I think that the entire problem with the article lies in the fact that Milei is not a populist in his most important positions which are all about economics. One can conveniently redefine populism, in such a way that his libertarian economics fits the definition, but it could not be further from the truth. Economically right-wing populis…
I think that the entire problem with the article lies in the fact that Milei is not a populist in his most important positions which are all about economics. One can conveniently redefine populism, in such a way that his libertarian economics fits the definition, but it could not be further from the truth. Economically right-wing populists are universally protectionists and defenders of the welfare state. Argentina is a special case and politics across different regions cannot be copypasted. The concern is US. Here is a snipet from my coming article on why this completely does not transfer to the US:
The libertarians, even forgetting the ethical quandaries, have little chance of becoming a dominant ideology of the populist movement. Hanania writes: “Low human capital cultures are the world of transparent scams: anti-vaxx, Stop the Steal, the corrupt televangelist, gold and silver bars sold at exorbitant prices, fake news content mills. Yes, conservatives disproportionately create and fall for such scams. But they proliferate because even among smart people on the right who should know better, there is no culture of shaming or stigmatizing members of the tribe for even the most egregious types of behaviour. This doesn’t mean that Low Human Capital communities are completely devoid of a moral sense. But it’s a tribal morality, which appeals to people who are stupider and less idealistic.“
Libertarians will never be such a tribe. As dr Tom G. Palmer put it “Liberalism, it isn't as stirring in the blood as massacring your neighbours. Not many things, especially for young men, are as exciting as going and killing your neighbours". Libertarianism is not, and cannot be built around a cult following (no gods or kings, only man is the central point afterall), hate for foreigners, or disdain for the elites. The libertarian ideas are too complex and those libertarian intellectuals who give in to populism, quickly become subject to audience capture, that quickly turns them unrecognizable from what they were before.
They become Dave Rubin’s of the world, capable of believing and spreading every hoax, but lose any power to steer the movement in their way. One can hardly believe that a few years back Rubin had Caplan and McCloskey on his podcast. This is the future libertarian movement needs to be saved from.
Libertarians have an actual opportunity to influence the world through politics. Many countries with high degree of polarization and two major parties, could find themselves struggling to form a stable majority, once a libertarian leaning third party is in play. Even a couple MPs with a tight majority, could give huge negotiating power to a well-running libertarian party. However, if libertarians cozy up to the right-wing parties there will be nothing to gain in such regards, as the libertarian identity won’t be distinct enough to build the third largest party upon it of the size that could become a kingmaker. Admirers of Orban, Trump or Bolsanaro don’t need a paper-mache replica of their cult leader.
The utter degeneracy of the libertarian-nationalism tactic is best illustrated by the case of the Konfederacja party in Poland. Konfederacja is a monster mash of the most disgusting political figures one could imagine all brought together under the banner of “freedom populism”. It is exactly what a libertarian nationalist could desire. After all, it is a strategic alliance between the classical liberal Korwin party and the Nationalist Movement party. In their search for the populist electorate, the party quickly became a crossover of all the most toxic, despicable and deranged ideologies. They brought into the Polish parliament, the internationally known antisemite Grzegorz Braun (he gained global press for destroying Hanukkah candles in the Polish parliament with a fire extinguisher and harming a woman in the process). Among its last year candidates, one could find even some flat-earthers. It would be just another terrible alt-right party if not for one detail, commitment to some free market elements at least in rhetoric.
Thanks to them the situation is disastrous for libertarians. The Konfederacja party will talk about tax cuts and champion free markets, at the same time voicing support for conscription, ending free trade with Ukraine, state-ownership of the largest petrol company in Poland, Orlen, and hatemonger against immigrants trying to find the sweet spot between hate and pogroms. Its politicians will be vocal about legalising weed and fight for supposed freedom of speech whenever the left wants to ban hate speech but will pair it up with advocacy for ending pride marches, corporal punishment for homosexuality, and banning speech that criticises the Catholic Church. This is libertarian populism in action, and it is an utter disgrace.
Milei is not economically populist (as Tyler Cowen has pointed out), he is socially populist. This article ignores his social positions and attaches the term populism to his (popular with classical liberals) economic positions and, presto, turns him into a populist to bash popuphobes. Hayek will be turning in his gave :)
When the establishment is socialist, as is the case in Argentina, and when the people clearly wanted to do away with the economic socialism of the ruling elite, then giving the people the libertarianism that they want becomes populist.
I think that the entire problem with the article lies in the fact that Milei is not a populist in his most important positions which are all about economics. One can conveniently redefine populism, in such a way that his libertarian economics fits the definition, but it could not be further from the truth. Economically right-wing populists are universally protectionists and defenders of the welfare state. Argentina is a special case and politics across different regions cannot be copypasted. The concern is US. Here is a snipet from my coming article on why this completely does not transfer to the US:
The libertarians, even forgetting the ethical quandaries, have little chance of becoming a dominant ideology of the populist movement. Hanania writes: “Low human capital cultures are the world of transparent scams: anti-vaxx, Stop the Steal, the corrupt televangelist, gold and silver bars sold at exorbitant prices, fake news content mills. Yes, conservatives disproportionately create and fall for such scams. But they proliferate because even among smart people on the right who should know better, there is no culture of shaming or stigmatizing members of the tribe for even the most egregious types of behaviour. This doesn’t mean that Low Human Capital communities are completely devoid of a moral sense. But it’s a tribal morality, which appeals to people who are stupider and less idealistic.“
Libertarians will never be such a tribe. As dr Tom G. Palmer put it “Liberalism, it isn't as stirring in the blood as massacring your neighbours. Not many things, especially for young men, are as exciting as going and killing your neighbours". Libertarianism is not, and cannot be built around a cult following (no gods or kings, only man is the central point afterall), hate for foreigners, or disdain for the elites. The libertarian ideas are too complex and those libertarian intellectuals who give in to populism, quickly become subject to audience capture, that quickly turns them unrecognizable from what they were before.
They become Dave Rubin’s of the world, capable of believing and spreading every hoax, but lose any power to steer the movement in their way. One can hardly believe that a few years back Rubin had Caplan and McCloskey on his podcast. This is the future libertarian movement needs to be saved from.
Libertarians have an actual opportunity to influence the world through politics. Many countries with high degree of polarization and two major parties, could find themselves struggling to form a stable majority, once a libertarian leaning third party is in play. Even a couple MPs with a tight majority, could give huge negotiating power to a well-running libertarian party. However, if libertarians cozy up to the right-wing parties there will be nothing to gain in such regards, as the libertarian identity won’t be distinct enough to build the third largest party upon it of the size that could become a kingmaker. Admirers of Orban, Trump or Bolsanaro don’t need a paper-mache replica of their cult leader.
The utter degeneracy of the libertarian-nationalism tactic is best illustrated by the case of the Konfederacja party in Poland. Konfederacja is a monster mash of the most disgusting political figures one could imagine all brought together under the banner of “freedom populism”. It is exactly what a libertarian nationalist could desire. After all, it is a strategic alliance between the classical liberal Korwin party and the Nationalist Movement party. In their search for the populist electorate, the party quickly became a crossover of all the most toxic, despicable and deranged ideologies. They brought into the Polish parliament, the internationally known antisemite Grzegorz Braun (he gained global press for destroying Hanukkah candles in the Polish parliament with a fire extinguisher and harming a woman in the process). Among its last year candidates, one could find even some flat-earthers. It would be just another terrible alt-right party if not for one detail, commitment to some free market elements at least in rhetoric.
Thanks to them the situation is disastrous for libertarians. The Konfederacja party will talk about tax cuts and champion free markets, at the same time voicing support for conscription, ending free trade with Ukraine, state-ownership of the largest petrol company in Poland, Orlen, and hatemonger against immigrants trying to find the sweet spot between hate and pogroms. Its politicians will be vocal about legalising weed and fight for supposed freedom of speech whenever the left wants to ban hate speech but will pair it up with advocacy for ending pride marches, corporal punishment for homosexuality, and banning speech that criticises the Catholic Church. This is libertarian populism in action, and it is an utter disgrace.
Milei is not economically populist (as Tyler Cowen has pointed out), he is socially populist. This article ignores his social positions and attaches the term populism to his (popular with classical liberals) economic positions and, presto, turns him into a populist to bash popuphobes. Hayek will be turning in his gave :)
When the establishment is socialist, as is the case in Argentina, and when the people clearly wanted to do away with the economic socialism of the ruling elite, then giving the people the libertarianism that they want becomes populist.