RLC member Nick Egoroff (pictured) is being targeted.

In an ever-widening party purge led by current Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer, more GOP leaders have received “grievances” — the initial step toward total removal from the Republican Party.

Greer, under fire by over a dozen county Republican Executive Committees for trying to force endorsements of Charlie Crist for Senate and Bill McCollum for Governor has now moved against more Republican Executive Committee members.

The latest round of party purge activity centers on two Orange County Republican leaders; Ax the Tax Chairman Doug Guetzloe and Republican Liberty Caucus organizer Nick Egoroff. Both men co-Chair the Draft Paula Dockery for Governor grassroots movement that has taken the state by storm. They are being “fast-tracked” for removal at a party meeting to be held next Friday, July 24 at the Gaylord Palms Hotel at 2:00 pm.

The Party is moving against anti-tax activists; Ron Paul supporters; Marco Rubio and Paula Dockery supporters as well as members of the Republican Liberty Caucus. Florida RLC Chairman Will Pitts was not allowed to speak at a recent RPOF function that he was invited to address and is currently under fire from the RPOF leadership.

Reports coming out of the Young Republicans convention last weekend in Indianapolis range from the disappointing to the disturbing.

The organization, which represents Republicans under 40 — a demographic where the GOP has been rapidly losing ground — seems to have taken a radical turn with this convention which does not bode well for the future of the party.

Controversy at the convention centered around the election of the new YR chairman, where a moderate candidate was beaten out by a narrow margin by a candidate who has been accused of racism, homophobia, and engaging in dirty campaign tricks.

According to a series of reports in The Daily Beast and confirmed by other sources, incoming YR Chair Audra Shay has a history of attacking other Republicans and making racially insensitive and homophobic statements and engaged in a smear campaign before and during the convention against her main challenger for the chairmanship, Rachel Hoff.

Shay describes herself as a “true conservative” and seems to be a movement conservative in the tradition of Karl Rove and Lee Atwater — who themselves took control of the College Republicans through similar divisive tactics and dirty campaigning back in the 1970s.

In contrast, Hoff is a moderate interested in party reform and notable for her support of same-sex civil unions.

To observers, Shay seems to represent the entrenched interests and failed agenda of the religious right and neoconservatives, while Hoff at least offered an alternative and relatively innovative perspective which would certainly be more appealing to a young audience. The candidates were also quite different in age, with Shay at age 38 almost too old to even run for the office and Hoff in her early 20s and more representative of the demographic the YRs are supposed to represent.

John Avlon’s coverage of Shay has been absolutely merciless, depicting her as an embodiment of the ugly face which the left likes to try to paint on Republicans. Much of his criticism centers around racist remarks made by one of her Facebook “friends” which she appeared to endorse or at least condone and around Shay’s vocal criticism of President Obama which is really not out of the norm for even more progressive Republicans, and could be considered legitimate given his professed beliefs and policies.

But Shay has also said things herself which are troubling and suggest a cavalier intolerance of minorities and for that matter anyone who does not share her exact beliefs. Certainly Shay has said some intemperate things and comes across as bitter, egotistical and vindictive, but it’s not entirely clear that she’s as bad as Avlon makes her out to be. On the other hand, reports of her campaign techniques are less equivocal. She seems to have benefited from a vicious rumor campaign suggesting that Hoff was a lesbian based on her choice to wear a suit instead of a dress at the convention and her support of civil unions. Perhaps most troubling was Shay’s successful effort to block a motion to hold the vote for chairman by secret ballot, opening the door to intimidation and reprisals against delegates who supported Hoff.

Shay’s victory by a margin of 470 to 415 votes is sure to prove divisive. At the convention there were already delegates who had been elected to office who were refusing to serve on a board headed by Shay, and scuffles on the floor during the election came close to breaking out into full-on fisticuffs. This struggle within the Young Republicans, where progressive reformers were stomped on by hardliners seems to mirror a struggle which is going on party-wide. Unfortunately, if the pattern shown here continues the GOP is likely to lose a lot of traction with younger voters and minorities which it desperately needs to increase its membership and broaden its appeal.

Shay’s election and her remarks certainly alienated black Republicans, including Lenny McAllister of HipHopRepublican, who commented:

“They just voted for a candidate who has a demonstrated tolerance for racial intolerance. She has joked about lynching and then claimed to be a victim. As a black man, I still don’t see what’s funny about that.”

In reference to comments Shay made about criticisms of her which she compared to a lynching. McAllister went on to write of the convention outcome:

“I do not advocate, support, or condone the failure of leadership recently exhibited. It is my ardent belief that the Party of Lincoln will return to its proud history of being avant garde regarding freedom, equality, and prosperity. I personally will not rest until the battle of conscience for what’s just within the Republican Party and throughout America has been won by the side of equality sans bigotry. I believe that there are plenty of Republicans and Americans throughout our nation that share this sentiment with me, one that strongly contrasts the one supported by Ms. Shay.”

McAllister’s concern about the direction that the party is going in is shared by many young Republicans who characterize themselves as “progressive” or “moderate” and whose beliefs are usually more centrist on issues like the environment and civil rights. Although they failed to prevail at the Young Republican convention, they still make up 47% of the constituency of that group, and with Audra Shay in charge there is a real danger of a split in the younger wing of the party or that many of them will just drift away from the party or even become Democrats.

On the other hand, this could present an opportunity for a powerful alliance between moderate, young Republicans and the Liberty Republicans of the Republican Liberty Caucus. Although their beliefs are not identical they do have many interests in common and the membership of the RLC skews very young demographically, possibly younger than the YRs are as a group.

The RLC has lots of college-aged members and young professionals and has a reform agenda whose goal is to return the GOP to its ideological and constitutional roots, an interest which moderate Republicans seem to share with their frequent allusions to the “Party of Lincoln.” The RLC believes in individual liberty, smaller government and personal responsibility, a simple and appealing platform which is not incompatible with support for many of the positions which moderates advocate.

As the Young Republicans descend into chaos and lose their relevance in a party which desperately needs reform, this would be a good time for Liberty Republicans to reach out to their disaffected members and show them that with common interests and an established nationwide organization the RLC can offer young Republicans the opportunity to put their energy to work making a better party which we can all be proud of. An alliance between moderates and Liberty Republicans could be a powerful force for change in the GOP.

The RLC is comprised of members who are part of the Republican Party. It is not a separate party. We are members of both and see no issue with being members of both.

Now, let me reference two items which will demonstrate for you just how “different” the RLC and GOP are.

The RLC of Northeast Florida has business cards that include on the card’s back a faded background of the Constitution, with their core principles overlaid:

“Limited Constitutional Government
Free Markets
Strong National Defense
Individual Rights
Lower Taxes
2nd Amendment Rights”

The Republican Party of Duval County voted at the July 19th Republican Executive Committee meeting to adopt the following “Set of Principles” as their platform:

The Republican Party of Duval County believes that every American is endowed with the inherent rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We believe that our nation must remain anchored by those key principles while developing new and innovative solutions to meet the challenges of the times in which we live.

At our core, Republicans stand for:

* Small, Limited Government
* Upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights
* Lower Taxes and Less Regulation
* Protecting the American Family
* A Strong National Defense
* Legal Immigration

REPUBLICANS … fight for the rights of all people, reguardless of race, religion, or gender. We believe in true equality of opportunity, with no government guarantees of success or failure.

REPUBLICANS… recognize that small businesses are the cornerstone of American innovation. Tired, big government programs will not lead us to sustainable prosperity, instead we must lower taxes and reduce government interference in the marketplace.

REPUBLICANS… know that the free market must be at the heart of any real health care reform, and that true educational excellence can only be achieved when parents have the freedom to make real choices for their children.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY…believes in Ronald Reagan’s vision of America as a shining city on the hill, “a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with a free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.”

On the page where these issues are listed, you’ll see a picture of the Constitution — very similar to the one used on the RLC cards. It’s also worth noting that “Legal Immigration” was only added to calm members who actually wanted to bastardize Reagan’s quote; it was not originally included.

So. How about those vast differences? Pretty irreconcilable, right? They both believe in small, limited government; upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights; lower taxes; free markets; and strong national defense.

I will note that “Protecting the American Family” is impossible to define as it means various things to various people, though I’ve heard from many RLC members lamentations regarding the lack of family in today’s culture (which extends through to a lack of community as well; we’ve been bred to be members of a national collective, not members of communities or even of our own families). Also, “Legal Immigration” isn’t an issue to a good number of Republicans – whether in the RLC or not – as they recognize that the problem is created by the welfare state and income tax system, the abolition of which would remove the key reasons behind illegal immigration and the problems they solve. We as Republicans are not intolerant; we simply do not like our system being drained of resources by people who do not pay equally into them. Even though these two ideas are not listed on the RLC’s list (and I remind you that the last was not originally included in the RPODC “platform”), they are still very important to RLC members.

I this shows how little real difference there is between what the RLC believes and the professed beliefs of the rest of the GOP, at the very least at the local level. Are there some differences? Of course! Why would there not be? I’ve had differences with other RLC members, some very interesting and involved debates. However, as part of a free society, we value free thinking and criticism, as it encourages us to continually examine our own principles, so that we may assure ourselves that we are indeed still on the right path.

I’d like to share a personal story. Some of you are aware that I am on the RLCNEF executive board (though I will note that I do not officially speak in that capacity here). I was first invited to that board when I wrote an email to Will Pitts during his time as Chairman of the RLCNEF to note my strong disagreement with one of his positions and my criticism of how that position was being handled. Will didn’t ignore me, and didn’t tell me I needed to think a certain way. Instead he welcomed the criticism and the disagreement and invited me to join the leadership.

As a contrast, on Tuesday I witnessed someone telling a large group of individuals that we need to follow blindly an ever-shifting platform and “get in line” regardless of our own beliefs. No room for free thought, no room for even the slightest dissent.

On the other hand, Rick Hartley, State Committeeman for the RPODC, said to the same crowd that as Republicans we do indeed think for ourselves, and we will always have differences because of that, and the only people who just follow the leader and don’t think for themselves are Democrats.

We are all Republicans. We have some differing ideas on issues, yes. We always will. You will find varying ideas within the officers of the RPODC. This is not something that should be used – by anyone – to try to drive people out of the party, especially at a time when we’ve been losing members and slipping further backward in Congress. Instead, we should focus on the areas we agree, and work together in order to return the Republican Party to the power it enjoyed in the wake of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

If you want Democrats to win, and win further, then by all means you should continue trying to kick Republicans out of the Republican Party because they happen to have their own minds. If you want the Republican Party to win and to oust the Democrats from power, then band together with your fellow Republicans, and get out there and work to bring officials into power who at least will fit 70% of our personal beliefs.

This note is not directed at any particular group of individuals over another; rather, it is directed at everyone in the Republican Party (including RLC members), from the top to the bottom.

The small but growing New York State chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus recently had a spirited debate on our Yahoo! group site as to the best way to respond to the New York Times and its writers.  My claim is that it is malevolent neglect. Don’t talk about them. Laugh when they are quoted.  Several other New Yorkers argue that a rational response is necessary.

Those who favor free minds and free markets gravitate toward reason and tend to assume that it is through reasonable debate that minds are changed.  Ayn Rand argued for reason as the cornerstone of morality and claimed that man is the “rational” as opposed to the “political” animal.  But Aristotle considered both to be critical, and was concerned with the inculcation of moral as well as intellectual virtue in the minds of his students. Whether he was successful or not can be judged from the success of his most famous graduate: Alexander the Great.

Putting aside Oscar Wilde’s observation that “man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason”, human rationality is a useful philosophical concept (and one on which the subject of economics thrives) but has limited practical use.  In the long run the rational survive and prosper, but in the short run psychological, political and symbolic behavior prevail.  The institutionalist economist Thorstein Veblen noted both conspicuous consumption and academic caps and gowns as symbolic phenomena that flourish in their respective arenas, even as we who are rational prefer to drive Hyundais and wear jeans.

The Federalist Papers and the debate about the Constitution reflected the highest degree of reason.  But we too often forget that in the late eighteenth century only a propertied minority was allowed to vote. Even so, the Founding Fathers put little stock in the voter’s rationality.  The Senate was to be elected by state legislatures and the President was to be elected by the Electoral College. Only Congress was to be directly elected.

There were three steps to the expansion of democracy. The first was the granting of universal white male suffrage in the Age of Jackson. The second was the Progressives’ institution of direct election of Senators and, in some states, referenda, recalls and initiatives, along with female suffrage.  The third was the fulfillment of the 15th Amendment in the 1960s, giving African Americans more equal ballot access.

By the time of the second extension of democracy in the Progressive era, Progressives were noticing public opinion’s malleability.  John Dewey argued that the public needed to be provided with simplified pictures of public issues and this was to be the responsibility of the press.  Walter Lippmann, the most conservative of the three founders of the New Republic magazine (the other two were Herbert Croly and Walter Weyl), was pessimistic about the ability of the public to make rational decisions. Lippmann was critical of the press as well. By the 1950s, left wing sociologists like C. Wright Mill were arguing that the centralization of mass media enabled a power elite to dominate public opinion.

The history of Athens reminds us that public emotion and demagoguery threaten democracy.  In part because the Founding Fathers were concerned with classical history, they favored republicanism as opposed to direct democracy. After a century of democratized republicanism, it is safe to say that the broad extension of democracy has dimmed the expression of public will. The majority is easily misled and manipulated, and finds itself supporting policies whose results are opposite of what it expects.  The symbolism of the New Deal and the Great Society is sufficient to generate public support for these policies even as they have caused diminishing real hourly real wages since 1970.

Conservatives and libertarians have debated rationally since the days of Ludwig von Mises, and instead of winning arguments they have been sabotaged in the mass media and academia. The New York Times has been instrumental in staunching the mainstream limited government viewpoint within the Republican Party and pushing the Rockefeller-Theodore Roosevelt-Straussian viewpoint. Of course, social democracy is inevitably the soup of the day at the Times.

Rational argument alone will not win in an age of mass democracy.  This point was brought home by Saul Alinsky, whom conservatives hate because Hillary Clinton wrote her senior thesis about him and because Barack Obama worked in organizations that Alinsky founded or inspired, including ACORN.

Alinsky sympathized with socialistic and left wing views, but his tactical theories are apparently derived from the 2,500-year-old military strategies of Sun Tzu’s Art of War.  There is no more reason to dismiss Alinsky because he was something of a socialist than there is to dismiss Sun Tzu because he may have supported Chinese warlords or have been one himself. Tactics are value free.

One of many tragedies of the twentieth century was that the social democrats brought the power of mass media to the political debate while the libertarians brought rational argument.  Victory is possible to the friends of liberty, but it is only possible if they develop a rational strategy, one which does not depend on rational argument.

In his book Rules for Radicals, which I highly recommend to all conservatives and libertarians, Alinsky offers a game plan for political action. Rules for Radicals is something like a version of Machiavelli’s Prince with two crucial differences. First, while The Prince offers advice to someone who already has power, Rules for Radicals offers ideas on how to obtain power. Second, Alinsky’s tactics contemplate the existence of the mass media.  He was among the first to recognize that media is a political tool.

His method is to go outside the enemy’s experience to devise unanticipated techniques. Chief among these is understanding and grasping the enemy’s “book of rules”. Find deviance from the rule book, and turn it into a moral issue.  Do things that are surprising to draw attention to violations or self-contradictions.  Make the enemy’s ethics the chief issue and magnify their ethical breaches, but do not allow yourself to be tactically bound to ethical concerns.  Do not dwell on a single strategy, but devise new strategies continually to draw media attention.

It is natural to criticize Alinsky’s disregard for ethics.  In recognizing that political competition is similar to warfare, Alinsky’s belief that the ends justify the means constitutes a warrior’s attitude. War is barbaric.  If the left considers itself fighting a war, and the libertarians consider themselves engaged in rational debate, I suspect that the left wing warriors will slaughter the libertarian debaters.

Many mourn the passage of the rationalism of the Founding Fathers. But I doubt that rationalism is possible in the context of mass media and universal suffrage. Rather, emotion and impression drive American democracy.

In thinking about the Times, for example, we might consider what tactics its publishers have never experienced.  My guess is that they have never experienced being ignored.  Rather, arguing against the Times and calling it names is a mainstay of American conservatism. I seriously wonder if the Times could survive at all if conservatives and libertarians simply dropped it and stopped talking about it. I don’t think it is a noticeably good newspaper any more, so it would not be much of a loss to anyone.

Mitchell Langbert can be visited at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com.

Former Chair of the Federation of Black Republicans Deon Long (pictured below) was removed from the local Republican Party by Florida GOP Chair Jim Greer.

In a letter dated July 3, 2009, Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer removed Deon Long, a Winter Park attorney, from his precinct committeeman post with the Orange County Republican Executive Committee as punishment for Long’s attempted takeover of Orange County Republican Party. Greer also “has kicked Deon Long out of the Orange County Republican Party,” according to columnist William March.

After losing an August election for the State Committeeman job, Mr. Long challenged longtime Chair Lewis Oliver for the chairmanship in December. It was his second attempt, and this time he lost in a disputed election by only one vote. The narrow defeat fueled a series of ‘coup’ attempts by Long supporters, which include controversial radio host Doug Guetzloe and Republican Liberty Caucus activist Nick Egoroff.

According to Guetzloe, “Not only is this a clear violation of free speech, but it signals the beginning a party purge by Greer — who has been embarrassed by his failure to reign in local GOP leaders for Bill McCollum and Charlie Crist.”

“Mr. Oliver’s refusal to seat 19 duly elected committee members committed to Long resulted in a rigged election that Oliver claimed to have won by one vote in spite of not receiving a majority of the vote as required by Party rules,” said Guetzloe. “Since that time, Mr. Oliver has intentionally failed to call a meeting of the full executive committee knowing full well that the overwhelming majority of the REC is opposed to his continuation in office.”

Reportedly, Greer also wanted to run for Congress in District 24 — the same seat that Deon Long has filed to run in. Mr. Long recently re-filed a lawsuit against the Orange County Republican Executive Committee.

Florida RLC Chair Will Pitts.

In what continues to be an ongoing battle between the Republican Party of Florida establishment and the Republican Party of Florida grassroots activists, the St. Johns Republican Party Executive Committee passed a resolution requesting the Republican Party of Florida Chairman (Jim Greer) have Will Pitts — elected Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida Chairman — “banned from attending Republican Party functions, including sanctioned clubs of the Republican Party”.

Additionally, they resolved that Mr. Pitts be removed from the party under Fla. Stat. 103.161. Under this statute, “An individual removed from office by the chair shall not be eligible to serve on the state executive committee or any county executive committee of the political party for a period of no less than 4 years from the effective date of the removal.”

In 2008, the Republican Party of Florida sent a letter to the Republican Liberty Caucus explaining that the RLC would have to refrain from using the word Republican in its title because the state party owned the word “Republican”.  Of course, the RLC had previously been granted permission to use the word “Republican” and had the documentation to prove it, dating back well over a decade.  That was just the first of the Republican Party of Florida’s many recent attempts to rid themselves of principled, liberty-loving Republicans.

So what did Will Pitts do that was so wrong that he should be removed from the party? He:

1. attended a a rally in Minneapolis hosted by the Campaign for Liberty and wore a “Ron Paul” button on his lapel after the Republican primary;
2. attended an End the Fed (Federal Reserve Bank) Rally in Jacksonville; and
3. has spoken or written words “harmful to the GOP” — especially with regards to RPOF Chairman Jim Greer and Gov. Charlie Crist by stating they are “pathetic and embarrassing” and regarding Sen. John McCain and President George W. Bush.

Will Pitts is a small businessman who, in 1996, founded his company, the WG Pitts Company, a construction and real estate development firm serving Northeast Florida.

On July 25, he will have to report to the Republican Party of Florida at 1pm in Kissimmee, or be removed from the party.

On the coversheet of the RPOF Grievance package was a copy of the county resolution. It is obvious that this grievance was orchestrated by State Committeeman Jon Woodard and State Committeewoman Becky Reichenberg despite being filed by a Bill Blythe.  Not surprisingly, Wynona Mayer and John Stevens, who opposed Reichenberg and Woodard for their State Committee seats in 2008, were also named in the resolution to have removed form the Republican Party.

Last year, Reichenberg, Woodard, and former Chairman Bob Veit switched meeting dates and times and changed local rules to prohibit new members from joining the party that would not support them. Veit also said the Republican Liberty Caucus “represents narrow political philosophy … that had limited appeal to Republican voters no less all voters”.

But the establishment is clearly in control of the GOP.  Under their leadership, the party has shrunk to only 23 percent of Americans self-identifying as Republicans.  And they presided over the least popular, least effective Presidency in recent memory.  Not only that — but the establishment has totally hijacked the Republican Party from the grassroots activists who made it so successful throughout the 1980s and again in the mid-90s.

Please contact Bob Veit, Becky Reichenberg, and Jon Woodard to express your disappointment with their efforts to reduce the size of the Republican Party.

Please also contact Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer and politely request that Mr. Pitts be permitted to continue his participation in the Republican Party of Florida.

In June, Reason.tv’s Ted Balaker sat down with O’Rourke at the Peterson Automotive Museum in Los Angeles. Topics include: bailouts, who ruined the U.S. auto industry, politicians’ love affair with trains, how easy women made O’Rourke a youthful socialist and how getting a paycheck turned him into a libertarian.

According to Reason, “P.J. O’Rourke is a 21st-century H.L. Mencken — a libertarian satirist and quote-machine who’s deeply suspicious of most any office-holder (“Politics is the attempt to achieve power and prestige without merit”).”

P.J. O’Rourke is also a Republican.

You can view the interview HERE.

Dan Halloran, RLC National Committeeman and New York RLC Chair, is running for City Council in New York City.

Below is his Tea Party speech from July 4, 2009:

“I believe that the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. The basis of conservatism is a demand for less government interference and more individual freedom.”
– Ronald Reagan, Reason Magazine, 1975

Below is a letter to the editor published in The Pioneer Press penned by RLC Minnesota Secretary Norann Dillon:

Celebrating independence and individual liberties

I was very glad to see the column about staying in the Minnesota Republican Party, because I also believe that it’s worth working with the party to restore our republic (“Why we’re staying with the Minnesota GOP,” June 26).

While it’s true the party has drifted in recent years from its core principles of fiscal responsibility and individual and property rights, I am encouraged to see so many members renewing their interest in and commitment to constitutionally limited government.

I am home-schooling my children this summer on the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The first lesson teaches the balance between internal government by conscience and external government by force. More of one means less of the other. The larger and more intrusive that government becomes in our lives, the less freedom we have as individuals.

From the federal takeover of automotive companies to the state sales tax to fund arts and trails, the Democrats are making entire segments of commerce and society dependent on government.

When we celebrate our independence as a nation, it’s a good time to remind ourselves that this country was founded to protect the inalienable rights of the individual, and I will work with the Minnesota GOP to fight for the liberties and privileges established for us 233 years ago.

Norann Dillon, Plymouth

The writer is secretary for the Republican Liberty Caucus of Minnesota.