Over the past decade, we have seen a rising willingness on the part of progressives to use the government as a weapon against their political opponents. Rather than pushing their ideas through debate, they seek to compel the rest of the country to adhere to their ideology through the force of the state.
This has prompted some on the right to suggest that responding in kind is the key to stopping the Marxist crowd from weaponizing the government. However, there is a better way to accomplish this objective.
We find ourselves in an era in which the left has been using the government against folks on the right to push their agenda. The State Department has paid private companies to censor right-leaning voices on Big Tech platforms. The Justice Department tried to label concerned parents protesting at school board meetings as “domestic terrorists.” The government is brutally punishing those who committed the crime of being present at the U.S. Capitol building on J6. It is locking people up for protesting at abortion clinics. On top of that, leftists are using the government to prosecute former President Donald Trump in order to influence the outcome of the 2024 election.
It is not hard to understand why folks on the right believe responding in kind is the solution.
Last week, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) introduced a measure that would create a one-time six percent excise tax on endowments to elite universities. The aim of this measure is to punish these institutions for promoting “woke” ideology and allowing the expression of blatantly antisemitic ideas on campus.
The move is a response to the proliferation of far-leftist “woke” ideology and rising antisemitism on college campuses. According to a statement released by the senator, “This tax will take money from wealthy colleges pushing woke ideologies and redirect it to more pressing national concerns.”
The tax applies to (1) secular institutions with endowments of at least $12.2 billion and (2) secular institutions with endowments of at least $9 billion that also operate a state contract college.
And what would those “pressing” concerns be?
The revenue generated by the tax would be allocated to fund Ukraine, Israel, and border security. The universities affected include Harvard, Princeton, University of Pennsylvania, Cornell, and a number of others. It is estimated that the tax would rake in a whopping $15.4 billion for Uncle Sam.
This is an obvious example of using the state to attack private organizations based on ideology. It would not be surprising to see even more legislation of this type being proposed by Republicans. But it would only make the situation worse.
Libertarian podcaster and commentator Dave Smith discussed this issue during a recent exchange on X, formerly known as Twitter. When asked about defending against progressivism, he replied:
The NAP is a moral principles. Principles themselves don’t defend anything. Men with guns do.
The conservative defense against progressivism has largely been to become progressives. Abolishing their institutions and ensuring they’re not recreated is a better approach.
That’s not a critique, it’s a question. The NAP is a moral principles. Principles themselves don’t defend anything. Men with guns do.
— Dave Smith (@ComicDaveSmith) December 19, 2023
The conservative defense against progressivism has largely been to become progressives. Abolishing their institutions and ensuring they’re not… https://t.co/MDqK1DTO1l
The Mises Caucus also responded, noting that conservative leaders “helped build up and conserve State power any time & every time they could in the post-WW2 era” and rejected “the libertarianism of the Old Right to create ‘a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores’ to fight communism around the world.”
Now that said bureaucracy has hollowed out the culture they care about and is being weaponized against them by leftists whose ideology is far more compatible with State power, they refuse to recognize that building said bureaucracy at all was a mistake and insist on reforming & wielding State power instead of cutting & abolishing it. They then blame the libertarians whose warnings they expressly rejected all along and are still rejecting.
Conservatives cope with their utter failure to halt progressivism (at best) by claiming they just didn't wield State power effectively because libertarians convinced them State Power Bad & thus they ceded it to the Left. This goes against the empirical reality that they helped…
— Mises Caucus (@LPMisesCaucus) December 19, 2023
Taking this into account, it seems clear to me that the answer is not to focus on winning control of the government to weaponize it against progressives. Doing so only perpetuates a vicious authoritarian cycle in which power is the central currency, and every political victory becomes merely a means to impose one’s will on the opposition. While it may feel good when your party is in power, it is only a matter of time before the pendulum swings the other way, and you find yourself once again in the crosshairs.
Moreover, pursuing this strategy ignores what is supposed to be a foundational principle of conservatism and libertarianism: Limited government.
If the state can be compared to a giant gun, which is a fitting analogy, seeking to control the firearm and pointing it at the enemy is a foolhardy endeavor, considering the reality that the gun will inevitably fall into the hands of your adversary. The better strategy would be to take the gun and jettison the rounds it contains, rendering the gun ineffective. This would ensure that the firearm cannot be used to impose one’s will on the rest of the population, regardless of which team is holding it at the moment.
If Americans are going to have any chance at enjoying liberty, it will only come when the government is weakened to the point that it matters little which party is in charge. As farfetched as this idea sounds, the only way to safeguard our natural rights is to unload the gun instead of wielding it against political opposition. The question is: Will we ever get to a point where enough Americans demand the shrinking of government instead of only seeking power?
