Since 1991, the Republican Liberty Caucus has released a Liberty Index of Congress annually. Construction of the 2008 Liberty Index involved the identification of 20 roll call votes on each of two dimensions of freedom: economic liberties and personal liberties.

Dr. Clifford Thies (pictured), a Professor of Economics and former Republican Liberty Caucus Chairman, has conducted the analysis for many years. In the process of deciding upon the lists of votes, he relied on advice from a small group of people that are current or past officers of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

In the U.S. House, Dr. Ron Paul retained his spot at #1 after a brief hiatus, with a combined score of 96. There was a seven-way tie for second place.

The lowest-scoring Republican was Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, with a 26; the highest-scoring Democrat was Cooper (TN) with a 42.

In the area of economic liberties, 18 Republicans scored perfect 100s, while 68 Democrats scored perfect 0s. In the area of personal liberties, Congressman Paul registered a perfect 100, followed by three of his fellow Texas Republicans, Carter, Gohmert and Marchant.

In the Senate, there was a two-way tie for first place, with Senators Coburn of Oklahoma and DeMint of South Carolina both scoring 76.

Read the complete results by clicking here. You can also view past results.

Dr. Rand Paul, who is running in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate against Attorney General and former Democrat Trey Greyson, was the featured guest at an event hosted by Republican Liberty Caucus members in Kentucky.

This event occurred in Georgetown (near Lexington), Kentucky this past Saturday. It was hosted by RLC activist Sheryl Ford and longtime Kentucky RLC Coordinator Michael Moreland helped organize it.

This is the second time in the month of October that Dr. Paul has met with RLC members. The first was in Northeast Florida, where Dr. Paul met with the Florida RLC Chairman and other RLC members at an event hosted by one of his former medical school classmates.

The videos of Dr. Paul’s remarks to RLC members in Georgetown are as follows. Special thanks to our RLC volunteers in Kentucky for making this event a tremendous success!

Part 1:

Part 2:

Prominent right-wing blogger (and apparent closet Bircher) Eric Odom has decided to spend a lot of his time covering the controversial special election for New York’s 23rd Congressional District, in which liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava has received the backing of the GOP establishment, and her Conservative Party opponent Doug Hoffman has attracted the support of a lot of the more outspoken pundits on the right and a number of religiously extreme anti-liberty groups like Eagle Forum.

In his latest article Odom makes the peculiar observation:

The race represents a clear message being sent to the RNC. And the message is simple… the liberty movement is not going to tolerate liberal Republicans anymore.

Now, I’m not sure who appointed Odom the spokesman for the liberty movement, but he seems to have forgotten that an essential component of that movement is, oddly enough, support for liberty. In all its forms. Not just the economic liberty of lower taxes, but also the other liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and granted to all people under natural law; liberties like freedom of association, of religion, of speech and of privacy.

I don’t know all that much about Doug Hoffman’s politics. He manages to avoid mentioning most of the tough issues on his website. But I can guess what some of them are by his list of endorsements, which includes a number of groups which can only be considered strongly anti-liberty and even among the greatest enemies of liberty on the political right.

Eagle Forum is certainly the worst of the lot. This group of bigoted biddies is headed up by Phyllis Schlafly. They are in favor of war, torture, abstinence and creationism. They are strongly anti-gay, not only opposing gay marriage, but also actively homophobic and supportive of gay reeducation programs. They’re also against gambling, divorce, pornography, immigration, birth-control, marijuana and vaccines. In my opinion no candidate endorsed by Eagle Forum could ever be considered a “liberty” candidate. Eagle Forum would basically like to turn the country into a totalitarian theocracy. Any candidate who loves liberty should publicly reject their endorsement.

Some of the other groups endorsing Hoffman are nearly as bad: GING-PAC is an extreme religious right group which promotes “family values” and “biblical government” which seems pretty ominous. The National Organization for Marriage is an anti-gay group claiming to be “the preeminent organization dedicated to preventing the legalization of same-sex marriage,” which makes them strongly anti-liberty. Many of the other groups endorsing him are pro-life groups; in itself not a problem, but many of them also promote a religious agenda which includes opposition to gay rights and birth control, and even support for school prayer.

Now, I’m by no means a fan of Dede Scozzafava, but she does at least have a reasonable record on many issues of individual liberty. She’s too supportive of unions and too tied into the New York leftist establishment, but she is relatively fiscally conservative, in favor of gun rights and for cutting taxes. I would never pick Scozzafava as a candidate or encourage a group I was part of to endorse her. But that said, she’s still less anti-liberty than Hoffman is. If his endorsements represent his views, Hoffman is actively opposed to a great many of our basic liberties, while Scozzafava is just another opportunistic moderate-to-liberal Republican who will vote with other Republicans more often than most Democrats will, and certainly more than any Democrat far enough to the left to get elected in her district.

There are some Republicans who claim to be part of or even speak for the “liberty movement” within the party who are not really part of it. They’re just religious fanatics and single-issue social conservatives who pay lip service to the idea of smaller government and want to cash in on the momentum they see growing. Their dirty secret is that they oppose Scozzafava not because of her level of commitment to liberty, but because she’s pro-choice and pro-gay. Nothing else matters to them. They are one of the groups which got us in the mess the GOP is in today, as bad as the neocons and big-business Republicans. They’re statists on too many issues and that makes them enemies of liberty.   They must not be allowed to hijack the liberty movement and drive the party in the wrong direction.

The truth is that liberal Republicans still have more in common with the liberty movement than Democrats or even most socially conservative Republicans, and while that doesn’t mean you should support an uninspiring candidate like Scozzafava, don’t let anyone get away with a big lie like claiming that a candidate like Doug Hoffman, who is endorsed and funded by Eagle Forum and other groups of bigots, extremists and theocrats, is in any way a candidate who supports liberty.

Hoffman may be a conservative, but he’s not a liberty conservative. He’s just another statist who wants to use the power of government to dictate how people live.  He’s not that different from Scozzafava, he’s just bad in different ways.  Don’t waste your time and effort on this pointless contest between two bad choices.  Spend your money and enthusiasm to support the many Republican candidates in other campaigns who are authentic advocates for individual liberty, free enterprise and limited government.

Students for Liberty has taken on the amazing task of organizing seven regional conferences this fall. The conferences bring different types of liberty-loving students together to hear from prominent speakers — many of whom are affiliated with the Republican Liberty Caucus.

This year’s regional conferences have occurred, thus far, in New York, Chicago, Phoenix/Tempe, and Austin. The RLC conducted outreach at three of the four seminars and had official speakers at two out of the four seminars.

I previously reported on the outreach at the first conference, which occurred on October 10. Two RLC supporters helped us table at that event, and two RLC representatives spoke. The most notable of the speakers was former National Board member Dr. Murray Sabrin, who was a contender for U.S. Senate in 2008. Additionally, RLC Northeast Regional Director Dan Halloran addressed the crowd. Dan is running an impressive campaign for New York City Council in a district that trends more conservative than most in the city.

Above: Students at the Chicago Conference weigh the issues.

On October 17 in Chicago, students heard from two RLC representatives: former Michigan State Representative Leon Drolet and former Wisconsin State Representative Terri McCormick (photos below).

Leon participated in a debate with Isaac Moorehouse about how liberty-oriented people can achieve our goals.  Leon argued for the RLC strategy.  Terri McCormick gave a presentation about the political elite versus the grassroots, arguing that now is the time we take our country back for liberty.

On October 24, RLC members conducted outreach at two Students for Liberty Conferences: the Texas SFL conference in Austin and the Southern SFL conference in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Rising young star and RLC supporter Jared Fuller organized the Winston-Salem conference, and North Carolina RLC members Gloria Lloyd and Dana Mazer tabled for the Republican Liberty Caucus at the conference.  Former Congressional candidate and North Carolina RLC Board member B.J. Lawson was among the featured speakers.  Dr. Lawson gave a speech called “The Economy, Monty Python, and You”:

Meanwhile, RLC National Chair Dave Nalle and Bexar County (Texas) RLC Membership Chair Nadia Gaona reached out at the Texas SFL conference.

Dave observed a general trend that we continue to see to in our small-but-growing movement, noting that “the long-time libertarian activists [in the] audience were eager to stand up and talk proudly about their token political campaigns where they spent no money but got their name mentioned in the local newspaper when they won 3% of the vote.”

Says Dave, “It’s heartening to see the growth of interest in liberty and bringing our government under control, but it’s enormously frustrating to see so much of this enthusiasm misdirected into the political dead end and do-nothingism which still characterizes the Libertarian Party. The truth is that the pissed-off non-intellectuals of the Tea Party movement who come to libertarianism out of expediency rather than intellect have already accomplished more real political change in a year than the Libertarian Party has accomplished in more than 30 years.”

All complaints aside, these events have proven tremendously beneficial to the movement and the RLC has been able to capitalize on the opportunity to reach new young people with our strategy for victory.

The next RLC outreach booths at Students for Liberty Conferences will occur on November 7, when members will conduct outreach at the Philadelphia and Boston Students for Liberty Conferences.  Prospective RLC endorsee, 2010 U.S. Senate candidate from Connecticut Peter Schiff will be speaking at the Boston conference.  Schiff has previously explained the RLC strategy in a poignant way.

We look forward to reaching additional students at these conferences and thank the Students for Liberty for continuing to host these tremendous regional events. Thanks, too, to all of the RLC representatives and volunteers who have helped us at the conferences.

Above: Former Michigan State Representative Leon Drolet makes his points in a debate on strategies to attain liberty in our lifetime.

I just mailed the following press release on behalf of the New York Republican Liberty Caucus:

The Republican Liberty Caucus of New York, a group of approximately 200 liberty-oriented Republicans around the state, has endorsed Chris Edes, who is running on the Libertarian ticket in Rochester. Mr. Edes was endorsed on October 12 at a special meeting of the New York executive committee. Also endorsed by the Libertarian Party, Mr. Edes will appear on the ballot on the Libertarian Party line.

Speaking about the endorsement, Edes said: “I’m pleased to receive the RLC endorsement. The Republican Liberty Caucus is the vanguard of Republican thinking for the 21st Century.”

Mr. Edes aims to bring new ideas to the school debate. He is not part of the political establishment, and so is not part of the Democratic Party’s failed educational policies that respond to political pressure from teachers’ unions and an educational establishment that is encumbered by lockstep political correctness; neglect of basic three r’s education; and a willingness to tax this State out of existence.

As Diane Ravitch points out in her book Left Back: A Century of Battles over School Reform, progressive education and the cumbersome bureaucracy associated with big government have left generations of students unable to perform and a nation that has flagged in the global marketplace.

To find out more information about Mr. Edes’ campaign, visit his website at http://www.vote-for-chris.net.

The Republican Liberty Caucus favors a reduced scope of government in order to permit New York to become more competitive. Future generations will be deprived of freedom and the fruits of economic innovation because of encroaching socialism.

Delegates in New York state have elected Edward F. Cox, the son-in-law of President Richard M. Nixon, chair of the New York State Republican Party. You will recall that President Nixon, besides having been involved in break-ins and an improved relationship with China (recall the US/China ping-pong match), was Mr. Inflation. He abolished the gold standard and pressured then-Fed chairman Arthur Burns to reduce interest rates to create a stock market bubble to assist his own re-election. Hence, he was as tightly linked to the corrupt New York City economy as is the Democrat Party and its publicity wing, the New York Times. Morally and politically Nixon represents the worst in the Republican Party.

But should the sins of the father-in-law be visited on the son-in-law? Cox has worked as an attorney with Patterson Belknap, a white shoe law firm in Manhattan. The firm is intimately linked to the Wall Street-and-bubble economy, and so the Democrats are very much in his corner. The Democratic publicity wing describes Cox as “centrist”, which is a very, very bad sign. When the fringe left describes a Republican as “centrist” the smell of co-optation is in the air.

Mr. Cox assumed his post on September 29 and cannot be held responsible for the Republicans’ shooting themselves in the foot in New York’s 23rd Congressional district. The Wall Street Journal reports that the former state chair,  Joe Mondello,  led the charge to nominate a left-wing extremist to run there.  Raquel Okyay has blogged on this depressing race. As an active Republican I cannot support her endorsement for the Conservative Party candidate, though.

Newsrunner publishes a Daily Kos poll that finds that in the Republican 23rd district, the Democrat is ahead.  The Journal seems to claim that Joe Mondello and the Republican County chairs are stupid.  The Republican Liberty Caucus in New York has been discussing the Wall Street Journal editorial which claims about the supposedly conservative Republican 23rd district:

“…party bosses have managed to nominate a rare Republican who could lose: Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, whose liberal record has caused voters to flee to Doug Hoffman, a business executive who is running on the Conservative line. Mr. Hoffman has more than 20% support in the latest poll, which is only a few points behind Ms. Scozzafava, who is only a little behind Democratic lawyer Bill Owens.”

The Journal is inaccurate in describing the 23rd district as all that conservative. First of all, there are a number of higher education institutions in northern New York and they will slant the vote to the left. Second, the former Congressmen, John McHugh, was a loot-and-spend, big government Republican about whom I blogged in May 2007. McHugh was not only corrupt, but he was so “conservative” that Obama appointed him Secretary of the Army. That’s really a sign of conservatism. Their former Congressman was a regular John Locke. After all, he was appointed by Obama.

The question, though, if you care about freedom, is how to get candidates who can help optimize our quest for freedom. Edward F. Cox seems unlikely to be able to do a good job, even if he, as did other Progressive Republican types like George W. Bush, speaks the language of lower taxes and reduced spending.

Ivy League types make bad politicians because they have been indoctrinated in the failed ideas of Progressivism. Cox is a graduate of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Government. I very much doubt he knows the first thing about free markets, Locke or the principles on the nation was based. I very much doubt that he will make a difference with respect to Scozzafava or and will make similar kinds of calls.

There is no question that candidates must market themselves to voters and liberal districts need to be regaled with liberal-sounding candidates. But I would like to see people who are genuine conservatives who win by pandering to liberal voters on the surface, rather than what the Republicans have now, Republicans who are Progressives at heart who pander to the conservatives in the party and expand government when they are elected, not the least of which were George W. Bush and New York’s George E. Pataki.

A Republican Liberty Caucus member from Maine has written several columns on a regular basis that appear at the RLC website.

The columns offer practical advice for current or prospective candidates.

View the columns here.

On October 12, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was greeted with heckling by a crowd of Tea Party activists and libertarians at one of his Town Hall meetings. Graham was put on defensive about his voting record on issues like climate change and the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. When he asserted that he is “not going to leave the Republican Party” but “grow it”, he was met with jeers and shouts of “Ron Paul!”

In response, Graham said, “I love this party; I’m not going to let it be hijacked by Ron Paul.”

The Republican Party isn’t where it is today because of party members like Ron Paul; rather, because of spineless partisans like Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham says “if you don’t like it, you can leave”.

This kind of “with us or against us” rhetoric is what turns people away and breaks coalition

Lindsey Graham needs to understand that I too love this party. Despite people like Lindsey Graham, I’m not going to leave the party and I’m not going to let the party be hijacked by Lindsey Graham. If you don’t like it, Lindsey, you can leave.

Kevin E. Deuwel, a RLC member, is a student at George Washington University and a native of Sacramento, California. He blogs at Free Libertas.

Walter Weyl was one of the three founders of the New Republic, all of whom were pivotal in the creation of so-called “state activist liberalism”, an Orwellian phrase if there ever was one. Weyl was a professor at the Wharton School of Business and advocate of socialism. His book, New Democracy, is not as popular today as Herbert Croly’s and Walter Lippmann’s, his partners’. But Weyl’s book is the most prophetic and forthright. In it he argues (unlike Croly and Lippmann who were not so explicit) that Progressivism (the ideology of Theodore Roosevelt -R- and Woodrow Wilson -D-) would lead to socialism.

The culmination of Weyl’s ideas has occurred. The close linkage between the Progressivism of the Rockefeller Republicans (of whom Theodore Roosevelt was the first) and the social democracy of the Democrats (that traces back to Franklin Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan) is now evident. With the bailout we see that both Progressivism and social democracy are, as Weyl knew and advocated, complementary versions of socialism.  The triumph of Progressivism was, as Gabriel Kolko put it, the triumph of conservatism.

One side effect of this is we now know what to call them. They are not  “liberals”, which is what libertarians should be called. They are not “Progressives” because no ideology is more conservative than socialism.  Nor are they “social democrats” because they do not believe in democracy, preferring pandering to Wall Street and other special interests, especially public sector unions, failed manufacturing firms and banks to democracy.  Rather, they are SOCIALISTS.  I therefore say to you now:

KNOW YE BY THESE PRESENTS THAT HENCEFORTH I, MITCHELL LANGBERT, REFUSE TO CALL  ROCKEFELLER REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS BY ANY OTHER THAN THEIR TRUE NAME: SOCIALISTS.

A second side effect is that there is an important struggle ahead: to retake control of the GOP.  In the early twentieth century the GOP was the party of Progressivism.  William Howard Taft was what today would be called a conservative, and Theodore Roosevelt bolted the GOP to start the Progressive or Bull Moose Party by which time he was aggressively socialist.  William Jennings Bryan had captured the Democrats in 1896 on behalf of populism, and these ideas found final articulation not in the Progressivism of Wilson, who was for most of his life a Bourbon or laissez faire Democrat, but of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The fact is that most of FDR’s ideas had already been advocated by TR in 1912.

The GOP never recovered from the harm that TR did. Subsequent presidents, Harding and Coolidge, were not ideologically astute and did absolutely nothing to alter the Progressive institutions that Roosevelt and Wilson had initiated. Hoover was a Progressive from the time he had worked for Woodrow Wilson as his food industry price fixing Czar during World War I.  The New Deal was just a continuation of Hoover’s failed Progressive ideas such as using public works to cure unemployment. Eisenhower did nothing to reduce government and added his share, such as the Interstates.  Goldwater and Reagan were a departure, but George W. Bush was part of the Progressive tradition, and waited until several years into his office to make it clear.

We are left with a situation where socialist extremists are in control of both parties. The pro-bailout Republicans of McCain and Bush and the socialist Democrats constitute a twin-headed hydra.  We can win, though, because a healthy 30 percent of America still favors freedom.  If we align ourselves with various other interests, such as the religious,  we can win.

But there is a big fight ahead. Liberty Republicans need to think about how to convince the Rockefeller Republicans to move to their true home–the Democratic Party.  Yes, let’s get rid of them.  They predominate in the unwinnable Blue states anyway, and the public will not care if oil, health care and insurance executives align themselves with the party of greed, the Democrats.

In any case, we have a good argument:  the pro bailout Republicans lost because of their ideas. They have failed. They should step aside.

Mitchell Langbert blogs at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com.

The Republican Liberty Caucus and PAC in New Hampshire have put together an excellent event for liberty-lovers in the Northeast. On Saturday, November 7, bestselling author and economist Tom Woods and venture capitalist Lawrence Lepard will be speaking at a fundraiser to support New Hampshire Liberty Republican candidates in 2010.

Please register for this event today. Tickets are $100, but well worth it to help an important cause.

Everyone (or couple) who registers by Monday, October 26 will get a free copy of Dr. Woods’ book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Proceeds will go to the Republican Liberty Caucus PAC.

Register today!