THE idea of "libertarian populism" has been frequently floated by conservative writers such as Tim Carney and Ben Domenech as a potentially promising political strategy for the right. Ross Douthat of the New York Times, who is sympathetic but critical of the approach, fairly summarises libertarian populism as

a strain of thought that moves from the standard grassroots conservative view of Washington as an inherently corrupt realm of special interests and self-dealing elites to a broader skepticism of “bigness” in all its forms (corporate as well as governmental), that regards the Bush era as an object lesson in everything that can go wrong (at home and abroad) when conservatives set aside this skepticism, and that sees the cause of limited government as a means not only to safeguarding liberty, but to unwinding webs of privilege and rent-seeking and enabling true equality of opportunity as well.

Mr Douthat examines the budget blueprint of Rand Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky frequently identified with the libertarian populist programme, and sees a "reform of the welfare state that would dramatically reduce the tax burden for the wealthiest Americans while dramatically stripping down benefits and tax breaks for the poor and working class", and he quite reasonably doubts that this will prove at all popular among the disaffected working-class white voters libertarian populism is meant to mobilise.

Perhaps it is unfair to judge the idea based on an analysis of Mr Paul's budget plan. Paul Krugman's seething hostility toward the ideas of Paul Ryan, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin, may have even less to do with it. An indignant Nick Gillespie, the libertarian editor-in-chief of Reason.com, chides Mr Krugman for ignoring Mr Carney's credibly populist ideas, such as ending corporate welfare, breaking up the big banks, cutting the regressive payroll tax, and limiting the home mortgage deduction for the wealthy. Like Ramesh Ponnuru of Bloomberg, "I’m sympathetic to most of the items on Carney’s list—and those on the list that fellow populist Conn Carroll has compiled. Taken together, though, they do not seem to amount to a winning political platform." Mr Ponnuru's complaint is that not even these sorts of ideas are likely to win the affections of struggling voters, and he's right that proposing to abolish America's import-export bank is not exactly a scintillating political idea, and that cutting payroll taxes is probably less popular than the programme they are meant to finance.

Yet I don't think this gets to the core of the problem with libertarian populism. I see two problems. First, right-wing populism in America has always amounted to white identity politics, which is why the only notable libertarian-leaning politicians to generate real excitement among conservative voters have risen to prominence through alliances with racist and nativist movements. Ron Paul's racist newsletters were not incidental to his later success, and it comes as little surprise that a man styling himself a "Southern Avenger" numbers among Rand Paul's top aides. This is what actually-existing right-wing libertarian populism looks like, and that's what it needs to look like if it is to remain popular, or right-wing. Second, political parties are coalitions of interests, and the Republican Party is the party of the rich, as well as the ideological champion of big business. A principled anti-corporatist, pro-working-class agenda stands as much chance in the GOP as a principled anti-public-sector-union stance in the Democratic Party. It simply makes no sense.

There's a reason we see Republicans resort again and again to a fusion of racially-tinged American-nationalist Christian identity politics, empty libertarian rhetoric (an integral part of traditional white American identity), and the policy interests of high-tax-bracket voters. That's what works! Well-meaning, libertarian-leaning, small-government conservatives must find this awfully frustrating. I find it frustrating. Yet it seems to me a plain fact that there is no significant electoral faction in American politics that demands the joint reduction of government and corporate power. A subset of libertarian ideas has functioned historically with some effectiveness as a stalking horse for white identity politics, which has brought a few authentic and salutary libertarian ideas to public attention, but the integrated principled substance of the libertarian philosophy has never been very popular. Moreover, if it is ever to become truly popular—and I very much doubt it will—it won't be on the right.