Why Are There So Few Women Libertarians?

by Gerard Emershaw

Libertarian and YouTube sensation Julie Borowski of FreedomWorks has posed the interesting question of why there are so few women libertarians. Before considering this provocative question further, it is important to attempt to ascertain whether the perception is reality. For example, it could be that there are a large number of women libertarians but a small number of women libertarian activists. It could be that professional responsibilities and family responsibilities make it more difficult for women to engage with libertarian organizations than their male counterparts. Or it could simply be that thee are a large number of women libertarians but not a large number of passionate women libertarians. The Public Religion Research Institute has recently provided a good barometer for how many women libertarians there actually are. Its 2013 survey In Search of Libertarians in America used a random sample of 2,317 adults. According to this survey, 68% of libertarians are men. Therefore, there is empirical support for the statement that there are not as many women libertarians as would be expected. Why?

Borowski postulates that the reason there are not more women libertarians is because the libertarian view is not that mainstream (yet). She claims:

Compared to men, women tend to be more social and care more about what people think about them. They are usually very concerned about being socially accepted and fitting in with their peers.

She further elaborates:

I assume most people found out about libertarianism on the Internet. Women are more likely to visit popular culture websites and connect with their peers on social media. Men are more likely to look at “nerdy” websites that discuss views that are outside of the mainstream like libertarianism.

The first issue to consider is what constitutes being “mainstream.” Borowski acknowledges that the number of libertarians overall and the number of libertarian women have been growing since 2007—which is roughly the time since former Congressman Ron Paul first gained national prominence. However, the question is whether libertarianism is now mainstream. In Search of Libertarians in America found that 7% of Americans are libertarian and 15% of Americans “lean libertarian.” In contrast, the survey found that 7% of Americans are communalist, 17% “lean communalist,” and 54% of Americans have a mixed ideology. 

Libertarians have become somewhat notorious for applying a “purity test” for libertarianism that may be too strict. If one is to claim that only “pure” libertarians are libertarians at all, then making up only 7% of the American population would leave the ideology way outside the mainstream. However, there are likely few “pure” progressives, neoconservatives, communists, fascists, social conservatives, etc. Therefore, it seems fair to lump in both the survey’s “libertarian” and “leans libertarian” groups under the libertarian banner. If one considers this to be a legitimate move (and trusts the methodology and results of the Public Religion Research Institute survey), then roughly 22% of Americans (with a claimed 2.5% margin of error) are libertarian. 

Does 22% make an ideology mainstream? One cannot really use political party affiliation as a comparison. Both major political parties in the United States are fairly broad coalitions. However, even if one does use them as a point of comparison, 22% appears to qualify as being mainstream. According to a January 8 Gallup poll, 42% of Americans identify as Independents, 31% identify as Democrats, and 25% identify as Republicans. Therefore, if Republicanism is a mainstream political affiliation, then libertarianism is a mainstream political ideology. 

It is unclear whether most libertarians learn about the ideology on the internet. Perhaps many younger libertarians did. However, recent libertarian popularizers such as Congressman Ron Paul and Governor Gary Johnson have been active on the internet, on television, in newspapers, and in books. It is unclear whether women are more likely to visit “pop culture” websites. If they are, is it clear that these websites do not espouse or at least discuss libertarian views? In general, a lot more of pop culture is libertarian than one might initially think. For example, blockbuster films such as Hunger Games (as well as its sequel and the novels on which they are based) have many libertarian qualities. One could claim that most men frequent sports or pornographic websites and that they are unlikely to be exposed to libertarian ideas (or any political ideas at all) on such websites.

In her blog post, Julie Borowski links to several other libertarians who present rival theories on the issue of the paucity of women libertarians. Caitlyn Bates suggests that libertarians should focus more on social issues like gay marriage in order to attract more women. However, women in general do not overwhelmingly support gay marriage. For example, a May 2012 CNN poll found that 56% of women support gay marriage. While it is true that libertarians should focus more on social issues, no social issue seems to be one which will necessarily attract more women. Like men, women seem to be divided on issues ranging from drugs to gay rights to reproductive rights.

James Padilioni, Jr. believes that there are not more women libertarians because libertarians lack empathy. He claims that libertarianism is “predominantly a boy’s club for white, middle-class-and-above men” because libertarians “rely on the strength of economics alone to convince others.” At fist blush, this seems wrongheaded. To lack empathy is to be a sociopath. While libertarianism and sociopathy are not mutually exclusive, collectivist ideologies such as fascism and communism seem to attract far more murderous and genocidal humans devoid of conscience. However, what Padilioni seems to mean is that libertarians must be passionate and employ emotion as well as reason in their message in order to attract not only more women but more blacks and more Hispanics:

In a word, libertarians need empathy. We need to make compelling intellectual and aesthetic arguments for liberty. Our rhetoric for liberty needs to be rational enough to convince the head, yet piercing enough to arrest the heart. Our classical liberal ancestors cared equally for ideas of social and economic justice, and they were able to craft rhetoric that led to liberalism sweeping the world in the nineteenth century. Libertarians today cannot ignore sentiment and still expect to see our movement grow more diverse in all aspects. The human desire for freedom is not merely abstract, but a lived reality for many people in this world who daily suffer under political and social oppression and coercion. Their stories are real and their struggle urgent. If libertarians can’t, or won’t tell these stories, then who will?

The first issue which must be addressed in order to analyze this interesting hypothesis is whether it is true that libertarians exclusively or even primarily rely upon intellectual/economic arguments to justify their ideology. This is difficult to empirically determine. Some of the more widely publicized libertarian pundits such as Congressman Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Governor Gary Johnson, John Stossel, Lew Rockwell, etc. tend to use rational and logical argumentation. However, is this a bad thing? Would it be preferable to appeal to emotion and use fallacious reasoning? Should libertarians attempt to win others over using the same techniques used in Madison Avenue advertising?

In terms of what Padilioni calls “aesthetic arguments”—an example of which he provides as Stowe’s Uncle Toms’ Cabin—is it true that libertarians lack such types of argument? Do libertarians lack engagement with aesthetics and pop culture as he claims? Sometimes it is difficult to determine if works of art or pop culture are libertarian or merely anti-authoritarian. However, there is no shortage of art with libertarian themes. Libertarianmovies.net provides an interesting list of films with libertarian themes. The aforementioned Hunger Games certainly fits the libertarian mould. While perhaps libertarians should be more open to using art and pop culture to illustrate ideological points, it should not do so at the expense of logical argument. It is also not necessarily clear that women (or blacks or Hispanics or gays) are more easily convinced via emotion that reason.

A problem may be that while the anti-authoritarian, pro social liberty prong of libertarianism is easy to portray in an aesthetic/emotional manner, the economic liberty prong is not. Therefore, it will be difficult to sway those who wish to hold the inconsistent view of social freedom and economic statism. Economics is quite difficult to make emotionally gripping. Perhaps Ayn Rand tried in Atlas Shrugged, but even the strongest admirers of that novel would not say that it is an emotional novel. If it is true that such aesthetic/emotional arguments are what attracts women to a given intellectual position, then it could be that libertarian artists will at best be able to encourage women to be 1960’s style progressives. Nevertheless, it may be inaccurate and even sexist to claim that women cannot be swayed by logic in the economic realm. 

Kelly Barber postulates that there are few women libertarians because women have been historically oppressed. Barber interestingly claims: “Most libertarians theoretically acknowledge that oppression can come from society and not just the government, but in real life, libertarians rarely talk about social oppression.” She continues by noting the interesting connection between oppression and statism:

If a group is socially oppressed but no one recognizes this oppression, it will be much more likely that they turn to the state for what they perceive as their only way of getting help to level the playing field. If we can eliminate or reduce social oppression, governments themselves will lose some of their support and power.

There is no doubt that women have been historically oppressed. There is also no doubt that the government is typically the oppressor. When the government is not the oppressor, it empowers the private sector oppressors. The federal government did not grant women suffrage until 1920. The government at the federal, state, and local level instituted and enforced unfair laws which at times attempted to make women into second class citizens socially and economically. Government has never proven to be a friend to women, and any positive things that government has done for women in recent decades was only a matter of making amends for wrongs which it itself committed against women.

Barber’s argument is very plausible. It explains why white affluent males have thus far been the most likely to espouse libertarian views. Members of this group are least in need of the government. While it is true that high taxes, stifling regulations, and the Federal Reserve’s “inflation tax” are most detrimental to economic health, when one is in immediate need, even knowing this is of little benefit. The economically needy require immediate help. It will take a good deal of time and effort to scale back the machinery of the disastrous welfare/warfare state, and even if this is accomplished, it will take a while for the economic benefits to flow to everyone. Therefore, even if members of oppressed groups realize that the government is harming them, if they are in immediate need of food, shelter, health care, etc., then they have no choice but to rely upon the government. Furthermore, the illusion of benefit that the government creates when it is in fact fostering dependency and harming those it “helps” is so powerful that the oppressed cannot recognize that it is the government who is oppressing them and/or allowing society to oppress them.

Bryce Covert, writing for Forbes, responded to Julie Borowski with an article entitled “Women Don’t Like Libertarianism Because They Don’t Like Libertarianism.” Following liberal feminist philosopher Susan Moller Okin, Covert claims that “if brought to its logical conclusions, libertarianism runs up hard against children and childrearing.” Covert notes that the Lockean analysis of owning those raw materials with which one mixes his or her labor does not apply to children. However, it is difficult to believe that women instinctively grasp Lockean arguments anymore than men do. Women often do invest much of themselves in their children, however, it a woman is convinced of the benefits of economic and social freedom, then she would certainly wish her children to experience these benefits.

Again following Okin, Covert makes a second more intriguing argument. She claims that because women and minorities often begin in a lower socioeconomic place than affluent white males, they are less likely to embrace the message of libertarianism:     

Women and minorities know perhaps better than anyone that a lot of life is determined not by what you’re able to do, but where you start out. By assuming the mythical even playing field at the beginning, libertarianism ignores the disadvantages some have to climb out of or the advantages others enjoy to get those raw materials in the first place. Someone who’s born into poverty has a lot of cards stacked against her compared to someone born into more affluence. How do you account for those challenges in libertarianism if the government’s regulations are an intrusion on liberty?

In many ways, Covert’s argument shares affinities with Kelly Barber’s argument above. While Covert seems confident that this perception that she claims women and minorities share is justified, the truth is that it is an illusion. Statism does not allow for social mobility. If it did, then 50 years after LBJ’s Great Society began “the War on Poverty,” one would expect all of the statist programs to have economically benefited blacks. They have not. Social freedom and a true free market economy—which has not existed in any way, shape, or form since the late 19th century—are the only true ways to foster social mobility. Nevertheless, the suffering members of oppressed groups unfortunately often look to their oppressors for relief. This is not some weakness inherent in women or minorities or individual members of any social group. This appears to be a universal human tendency. Had things been different and had white affluent males been oppressed, then it is likely that they would now be statist collectivists instead of libertarians.

In the end, it appears that in order to attract more women—as well as more blacks, Hispanics, gays, and members of lower socioeconomic classes—to libertarianism, libertarians must make convincing arguments that the government created the harms which afflict members of these groups and that the “help” that the government provides to address these harms is typically nothing more offering a Band-aid to treat a sucking chest wound.