Okay, time to clarify!
" I'm having trouble following this claim. What are you referring to by "social capital" and "political capital" here? I have a general understanding of both terms but apparently not enough to understand what you're saying here. "
So absolutely, libertarians interacting with each other online, in person, via institutions all exist as examples of ways in which libertarians can gain/generate "social" capital. And any libertarians sharing ideas and resources to promote their political philosophy is worth respecting to the same extent any other people might. "Political" capital, on the other hand, I use to pertain directly to political interactions where individuals have opportunities to engage in power exchanges (usually, through government). Obviously, in our lives, we blur the lines between the social and the political and we often ignore the ramifications of doing so.
But think about it for a second...when has a libertarian ever generated political capital? How would that even work? Yes, libertarians do see government as corrupt and clearly should not be held to the same heuristics as other social movements, but seriously in what world can you conceive of a government of libertarians guided by libertarian principles? And don't try to use the founding fathers as an example; their constructed ideologies are too far removed from any form of modern (or, conceptually, post-modern) government. (Plus, if you accept Hannah Arendt's argument that contemporary politics are fundamentally hinged to our blurring of the social and political realms, it's difficult to conceive of any manifestation of libertarianism pre-cold war.) And yet, the American libertarian movement is incredibly politically oriented: what better way to kill the beast than from within? It is my personal belief that the libertarian movement has suffered from its inability to argue a cohesive strategy for changing our government, even if it has changed our governing.
Think of it this way, there are political mechanisms like gerrymandering, campaign contributions, parliamentary procedure, etc. that serve as sources of corruption no matter what regime controls our government. These mechanisms should be the target of attempts to reform our government without reforming the way we govern. Instead, libertarians see their momentum rise through social movementism, largely unable to gather sufficient political capital to see their social capital realized into political changes (by government or by governing). Now, I'm assuming something that may not be true, but I wouldn't imagine that the majority of libertarians, no matter how devout, would like to see the total abolition of government. Whether that's possible or even desirable is a conversation for another time. When I think of the contemporary libertarian, I think I see an individual who is fed up with the corruption of politics, but undoubtedly cannot rationalize a world where the political is necessarily replaced by the social: doing so would mean solving problems where Marx and his critics have been unable.
Thus, the dilemma of the libertarian is in the generation of political capital. To effect change, some political gains must be made. To make political gains, a constituency must first be rallied, a party formed, a reform suggested and battled over and at last, institutionalized. Sadly, these efforts run antithetical to the beliefs that would be held by such a constituency. And yet, the American libertarian movement is incredibly politically oriented. Why? Where are the libertarians occupying seats of prestigious committees? Where are the libertarian judicial appointments? Where are the libertarian bureaucrats?
The libertarians that do occupy elected office may do so, individually, out of great concern and dedication to their constituents. But these members, institutionally, offer no coherent strategy to effect change in our government or in the ways we govern. Thus, they are consumers of political capital, but not generators. Through the course of this year, the Republican-Democrat split may actually lead to a change in the way our Supreme Court operates. Not all interactions have to be so tremendous as this in order to generate political capital, but it's a clear example of how political capital can be generated through mere discourse over (visible) inaction. And god, isn't that the kind of thing libertarians hate the most about our country? You see the dilemma now don't you?
" i just shot myself in my head, b/c you ACTUALLY proposed AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION: to stop DISAGREEMENT. The 1930s called, they want their fascism back. if you mean Gridlock, or inefficiency: AMENDMENTS ARE STILL OVERKILL - but i can agree to that. for god's sake, if you ACTUALLY mean polarization, you need to be on some kind of watchlist boy
"Maybe when we break down altogether, we can build a new functioning government."
what. so now you WANT to break down??? you JUST SAID "I would rather reform the state than let it whither" WHITHER of course being a word that means nothing but vague talks about gov't cuts (SO SCARY OMGoodness). And build a NEW FUNCTIONING GOV'T "
Okay let's talk about the difference between what I said and what you think I said. When I said "we need to mitigate the effects of polarization somehow," I meant it. Polarization is not the problem that we're suffering from, we're suffering from a host of issues from growing diversity, global economic pressure, and a declining birthrate, all of which funnel into a bigger pot of even harder to pin down socio-economic adjustments. So when I say that we need to "mitigate" the "effects" of "polarization," I'm saying that we should accept that both our elites and our voters are largely polarized on their political agendas. Polarization is the result of changes in how we govern and of changes in the media. And since most people would have a problem if we (the government) changed the media, I don't think it's reasonable to assume we can end polarization merely by changing how we govern. Instead, I believe it would be far more productive to change the structure of our government itself in order to skirt the dangers we face by continuing as is (notably gridlock, voter dissatisfaction, and increased socio-economic tensions).
But I believe that America is a reactionary society. Yes, things must break down before we try something new. We are too large and diverse a society to agree on any solution until the answer becomes obvious: experiment with our beloved constitution or witness its demise. Austerity will never be a final solution to our problems, it can only accelerate us towards dysfunction (I would love to argue about this point another time perhaps :) ).
So what amendments might I propose? Well, first, I'd like to point out that these would each require amendments or some serious legal workaround by a popular and powerful presidents. Generally, the amendment system is more legitimate, and ultimately more reliable as it affords us more time to discuss its full meaning through judiciary action.
1. A national referendum is a necessary and inevitable feature of American governance. With our democratic deficit rising, we suffer from partisan deadlock, while relying on presidents to set a national agenda. As presidents see themselves increasingly constrained by international agreements and domestic tensions rising, we need to find a way to circumvent Congress when it ceases to function. Basically, I think we need to reorient our political dialogue to include "the people" as a check on each of our branches of government. A national referendum is a flexible policy that offers a lot of clear benefits. The specifics would have to be worked out to accommodate the needs of both parties, but to me, it's a no-brainer.
2. We need Congressional term limits yesterday. Unfortunately, I'm not so confident these will ever come around, but I will advocate for these until the day I die (or run for office :D). I get that it's comfortable for us to have familiar faces on the ballot, but career congressmen should not exist, period. The problem with getting this one off the ground is it really increases the accountability factor for each party. This kind of thing would radically change our political system, with plenty of unintended consequences, but I really think it would be in our (us voters) best interests.
3. End the political dynasties. This would largely be symbolic, but I really worry we are asking for trouble. Bush 2 was a disaster, he had no fucking business being elected president. On the other hand, Clinton 2 has every more right to the office than almost any other contemporary politician, yet I get the feeling we are in for one wild ride these next four years. I mean, just ask India- democratic political dynasties are one of those weird things that seem inevitable, yet characteristically undemocratic. I could go on, but I'm really offering this more as a prediction than a personal cause.
(Not an amendment) 4. Neighborhoods are the new drinking fountains. White flight is one of the leading causes of racial tensions in the United States. Schools are segregated again and racial disparities are being exposed as poverty threatens uneducated whites.
Here's my city, Richmond, VA:
https://coopercenterdemographics.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/richmond-dot-density-population-map-20101.jpg
The sad thing is that Richmond has already seen desegregation once in the past 60 years. More than half of our public schools are not fully accredited, wanna guess where they're located on that map? Most northern cities (and I do mean most) were segregated in the 50's and never bothered to desegregate! This has tremendous effects on allocation of resources towards schools, police departments, public administration...
This is one of the great challenges we need to solve over the next decade or so. It is an insurmountable challenge, already, given that we feel satisfied to say that we solved it three generations ago.
I criticize libertarians because of problems like 4. Sure, our government is corrupt, but it is the only thing we have that can even make an attempt at solving these crises of identity. The ideal libertarian world would allow for white flight and more; social movementism is insufficient for dealing with the ills of society.
There will be no indictment
)
)
)
)