The Poughkeepsie Accords

June 2001 -- First came the Camp David Accords. Then the Dayton Accords. Now another set of accords is needed to bring two rivals together. I speak of Republicans and Libertarians.

The importance of peace was recently pointed out by John J. Miller of National Review. In a column he wrote for Investor's Business Daily (May 9, 2001), Miller analyzed the elections of 1998 and 2000 and came to this conclusion: Had Republicans and Libertarians joined forces during the last two years, the GOP would have had a 52-48 majority in the Senate and also two more seats in the House. Two weeks later Miller's analysis took on even greater significance. If the GOP had had a clear majority in the Senate, Jim Jeffords would probably not have defected, for he would not have been able to shift power to the Democrats and reap the rewards of doing so.

But Miller also pointed out one large difficulty in crafting a Republican-Libertarian alliance: "Senate Republicans have only their spendaholic ways to blame for this predicament. They blanched at President Bush's proposal that the federal budget grow 4%, and forced the White House to accept a 5% increase that will almost certainly expand later this year when 'emergency' spending bills come up."

Unfortunately, the problem goes much deeper than that. Libertarians and Republicans differ about the drug war, abortion, and censorship. Often, they differ about education, defense, and the environment. Nevertheless, I believe conservatives and libertarians can unite during elections if they recall their cooperation during the Goldwater campaign, and, beyond that, their common admiration for the Founding Fathers. On that basis, at any rate, I offer a draft version of the Poughkeepsie Accords, beginning with ten principles and concluding with some tentative proposals. Other writers may wish to expand or modify these lists.

1. The central purpose of government is to secure the liberty of the country's citizens.

2. Personal freedom and economic freedom are inextricable and equally worthy of protection.

3. Within our federal system, the U.S. government should have strictly limited tasks.

4. Reducing taxation to the minimum practical level is among government's highest goals.

5. America should be a representative democracy, but courts should protect individual freedom from majoritarian incursions.

6. The federal government has no greater responsibility than to protect its citizens' liberty through a powerful national

defense.

7. Government responsibility for law enforcement should be subject to due procedure but not hampered by proceduralism.

8. Slow but steady movement toward our ideal government is the best hope for achieving it.

9. A free society cannot exist unless the vast majority of its citizens follow a consciously shared morality of rationality, self-responsibility, productiveness, and benevolence toward others.

10. The philosophy of the American Enlightenment offers us the best chance of agreeing upon a common morality.

How might these principles be used to achieve a Republican-Libertarian alliance? To see, let us look at several prominent areas of contemporary politics.

1. Defense. In principle, both Libertarians and Republicans recognize national defense as a legitimate federal function and perhaps the most important function. In practice, agreement breaks down quickly. Libertarians are fond of quoting John Quincy Adams to the effect that America is a friend to freedom everywhere but guardian only of its own. Fair enough. But when a friend is in mortal danger, a person does not say: "Good luck. Let me know if you survive." Certain Republicans, on the other hand, have been playing with a notion that is far worse. They seem to think a pax Americana, enforced with conscripted troops, would be a dandy means of pulling the country together. Such Republicans need to assure Libertarians that they will employ America's power and influence only to achieve vital national interests. Libertarians need to recognize America can have a vital interest in the freedom of other countries and people.

In a related matter, Republicans must recognize that economic sanctions do little to diminish a tyrant's power or improve his tractability. But Libertarians must recognize that commercial ties can do much to improve an enemy state's power and may do little to improve its freedom.

2. Budget and Tax issues. Republicans need to recognize that America must return to the concept of limited government, and start cutting programs in order to keep cutting taxes. Specifically, they should keep in mind that, under President John F. Kennedy (who was no Goldwater), the legitimate federal task of national defense consumed 47 percent of the budget. Today, defense expenditures are approximately $300 billion. Thus, a liberal, JFK budget would today run about $600 billion, rather than $1.8 trillion.

3. Culture and Family. Libertarians need to distinguish themselves from libertines and acknowledge that the free society bequeathed us by the Founding Fathers requires a shared morality not much different from that which the Founders' Enlightenment culture extolled. In short, they need to heed the words of a wise man who had a foot in both the libertarian and conservative camps, the late Frank Meyer: "There is no more logic in the conclusion that a love of freedom implies a disbelief in, a lack of enthusiasm for, ultimate values than there is in the Liberal canard that a belief in ultimate values make impossible a belief in freedom." At the same time, conservatives need to distinguish themselves from nannies and heed these words of Meyer: "Unless men are free to be vicious, they cannot be virtuous. No community can make them virtuous. Nor can any community force upon them conditions antagonistic to virtue if the state does not, with its power, give coercive strength to community." Concretely, Libertarians must recognize that legalizing drugs presupposes the social ostracism of those who use or glamorize drugs; Republicans must offer alternatives to the "war on drugs." Too, Republicans must vow that limits on abortion do not foreshadow a ban on abortion. Libertarians must accept that certain limitations on late-term abortions may be justified.

4. Education. Recognizing the highly delimited nature of the federal government, Republicans should vow that their long-term goals include (a) eliminating the Education Department, and (b) ending the federal government's role in primary and secondary education. Having so vowed, Republicans should be responsible for making yearly progress toward those goals. For their part, Libertarians must recognize that even these modest advances represent long-term goals and that the end of local government involvement in public education is simply not in sight. Concretely, Republicans should push for vouchers or tax credits that can be used to pay for the education of one's child or to create scholarships. Libertarians should offer their support for such programs so long as the amounts involved are substantial and the government oversight is minimal.

5. Environment. Libertarians need to devise an environmental program that goes beyond denying the existence of any problems. For example, it may well be that global warming requires no action at this time; it is certain the Kyoto treaty does not propose the right action. But Libertarians need to play "what if?" when it comes to alleged environmental problems and not place all their hopes and resources on disproving the allegations. For their part, Republicans must not become obsessed with polls that purport to show only 1 in 20 voters oppose environmentalism. Concretely, Republicans and Libertarians need to work together to contrive private-property solutions in such reasonable areas of concern as toxic waste, clean water, clean air, and outdoorsmanship. Meanwhile, also, they should also work together to unmask the anti-human agenda of the environmentalist movement.

Starting from such principles and policies, I believe Republicans and Libertarians can reassemble the Goldwater coalition of 1964.

Let the negotiations begin.

This article was originally published in the June 2001 issue of Navigator magazine, The Atlas Society precursor to The New Individualist.

‍