Governor Gary E. Johnson has been called the next Ron Paul.  He has not yet announced his candidacy for president, but has been widely mentioned as a potential Republican presidential candidate who reflects the Tea Party’s and liberty Republicans’ perspectives.

I recently blogged about Governor Johnson’s background.  He received good grades from the Cato Institute when he was governor and has a taste for honesty that is rare in politics and business today.

Besides serving as governor of New Mexico for two terms, he had built a significant corporation from scratch, which he sold in 1999.  Readers who would like to contribute or help Governor Johnson can find contact information on http://ouramericainitiative.com/. He also has a Facebook group page with 2,000 members.

Langbert: Governor Johnson, it is a privilege to interview you.  I teach business administration at Brooklyn College.  What are three things that you learned from your business career that could be applied to the federal government or that you did apply as governor of New Mexico?

Johnson: I started my company in 1974 and I was the only employee.  In 1994 we had 1,000 employees.  Things that I learned and applied as governor include the importance of hiring good people; cutting mistakes short; and sticking to basic principles.

I’m good at hiring people and have a great track record.  But mistakes are inevitable. When you make a mistake in hiring, you need to cut it short.   As governor, I avoided political appointments as much as possible.  There was one instance where I was forced to make one, and I closely monitored the individual’s performance.

The obvious things are most important. The basic principles:  being on time, sticking to principles, telling people to tell the truth.  As governor, I sat down in cabinet meetings and I told people to tell the truth.

L: One of the realities of large organizations is the use of information to manage conflict and improve social compatibility and coordination.  Managers call these patterns interpersonal skills.  Might not 100% truth telling interfere with interpersonal skills? Of course, if everyone in industry tells the truth, costs and performance will be improved.

J: On the contrary, being honest 100% of the time makes it easy.  If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.  What you’re talking about is managing conflict.  Someone once said that honesty is where what you say and what you think are the same as what you do.  But of course you can say things that minimize conflict.

L:  To what degree is it possible to cut the federal budget? How would you go about cutting?

J: I faced the same situation in New Mexico as the president faces.  I could have cut big government in New Mexico drastically and no one would have noticed.  (That is, these government employees produce no value for the economy.) The spending train is out of control.  But the Democratic legislature fought me and the courts handed down adverse rulings.  The legislature was 2 to 1 Democratic.  Common sense has gone out the window.  First you have to stop the spending.  The time is ripe for doing so in Washington, and it’s accomplishable.

We are a bankrupt nation.  We’re not taking care of our own house. Unlike the generation before us, interest and principle payments are due now. The enormous budget deficits will lead to inflation and an ever weaker dollar.

L:  What is your position on the bailout and TARP?

J: I would have opposed both.  Government should not have been involved in this. The Paulson connection amounts to this being an inside job.  Why should Goldman and AIG be saved but not Lehman?

L: What is your position on health reform?  How would you recommend the system control health costs?

J:  I would recommend a free market approach to health care reform.  Increase supply through the free market.  Gall Bladders R Us. We ended up with an insurance entitlement rather than health care.  Extending the current approach will lead to shortages and rationing health care.

The same principle applies to education.  We should blow the lid off publicly controlled education.

L: What is your position on the Fed and the gold standard?

J: The Federal Reserve deserves full responsibility for the housing bubble and as well deserves credit for mitigating the bust.  Overriding that, the dollar is now worth a nickel.  I understand the arguments for a free market in money and I support them.  I shy away from the phrase “regulate the Fed” because I do not want Barney Frank deciding monetary policy.  I wouldn’t say the Fed needs to be abolished.  I understand the argument for a gold standard, though.  The US government should be pursuing a strong dollar policy, which the Fed hasn’t done.

L: What is your position on the Middle East and Israel?

J: I’ve been to Israel and the Golan Heights and I understand the threats Israel faces from outside and within. I can’t summarize my position as the issues are too complex. I do believe in a strong national defense.  But our security is not threatened by Iraq and Afghanistan.

L: Where do you stand on Iraq and Afghanistan?

J: I believe we should pull out of both and return our focus to fighting terrorism. The focus needs to be protecting America. I’m not sure if that is still the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was surprised that Obama increased US presence in Afghanistan.

L: What about Social Security reform?

J:  Social Security is flawed.  When it was brought into existence the life expectancy was  55. Benefits started at 65.  Now, life expectancy is 75, and benefits start at about the same age. It’s a Ponzi scheme.  A combination of benefit reduction and/or privatization are necessary.  At least part of Social Security should include private accounts that are counted in your estate.

L: What do you think of making Social Security voluntary and converting it into a defined contribution plan?

J: That would make it viable.

L: What is your position on states’ rights and state sovereignty?

J: The states are 50 laboratories of democracy.  The burden that the federal government places on the states is outrageous.  The same is true of health care.  A return to federalism is needed.

L: Thank you, Governor.  I am certain that liberty Republicans will be interested in learning more about your ideas.

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 National Republican Senatorial Committee is asking Republican voters for their opinions on who should be the Presidential nominee in 2012.

Take their poll and let them know.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 11, 2009

CONTACT: William Westmiller, (866) 752-5423

_______________________________________________________________________________

Republican Liberty Caucus Encourages Mark Sanford to Pursue Presidency
South Carolina Governor Would Restore American Commitment to Founding Principles

Thousand Oaks, CA — The National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus has passed a resolution encouraging South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford to seek the Republican nomination for U.S. President in 2012.

“Governor Sanford had an outstanding record in Congress, often voting his conscience on tough issues rather than just following the party line,” said RLC National Chairman Dave Nalle. “In Washington, Sanford opposed pork barrel projects even when they benefited his own district and he honored his term limits pledge and stepped down in 2000. In his two terms as governor of South Carolina, Sanford has shown independence and creativity and acted as a vigilant guardian of taxpayer interests,” said Nalle.

Sanford was the first U.S. Governor to reject a portion of the federal stimulus money earmarked for his state last March. Sanford also worked out a compromise with state legislators to accept federal funds, provided that the politicians eliminated the state’s debts.

Mark Sanford has consistently been one of the strongest voices in the nation for fiscal and individual responsibility. At a Cato Institute event in 2008, Governor Sanford explained that “there’s a battle line in our society: with government on one side and liberty – the hallmark of the American experiment – on the other.”

He also earned the endorsement of the Republican Liberty Caucus when running for Congress and Governor. Consistently ranked at the top of the RLC’s “Liberty Index” – which began tracking votes in Congress on social and economic liberty in 1991 – Sanford’s overall rating was 82%.

“The nation needs a champion of fiscal responsibility and individual liberty now more than ever,” added National RLC Secretary Aaron Biterman, and “Sanford has demonstrated his commitment to those ideals and an ability to communicate them to voters.”

Although it is still early in the process and Governor Sanford has not yet announced his intentions for 2012, the Republican Liberty Caucus urges its members and other concerned citizens to encourage Governor Mark Sanford to seek the Republican nomination for U.S. President in 2012.

Founded in 1991, the Republican Liberty Caucus exists to promote individual rights, limited government, and free enterprise within the Republican Party by promoting those ideals among Party officials and its various organizations, identifying and supporting candidates sympathetic with them, and promoting Caucus membership among Republican Party registrants, officials, and officeholders.

###

RLC SANFORD RESOLUTION

Adopted by the RLC National Committee on 6/8/2009

WHEREAS Washington is fundamentally broken;

WHEREAS wasteful government spending is out of control;

WHEREAS puppet politicians are promising to spend trillions of dollars we don’t have;

WHEREAS Americans continue to lose their freedoms as our nation creeps toward socialism;

WHEREAS the American people are looking for bold leadership to renew our republic; and

WHEREAS the Republican Liberty Caucus Statement of Principles should be implemented to solve these problems;

RESOLVE THAT the Republican Liberty Caucus Board of Directors encourages Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina to run for President of these United States in 2012;

That Governor Sanford is a bold, independent leader who is able to fend off Washington’s culture of corruption;

That Governor Sanford has a vision that will protect America while safeguarding individual liberty and reducing government power;

That Governor Sanford has a stellar record as South Carolina Governor and a former member of Congress;

That Governor Sanford has not only embraced the label ‘libertarian’, but his actions logically follow his words; and

That Governor Sanford should be the choice of all Americans who want to return the country to its Founding principles.

South Carolina is a peculiar state. It’s managed to produce both Lindsey Graham and Mark Sanford, two politicians who come from the same place but are literally like oil and water.

Graham is the model of the kind of Republican who infiltrated the party after the Reagan era. He’s religiously conservative, completely irresponsible on budgetary issues, and has a record on civil liberties that can only be described as embarrassing.

Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Barry Goldwater wouldn’t have recognized him as a Republican at all. He’s like an old-style southern Democrat but with less integrity.

Mark Sanford is almost his exact opposite. He’s fiscally conservative and a strong supporter of civil and individual liberty. He’s in the Goldwater tradition and willing to stick by his principles regardless of the cost.

Being from the same state, it’s inevitable that two such opposite politicians would clash. When Sanford held firm and opposed federal bailout money for the state, Graham tried to end-run him in the Congress and play havoc with states rights by giving legislatures federal authority to override governors to accept federal money.

Last weekend at the South Carolina Republican Convention, it’s not surprising that there were some fireworks.

On the floor, Graham made a speech arguing in favor of compromising Republican principles and moving to the center and was heckled by members of the audience who were Ron Paul supporters. In response he made a strong statement against libertarianism, saying:

“I am not a libertarian. If you are, you’re welcome to vote for me and help this party, but we’re not going to build a party around libertarian ideas. I am a Ronald Reagan, Strom Thurmond, Lindsey Graham, Carrol Campbell Republican.”

It was certainly not news to anyone that Graham isn’t a libertarian, and his self-identification with former Democrats, segregationists and pork barrel spendocrats tells the whole story about why so many in South Carolina aren’t happy with their senior Senator.

More interesting than Graham’s remarks was Governor Sanford’s reaction a few minutes later when RLC member Amanda Moore stopped him in the hallway and asked him what he thought about Graham’s comments on libertarianism. Sanford went on at length, and said:

“It’s funny it was almost a pejorative comment a moment ago. Senator Graham spoke and said ‘I’m not a libertarian’, and whatever, whatever, as if that’s an evil word. Liberty is the hallmark of the American experiment. That is the distinguishing characteristic of our republic and frankly, what’s made it great. In my comments last night I said that is the genius of America, of affording liberty so that in your pursuit of happiness versus my pursuit of happiness and the dreams that went with that you unleash individual initiative that can’t be there with central planning. People say, you know, ‘Mark, you’re kind of libertarian’ and they’ll say it as if it’s an evil word like ‘You’re a communist’ or something. I’m like ‘Throw me in that brier patch. I’m guilty. I love liberty’ and I think that ought to be a good thing and I don’t think that it should be something that people back away from. I’ve been accused of being a libertarian and I wear it as a badge of honor, because I believe in, love and support liberty.”

Sanford expressed a vision of the Republican Party which strongly contrasted with Graham’s concept of a party of appeasement and opportunism. Sanford offered a positive vision of a party which embraces rights and individual liberty and enterprise and initiative, a party like the GOP which freed the slaves and fought the monopolies and championed civil rights and won the cold war.

Sanford seems to understand that the arguments between conservatives and moderates in the party is meaningless and that the party needs to move on a course perpendicular to the old ideas of right and left, in the direction of liberty.

Lindsey Graham represents the worst of the failures of the post-Reagan GOP.

It’s not just that he doesn’t want to be a libertarian. He doesn’t want to be in a party which bases its policies on principles at all.

Sanford seems to understand that ideals and principles and doing the right thing matter. He represents hope for a better future for the party and a return to real Republican values.

Wisconsin State Representative Steve Nass, who was endorsed by the RLC in 2006, has a great column at WisOpinion.com about the proposed economic stimulus package.

Says Nass:

It is true that the country faces the greatest economic challenge in nearly 100 years. It is true that greed and wasteful government spending are fundamental reasons fueling the financial inferno.

If you believe that greed is a serious part of the problem, do you then offer solutions that reward both individual and corporate greed?

If you believe wasteful government spending helped sap the strength of the economy, do you then offer proposals that will require some of the largest tax increases in U.S. and world history?

Read more.

I have been a Republican opposed to George W. Bush from almost the instant he became a national figure. I was not impressed with his tenure as Texas Governor, his academic credentials, or his promises as candidate Bush in campaign 2000. In short, I did not trust him. For those reasons, I voted Libertarian in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, while often voting Republican for other offices.

At Creative Loafing, Wayne Garcia blogs about how GOP operative Roger Stone, who says he has libertarian leanings, regrets helping George W. Bush win Florida in 2000.

Of course, Stone is not the first to abandon Bush, just the latest. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and former Press Secretary Scott McClellan also have distanced themselves from the President.

According to Stone, “I think across the board he’s led the party to its current position, which means losing both houses of congress and now the White House. How can you be conservative and justify wiretapping people without a warrant?” asked Stone.

“We’re supposed to be the party of personal freedom and civil liberties. Big brother listening in on your phone calls—I got a problem with that.”

Roger Stone, did you really ever believe George W. Bush had solid philosophical grounding?

GOP political operative Roger Stone has regrets.

According to The Associated Press, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford was elected the new Chair of the Republican Governors Association. Haley Barbour, who once stated a favorable comment about the RLC, was elected Vice-Chair. Sanford, 48, is a former member of Congress and will be term limited in 2011.

A new website, Draft Sanford 2012, has been created in to enlist supporters for a prospective Mark Sanford bid for President. The site features interesting links, such as “10 Things You Didn’t Know About Mark Sanford.” Among the things I didn’t know are that Sanford rejected the Congressional housing allowance in favor of sleeping in his DC office and kept his term limits pledge.

Like another prospective 2012 libertarian favorite, Sanford enjoys running. The other runner, of course, is former New Mexico Governor and RLC Adviser Gary Johnson, who may run in 2012 for President as either a Libertarian or a Republican.

I track political races all across the country — with an emphasis on the races that libertarian Republicans can win or have a significant impact on. The following is a list of races that you should pay attention to.

ARIZONA: Sydney Hay is a traditional limited government conservative with a long track record of leadership in Arizona. Now, Sydney wants to replace Republican Rick Renzi in Congress. Sydney has an uphill battle because of Renzi’s corruption charges and because the DNCC is targetting this seat for her opponent, State Representative Ann Kirkpatrick. The race will be a nail-biter come Nov. 4.

——————————————————

The RLC-USA PAC has donated $1,000 to Sydney Hay’s campaign.
Above, Sydney poses with RLC Adviser Barry Goldwater, Jr.

——————————————————

CALIFORNIA: Tom McClintock has, for over 20 years, been the conscience of the ultra moderate Republican Party of California. Tom is running for Congress in Placer and Modoc Counties, which traditionally trend conservative, but is having trouble because of George W. Bush and other neo-conservatives who have literally ruined the Republican brand. The race is rated “toss-up,” but libertarian Republicans across the country should be rooting for Tom McClintock.

INDIANA: Ron Paul campaign activist, businessman, and RLC member Bill Johnson is the Republican candidate for State Represenative in District 19, running against a one-term Democrat incumbent in a swing district. This is a race to watch!

MAINE: Former State Representative and RLC State Chair Ken Lindell is running for State Representative in the district he formerly represented.

MICHIGAN: Justin Amash is running for State Representative in a conservative district in suburban Grand Rapids. Justin is a longtime RLC member and supporter, and is considered a “rising star” in Michigan GOP politics. Look for Justin to win in November.

——————————————————

RLC endorsed Nevada State Senate candidate Lindsay Madsen.

——————————————————

NEVADA: Lindsay Nicole Madsen, a young rising star in the state GOP, is running for State Senate in Clark County (Las Vegas). How much damage can an outspoken, attractive and principled limited government candidate have in a traditionally Democrat district?

NORTH CAROLINA: There are three races to watch for libertarian Republicans interested in the Tar Heel State. B.J. Lawson, a favorite of libertarian Republicans, has waged an amazing uphill battle for Congress against David Price in District 4. Similarly, Asheville City Council member Carl Mumpower is targetting Heath Shuler in District 11; Shuler was elected by a small margin in 2006 in this swing district. Finally, State Auditor Les Merritt (Incumbent), who the state RLC has been in close contact with, is fighting off a challenge from accountant Beth Wood.

——————————————————

RLC endorsed incumbent, North Carolina State Auditor Les Merritt.

——————————————————

PENNSYLVANIA: Long-time State Representative Sam Rohrer (Incumbent) is in a tough re-election battle, and needs your support. Rohrer has been firm about preserving individual rights, and fought hard against the federal government on REAL ID.

TEXAS: State RLC Executive Director and all-around great guy Don Zimmerman is running for Travis County Tax Assessor-Collector.

WASHINGTON: Former State Representative and RLC State Contact Toby Nixon is running for State Representative in the district he formerly represented.

These are the races to watch as the election nears. Please help the above candidates succeed!

According to Salon.com’s Andrew Leonard, “Ron Paul appeared on CNN’s ‘American Morning’ on Friday, pushing the same apocalyptic message he served up during the Republican primaries, with one difference. His prediction of doom makes a heck of a lot more sense now than it did then.” The author continues, “So if things do get even worse, was Ron Paul suggesting that he’s ready for another run at the gold ring in 2012?” Dr. Paul said:

But right now there’s a fight going on in this country. Our numbers are growing. We’re not the majority, but our numbers are growing. And as this situation deteriorates, more people are going to say, “Hey, maybe it’s right. Maybe limited government and freedom works. Maybe freedom is popular, and maybe freedom really works.” And this idea that we have to depend on government for all these programs is an illusion.

Leonard concludes that “whoever is elected president of the United States is going to play a very large role in determining the contours of the new global regulatory system. And if doesn’t work? Well then, Ron Paul, or someone like him, will probably get a chance to pursue a different approach.” Let’s hope — for the sake of our nation — that Mr. Leonard is right.

The clip featuring RLC Adviser Dr. Ron Paul: