Two members of the Republican Liberty Caucus of North Carolina are representing their districts on the state GOP Platform Committee. The Committee will meet at the North Carolina GOP HQ in Raleigh on March 14.
The Committee includes:
Dist 1: Bob Steinburg
Dist 2: Mark Edwards
Dist 3: Perry White
Dist 4: Jan Pueschel
Dist 5: Buck Golding
Dist 6: David Ruden
Dist 7: Mitchell Mercer
Dist 8: Ron Crawley
Dist 9: Neil Moore
Dist 10: Sandi Walker
Dist 11: Bill Lack*
Dist 12: Pat Armstrong*
Dist 13: Becki Gray
Chairman’s Appointees: Skip Stam, David Black, Ann Sullivan
*RLC members
Congratulations to RLC North Carolina members Bill Lack and Pat Armstrong for being appointed to the Platform Committee.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
Legendary blogger Doug Ross has compiled a list of Congressional Blue Dog Democrats. Ross asks the Blue Dogs to vote against Nancy Pelosi’s $350 billion worth of pork. More to the point: this is a list of likely targets for RLC-supported candidates. As inflation bubbles, the voters in the Blue Dog districts will be susceptible to the RLC’s message.
Here is Doug’s list of Blue Dogs and their districts:
Rep. Mike Arcuri, New York, 24th District, (202) 347-3042
Rep. Joe Baca, California, 43rd District, (202) 488-1528
Rep. John Barrow, Georgia, 12th District, (202) 285-0966
Rep. Melissa Bean, Illinois, 8th District, (202) 204-9050
Rep. Marion Berry, Arkansas, 1st District, (202) 543-5777
Rep. Sanford Bishop, Georgia, 2nd District
Rep. Dan Boren, Oklahoma, 2nd District, (202) 454-5262
Rep. Leonard Boswell, Iowa, 3rd District, (202) 547-1334
Rep. Allen Boyd, Florida, 2nd District, (202) 543-5777
Rep. Dennis Cardoza, California, 18th District, (703) 536-6881
Rep. Chris Carney, Pennsylvania, 10th District, 202) 737-5877
Rep. Ben Chandler, Kentucky, 6th District, (202) 454-5262
Rep. Jim Cooper, Tennessee, 5th District, 202) 543-5777
Rep. Jim Costa, California, 20th District, (202) 347-3042
Rep. Bud Cramer, Alabama, 5th District, (256) 539-0902
Rep. Lincoln Davis, Tennessee, 4th District, (202) 543-5777
Rep. Joe Donnelly, Indiana, 2nd District, (202) 488-1445
Rep. Brad Ellsworth, Indiana, 8th District, (703) 354-7444
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona, 8th District, (202) 454-5262
Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, New York, 20th District, (718) 344-8025
Rep. Bart Gordon, Tennessee, 6th District, 1-800-444-BART
Rep. Jane Harman, California, 36th District, (202) 204-9050
Rep. Baron Hill, Indiana, 9th District, (202) 285-0966
Rep. Tim Holden, Pennsylvania, 17th District, (202) 737-5877
Rep. Nick Lampson, Texas, 22nd District, (202) 544-3151
Rep. Tim Mahoney, Florida, 16th District, (202) 741-7325
Rep. Jim Marshall, Georgia, 8th District, (478) 742-1100
Rep. Jim Matheson, Utah, 2nd District, (703) 354-7444
Rep. Charlie Melancon, Louisiana, 3rd District, (202) 479-2527
Rep. Mike McIntyre, North Carolina, 7th District, (910) 738-8683
Rep. Mike Michaud, Maine, 2nd District, (202) 488-1445
Rep. Dennis Moore, Kansas, 3rd District, (202) 347-3042
Rep. Patrick Murphy, Pennsylvania, 8th District, (202) 488-1445
Rep. Collin Peterson, Minnesota, 7th District, (202) 543-5777
Rep. Earl Pomeroy, North Dakota, At-Large, (202) 347-3042
Rep. Mike Ross, Arkansas, 4th District, (202) 454-5262
Rep. John Salazar, Colorado, 3rd District, (202) 479-2527
Rep. Loretta Sanchez, California, 47th District, (714) 839-4431
Rep. Stephanie Sandlin, South Dakota, At-Large, (202) 347-3042
Rep. Adam Schiff, California, 29th District, (202) 544-3536
Rep. Heath Shuler, North Carolina, 11th District, (202) 544-3536
Rep. David Scott, Georgia, 13th District, (202) 488-1445
Rep. Zack Space, Ohio, 18th District, (202) 347-3042
Rep. John Tanner, Tennessee, 8th District, (202) 543-5777
Rep. Gene Taylor, Mississippi, 4th District, (228) 466-3933
Rep. Mike Thompson, California, 1st District, (202) 543-5777
Rep. Charlie Wilson, Ohio, 6th District, (202) 544-3536
On Saturday, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Indiana took a major step forward by meeting with activists in Marion and Hamilton counties (including Indianapolis) who will become the core group in establishing the first chapter affiliate of the RLCIN — the Central Region.
The officers of the Indiana RLC were extremely impressed with the attendees.
Members in attendance agreed that forming a central region chapter will aid in organizing bringing forth issues to influential members of the GOP at the state capital. There was also hope that the RLC will be in a position to lead a lost and bewildered GOP back to its fundamentals of individual liberty and limited government.
Additionally, critical to the formation of the new chapter is the prospect of recruiting RLC members to run for key offices, such as County Prosecutor or Precinct Committeemen — as well as generating support for candidates who adhere to principles.
A photo from the event follows. The Indiana RLC has also recently established a new website, http://www.inrlc.org/. If you live in Indiana, please become involved today!
RLC Indiana members and activists met on Jan. 24. They included (front row) Sergio Bennett, Steve Keltner, Lisa Kelly, Elisabeth Karlson, RLC Indiana Chair Charlie Kochenash, (back row) Fred Glynn, Abdo Rabadi, Gregg Puls, Steve Pynakker, and Kevin Van Linden (taking the photo).
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
For the second time in as many months, a group of limited government activists and RLC allies in California have taken over a local Republican Party there. It happened in December in Los Angeles and just recently in Alameda County.
Following an organizational meeting on January 20 that was devoid of contention, the Alameda County Republican Central Committee is pleased to announce our new leadership team headed by Chairman Karen Wind and Vice Chairman Walter Stanley, III. Mr. Stanley is the Secretary of the Republican Liberty Caucus of California.
Although a relative newcomer to Alameda County Republican politics, the group he organized, the Constitutional Republicans, became one of the leading Republican volunteer organizations in the county and put in a great deal of work for the two major campaigns in the Tri-Valley, Dean Andal for Congress and Abram Wilson for State Assembly.
The full list of the new elected officers:
Chair, Karen Wind
Vice Chairman, Walter Stanley, III*
Treasurer, Michael Sites*
Asst. Treasurer, David Latour*
Secretary, Anne Woodell
Asst. Secretary, Brian Eschen
Parliamentarian, Richard Spees
*RLC member
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
According to Cape Cod Online, Massachusetts lawmakers will receive “a 5.5 percent hike in their base pay this year — to more than $61,000 — even as they prepare to make deep cuts to state services. The increase lifts the base salary for the 200 members of the House and Senate from $58,237 to $61,440 — a raise of $3,203 a year.”
The timing of the pay raise awkward, as the state grapples with the tumbling economy and tax revenues, increasing unemployment and prospects for more deep spending cuts.
Some lawmakers called the pay hike inappropriate in the current economy.
“I am not going to take a pay increase at the same time I’m having to cut jobs,” said Rep. Jeffrey D. Perry, who said he’ll donate his raise “to worthy causes in my district.”
Perry, who is the eastern-most Republican elected in the state, is a former Wareham police sergeant and the RLC’s best ally in the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
Perry recently celebrated his 45th birthday party with a campaign fundraiser in his hometown of Sandwich, Massachusetts.
An opposing view was offered by Rep. Demetrius Atsalis (D-Hyannis), who said state lawmakers are paid less than Boston city councilors, and the raise is “constitutionally required.” According to Atsalis, “The way I look at it is I earn every penny.”
Jeff Perry, once again, sticks to principle.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
By Mitchell Langbert - January 23, 2009 at 6:49 AM Filed under Issues
My wife and I had lunch this afternoon with Lee Currie, executive director of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in Irvington on Hudson, New York. FEE has generously donated copies of Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson to the 21 students in my senior seminar course at Brooklyn College.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with FEE, it has been providing high quality support to students and faculty and giving exposure to free market ideas via its journal, the Freeman, and successfully performing a range of other educational activities. Quite a few leading free market economists have had relationships with FEE. Lee showed me a letter that he had just uncovered from Leon Trotsky to Henry Hazlitt, who led FEE in the 1940s. Likewise, he reminded me that FEE had funded the academic career of Ludwig von Mises after von Mises had fled Germany and came to the US.
Lee and I exchanged some thoughts on recent political events, and I suspect most members of the RLC would agree with what we said.
Many libertarians and conservatives have been stunned by the events of the past few years. The Republicans had two opportunities: the Reagan revolution of 1980 and the Gingrich Contract with America in 1994. Even though the tide of socialistic economic policies and declined was stopped, these enormous Republican opportunities of 1980 and 1994 were squandered. Although President Clinton did attempt to change course in 1993 with health reform, he found it more successful to limit his “liberal” reform impulses because of the power of the Reagan-Gingrich transformation. Thus, loose monetary policy and expansive government were not on many of our minds until…the second administration of George W. Bush.
It was not the Democrats but the Republicans who pulled the rug out from under the semi-libertarian transitions of 1980 and 1994. In the end, which I define as 2004, George W. Bush announced that he believes that government can solve problems, and proceeded to go on a spending spree that culminated in the bailout proposals of last year and increases in the monetary base and Federal Reserve Bank Credit that are reminiscent of Revolutionary War days, when the US dollar of that time, the Continental, was devalued to almost zero.
The public is not happy with the bailout, and although monetary policy is something that won’t make them look until they see the whites of inflation’s eyes, most people are fed up.
I have a dream: The Republican Liberty Caucus has unlimited funds. In my dream, the funds are sufficient to inform every voter in every Congressional district whose Congressman voted to support the bailout that the Congressman did so–and to bring home this information through local TV and other local publicity. In my dram the RLC has attracted enough libertarian candidates to run in each of those same districts.
Were my dream a reality, libertarians could enjoy a strong showing if not a majority in Congress.
It is not time to roll over in frustration. Rather, it is important to gain a better understanding of why the Republican Party has lost its way; why the Republican leadership has failed; and why there was no pressure on the Bush-Cheney administration to familiarize themselves with John Locke and Adam Smith.
Steve Redlich just set up my account, and I will be blogging on this site. I am an associate professor of business at Brooklyn College, which is a campus of the City University of New York. I live in upstate, New York, in the Woodstock, New York area.
I joined the Libertarian Party in 1977 and was active in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Thereafter, I waffled between the Democratic and Republican parties for about 10 years. In 1991 I briefly worked as a senior budget analyst in the New York State Assembly for the Democrats, before I became an associate professor. (In the 1970s and early 1980s I worked for Johnson and Johnson and other large corporations and went to UCLA Business School).
I finally enrolled as a Republican in the early 1990s. I was not active until post 2004, when George W. Bush announced his belief in big government. As well, the economy began to trouble me around then. My published work has focused on regulation and human resource management (my Ph.D. from Columbia Business School focused on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA). I have published on ERISA in various journals such as Journal of Economic Issues, Journal of Labor Research and Benefits Quarterly. I have also written on human resource and other issues in Human Resource Management Journal, Academy of Management Learning and Education Journal and Academic Questions, the journal of the National Association of Scholars. I also have written in the sadly-now-defunct New York Sun and FrontPage Magazine. As well, I blog at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com.
Last night, I re-read David Riesmann’s 1950 sociological classic, The Lonely Crowd. In many ways, the 2008 election reflected Riesmann’s ideas. To refresh your memory, Riesmann argued that there are three personality types in the modern world: tradition-directed, inner-directed (who are driven by their inner values) and other-directed (whose values are driven by fashion, mass media, urban trends and higher education). There is a bias in Riesmann’s typology in that he suggests that other-directedness bears a developmental relationship to inner-directedness that inner-directedness bears to tradition-directedness. This is so historically but it is not dictated by production technology as Riesmann supposes.
The relationship between individualism and production technology changed around the same time that Riesmann was writing his book. In Japan, Toyota’s executive vice president of manufacturing, Taiichi Ohno, devised a process known as lean production and, as well, the Japanese invited Edward I. Deming to educate them as to quality processes. Lean production and total quality management require a degree of initiative and empower teams of line workers. The powerlessness associated with American bureaucratic and factory systems has not yielded as much productivity and efficiency as has TQM. Yet, a degree of goal orientation, focus and lifetime employment are consistent with the new production methods, at least where they work best. These can lead to a sense of self-reliance and focus. As well, the professionalization of the workforce in America led to an enhanced degree of emphasis on goal setting and career focus. The dynamic, flexible economy of the post World War II era made the opinion of others a flimsy reed on which to rely. Corporations like AT&T that had seemed invincible in 1950 fell in the 1980s. The result was that Americans had to rely on their own resources. This created a resurgence of inner-directedness. The most important success books of the 1990s were The Millionaire Next Door and Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, and both of these books emphasized traits most consistent with inner-directedness. Not that other-directedness is totally rejected or minimized, they are not, but American workers have found that the assumption that good interpersonal skills and conforming to media and fashion are enough is wrong.
The public has therefore fragmented to an increasing degree. The mass media remains rooted in the 1950s model, and the products of universities, MBA graduates and academics, are often imbued with an elitist, other-directed sense whereby they believe that those in the know are smart and those who do not fit aren’t. Thus the reaction to Sarah Palin, who threatens the other-directed social structure on which the mass media feeds. The reaction to Palin is that she is not smart, unlike Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan, the executives of Citigroup and Barack Obama. On the other hand, rural Americans retain a strong degree of inner-directedness. More Americans from urban areas intuit the importance of self reliance and freedom, but have not tied this new orientation to a political ideology.
The election of Barack Obama is a triumph of other-direction over inner-direction. The reason for this triumph, though, was the stealth other-directedness of George W. Bush. He had packaged himself as a conservative. However, he was highly responsive to his advisers, ignoring logic and alternative views, both with respect to military strategy and the economy. That is, his other-directedness was seen in his easy money policy and lack of vision. Thus, Mr. Bush managed to alienate a segment of the inner-directed.
Riesmann noted that inner-directed Americans tend to have an inferiority complex. This is still the case. The inner-directed have not often been able to produce many good quality candidates. Part of the reason is that the mass media is the fountainhead of other-directedness, and the sport of politics relies heavily on the mass media. This is beginning to change as the Internet fragments information. More Americans read blogs than watch TV news. This opens opportunities for the inner directed and for libertarians.
Libertarianism may be viewed as the ideology of inner-directedness. Its early evolution was part and parcel of the Whig and Protestant revolution in England, and its heyday was the period of greatest inner directedness, the period from 1820 to 1890.
What this theory points to is the need to package the Libertarian message to those inner-directeds who have been frustrated by the given offerings in politics but do not yet see individualist ideology as a practical alternative. Inner directeds can be altruistic and are often religious. Libertarians need to do a better job of reaching out to these segments. One of the tragedies of Bush Republicanism is that it identified “free markets” with opportunism. This has helped to alienate America to rational economics. I suspect we are in for a tragic ride as a result.
I watched some video excerpts of the Obama inauguration on the Wall Street Journal’s site. What struck me was not Obama’s words, but the three stock market tickers at the bottom of the video. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 189 points but gold was up several percent. As a gold investor, I was not unhappy, but cannot help but anticipate that the other-directed economics of George W. Bush and Barack Obama will open significant opportunities for the Republican Liberty Caucus if we have the imagination to seize them.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
RLC member George Blumel (father of former RLC Treasurer Philip Blumel) recently wrote a report on the Florida GOP Convention that took place earlier in the month.
Says Blumel: “Greer wants to reach out to blacks, Hispanics felons and homosexuals, while throwing conservative and libertarians overboard. How about appealing to people of all races and ethnicities who have come here to be assimilated as individual Americans united by the right to life, liberty and property? Too much to ask in today’s USA with the most liberal US Senator just elected president? Let’s hope not.”
“It was in commenting on the 2004 Liberty Index of Congress that I first noticed that the political orientation of the U.S. Congress started shifting away from proto-libertarianism versus socialism, or – as Ronald Reagan put it, from an “up-down” axis – back to an old-fashioned left-right axis. In the 2005 Liberty Index, the return of left-right politics had become significant, with House Republicans being 12 points inferior to House Democrats on personal liberties, while being superior to House Democrats on economic liberties. Now, with the 2006 Liberty Index, it is clear that the House Republicans have devolved into little more than an assortment of corrupt, pork-barreling, social conservatives.
In the 2006 ranking, the best economic scores included: RLC favorite Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), and Brian Bilbray (R-CA). On personal liberties, Ron Paul (R-TX) finished first, followed by Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and (the retired) Jim Kolbe (R-AZ). David Obey of Wisconsin, a Democrat, was fourth, followed by 38 other Democrats and an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. The bottom 44 scores were all registered by Republicans.
Regarding the 2007 ranking, Dr. Thies says:
Reversing a three year trend, the Republicans suddenly look better than their Democratic colleagues in the House of Representatives. While in 2006, the House Republicans scored 25 points worse than their counterparts in the personal liberties component of the index, this past year, the House Republicans scored 23 points better.
In the House, we have a new, surprise winner of the overall =, or combined index, Tom Tancredo (R-CO). Tancredo missed several votes and there was no vote on immigration in 2007. These factors combined with his transformation on the War in Iraq dramatically shifted his score in the right direction. Finishing tied for second were RLC favorites Ron Paul (R-TX) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). Number one in the personal liberties component in the House was, as usual, Ron Paul (R-TX). Number one in the economics component in the House was Jeff Flake (R-AZ), with our only score of 100 in that chamber. We had about three dozen Republicans with only one wrong vote, and about the same number of Democrats with only one right vote.
The presidential election may be over, but there’s one campaign still raging: the contest for the Chairmanship of the Republican National Committee.
It’s a weird kind of election because the RNC Chairman is an important leader who sets policy for the entire party, but the selection process is arcane, and in the hands of the relatively small group of party insiders who make up the Republican National Committee.
This year’s race is different from past contests for the Chairmanship because interest is higher than ever due to the poor results in the 2006 and 2008 races. As a result of the interest, some groups have made an effort to involve the public in ways that have never been attempted before that involve grassroots party activists despite that they have no formal role in picking the Chairman.
The RNC’s outreach to the grassroots has been poor, yet many of the candidates have been reaching out to the lower levels of the party with websites and groups on Facebook and Myspace and even telemarketing campaigns. Advocacy groups such as Americans for Tax Reform, which sponsored an unprecedented debate with all of the candidates in attendance and a full broadcast on C-SPAN, are also becoming involved.
The most aggressive candidate in pursuing grassroots support and outside endorsements is former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. He has a very active Facebook group, does direct e-mail and has even subjected me — presumably along with everyone else on a list of state convention delegates — to a robocall about the future of the party. Not far behind are Michgan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis and former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, who are making a lot of use of the internet by personally reaching out to activists around the nation. Mike Duncan, the incumbent Chairman, is one of the candidates doing the least to promote himself outside of the party’s inner circles.
The whole concept of running a campaign for this office is a little strange. The only actual voters are the two committee members and one part chairman from each state; a total of only 168 people when you include representatives for miscellaneous territories. That’s a very small group of people who are mostly blue-haired old ladies who see their roles as primarily defending the status quo.
There are very few young radicals, idealistic insurgents or grassroots activists among that group.
You would think that the sensible way to campaign would be to try to make personal contact with the committee members and convince them that you’re just as big a career hack as they are and that you want nothing more than to represent the establishment. Yet the leading candidates are making their pitch to the grassroots, presumably in the belief that they can inspire them to make calls and send letters and get the attention of their committee members — most of whom they don’t even know exist. What’s more, most of them are campaigning as reformers who want to restore the integrity of the party and erase the negative legacy of recent policy failures. That message isn’t going to sell well with investors who are heavily invested in those failed policies.
The candidates are even going so far as to make their pitch to Ron Paul’s supporters.
Even those who had been hostile to Ron Paul and his followers during the presidential election are now talking about inclusiveness and praising Paul for bringing new blood into the party. Some of them even seem willing to consider a much more libertarian shift in party philosophy, which has to scare the granny panties off RNC Committee members.
Maybe this strategy can work. Maybe the grassroots can be heard, but my guess is that real change in the party structure is a few years away, when today’s young activists have moved up in the power hierarchy and become RNC members themselves.
In the short-term, this appeal to the grassroots runs a risk of backfiring badly. If one of these candidates gains a significant lead in popular support and effectively becomes the choice of the hoi-poloi of the party, what will their reaction be when the stodgy insiders of the RNC pick one of the less appealing but more traditional candidates, with zero regard for what the party rank and file actually want?
It could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back; a final and terminal reminder that the party doesn’t really care about them at all.
By taking their campaign to the grassroots, candidates like Blackwell, Steele and Anuzis are winning a lot of support within the party, but maybe not with the right people. They’re setting themselves up for a fall, and if they fall, they’re going to take the hopes of a lot of supporters with them, and may even precipitate a crisis which might bring the party structure crashing down. Maybe it’s time for a crisis. Maybe we’re past due for an overhaul of the party establishment.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
