LP #8: Free and Equal- The Philosophical Common Ground of a Libertarian-Progressive Alliance
Author: Lior Erez
Imagine encountering an outsider to American politics and sending her a link to this essay series. “What is it about?”, she asks. “Well, it’s a call for an alliance between two ideological camps in the US, the Progressives and the Libertarians”, you answer. “Not sure I know what these words mean”, she smiles – “what exactly do you mean by progressivism and libertarianism? What is it that they disagree on, that a call for an alliance is even necessary?”. You come up with quick examples: progressives like Medicare for All and Green New Deals and Black Lives Matter and trigger warnings; libertarians are into the Right to Bear Arms and Small Government and snakes that hate being treaded on. But your interlocutor becomes impatient. “Yeah, yeah, but what are these ideologies about?”.
Perhaps the answer is easier with regards to libertarians – their ideological core commitment is right there in the name. Liberty is a basic right of all individuals. Every interference by others is a violation of this right, so we should be extremely vigilant about anyone – be it king, president, or fellow citizen – who tries to curtail our liberty. Simple enough. But what are “progressives” then? Those really into progress? I suppose in some way that’s right, if we take the progressive slogan of being “on the right side of history” at face value. But that doesn’t seem sufficient. Yes, progressives are not conservatives, but we need a more accurate description of their core values.
It is clear that the core conflict between libertarians and progressives is not really between liberty and progress at all; rather, it’s on whether freedom or equality should take priority in our politics. Now, as philosopher Danielle Allen argues in her book on the Declaration of Independence, the conflict between freedom and equality is largely based on misconceptions:
“Political philosophers have generated the view that equality and freedom are necessarily in tension with each other. As a public, we have swallowed this argument whole. We think we are required to choose between freedom and equality. Our choice in recent years has tipped toward freedom. Under the general influence of libertarianism, both parties have abandoned our Declaration; they have scorned our patrimony.”
But to find the right way for freedom and equality to lie together is not easy; indeed, it is arguably the most pressing problem of political philosophy since the Age of Enlightenment. In the immortal words of Jean Jacques Rousseau: “Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains”. How do we come to terms with political rule given humans’ natural freedom and moral equality? The libertarian answer, crudely, is “break all the chains, and to hell with the rest!”. Even more crudely, the progressive answer is “equal chains to all!”.
We need to be careful with our use of philosophical caricatures. The progressive position, especially, is too often portrayed as concerned with ‘equality of outcome’ at the expense of liberty. But this is wrong in my view. Progressives are only concerned with material equality in an indirect way; instead, their focus is on the equality between people, and more crucially, between citizens in a democracy. So perhaps, instead of “progressives”, a better description will be democratic egalitarians.
If this is correct, then libertarians and progressives (or democratic egalitarians) could become allies in places where the risks to democratic equality and individual liberty are most closely connected and correlated. This becomes easier if we view liberty (rightly, in my view) not simply in terms of the absence of restrictions, but in the sense of being free people, not subjected to the arbitrary whims of a master or tyrant. This is what philosophers sometimes call republican liberty, and it is an ideal endorsed by both progressive and libertarian luminaries, from Fredrick Douglass and Thomas Jefferson to Friedrich Hayek and Martin Luther King Jr. In essence, this entails that non-interference is not enough for freedom: A slave of a neglectful master may not face many restrictions, but in the deepest sense he is not yet free. Libertarians ignore this distinction at their own peril. Given that the modern coercive state is, in some form or other, inevitable, we need to make sure that the laws it enforces on us are not arbitrary, that they are equally binding to all and are made in view of our common good, however minimal that good might be. And equally, we should be aware that private power might be as domineering as state power. Progressives, on their own part, must remember that the state is also a potential source of domination; it is, at the same time, the greatest threat to our freedom and equality, and our best chance to secure it.
This is all philosophically intriguing, but what could this possibly mean for actual policy? In my view, there are several policy low-hanging fruits where freedom as non-domination – this magical place where individual liberty and democratic equality merge – is apparent. The protection of civil liberties is an obvious one: the unrestricted and unbridled over-policing of communities, for example, is devastating to one’s status both as a free individual and as an equal citizen. Political nepotism and corruption also presents a clear overlap of interests and priorities between the defenders of liberty and social justice. Corrupt politicians use our most precious common asset – the machinery of the state - to enrich themselves and their friends, and not for the advancement of the common good or the protection of rights. These are the enemies of both the libertarian and the progressive.
These are, as I said, the low hanging fruits. But on the tree’s taller branches, there is a less obvious policy proposal where libertarians and progressives can and should join forces: immigration reform, especially with regards to enforcement. Many libertarians, of course, are already sold on the idea of open borders, but progressives are often more split on the idea. Bernie Sanders, for example, was quoted saying that open borders is a “right-wing proposal”, the dissolution of the collective responsibility towards alleviating poverty within our borders and bowing down to the interests of global capital.
There is a grain of truth to this progressive suspicion, but also a blindspot. What progressive immigration restrictionists fail to see is that the brutality of immigration law enforcement rarely stops at the border. As political scientists find time and time again, the creation of dedicated institutions, specialized personnel and legal exceptions for “extreme situations” often creep into normal politics and to the treatment of all citizens. This was true for the war on terror, was true for the war on drugs, and is true for the so-called “war on immigration”. “Constitution free” zones, surveillance technologies and infiltration of private lives in the name of social protection is as harmful to democratic equality as it is for personal liberty, if not more so. And the fact that it is directed at “outsiders” should be of very little comfort to either libertarians or progressives. As Mark Twain once wrote, “multitudes who had applauded the crushing of other people’s liberties, lived to suffer for their mistake in their own persons”.
Libertarians and Progressives will surely continue to bicker over the details. But if an alliance is on our minds, the bigger picture is clear. Liberty and equality, properly understood, are two sides of the same coin, our most precious asset. Our collective vigilance is required to make sure the state remains the protector of this asset, rather than its destroyer.