Advice For Libertarians

Greg Mankiw share some advice for libertarians (emphasis mine):

If libertarians want to win the battle of Washington, rather than simply airing their ideas to one another at Ayn Rand conventions, they have to make their point of view more palatable to the median voter. A politically successful libertarianism would have to be moderate and pragmatic.

Amen!  This is something I've been saying for some time now.  I get the impression that many libertarians would rather be smugly offensive in their positions than trying to be influential to others.  I have never understood this.  

Libertarian thought has many great insights that could offer beneficial contributions to public debate.  Unfortunately, it seems many libertarians would rather give up influence by promoting more sex and drugs rather than fighting on winnable margins for a freer world.  As a believer in revealed preferences, it sometimes makes me wonder how much they really care?

Clive Crook shares some related thoughts here:

The American idea -- expressed in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution -- is quintessentially a classical liberal idea. It is all there: Limited government; checks and balances; civil liberty and economic liberty. Libertarians won those arguments, but they have been on the losing side for about the last 70 years.

Where do I fall on the political spectrum?  Somewhere between libertarian and conservative.  (Take the World's Smallest Political Quiz to see where you score.)  While I think using the term "Classical Liberal" (rather than libertarian) is sometimes like splitting frog-hairs, it is probably the moniker I am most comfortable using without clarification.

Looking at political influence from another angle, either the Democrats or the Republicans could benefit by trying to woo libertarians.  According to this article in The Economist, libertarians may be the new swing voter:

In a new study from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, David Boaz and David Kirby argue that libertarians form perhaps the largest block of swing voters. Counting them is hard, since few Americans are familiar with the term “libertarian”. Mr Boaz and Mr Kirby count those who agree that “government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses”, that government, rather than promoting traditional values, “should not favour any particular set of values”, and that “the federal government has too much power”. Using data from Gallup polls, they found that, in 2005, 13% of the voting-age population shared all three views, up from 9% in 2002.

That is easily enough libertarians to tip an election. And their votes are up for grabs. In 2000 George Bush won 72% of the libertarian vote, to Al Gore's 20%, by repeating the mantra “My opponent trusts government. I trust you.” But in 2004, after Mr Bush increased the size of government and curtailed some civil liberties as part of the war on terror, his margin dropped to 59%-38%. The swing was as sharp in congressional races, too. Going back further, libertarians backed George Bush senior by 74%-26% in 1988. But when he sought re-election in 1992, they split evenly between him, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. A group that can give the eccentric Mr Perot a third of its support must be really disgruntled.

Here's the Boaz and Kirby study.  (Hattip Greg Mankiw.)

At the end of the day, libertarians certainly have some marginal influence.  I would love to see this influence grow and think it is possible for this to happen, but not without focusing on issues palatable to most Americans.  Even if they don't win elections, libertarians help keep the other two parties in check by continuing to focus on the dangers of large government.  (Perhaps the best measure of their influence is to imagine what the politcal landscape would be like without them.)

I think Tyler Cowen summed it up nicely when he said:

The complainers are the libertarians.  They will always lose, and they will always be intellectually important.

That sounds about right to me.