Is Libertarianism Enough?

A look at liberty, strategy, and culture.

By J.W. Rich

Creating ideas is easy - getting other people to accept those ideas is much harder. All movements struggle with overcoming this challenge, and Libertarianism is no exception. In characteristic fashion, Libertarians have produced a trove of literature on the subject of political strategy. Opinions abound on how a free society might be achieved, and prominent Libertarians have even changed their views on the subject over time. Murray Rothbard first allied with left-wing movements in the 1960s, only to later in his life ally with many right-wing thinkers in the 1990s.

Even so, none of these strategies have yet come to fruition. Despite the overflow of ink and pixels spent by Libertarians on this topic, the power of governments around the world have only grown in the past century. While the recent successes of Javiar Milei in Argentina is encouraging, a widespread movement for freedom it is not. While we should always maintain hope for the future, we should be equally vigilant for positive changes we can make in the present.

The failure of Libertarians begs an uncomfortable question: are we doing something wrong? Is there some strategic element that Libertarians have overlooked? Because Libertarianism is primarily a political movement, analysis of strategy is often focused on how to achieve political change. While this seems natural, is it an incomplete picture?

I contend that it is. A Libertarian strategy that proceeds along political lines alone will not succeed. In order for there to be any lasting libertarian movement, it must contain a cultural as well as political element.

It would behoove us to first establish some definitions. What is culture? While it takes many forms, culture is the product of beliefs that individuals hold about human nature, society, and the world. Products of culture include music, theater, art, movies, books, humor, traditions, institutions, moral norms, and more. Due to their inherently foundational nature, cultural beliefs serve as the basis for many of our other beliefs as well. Accordingly, the cultural views that one adopts has sweeping implications for how they see and understand the world.

But why is a culture component necessary for a successful political movement? The reasons are numerous, but they can be grouped into two camps: pragmatic and purposeful.

The pragmatic reasons are straightforward. First, a cultural element allows for more points of entry into a movement. People are often drawn into political movements through non-political avenues. A movement solely composed of a political element limits themselves by only appealing to those who actively engage in the political scene. Infusing your message into popular cultural sectors - such as books, movies, news media, institutions, etc. - exposes that message to more people.

Secondly, a movement with both cultural and political elements maintains more inertia than one that is purely political. Political movements tend to lose their luster over time. If elections are not promptly won and policies are not implemented, then its adherents instinctively start looking elsewhere. While there are exceptions to this “electoral entropy” (particularly those that find immediate and sustained success), they are the exception instead of the rule. A strong cultural contingent helps to reduce this decay by creating other vectors for the movement to engage with. Instead of political victories being its sole occupation and measure of success, cultural proliferation allows the movement to avoid living or dying by the ballot box.

However, there is a much deeper reason that a Libertarian movement needs a cultural component: cultural beliefs are an essential part of anyone’s worldview. As Libertarians, we are trying to convince other people to adopt a political program. Accordingly, whether we like it or not, we are in the marketing business - specifically, the worldview marketing business. But to be an effective salesperson, we must be cognizant of what makes a worldview (or “meta-narrative”, in psychological terms) appealing in the first place:

In order to act within the world, we must understand the world. This understanding requires information about the world, but also how we might act upon that information to achieve our desires. This desire for understanding scales all the way from the small, insignificant elements of our daily lives all the way to grand, overarching beliefs about the nature of the universe itself. From a salesperson’s point of view, the more that a meta-narrative can explain, the more attractive it is (all else being equal) for outsiders to adopt. Of course, no meta-narrative can explain everything about the world, but the greater its explanatory power, the more appealing it is.

A solely political movement is inherently handicapped in its explanatory power compared to a political-cultural movement. In and of itself, this is not necessarily a bad thing. But from the perspective of political strategy, it is far from ideal - especially in comparison to other competing meta-narratives that contain both political and cultural (and other) components.

Moreover, as discussed above, cultural beliefs are not just one part of an individual’s belief matrix, but constitute some of its most foundational elements. Political beliefs are an important part of any worldview, but cultural beliefs are even more central to that system as a whole. Consequently, any political movement that presents a cultural component appeals not only to a more complete meta-narrative, but also to the most impactful elements of that narrative.

Do we have any examples of Libertarian movements in the past that successfully integrated cultural elements? By far the most notable is Ayn Rand and her movement of “Objectivism”. From the early 1950s until her death in 1982, Ayn Rand reached a level of social prominence that few - if any - Libertarians have ever approached. This notoriety was accomplished not through political means, but rather, through her books: Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem. Moreover, she openly advocated for cultural beliefs alongside and congruent with her political beliefs. While her Objectivist movement faded in prominence in the decades after her death, she remains as one of the most-read authors from the twentieth century.

For the inverse, we can find many examples Libertarian movements without any cultural integration that ultimately failed. The “Ron Paul Revolution” of 2012 is perhaps the best example, due to its nature as a solely political movement. Republican Congressman Ron Paul ran for President in 2012 on a platform that included many Libertarian beliefs. Despite receiving much media attention and grassroots enthusiasm, he was unable to secure the Republican Party nomination. While many hoped that this valiant, though failed, effort would result in a lasting libertarian (or libertarian-adjacent) voting block, it was not to be. When Ron Paul’s son, Rand Paul, ran for President in 2016 with similar campaign planks as his father, he received little to no support and ignominiously fizzled out of the primary race.

If we have to pair cultural beliefs and values with Libertarianism, what should these beliefs and values be? Are any cultural ideals compatible with Libertarianism, or are only certain beliefs acceptable? Regrettably, such questions are beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say, Rand’s Objectivist movement has shown that such an integration is possible and provides an example for the modern Libertarian movement to emulate and improve upon. Does this mean we have to abandon or modify our Libertarian beliefs? Not at all. Rather, if we want to bring about a successful Libertarian movement, that movement cannot be myopically focused on political aims. It must be part of a broader program - one that includes cultural components as well.

Despite the failures of many libertarian movements, we shouldn’t be too hard on ourselves. Most social movements fail, and the fact that Libertarianism has stayed alive over the past few decades is an accomplishment in and of itself. Even so, we should never content ourselves with mere existence. We should always keep our eyes on the ultimate goal of creating a free society. We should also be equally aware of the strategies necessary to achieve that goal.

About the Author

J.W. Rich is a writer whose work can be found on Mises.org, Zerohedge, and Antiwar.com. He is the author of the forth coming Praxeological Ethics. See more of his writings here.