The recent dispute between this website and Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online illustrated one of the chief myths that plagues political philosophy today – the false dichotomy of "principle" and "pragmatism." According to this myth, libertarians are ideological purists who accomplish little or nothing in the real world. Mainstream conservatives, on the other hand, understand that politics is the art of compromise, but sometimes go too far and "sell out." These are the standard stereotypes. Both are highly misleading.
If anything, libertarians – and big-L Libertarians in particular – are too "pragmatic," too political. They compromise their anti-statist principles not only in policy details like support of school vouchers, but even in their overall strategy. Let's suppose the Libertarian Party somehow takes control of Congress, or elects a President. What happens next? Human nature will take its course. The politicians of the LP will be no different from the politicians of any other party once they attain power. At that point the Libertarian Party becomes the government. Can we seriously expect the State to minimize itself?
You can't change politics through politics. That's why the biggest revolutions in our history were not political, they were cultural (the sexual revolution, political correctness) or military (the War of Northern Aggression). Even the "Republican revolution" of 1994 had less to do with Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America than with culturally alienated "angry white males."
Sticking to principle does not mean having no effect on the world. Far from it. A clear example is Charley Reese, columnist for the Orlando Sentinel and one of the most principled men in journalism today. Reese is also, as Ralph Raico pointed out, probably responsible for George W. Bush winning Florida and becoming president. Note that it's not simply because Reese endorsed Bush – lots of columnists did that. Reese however made a real difference because his readership includes people who would have preferred to vote for Harry Brown or Pat Buchanan. Reese's principles earned him the respect of those who would not have listened to anybody else telling them to vote for Bush.
As far as "selling out" is concerned, there are many good reasons to get angry at the Republican Party, but this is not one of them. The Republican Party simply does what all US political parties do – it tries to win power. Specific policy positions are only a means toward that end. Expecting principle from a party is like expecting blood from a stone. If anti-statists want Republicans to behave a certain way, appeals to principle won't work, nor will accusations of "selling out." What can work are practical threats to their political survival. In other words, fighting pragmatism with pragmatism. What Gun Owners of America calls "Confrontational Politics."
Not that the Republican Party is always so pragmatic, though. There's good reason why the GOP is called the "Stupid Party." Republicans play by the Left's rules, courting racial minorities such as blacks and Latinos instead of ideological minorities such as conservatives and libertarians. In the process the GOP has lost seats in the House and Senate in every election since 1994 and has won the presidency only by the grace of Charley Reese.
I've applied my arguments mostly to the political representations of conservatism (the Republican Party) and libertarianism (the Libertarian Party) for a reason. Pragmatism is hardly a concern for conservatives and libertarians who are primarily involved in educational efforts, such as LewRockwell.com. What does "pragmatism" have to do with telling the truth about Abe Lincoln? Political pragmatism should not constrain those of us who work in the realm of ideas. Otherwise thought itself becomes subservient to politics. Which is what has already happened in the "official" conservative and libertarian movements.
None of what I've said is meant to suggest that people of principle should not be engaged in politics. But anyone who does get involved in the business of electing candidates and passing legislation must be aware of how little is possible through such measures. And on the flipside, principled opponents of the State should never lose heart and forget what can be achieved outside of politics. That's where revolutions begin.
P.S. For another treatment of principle and pragmatism, see W. James Antle's article in Enter Stage Right. I disagree with much of what Antle writes, but he deserves credit for saying that conservative intellectuals should not be quick to embrace political pragmatism.
March 13, 2001
Daniel McCarthy is a graduate student in classics at Washington University in St. Louis.
