Republican Primaries

Patrick Keller is a US expert and the coordinator of Foreign and Security Policy at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin.

Deutsche Welle: What is libertarianism? Could you give us a simple definition?

Patrick Keller: Libertarians in America are concerned first and foremost with having a small state with the greatest possible amount of freedom and responsibility for individuals. In this respect, they consider themselves ur-American. They see themselves as part of the American conception of liberty in an extreme sense, for example, by promoting a minimum or even a complete absence of taxes and dramatic restrictions on state expenditures for defense, foreign policy, developmental aid and social benefits programs. They consider those things the responsibility of individuals and local governments.

You use the word 'ur-American,' and in fact it's difficult to think of a comparable political ideology in Europe. How and why did this outlook arise in the US?

You can only explain libertarianism as the product of American history. It has to do with the idea of American exceptionalism, which maintains that the US is not just a nation like any other. In Europe, this is often misunderstood as American arrogance. Historians, though, use the term to refer to the fact that the US was settled by refugees from Europe who founded an original, new society. Of course, there were Native Americans, and we shouldn't forget the massacres that took place, but otherwise the American nation was a society in a natural state such as described by Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke. There were no established traditions, no strong state church and no aristocracy. This freedom is something exceptional to America and served as the basis for the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution. Americans said, "We're going to create a society with inalienable rights, which reside in individuals, not in any state, god or aristocracy." That's the original source of the libertarian outlook.

What is the relationship of libertarianism to the more recent Tea Party movement, which is alternately described as conservative and libertarian?

The Tea Party has a number of facets. It's a grassroots movement that originated among ordinary American citizens. Movements like this have tended to arise every couple of decades in American society all the way back to the American Revolution. I think it can only be understood as a reaction to the success of Barack Obama, in particular to ideas like combatting the economic crisis through government spending or introducing mandatory health insurance, ideas that create a strong state. From the libertarian perspective, that's the same as creating a European-style social democracy in the United States. Tea Party adherents reject this in two ways. There's the libertarian response we just discussed.

And there's a conservative response. That's the difference, for example, between Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann. The conservatives emphasize Christianity. They say that they want a small, lean government, but they want massive expenditures for defense so that America is a strong state vis-à-vis the rest of the world. That's not libertarian; that's conservative. That's the tension within the Tea Party.

It's also difficult to categorize libertarians in terms of right-wing and left-wing American politics.

That's right. Libertarianism is difficult to locate within the classic political spectrum. In terms of their understanding of the state or economic policies, libertarians are on the extreme right because they reject the left-wing idea of a strong state that helps the poorer and weaker members of society. On the other hand, libertarianism is ultra-liberal in the sense that it doesn't want the state putting restrictions on people, regardless of whether it's their right to own weapons or their enjoyment of drugs. So the right-left divide doesn't really apply.

What about demographics? Libertarians have been described as disproportionately well-educated, wealthy, male and Caucasian. Is that true?

The Tea Party is a bit more heterogeneous, but for the libertarian movement, that's absolutely true. That's partly due to the fact that libertarianism is very attractive in an intellectual sense. You have to engage in philosophical arguments to counter the libertarian view of the American tradition. Well-educated people enjoy thinking about these general issues. On the other hand, libertarianism is impractical and divorced from every American political tradition in the last 50 years. So, when viewed from a superficial perspective, libertarians often seem a bit kooky.

To what extent is Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul a typical libertarian? His image is something like that of Jimmy Stewart in a film like Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, i.e. an honest, if somewhat clumsy outsider battling the corrupt world of politics. How much truth is there to that idea?

I find it fascinating that in America there are repeatedly people who have spent years in Washington, as Ron Paul has done as a Congressman, yet who still get marketed as political outsiders. He's excellent at playing this role. He's a bit older so he comes across like a senior citizen who's seen everything, has nothing to lose and can stand on libertarian principles. He transports his message with great wit and rhetorical skill, especially in contrast to the other Tea Party candidates who are not such good public speakers. His image is that of the charming uncle, and he's particularly well-liked among younger Republican voters, who think that he's someone who stands for a true alternative. That was the case with the Democrats and Barack Obama four years ago. The same applies to Paul because he truly would represent a sort of politics we haven't seen in Washington for the past sixty years. Whether he could push his ideas through against Congress is another question entirely. But at least in terms of personality, he possesses the appeal of the outsider with some extremely different ideas. And he's no barn-burner. He puts forward his ideas in witty, intellectual fashion.

Nonetheless, despite his third-place finish in Iowa, it's difficult to see him winning the Republican nomination. Do you see him perhaps running as a third-party candidate in the general election? What's his agenda?

Paul already ran once as the candidate of the Libertarian Party [in 1988], but he didn't really play much of a role. In the meantime, he's become much more prominent, so that if he were to decide to run as a third-party candidate, he'd probably be able to raise funds and get a few votes.

But I don't think that's Ron Paul's primary agenda. I think he's most interested in publicizing libertarian ideas, and he's had huge success at it in the run-up to the Republican primaries, which had been characterized by very weak Republican candidates. Ron Paul was one of the few who were recognizable and stood for clear positions. He made the others stake out positions in response. I think just by achieving that he did a lot to change the political mood in America. You can see a change of discourse within the Republican Party in contrast to four years ago, when the legacy of George W. Bush was very much at the forefront. Nowadays, all Republican candidates talk about reducing the federal budget deficit, shrinking the state and cutting expenditures, including military ones. Those are all ideas that Paul advances, albeit in radical form. I think that by influencing the debate in this way, he already achieved one of his main goals.

Interview: Jefferson Chase
Editor: Michael Knigge