Katherine Mangu-Ward is the managing editor of Reason Magazine, the news arm of the libertarian policy center Reason Foundation. A featured panelist in BPR’s recent family weekend media event, she is a 2013-2014 Future Tense fellow at the New America Foundation.
Brown Political Review: How do you think libertarianism fits into the two-party system that has dominated American politics for so long?
Katherine Mangu-Ward: Awkwardly. The Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement are two very different things. The Libertarian Party is not an American success story. The libertarian movement — a gross absorption of libertarian ideals — is a more optimistic tale. There’s an inclination to identify libertarians as Republicans, but libertarians have always been treated like the redheaded stepchild of the Republican Party. Frankly, libertarians have just as much in common with Democrats. That’s what is liberating about being a libertarian and looking at the American political stage — both parties are terrible. You see this as more and more people are starting to identify as independents. At the same time, libertarians have a feeling that they can do business with both parties. When it comes to social issues like personal freedoms and civil liberties, Democrats have historically been a teeny bit better and used better rhetoric. And when it comes to economic issues, Republicans have been a teeny bit better and used better rhetoric. What we see is that when one of these parties is in power, they almost immediately start behaving like the jerkface politicians that we always knew them to be.
BPR: How do you respond, and how has Reason responded, to marijuana legalization through ballot initiatives in Oregon, Alaska, Washington and Washington, DC?
KM-W: The official Reason response is “woohoo!” It’s fantastic because it’s happening directly through referenda — through direct democracy. One thing that it shows is that people actually do have a gut understanding that just because something isn’t totally desirable doesn’t mean it should be illegal. That is a core idea that people on the left and the right consistently miss that libertarians have right: Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean that you should make it illegal.
BPR: Do you view ballot reform initiatives favorably?
KM-W: No. My view is what I think a lot of people’s views are: I sure like it when the American people agree with me, and I sure hate it when they don’t. Ballot initiatives are very much a double-edged sword. There’s a deep history of ballot initiatives [being] used primarily as a tool of progressives. When we’re thinking of the landmark progressive era, that’s something that often can only happen somewhere like California, where ballot initiatives are passed willy-nilly without any regard for how that stuff is going to get paid for. All forms of governance have good and bad outcomes, but I don’t think there’s anything special about ballot initiatives that I particularly like.
BPR: How do you cope with the dispersion of your political beliefs across both the Democratic and Republican platforms in the political process?
KM-W: I’m a lover, not a fighter. I just want to build bridges. When you have a nonstandard ideological cluster, the best approach is always to say: “Let’s start where we can agree.” My set of views is driven by a single set of ideological views about non-aggression and free will and the dangers of the overweening power of the state. So if you agree with me about why it’s an absolutely terrible idea to let the government decide what you do with your body, then let’s talk about why I think that means you should also disagree with the government deciding what you should do with your money or what you should do with your professional life or your health insurance.
BPR: How do you try to affect change or broach political issues that you’re passionate about, but that many people might not agree with?
KM-W: I used to start out the fight with anarchism: Everything the state does is coercion and should be ended — even the government building roads is theft. And that doesn’t get you very far most of the time, so I’m much more of an incrementalist these days, and I think that’s true of the libertarian movement in general. The next issue of Reason Magazine is going to be a libertarian-inflected agenda for the GOP-dominated Congress in the next two years. We’re not saying cocaine in vending machines is the American way, although we believe it is. We’re saying, “Hey, why don’t we, on a federal level, revisit the classification of marijuana and reschedule it to acknowledge that it does have medical uses and so should be less tightly regulated?”
BPR: What should the first increment be?
KM-W: I think that the War on Drugs is the place to start. Ending the War on Drugs is an issue that is not identified with one party right now. Both parties are total crap on drugs and have been for 30 years, so when you hear someone like Rand Paul saying, “Hey, one thing that I don’t like about the War on Drugs is that it disproportionately affects black men,” that’s kind of a topsy-turvy moment for American politics. To hear a front-runner for the GOP nomination make the social justice argument for ending the War on Drugs suggests that there is some wiggle room on that issue. The fact that it’s happening at the state level already, in admittedly small steps, means that your Republican federalism types can get on board.
BPR: What’s the biggest obstacle to a libertarian America?
KM-W: The biggest obstacle to libertarian change is the current size of the government. It’s easy to forget how every aspect of our lives is permeated by the state and the control of the government. The fact that people are quite apathetic about the status quo makes the libertarian row a tough one to hoe. That’s why it’s easier to argue for the power of markets rather than [against] the evil of the state. It’s easy for people to imagine how great free markets are, because all you have to do is say, “Look at all the stuff you can get delivered to your door by Amazon.” People really like that. The iPhone in your pocket, which rounds up all the information that has ever existed — free markets gave you that. But the obstacle of a gigantic, overweening, ever-growing state should not be underestimated.
Photo by Gage Skidmore.