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.
