# The Renaissance Man **URL:** **By** David Lampo **Published:** February 1, 1980 --- “As the libertarian movement comes into its own, it becomes more important to examine the ideas of those who would claim our allegiance.” An American Renaissance: _A Strategy for the 1980’s_, by Jack Kemp. Harper and Row, 207 pp., $8.95. As the libertarian movement comes into its own, it becomes more and more important that it separate itself entirely from the conservative movement, both organizationally and philosophically. To a certain extent, the conservatives themselves will help us do this. Ernest van den Haag’s recent article in _National Review_ is an excellent example of a piece by a conservative who really does understand the implications of libertarian principles, and, happily, wants no part of them. But libertarians must now take the lead by continually pointing out that they have fundamental and irreconcilable differences with the conservative movement—differences that cannot be glossed over simply because we happen to have a certain number of positions in common. Congressman Jack Kemp, a conservative Republican from a Democratic district in Buffalo, New York, has now written a book which can only serve to sharpen the differences between libertarianism and conservatism. _An American Renaissance: A Strategy for the 1980’s_ will no doubt take on added importance if Ronald Reagan becomes the Republican Presidential nominee because Kemp has just been named to an important post in the Reagan campaign, both as “campaign spokesman” and Chairman of Policy Development. Congressman Kemp is best known for the tax-cutting proposals which he has introduced in the last several sessions of Congress (they have been introduced in the Senate by Bill Roth of Delaware). Basically, the Kemp-Roth bill would cut income taxes by one-third over a period of three years. While it would cut everyone’s income taxes, the bill specifically attacks the progressivity of the tax schedule, or the marginal tax rate: the rate of increase in taxation as income rises. The thrust of Kemp-Roth is that by cutting the marginal tax rate, you increase incentives and therefore productivity. And when you do that, tax revenues actually increase. In fact, Kemp’s economic mentor, Professor Arthur Laffer of USC, actually argues that the reason we should cut taxes _a la_ Kemp-Roth is that it would maximize government revenues. If you think that reason stinks you are, of course, absolutely correct, but according to Kemp, “tax relief is not so much an end in itself as a means of getting this economy moving again.” In fact, economic growth through tax cuts is practically the theme of his entire book. The issue of individual rights is never mentioned, and after reading the book, one begins to understand why. Kemp begins with a folksy little analogy (one of the few in which he does _not_ invoke football) in which government is portrayed as a wagon. The Democrats spend their time unloading the wagon (via food stamps, welfare, etc.) and the Republicans help load the wagon (presumably by being “pro-business”). Our current economic malaise stems from too much unloading and not enough loading. Since the Democrats are the party of redistribution, the Republicans must be the party of economic growth. According to Kemp, the system works best when both parties do their jobs. In his only reference to libertarians, he chastises us for wanting no redistribution at all. “The people, as a people,” he writes, “rightly insist that the whole look after the weakest of its parts. This is a primary function of collective action, of government.” Lest you think this a mere fluke, a small bone thrown to liberal critics, Kemp sets the record straight a few pages later. After lamenting the fact that transfer payments account for 40 percent of the federal budget, he tells us, “Social Security is in trouble and must be saved. It is perfectly legitimate for a democratic society to require that people set aside something to provide for their old age, their survivors or unexpected hardship.” After all, he continues, “a prosperous private economy can easily afford a strong safety net of public services—private affluence does not \[have to\] mean public squalor.” Kemp even goes on to endorse national health insurance for “catastrophic illness.” So much for conservative devotion to free enterprise. But lest you get the impression that there is nothing in this book a libertarian can be happy with, the chapters on inflation and energy are generally quite good. Although Kemp does not call for abolition of the Federal Reserve monopoly, he does effectively argue for a return to the gold standard as a way to end inflation and bring monetary stability. While he does not believe passage of the Kemp-Roth bill would result in a larger budget deficit (due to increased revenues), Kemp opposes the proposed constitutional amendment which would require a balanced Federal budget. He believes Congress would have to either raise taxes or “slash the safety net.” He seems not to possess the will to push for even the very modest spending cuts which would be required by the balanced budget amendment. The chapter on energy contains much good information, especially useful now that Carter (among others) is trying to push some form of “windfall profits” tax through Congress. The President has demanded a strong windfall profits tax before he will approve decontrol of crude oil prices. Kemp has joined with others in Congress in forming an anti-windfall profits tax caucus, a move not destined to endear him to some of his cold, upstate New York constituents. For this, at least, he can be admired. The Congressman also discusses foreign policy in this book, one of the most emotional issues for conservatives and his views are what we might expect. He recites the usual conservative litany of how American prestige and power have declined in the face of the “relentless Soviet buildup,” and repeats many of the half-truths and distortions that supporters of the American Empire usually employ. For example, he warns of the 800,000 troops added to the Soviet army since the mid-1960s, yet he fails to tell us that more than half of the Soviet military force engages in construction work and internal security, while a huge number is posted on the Sino-Soviet border, hardly a threat to Western Europe. Unfortunately, it is not only in conventional armaments that Kemp advocates large increases, but in strategic nuclear weapons as well. Like his conservative cronies, he seems unconcerned about where this perpetual military buildup will lead. It can, of course, have but one conclusion: the nuclear destruction of this planet. Conservatives have always entertained a double standard in foreign policy. The very same actions that they characterize as evil in Soviet foreign policy—spies and secret police, military aggression, influencing foreign political institutions and policymakers—all become both good and desirable in the service of American interests, interests which are defined by the power elite in service of the power elite. And as usual, it is the American people who must pay the price. This nation’s interventionist foreign policy has taken a huge toll in both lives and money, and yet the conservative prescription is more of the same. Libertarians must renounce and denounce this kind of foreign policy again and again and again. There are several points that we must begin to stress, especially during the upcoming election year, in light of Kemp’s newfound status in the Reagan campaign. First of all, it is the Federal government of the U.S., not the Soviet Union, which is the primary threat to our liberties. Throughout the ages, foreign threats, real and imagined, have been used by governments to consolidate and expand their powers. In the United States, the greatest growth in the cost and scope of the Federal government has taken place in time of war, and the “communist menace” has been used to justify our military presence in more than 100 nations. Libertarians must declare that empire is not only a huge drain on our resources; it is also just plain wrong. Secondly, it has been our support of dictators around the world which has often paved the way for communist revolution. Americans must begin to look at our foreign policy from the perspective of its _victims_ to realize why the United States is hated in so many places around the globe. Iran, of course, is only the latest example. Third, libertarians have to make people aware of how our own government props up the Soviet state which poses this alleged mortal threat. For example, the Import-Export Bank has subsidized trade with the Soviet empire to the tune of about $100-billion. Were it not for the serious consequences our foreign policy has had, it could rightly be considered a joke. There are many issues not covered in this book; the whole area of victimless crime laws, for example, is ignored. In a book devoid of any reference to individual liberty, I suppose this is not very surprising. It is, however, disappointing. It is rumored that much of this book was written with the assistance of Alan Reynolds, a Chicago economist, alleged libertarian, and regular columnist for _Reason_ magazine. If this is the case, then it simply emphasizes how vigilant the libertarian movement must become in order to avoid being co-opted by conservatives, many of whom would rather gut it than see it emerge as a fully independent and consistent alternative. David Lampo is publications coordinator in the national office of Students for a Libertarian Society and a past chairman of the Libertarian Party of San Francisco.