The Libertarian Problem

by Austin Raynor

Scott Brown’s victory last week sent the Democrats sprawling, disarming their filibuster-proof majority and casting their major legislative projects, particularly the health care overhaul, into doubt. The results should be construed as primarily anti-Obama rather than pro-GOP; Massachusetts had not elected a Republican to the seat Brown won since 1953, and had not had a Republican senator whatsoever since 1979.

More tellingly, 53 percent of those who voted in Tuesday’s election identified themselves as political independents; these independents favored Brown two to one. In 2008, Obama won independent voters by 17 points. Among those who believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction, Coakley, Brown’s opponent, lost by 35 points; Obama won in that voter category by 45 points.

Dissatisfaction with government has spread and intensified. Forty-three percent of voters, according to Rasmussen Reports, strongly disapprove of how President Obama is running the country; his overall disapproval rating among likely voters is 55 percent. Sixty-six percent of voters believe the country is heading in the wrong direction.

Independent voters, a powerful and growing bloc, remain politically unrepresented. President Bush’s overreaching wars and invasions of civil liberties alienated them in 2004, and now President Obama’s unprecedented economic intrusions have alienated them again. In both cases, government overstepping its bounds was and is the source of voter anger.

The Tea Party movement represents one of the more libertarian, populist, and outraged factions of anti-government activism, but voters across the spectrum are dissatisfied. Traditional conservatives were disgusted by Bush’s disrespect for privacy rights and his massive welfare-state expansion (i.e., the prescription drug benefit addition to Medicare).

Now, fiscally conscious Democrats and traditional liberals squirm as the Obama administration runs up astronomical deficits and attempts to squelch individual choice in favor of state-enforced homogeneity. Voting the rascals out, it seems, entails merely voting more rascals in.

All this begs the question: what can be done? What measures can be taken to restrain the leviathan? For those interested in limited government and individual rights, this is the most difficult, and pressing, question for the movement. Cato and other institutions have worked tirelessly to educate the population about the benefits of limited government, but, for all their work, governmental growth remains unchecked.

Tea Party activists have turned to protests and rallies to make their point, but there is little indication that these methods will have any lasting impact on the political process. The choice between Republicans and Democrats is nearly moot: both have consistently supported expansion of federal government, and continue to do so.

It is, apparently, hopeless to desire the federal government to restrain itself. It is becoming increasingly clear that, apart from the emergence of an iconoclastic leader, the solution must be, to a degree, external. This leaves two routes: constitutional amendment and state action.

A constitutional amendment may be proposed and ratified by the states, thus largely bypassing Congress. There are two salient options here, both of which would drastically reduce the federal government’s overreaching. The first option is the imposition of a Congressional term limit.

Without the possibility of reelection, congressmen would be freed to act in the best interests of the country. But would they? Would pork spending then decrease? Or would parties merely grow in power, providing the continuity that formerly individual candidates did? The answers to these questions, pivotal as they are, could not be ascertained in advance.

Second, a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget could be proposed. An unlimited power of spending in effect removes all limitations on government. Without the ability to pay for new programs, and required even to cut old ones, the government would be hamstrung in its ability to usurp freedom.

The second route would emanate from the states and would be constituted by a revival of federalism. This is already occurring in some states: California’s disobedience to federal drug law and the Firearms Freedom Acts of Montana and Tennessee, which contravene federal gun law, signal a revival of states’ willingness to nullify federal legislation they deem unconstitutional.

Although dormant until recent years, the practice of state nullification of unconstitutional federal legislation stretches far back into our history, originating with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

These acts, passed by their respective state legislatures, declared Congress’ Alien and Sedition Acts legally void. Stirred by perhaps similar anger at government overreaching, seven states in 2009 passed Tenth Amendment sovereignty resolutions declaring their willingness to resist unconstitutional federal behavior.

The Louisiana resolution, for instance, demands that “the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States of America.”

These are merely tentative outlines of paths the limited government movement could take to further its cause. Education and demonstrations, while useful in certain cases, are not sufficient to win the battle against the leviathan. As populist and antiestablishment anger rises, the libertarian movement must seize its opportunity to capitalize. How precisely to do this is a question of serious weight and deserves as much attention as any other issue from those who sincerely cherish their liberty.