By Sam Harris
One of the simplest ways to judge the performance of any president's administration from a libertarian's perspective is to ask, "Would a typical libertarian have done most of the things that the administration has done to date?"
In the case of President Barack Obama's administration, the answer would an unequivocal "No." This much can be said about the Obama Administration: for the first two years of the current presidency, the Administration has been anything but libertarian.
Libertarianism, as an ideology, is a broad collection of ideals founded firmly in the tradition of classical and neoclassical "liberalism." Libertarians can be found among the ranks of Republicans, Democrats, independents and third parties; from among those moderates who consider themselves enigmatic "socially liberal, but fiscally conservative," to radical anarcho-capitalists.
Despite this diversity, there are a few general principles that anyone who considers themselves a libertarian would probably consider when judging the performance of our 44th president. In essence, what libertarians almost all share is a belief that smaller governments are better than larger ones; that governments basically exist to protect private property and free-enterprise; that a free market is necessary for individuals to fully enjoy their civil and political rights; and that private entities generally do a better job of allocating resources than the government can.
Perhaps the most important element of a libertarian's belief structure relates to the size and scope of the government as it pertains to economic affairs. This gives libertarians a lot to think about with regards to President Barack Obama's first two years in office.
Since his inauguration, our president has overseen a massive bailout of the American automotive industry, with the government taking over ownership of the largest of the three major domestic automakers, and purchasing a large share of another.
He has proposed, promoted and administered a $787 billion stimulus. More recently the stimulus has been expanded by giving $26 billion in aid to states to avoid laying off government employees.
And finally, he has expanded the role of the government in a number of smaller areas, pushing for and signing into law stricter regulations on credit and some types of investment, taking over the administration of government-backed student loans and appointing "czars" to oversee large and important segments of the economy.
One other important area for many libertarians is conduct in international affairs. Generally speaking, most libertarians prefer a government that stays, for the most part, out of other nations' business, as a government that has the resources to conduct foreign wars and engage in a lot of foreign treaty-making and mediation has to tax its people extensively in order to do so. But that does not mean we are generally pacifists or even non-interventionists.
If a war, a military, and a corps of foreign ambassadors are necessary to protect private property, free enterprise, and personal freedom, so be it. The problem is that the things we often use to conduct foreign affairs are detrimental to personal property and freedom. In this area, the president has a mixed, but largely positive, record. He has expanded the war in Afghanistan, which may or may not be a good thing for the protection of freedom, but has scaled back the war in Iraq. Yes, we have officially pulled out of the latter country, but leaving U.S. advisers in Iraq at taxpayer expense, though perhaps a good thing for Iraqis, is probably more detrimental to Americans than it is helpful. Nevertheless, this is an improvement.
In regards to foreign affairs and trade, the president has done much to promote the image of the U.S. abroad, but in doing so has only entangled the U.S. more deeply in international organizations that are often more interested in extending the scope of governments internationally into areas that would typically be considered the realm of private charity. Not all libertarians would agree on the principles of these kinds of organizations, but it is fair to question whether deeper commitment to them can promote personal freedom internationally without hindering it at home.
In summary, the Obama Administration, despite overtures about promoting freedom and protecting the free market, has done little domestically to show any commitment to the values promoted by classical liberalism. His record on international matters is more mixed, and might be viewed positively in the long run, however, from a libertarian perspective, the expansion of the size of government in both domestic and foreign affairs is almost frightening.
Sam Harris is a senior political science major and the treasurer of the Jeffersonian Society (College Libertarians). He can be contacted at harris11@up.edu.
