are hardly uniform thinkers
of the same species. Thus, the need to separate them into different
categories was not a bad idea.

But these philosophies are hardly set in stone. For example, there have
been libertarians - like Alan Greenspan, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board
chairman and former Ayn Rand follower - who have either worked for or
advised right-wing parties. There have also been a variety of other
libertarians who don't properly fit the bill, such as the paleo-libertarian
Murray N. Rothbard, who was an isolationist and a member of the Old Right.

Simply put, all libertarians have a left-wing position on thepolitical
spectrum, even if it is not that perfect by definition. And, with
well-known conservatives like William F. Buckley now supporting the
possibility of legalizing certain drugs, ``left-wing'' social values are
starting to become blurred.

In her letter, Selick also wondered when I was going to show the
``libertarian side'' of my philosophy. That time is now.

As I noted in my first column, I am a self-professed libertarian
conservative. My beliefs often fall into the categories of classical
libertarian thinkers (Friedrich A. Hayek), classical liberal thinkers (John
Stuart Mill) and traditional conservative thinkers (Russell Kirk). I also
count the philosophies of Friedman, Buckley, Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke
as major influences in my life.

Hence, I am similar in philosophy to Frank S. Meyer, who was a senior
editor at National Review. In his essay, ``The Twisted Tree Of Liberty,''
Meyer stated that the ``common source in the ethos of Western
civilization,'' which includes conservative and libertarian thought, caused
the political discourse which created ``the fusion that is contemporary
American conservatism.'' He was unsuccessful in attempting to merge
libertarianism and traditional conservatism together in a theory called
fusionism, but his legacy lives on.

I have also tried to fuse the two theories together. In economic terms, I
am a libertarian who believes in less government intervention and more
rights for the individual. But in political and social terms, I am a
conservative who believes in traditional family values and the rights of
religious organizations and thinkers (although I am not religious myself).

It is not a conflict of interest for right-wingers to pick and choose the
best ideas from various political philosophies. It shows that a person is
well read and has a keen eye for intelligent and thought-provoking
political initiatives.

Now that my tale is done, let's hope that Selick hasn't blown yet another
fuse in the confusing matter of libertarians versus conservatives.

Michael Taube is a right-wing political analyst. His column appears on
Wednesdays.

Checked-by: Joel W. Johnson