Sell Out and Die by Murray N. Rothbard

Sell Out and=20 Die

by Murray=20 N. Rothbard
by Murray = N.=20 Rothbard

This essay was = originally=20 published in the July-August 1980 issue of = Cadre, = the internal=20 bulletin of the Radical Caucus of the Libertarian Party. = This=20 version leaves out the names of players who are no longer = relevant=20 to Rothbard's main point.

In=20 the spring of 1979, a fateful =96 and fatal =96 shift took = place in the=20 direction and strategic vision of our leading libertarian=20 institutions: foundations, youth movements, journals, etc. = The shift=20 was a classic leap into opportunist betrayal of our = fundamental=20 principles.

The=20 early, pre-1976 days of the modern libertarian movement = suffered=20 from having no strategic vision at all. For that reason, it = scarcely=20 deserved the name of movement; the guiding concept was what = I call=20 "educationism": that libertarians write, lecture, teach, and = spread=20 the word, and that somehow the victory of liberty would one = day=20 magically be achieved. From 1976 on, in contrast, the = movement began=20 to flourish under a movement-building, or cadre-building,=20 perspective; the idea was to concentrate on building a = movement of=20 knowledgeable libertarians, of men and women who would be = deeply=20 committed to hard-core libertarian principle.

This=20 "cadre" would get involved in single-issue coalitions where = the=20 particular issues advanced the libertarian cause = (anti-draft, drug=20 law repeal, tax-slashing, or whatever). In that way, the=20 effectiveness of the cadre would be multiplied, and the=20 consciousness of many of our allies would be widened to see = the=20 consistency and merit of the broader libertarian=20 perspective.

This=20 strategic perspective is of course a long-range one, but it = is the=20 only one that can possible succeed. At all times, the cadre = holds=20 high the banner of pure principle, and then applies that = principle=20 to the crucial issues of the day. But this course requires a = lifelong commitment to what Mao aptly called a "protracted=20 struggle"; it is no movement for those who rush in and burn = out in a=20 few months.

COUP=20 D=92=C9TAT

In=20 any ideological movement, the temptation to take quick = shortcuts,=20 the lure of betraying principle for supposed short-run gain, = can=20 become almost irresistible. But usually sellouts have = occurred after=20 the movement has taken power, or else when it is teetering = on the=20 brink of power. But it is surely rare for an ideological = movement to=20 sell out when it merely sniffs the faintest whiff of = possible power=20 some day in the future. Surely this is gutlessness and = venality of=20 an unusually high order. Yet this began to happen to the = growing=20 libertarian movement in early 1979, and is happening right = now=20 before our eyes.

This=20 new opportunist strategy we might call, with considerable = and=20 much-merited sarcasm, the "quick-victory" model. The = reasoning goes=20 something like this: All this principle stuff is just a drag = on the=20 machinery. We can gain a rapid and enormous leap forward in = votes,=20 money, membership, and media influence. But to gain these = great=20 goals we must quietly but effectively bury these annoying=20 principles, which only put off voters, money, influence,=20 etc.

It=20 is too slow to get votes and support by holding high the = banner of=20 libertarian principle and slowly converting people to it; = far=20 quicker to abandon our own principles and adopt the program = dear to=20 the hearts of those who might bring us votes, money, and=20 influence.

The=20 problem, of course, is that even if money, votes, and = influence are=20 achieved by this route, what are they being achieved for? A = major=20 purpose, for example, of the Libertarian Party is to educate = the=20 public, but to educate them to what? Presumably, to = libertarian=20 principles. But if we present to the public watered-down pap = hardly=20 distinguishable from liberals, conservatives, or centrists = on=20 various issues, there will be no true education. The public = will=20 receive education, not in liberty, but in pap, and whatever = votes=20 are achieved will not be for liberty but for watered-down = treacle.=20 In the process, our glorious principles are betrayed and = forgotten,=20 and so the cause of liberty is worse off, even with several = million=20 votes, than it was before the sellout strategy took hold. So = everyone loses, and no one benefits =96 except perhaps the=20 opportunists themselves, who may personally gain in power = and income=20 from the whole shabby process.

How,=20 then, were the opportunist connivers going to handle all the = stiff-necked and principled purists in the Libertarian = Party? The=20 answer was simple, and typical of the process of betrayal = occurring=20 in ideological parties: Let the purists have their platform, = which=20 indeed has gotten harder core and more radical with each = national=20 convention. And then, simply control the Presidential = candidate, and=20 he ignores the platform. And then the party can quietly go = to hell,=20 except of course when needed as foot soldiers for ballot = drives.=20 Besides, they believed they could get away with this = strategy with=20 only a minimum of hassle from us purist malcontents. So far, = in=20 fact, the tactic has worked, and will continue to work = unless and=20 until genuine libertarians throughout the country rouse = themselves=20 and begin to do something effective about it. And the first = step is=20 to raise all of our voices loud and clear against this = repellent=20 takeover of our party.

MEDIA=20 HYPE

What=20 specific form has this opportunist sellout taken? = Specifically, the=20 opportunists have targeted as their constituency young, = middle-class=20 liberals, the sort of articulate people who tend to mould = voter=20 opinion, the sort of people who read the New York = Times and=20 watch CBS News. Better yet, they are the sort of people who = write=20 the New York Times and make CBS News. In short, = young,=20 middle-class, liberal media people. Who needs cadre, who = needs=20 intellectual content, who needs principle, who needs = grass-roots=20 organizing, or single-issue coalitions or all the other = patient=20 boring work that might eventually gain victory for = libertarian=20 principle? Who needs all of that when, with a considerable = infusion=20 of money and a big dilution of principle, we can "win" = quickly with=20 razzle-dazzle, direct mail, and media hype?

It=20 is this living for the media and media influence above all = that=20 accounts not only for the betrayal of principle, but also = for the=20 kinds of ideological deviations that the opportunists have = indulged=20 in. It is time to recognize that patient argument on each of = these=20 issues is beside the point; the opportunists are simply not=20 interested in which stand on any given issue might be = consistent=20 with libertarianism and which is not. All they care about is = finding=20 some plausible libertarian-sounding rationale for a position = which=20 will suck in the votes and support of the media and the=20 media-oriented constituency.

For=20 example: how are white, middle-class liberal youth to be = sucked in=20 to supporting [the ticket]? Easy. What has been the biggest, = in fact=20 virtually the only, issue animating this group for the last = several=20 years? Hysterical and ill-informed opposition to nuclear = power. So:=20 we promise them, No Nukes.

How=20 about the sort of white, middle-class liberal women who read = the=20 New York Times, etc? Clearly, their big issue for = years has=20 been the ERA, so [the] opportunist institutions come out = vigorously=20 for this amendment.

What=20 are the other basic views of the media constituency? Mainly = they are=20 soft liberals: that is, they favor the welfare state, but = worry=20 about its high costs, and wish for some sort of mild = reduction in=20 Big Government. So: [the ticket] has now promised that = welfare will=20 not be cut in a libertarian regime: in one version, until = private=20 institutions take up the welfare burden (fat chance!) or, in = another, until "full employment" is achieved (no chance at = all). So,=20 middle-class liberals are assured: No Welfare Cuts. No = "Goldwater=20 extremism" here.

In=20 accordance with the opportunist strategy, [the ticket] has = given up=20 talking about basic principle (too radical) and wants to = talk only=20 about what he will do in his first year in office (Huh?). = What he=20 will do, of course, is to be "responsible," and therefore = not do=20 much of anything that middle-class liberals or the media = might=20 consider threatening. So he talks only about a "large" tax = and=20 budget cut, but nothing really radical or principled like = repealing=20 the income tax.

What=20 about drugs? Here [the ticket and its] handlers know that=20 middle-class liberals mainly smoke marijuana anyway, so = favor its=20 legalization, but anything like heroin =96 much more a = working class=20 or ghetto drug =96 scares the hell out of them. So [the = ticket]=20 bravely comes out for legalization of "soft" drugs like = marijuana,=20 and refuses to talk about heroin, which means of course, an = implicit=20 acceptance of the idea of keeping heroin and other hard = drugs=20 illegal. The implication is clear, and cannot be wriggled = out of by=20 the sophistical and evasive reply that [the ticket] has = nowhere said=20 explicitly that heroin should be outlawed.

Neither are our = middle-class=20 liberals very fond of illegal working-class Mexican = immigrants, and=20 so [the ticket] has maintained that illegal Mexican = immigration=20 should continue to be restricted until welfare disappears. = But then,=20 of course, that has to stay until full employment, etc. So: = No=20 Mexicans.

But=20 this is what happens when opportunists begin to sanction the = idea of=20 structured destatization, of saying that we can=92t repeal = Statist Law=20 A until B is repealed, and we can=92t repeal B until we get = rid of C,=20 etc. To the media, this of course seems very "responsible" = and=20 respectable. Sure, it=92s respectable; and for the very same = reason,=20 it means that we, as libertarians, are advocating the = indefinite and=20 hence the permanent freezing in place of the statist = structure. The=20 quick victory model turns out, on analysis, to be a quick = victory=20 only for the power and income of the opportunists = themselves; for=20 the cause of liberty, it means a permanent = burial.

It=20 all amounts to a monstrous betrayal; those who hanker after = votes,=20 media influence, and respectability should have stayed where = they=20 belonged and where they can get these goodies more rapidly: = in the=20 Democratic and Republican parties.

Why,=20 then, has the [ticket] remained fairly sound on a foreign = policy of=20 non-intervention? Not, surely, because of some lingering = devotion to=20 principle. But because their beloved constituency =96 = youthful white=20 middle-class liberals =96 is fairly dovish, and so they = believe that=20 hay can be made with these people by sticking to = non-intervention.=20 But, even here, [the ticket] has already compromised by=20 incorporating Canada and Mexico into the U.S. defense = perimeter. (In=20 short: fight the Russians in Mexico, but don=92t let the = Mexicans in?)=20 Also, [it] now talks of a gradual withdrawal from = NATO.

Lately, [the ticket] = has taken=20 to summing up his position as that of a "low-tax liberal." = What we=20 have to recognize is that this is not simply a catchy phrase = to get=20 the attention of the media. This is precisely what = libertarianism=20 has sunk to after a year of being remolded by the = campaign=92s power=20 elite. The marvelous structure of libertarian principle has = been=20 reduced simply to "low-tax liberalism."

So=20 watered down are our principles that we can already point to = several=20 key areas where Ronald Reagan is significantly more = libertarian than=20 [the ticket]. [The ticket] is against Nukes; Reagan is not. = [The=20 ticket] is for ERA; Reagan is for equal rights without the = infusion=20 of government. [The ticket] is for restricting Mexican = immigration;=20 Reagan is for a Common Market with Mexico, which presumably = means=20 free immigration. [The ticket] links welfare cuts to "full=20 employment"; Reagan makes no such unnecessary link. And we = are yet=20 to be convinced that the proposed tax cut will be = significantly=20 bigger than the Reagan Kemp-Roth tax cut.

"LOW-TAX=20 LIBERALISM"

Let=92s put it this = way: if you=20 were an ardent tax-cutter, would you vote for a man who = might well=20 be elected, or for a man with no chance who promises a = slightly=20 bigger cut? If libertarianism is to be buried, there seems = to be no=20 point in voting for a Libertarian Party. If only Reagan=92s = election=20 did not likely mean the incineration of the human race in = nuclear=20 war, libertarians might well find his candidacy very = tempting at=20 this point in the campaign.

So,=20 if the LP candidate is to hawk "low-tax liberalism" instead = of=20 libertarianism, why vote for [the ticket] at all? Why not = for=20 someone with a better chance to win, or, to put it another = way, why=20 not vote for an authentic low-tax liberal; why not Jerry = Brown, for=20 example, that master of liberalism of lower budgets and = lower=20 expectations? Or at least that is Brown=92s image, and image = is all=20 that [the ticket]=92s handlers care about.

More=20 to the point: what about John Anderson? For though Anderson = gives no=20 sign of being for lower taxes, his firmly entrenched media = image is=20 that of someone, to use the old clich=E9, "liberal on social = issues=20 and conservative on fiscal issues." As he has rushed to = return the=20 embrace of his newfound constituency of white middle-class = liberals,=20 Anderson=92s foreign policy has become increasingly dovish. = And as for=20 the media, well everyone knows that the "Anderson = difference" has=20 literally been created by the media. He is the media=92s = darling, and=20 [the ticket] is bound to remain a humble suitor left = standing in the=20 wings.

This, then, accounts for the panic and = near-hysteria=20 on the part of the [ticket=92s] managers over the Anderson = candidacy.=20 Anderson, they wail, has taken away "our" constituency. = Tough. It=20 couldn=92t have happened to a more deserving group of guys. = It is=20 indeed poetic justice for a group of people to sell their = souls for=20 a mess of pottage and then not even get the pottage. Then, = maybe,=20 after November, these people will leave us alone and return = to the=20 major parties. And maybe then we will have a party whose = candidates=20 run on the platform and not over it, who stand up for pure = and=20 consistent principle, who are more interested in grass-roots = cadre=20 building than in media hype.

Maybe then we will again have a "party of = principle."=20 What eventually killed the New Left was that they forgot = about=20 grass-roots organizing in their thirst for media attention. = Let us=20 hope that we don=92t follow the same route. So perhaps the = best thing=20 that could happen to save our souls and our principles is = for the=20 meretricious "quick-victory" model to lead to a quick = defeat, even=20 on the opportunists=92 own terms: in media flash and numbers = of=20 vote.

Murray N.=20 Rothbard (1926=961995) was the author of M= an,=20 Economy, and State, C= onceived=20 in Liberty, W= hat=20 Has Government Done to Our Money, For a = New=20 Liberty, T= he=20 Case Against the Fed, and many other books = and=20 articles. He was also = the editor=20 =96 with Lew Rockwell =96 of The=20 Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Murray=20 Rothbard Archives=20 =