Glenn Beck recently addressed Ann Coulter’s appearance at ISFLC, and at first attempted to judge whether or not she was right in suggesting that libertarians focus too much attention on drug legalization. However, the segment soon turned into a criticism of the libertarian movement’s openness to so-called outsiders. Beck pleaded with libertarians to be more open to those who don’t necessarily share a complete commitment to individual liberty, free markets, and peace. Beck believes that without openness and compromise that libertarianism will languish without influence on the future of American politics.

First, it’s important to point out that Students For Liberty is a very open organization. Unlike student organizations of the past who have issued sweeping statements about specific policies and goals (see the Port Huron and Sharon statements), SFL merely identifies social, economic, and academic freedom as the principles which comprise our belief in liberty, while we make explicit that “SFL does not dictate the foundations upon which individuals justify their belief in liberty. Rather, Students For Liberty embraces the diversity of justifications for liberty and encourages debate and discourse on the differing philosophies that underlie liberty.” Let us not allow Beck to label SFL as an exclusive club. We provide resources to groups of all stripes whether they be explicitly libertarian groups, Objectivists, or single-issue like drug legalization, LGBT rights, or gun rights. Also, our regional conferences are free and open to anyone to attend.

Secondly, the current success of libertarianism in politics in the first place is strong evidence that our strategy is working. Would it have been possible for Justin Amash or Rand Paul to be elected even ten years ago? Probably not. Moreover, Glenn Beck himself wouldn’t be able to successfully peddle as many libertarian principles as he has without the steadfast, principled defenders of liberty of the past.

During the segment, Beck claims that a BlazeTV researcher reported that most attendees to the ISFLC “hated [Beck’s] guts.” Given that Beck has supported the likes of Rick Santorum (once calling him “the next George Washington”) and once claimed that Ron Paul supporters were akin to terrorists, it is probably true that most libertarians don’t feel kindly towards him. When it comes to my own thoughts on Glenn beck, I find myself like The Fountainhead’s Howard Roark in that I simply don’t think about Glenn Beck just as I don’t think about politicians and other irrelevant cogs at the end of the wheel of the social change game.

Ellsworth Toohey: Mr. Roark, we’re alone here. Why don’t you tell me what you think of me in any words you wish.
Howard Roark: But I don’t think of you.

The crux of my disagreement with Beck is in his conception of the libertarian movement. Throughout the segment, Beck’s rhetoric is very telling of a serious misunderstanding of second-wave libertarianism, a term which my colleague James Padilioni wrote about and defined here. First, Beck routinely equates all libertarians with dogmatic Ron Paul supporters. If Beck spent any time with the student movement for liberty, he’d find a much richer and overtly less political tradition shaped by the likes of F. A. Hayek, Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Albert Nock, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Frédéric Bastiat and other great defenders of liberty. Furthermore, Beck’s mental model of libertarianism is mostly foreign to that of second-wave libertarianism. The segment is rife with references to Republicans and Democrats, Ron and Rand Paul, and talk of political influence, specific legislation, and other politically charged terminology. The fact is though that second-wave libertarianism is concerned with much more than politics. Second-wavers are building an intellectual movement and embarking on a cultural project. Today’s libertarian youth don’t work within Beck’s framework of left and right. We occupy the radical center. We do not speak through traditional institutional channels. Glenn Beck has no concept of this which explains why he feels justified in asking libertarians to be more inviting to those who don’t necessarily share a commitment to all aspects of liberty. Beck is thinking on the level of politics and political parties, and since political parties win by bringing vast groups of people together who often share few specific ties to particular principles then libertarianism could win with a similar strategy.

Political parties are indeed meant to fuse together coalitions for political gain, however many libertarians know that real leverage on the course of history comes from a principled and sustained effort of working in the trenches of the higher orders of social change. Consequently, this requires a general adherence to specific, defined principles. As much as Beck wishes that libertarians would be more open, the fact is that libertarianism, if it is to be a successful social, intellectual, and ultimately political movement, cannot consist of clear negations of liberty. So, let me be clear. If you wish to call yourself a libertarian, you must find some foundation sincerely supportive of free markets, individual liberty, and peace. Without this most basic prerequisite, what does libertarianism even mean? Moreover, when talking about libertarianism it is simply inappropriate to look at it through a political lens only. Libertarianism is a rich tradition that is comprised of various moral, epistemological, metaphysical, and increasingly aesthetic foundations. Second-wave libertarianism will win politics by default once a sufficient portion of the public understands the arguments for a free society on emotional and logical levels; victory will not come by concerted efforts at growing political clout through compromise.

Openness plays an important role in libertarianism, but it does not mean that our philosophy should include ideas that are clearly antithetical to liberty. Conservatism shares some libertarian ideals (just as American liberalism does), but it also shares ideas that are anathema to our philosophy. Conservatism is not supportive of individual rights or personal liberty. Instead, it often favors state-imposed religious values, which conservatives often shroud behind terms like “family” or “traditional” values. While it is often pointed out that conservatives favor some economic liberty, they simultaneously call for violations of individual rights in order to support certain aspects of the welfare state like public schools and social safety nets. Furthermore, conservatives favor an immigration policy that prevents business owners from freely contracting with non-Americans, a clear rejection of free trade in the labor market which also infringes upon the right to freedom of travel. Most egregiously, conservatives often call for laws banning so-called “immoral” acts or relationships such as drug use or same-sex marriage. Conservatism is diametrically opposed to the open, cosmopolitan spirit of second-wave libertarianism.

“Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this had rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide.” — F. A. Hayek, The Intellectuals and Socialism

Ideas have consequences. The ideas of liberty are changing the structure of society right now, but Beck doesn’t see it. Although Beck is one of those Hayekian second-hand dealers in ideas, he still appears to lack an understanding of the process of social change. Following the revolutionary war, John Adams made an astute observation about the process of social change writing, “What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the Revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The Revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington.” Beck on the other hand seems to believe that unprincipled political maneuvers designed to attract illiberal interests will successfully garner libertarianism the reins of power. That strategy sometimes wins elections but not long-term shifts in public opinion that are needed before political institutions are forced to respond. In light of this, one might revisit Margaret Thatcher’s observation that in politics you must first win the argument before you win the vote. An openness in the libertarian movement as Beck defines it may mean winning a vote but definitely not the argument. While Students For Liberty encourages a big-tent approach to liberty, we still believe liberty stands for real, substantive principles that have real consequences on individuals’ lives.

For the past five years, SFL has been working feverishly to win the war of ideas. Last week 1400 libertarians descended upon Washington, DC for yet another grand celebration of liberty. In the fall over 2500 students traveled to SFL regional conferences in various localities around the world. The European Students For Liberty Conference expects 350+ students in a few weeks. SFL is growing in latin America, Brazil, Africa, and elsewhere. After years of intellectual preparation and institution building by libertarians past and present, society is finally starting to respond. The decades-long intellectual battle has finally begun to see early signs of political success. Most Americans agree with same-sex marriage and legalization of marijuana. Keynesianism is being exposed for a house of cards as governments struggle to hide the ineffective and debilitating consequences of interventionist policies.

Young people around the world are leveling serious attacks against the state’s overreach into our personal and economic lives. Second-wave libertarianism is fast approaching its day in the sun. A cursory look at youth politics makes clear that libertarian youth have a passion, enthusiasm, and intelligence that far outweigh our counterparts on both the left and right. This will not be without consequence, and we refuse to allow our efforts for a freer, more prosperous, and more humane society to be poisoned by those who do not share a firm commitment to the dignity of the individual. We’re not asking for purity tests, but we are looking for sincere advocates of a free academy and a free society. Beck can continue to ask libertarians to be more open, but behind the melodramatic crocodile tears he’s really asking libertarians to be quiet, play nice, and ultimately be more open to compromising the very institutions of liberty that have been responsible for the greatest advancement of mankind’s plight in the history of humanity.