# The Public Trough: Libertarianism and Neo-conservatism **URL:** **By** Bruce Bartlett **Published:** January 1, 1980 --- “Neoconservatism is a force to be reckoned with.” An issue of _Esquire_ magazine published early last year proclaimed neoconservatism to be “the most powerful new political force in America” (February 13, 1979). A convenient chart was provided showing ‘who’s who’ among neoconservatives, including the various wings. Libertarianism was shown to be the “new right” wing of neoconservatism, with many prominent libertarians listed. Since, therefore, libertarianism and neoconservatism are, in a sense, linked in the public mind it might be useful to see whether there are, in fact, any common bonds between the two. As far as I can determine, neoconservatism is just the current variation of what is usually called social democracy. Social democrats try to be both socialist and anti-Communist, but usually end up just being contradictory. Neoconservatism, on the other hand, is based primarily on three elements: cultural conservatism, anti-Communism, and support for the welfare state. Of course, neoconservatives disagree on details, and there are also many other aspects of neoconservatism that give it a distinctive style, but these three elements are critical. Irving Kristol is probably the best known neoconservative, but the most important is Norman Podhoretz, editor of _Commentary_ magazine. His recent book, _Breaking Ranks_, is an enormously interesting political memoir, which details his drift from old-style social democrat and protege of Lionel Trilling, to an intellectual leader of the New Left in the early 1960s, back around to neoconservatism. For him, as well as most other neoconservatives, the violence of the Weathermen was a watershed which forced them to move away from the far Left and ultimately embrace neoconservatism. (Podhoretz has very harsh words for those, like Jason Epstein, founder of the _New York Review of Books_, who failed to “grow up” and understand the true nature of the New Left.) At first glance, it may appear that neoconservatism has little, if anything, in common with libertarianism. Few libertarians would consider themselves cultural conservatives—on the contrary, many libertarians consider themselves part of the so-called counterculture. Fewer still would associate themselves with the militant anti-Communism of _Commentary_ magazine. Lastly, no libertarian would express a desire to support the welfare state. Nevertheless, I think there is still much in neoconservative writing which is extremely important and useful for libertarians. For one thing, the neoconservatives understand, as most liberals do not, that a prerequisite for the welfare state is economic growth. The great sin of the liberals is that they have promoted the welfare state at the expense of growth. This is because of their attachment to income equality, which has caused them to impose excessive burdens on the creation of wealth. The neoconservatives, on the other hand, see nothing wrong with income inequality and wealth, so long as all Americans are provided with at least a minimum standard of living. Thus they argue in favor of reducing high tax rates which stifle incentive, regulatory reform, making the welfare state more efficient, and economic growth in general. Obviously, this puts neoconservatives on the side of libertarians on many key economic issues. Insofar as we are working toward the common end of cutting taxes, eliminating government waste, cutting back on government regulations and promoting economic growth, I see nothing wrong with making common cause. I frequently find Irving Kristol’s column in the _Wall Street Journal_ and articles in _The Public Interest_ to be lights in the darkness on economic issues. Unfortunately, although the neoconservative analyses of public policy issues are often superb, because they are so utilitarian they usually leave you unsatisfied because they don’t carry the logic of the analysis to its logical conclusion. The neoconservatives will say that high tax rates should be cut, without condemning the existence of taxation as such; they rigorously point out waste and abuse in government welfare programs, without ever calling for their abolition; and they brilliantly expose the enormous cost of government regulation, while maintaining, as Kristol does, that “no reasonable person is in principle opposed to all government regulation.” Other issues which libertarians and neoconservatives would find common cause with would be opposition to quotas and busing, and opposition to foreign economic aid (at least to “ungrateful” countries). In any case, neoconservatism is a force to be reckoned with. Neoconservatives have enormous influence in New York and Washington and will be involved heavily in the presidential nominations of both parties (Podhoretz wants Senator Moynihan to be President, Kristol wants Congressman Jack Kemp). It is important for libertarians to understand neoconservatism. It will be around for a while.