Liberaltarianism: What it is And Why it's a Catalyst For a Mass Movement to the Center
Opinion
One of my favourite podcasts that I listen to is the All-In Podcast from Jason Calacanis, Chamath Palihapitiya, David Friedberg, and David Sacks. I love the show because of the diverse perspectives of the hosts and the intellectual conversations about important topics in tech, finance, and politics. It's one of only two shows that I listen to every single episode of, without fail.
This week while I was listening to episode 52, David Sacks brought up a very interesting term in passing while speaking about the political ideology of many young entrepreneurs: “liberaltarian”. The second I heard it, I thought it was fascinating because as a “mixed” political viewpoint, it's in direct contradiction to the polarizing politics we often see today.
But first, you might be asking, what is a liberaltarian and what is liberaltarianism? Well the word itself, as described by David Sacks, is a combination of liberal and libertarian and as mentioned was used to describe the political views of many young businessfolk. These people can often be described as socially liberal while also valuing personal and market freedoms.
The reason these two oft-contrasting ideals are even possible to combine is because of the Nolan chart, a two-dimensional political spectrum chart created by libertarian activist David Nolan in 1969. It's quite different from the typical one-dimensional political spectrum line that maps varying political ideologies from left to right. The reason the Nolan chart is so different is because it uses two different dimensions: how much personal freedom is valued and how much economic freedom is valued. With this system, individuals can separate their personal views from their more macro/societal views and come up with a more nuanced self descriptive political policy position.
So what is the nuanced policy position of a liberaltarian? Hallmarks of being a liberaltarian may include:
Supporting typically liberal ideals of a social safety net, strong environmental protection and government subsidized health care
Supporting typically libertarian/conservative ideals of free markets, strong individual freedoms, and less government bureaucracy/red tape
Supporting the libertarian point of view that not all government involvement is positive, and can actually be detrimental to individuals and innovation
Notice that none of these positions are particularly extreme. They are all rational, and can even refer to simple feelings and thoughts that liberaltarians may have. In terms of the Nolan chart, or even a regular old one-dimensional political spectrum chart, liberaltarians are often not too far away from centrism. This is because there exists a delicate balance in the ideals of individuals who subscribe to this ideology.
Liberaltarians often value personal and economic freedoms quite equally, perhaps personal freedoms just a bit more since they do support some government social programs and intervention. But, by the same token, they are not whole-hog libertarians either. They’re not saying “no government”, just “slightly less government”. They hold strong, moderate beliefs and approach societal issues from a balanced perspective.
That's the key takeaway: balance and nuance. Liberal beliefs are not mutually exclusive from beliefs of freer markets and competition. You can simultaneously support a social safety net that helps the working poor while also believing that the government shouldn't be involved in other policy areas. You can love and appreciate your subsidized or universal government healthcare while also disliking the extensive government bureaucracy that threatens innovation at startups.
That's what today's political landscape is missing, and this is what's been talked about on the All-In podcast so much, which is one of the reasons I love the show. Politicians and many of those surrounding them are staunchly part of “one side or the other;” there's no in between. The four personalities of the All-In podcast are reaching across the divide and coming up with rational, workable, and agreeable solutions that would likely be incredibly effective if implemented by legislators, but won't be because of strict partisanship on the part of the majority of politicians today. If you’re looking for an example of this, look no further than the messaging surrounding the failed recall of California governor Gavin Newsom. It pretty much boiled down to “if you’re a Democrat, don’t you dare vote yes to this ‘Republican-led’ recall, regardless of Newsom’s actual policies and performance as governor.”
I've especially appreciated the balanced aspect of the All-In Podcast as a young person trying to find where I fit in with regards to politics and the political spectrum; I voted for the first time ever in the Canadian federal election this past September (I’m Canadian). I did my research, thought rationally, and voted accordingly, and I'd like to thank All-In for being a part of my personal journey and growth in this area.
Looking past my personal experience, the experience of other liberaltarians and “mixed-perspective” voters is one of increasing exasperation. Every election cycle they feel ignored and trapped inside of hyper-partisan echo chambers. They have to make hard decisions about which ideals are more important to them in order to pick a candidate, or they just don’t bother and are left at the side of the road as another casualty of partisanship.
The reason no politicians seem to be reaching out to these groups is because in all likelihood they don’t believe they even exist. As participants in these enormous partisan echo-chambers, they too have been blinded to the existence of nuance and balanced perspectives.
An example of another large group of ignored and alienated voters is what I like to call “new age” or “modern” conservatives. They are often fiscally conservative, support free markets, lower taxes, and strong individual freedoms, but they are also supportive of LGBTQ+ rights, positive climate change action, and fewer restrictions on abortion. Voters within this framework quite literally have to choose money or morality when heading to the polls, certainly a tough spot for anyone to be in.
Thankfully, these problems of hyper-partisanship and voter disenfranchisement have a very simple solution: a mass movement towards the center. Centrism is quite literally the definition of balance; at the center there are elements of all political ideologies in varying balances depending on who you are. In my opinion, what politics should equate to in the end is a group of centrist parties with different balances of the four Nolan chart ideologies as their platforms. Voters will choose the balance that most matches their own, and the party that garners the most support will legitimately represent the most popular perspectives and values in the society the voters are a part of.
Unfortunately, that is not where politics are today. We are still stuck in the mud when it comes to cooperation and balance, but there may be help arriving soon. As more and more voters become frustrated and feel left out, they will eventually become loud. Soon, politicians won’t be able to ignore all of the people who don’t fit their “left or right” mold, and as a self identifying liberaltarian, I’m very excited for the political tides to change for the better.