An Immanent Critique of the Libertarian Rhetoric

Long-standing political critic Yukub writes for the Guardian, analysing and dissecting the divisive, disenfranchising rhetoric employed by the Libertarian candidate Henry John Temple, recently emerged victor of the Sussex by-election

Yukub responds to HenryJohnTemple’s victory speech

Sussex came out in favour of a common sense agenda of low taxes, low regulation and higher wages.



Firstly, it is problematic to say that “Sussex came out in favour”, as if the narrow plurality — and not a “clear majority” that HJT feels “deeply humbled” by — somehow forms a stable, cohesive group representative of the whole of Sussex. A brief glance at the figures produced by this polarizing election immediately disproves any such notion. To claim that “Sussex” as a whole supports a Libertarian agenda is, of course, unsubstantiated and outright false. One might say that my point here is silly, pedantic at best; I would disagree profusely. To claim that one represents ‘his’ constituents in parliament is factual (for the better or worse), and thus there is no issue with making such a proclamation. To claim that the constituency, in its entirety, supports a Libertarian agenda because of a narrow victory (by plurality!) is pure rhetoric, which is not altogether surprising seeing as the Libertarians rely on a habitual, if not pathological usage of vague, populist and divisive rhetoric to push their agenda and influence the electorate.



We fought against the political establishment

This line is often used by Libertarians, which was fine in their early days as a young, fresh and radical party ready to make its mark and breakthrough in the political scene. Now, however, the Libertarians are one of the larger parties with representation in parliament, are rising in the polls and have crafted a strong voter base. It is deeply ironic and ridiculous to claim they are still fighting against the establishment if they are ever-more engaged in becoming the establishment, or at least a part thereof. Their message, as disagreeable as it may be to some, is no longer considered to be the ‘discontent’, the outlier or even extremely radical; the simple truth is that the Libertarians are now a major force in mainstream British politics, and for them to pretend otherwise is simply facetious.



we fought against the public health lobby and big politics

Again, the Libertarians rely on divisive rhetoric. By portraying the advocates of public (or socialized) healthcare as a ‘lobby’, it is very clear that a specific picture is painted for the reader (or listener). To defend or argue in favour of a system such as the NHS, one does not simply espouse a legitimate (and implemented!) policy or viewpoint. No, one is reduced to being a ‘lobbyist’ for such a system, a term which comes with all sorts of connotations about shady, backroom dealings, corruption and elitism. This, of course, in contrast to the ‘noble’ Libertarian who stands up for the individual, the independent ‘common man’, who, for some reason, has no need for socialized health care.



Then HJT introduces the term “big politics”, and it is quite clear this term is purposely vague, and again it marks the Libertarians as being an alternative, truthful and *real* force against hegemonic, domineering forces who have ostensibly monopolized the political arena, while there is no evidence or reason to suggest that the Libertarian Party is different from any other political party except in ideology and size.

we fought against lies, corruption and deceit

Once more we find that those with opposing viewpoints or ideologies are being marginalized and excluded. The other campaigns, be it from the centre-right Conservatives or the left-wing Greens, weren’t legitimate campaigns, their policies and ideas in this “battle of ideas” weren’t simply opposing and competing, they are dismissed as “lies” and “deceit”. The Libertarian worldview leaves little room for opposition or different interpretations, apparently. One is either right (Libertarian) or wrong and thus corrupt.



Today belief in honesty and decency has won!

This only adds to the previously mentioned disenfranchisement of competing political ideas — the Libertarian platform is ‘honest’ and ‘decent’, all others are based on lies, corruption and deceit. It isn’t simply a “battle of ideas”, as HJT claimed, but a battle between the truth and salvation, as embodied by the Libertarians, and corruption, deceit, and so on.



I shall fight for a small, responsible government: put in place, and held in place, by a nation of individuals, standing tall and standing on their own two feet.

This section can be interpreted in a multitude of ways, and as such I shan’t place too much emphasis onto it in a search for some truth or meaning. However, I would note that the independent, self-reliant individual is presented as a heroic archetype, the ideal citizen by and for which the state exists, with no mention of the marginalized, poor, oppressed and downtrodden.



I am deeply humbled at being returned by a clear majority by the people of Sussex

As I mentioned, it isn’t so much a “clear majority” as a narrow plurality, but one might be justified in blaming the horrendous and undemocratic FPTP system for this an not HJT, although it is telling that he chose to use this rhetoric when it’s, assessed by any reasonable party, quite untrue.



The politics of hope and aspiration have triumphed over the politics of envy and subservience.

The tired and tested of the Libertarian rhetoric returns again, as the Libertarian platform is one of ‘hope and aspiration’, while all others are reduced to ‘envy’ and ‘subservience’. Do the Conservative voters in Sussex not have hopes and aspirations? Don’t the Liberals, the Greens, the Labourites? Did the creators of the welfare state, after the horrors of the war, exist in miserly ‘envy’ and ‘subservience’, or did they try to create a better future because they had hopes and aspirations for one? The Libertarian rhetoric is not only divisive, but insulting; toxic.



Today, the right has seen victory over the left, whose dogmatic, cantankerous ways have had their claws sunk into Sussex for far to long.



Here, “the left” is portrayed as the ‘Other’, not only fundamentally and radically different from “the right”, but also as threating, scary and untrustworthy; ‘the left’ is not just a part of the electorate (of Sussex), but a beast that must be slain, in order for the Truth (as embodied by the right) to emerge. The irony of the Libertarian candidate describing a political viewpoint as ‘dogmatic’ is also noteworthy.



We have made the passionate case for Libertarianism better than before, showing the people of Sussex, from whom I must take my mandate, that there is a better way – the right way. The Green Parties toxic message has been rejected and has fallen flat, the politics of hope and freedom have won today.



We return to the classic rhetoric *again*. The Green Party, singled out as the most significant big, bad ‘other’ here, does not only represent a worse and wrong path, but its message is now actively “toxic.” That is to say, those who voted ‘Green’ in Sussex form an unwanted and corrosive part of society, that the Libertarians would rather get rid of as they stand in opposition to the ‘true’ path of the heroic libertarian ideal. The “battle of ideas” has emerged from its metaphorical property and has solidified into actual political and social strife: for the Libertarian, the ‘Green’ platform is not only wrong (ideological-wise) but harmful, toxic and detrimental; those who advocate it are not merely expressing their views, but are dissenters and obstructionists to the Libertarian truth: “the politics of hope and freedom”.

To summarise, I hold deep reservations about the rhetoric utilised by the Libertarian Party, as it not only support and perpetuates a hostile, divisive and ad hominem reading and conduct of politics (which is ironic considering the Libertarians consider themselves champions of ‘decency’) and thus a dumbing down which neglects actual nuanced, in-depth and civilised discourse, but also demonises a significant portion of the electorate by rejecting their viewpoints through obscuring and distorting the motivations, ethics and goals of these groups (‘corrupt’, ‘lobby’, etc.) and through calling their platforms ‘toxic’ merely because of their diverging opinions.

