Questioning the modern welfare state’s wisdom or solvency is the most effective way to irritate those of a liberal political orientation. Raising doubts about its constitutionality at the federal level is something no Democratic candidate or loyal rank and file voter would ever be caught engaging in. The identity of the modern American left is distinctly defined by a no-questions-asked embrace of federal money for allegedly charitable purposes.

Most conservatives are excellent at outlining the ways our system for helping the needy is gamed and taken advantage of. They are also accurate when stressing the role of churches and individuals in helping the downtrodden; generosity is more honorable when done voluntarily and not due to an implicit threat from the IRS. But what frequently goes unasked is whether conservatives have become equally uncritical when it comes to the parts of government they hold no aversion toward.

Newly elected Tea Party Senator Rand Paul recently stated that “Many Republicans treat war like Democrats treat welfare,” shedding light on a glaring deficiency in conservative critique of the states’ growth. While they are spot on in analyzing federal welfare’s potential to erode social mores, this suspicion is absent when it comes to the claims government makes about war and foreign policy.

Conservatives once prided themselves on jealously guarding America’s sovereignty and stressing only judicious overseas intervention. When Ronald Reagan was faced with the 1983 killing of 241 Marines in Beirut, he decided to pull the troops out instead of further enmeshing his nation in difficult to comprehend Arab internal politics. No fear-tinged lectures were given about “Surrender” or “Cowardice”; Republican stalwarts like Reagan instinctively understood the distinction between protecting America and wasting taxpayer dollars in a part of the world we share little in common with.

But many of those who embrace the neoconservative philosophy heap outright scorn on Republicans who would exhibit these characteristics today. When John McCain derided as “isolationist” anyone who opposes the Libyan bombing campaign, he was using logic that flew in the face of the Republican tradition of foreign policy realism alive as recently as the George H. W. Bush years. But fortunately the Arizona senator is becoming a minority in his own party.

Most Republicans readily acknowledge domestic government intervention causes unintended consequences such as unemployment and inflation. But frequently overlooked is that American overseas intervention, no matter how noble it sounds in the abstract, often holds the same potential for unforeseeable outcomes. Conservatives like Robert Taft and Reagan understood this, backing use of the military that was reserved for constitutionally prescribed national defense purposes only.

This traditional Republican foreign policy is slowly coming back into style. Nation building and democracy spreading experiments no longer elicit enthusiasm among conservatives; trillion dollar deficits and an ultra-hawkish left wing president have helped reignite a desire to see a small government footprint at home and abroad. Any conservative hoping to establish their debt-shrinking prowess must now put Pentagon spending on the table next to the litany of federal handouts.

Any Republican who questioned overseas expenditures was sure to be banished to the conservative ghetto during the all war, all the time Rumsfeld/McCain era of GOP dominance. Today, with a debt-concerned and war weary public, asking these same questions might just mean a seat in the Oval Office.

RLC chapter chairmen in four states have recently weighed in on pressing issues in their states and have been published or received notoriety for their efforts:

• In Peach Pundit, Georgia RLC Chair Travis Bowden argues that a proposed shift in power violates the Georgia Constitution in “The Role of the Lt. Governor“;

• At her blog, Nebraska RLC Chair Laura Ebke opines that having both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in the presidential race is a good idea.

• In NH Insider, New Hampshire RLC Chairman Andrew Hemingway argues that Republicans should end their typical view of government and instead adopt a new perspective;

• At RedState, Wisconsin RLC Chair Mike Murphy’s efforts to rescind a promise between Democrat and Republican incumbent politicians has been exposed as a result of his tireless work.

Our RLC state chapters are busy building momentum for electoral successes in 2012. Please get involved today!

Laura Ebke says its beneficial to have two liberty candidates in the 2012 GOP race.

Raise your hand if you support torture.

Tea Party Seen As Key Political Force
Harvard Crimson by Caleb J. Thompson, CONTRIBUTING WRITER
Published: Wednesday, April 27, 2011

A panel of journalists and political activists agreed that the Tea Party has become an increasingly important force in American politics at a discussion entitled “The Tea Party: What’s Brewing for the Budget Battle and the Ballot Box,” hosted by the Institute of Politics yesterday.

The speakers focused on the Tea Party’s origins and how it will factor into the current budget debate as well as the upcoming presidential election.

“It’s time for the Republic to return to the people’s hands,” said Andrew Hemingway, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire. He was joined by Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator and co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, CNN reporter and producer Shannon Travis, and New York Times political correspondent Kate Zernike.

The discussion was moderated by IOP Director C. M. Trey Grayson ’94.

Hemingway and Martin made the point throughout the evening that the Tea Party is a grassroots organization and adheres to three strict values: fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.

The panelists were all largely in agreement over what the Tea Party is, but they disagreed over its political potential.

“The knife cuts both ways,” Travis said, adding that the group was in danger of becoming a victim of its own prodigious growth.

“The tea party’s success and tactics have given fodder to their critics,” he added, questioning the organization’s ability to influence politics at a national as well as at a state level.

Zernike said that those politicians elected through Tea Party support might be forced to choose between answering the demands of the group and the wider demands of Americans at large.

The real question, she said, was not what the Tea Party has achieved already, but what it will do next.

All the panelists were in general agreement that the next two years will be very important for the Tea Party. But the debate became more heated once the floor was opened up for questions.

When one questioner mentioned alleged sponsorship of the Tea Party by the Koch brothers—two wealthy industrialists who are often associated with Republican causes—Hemingway jokingly asked if the questioner knew the brothers and could get them to send him a check.

Following the event, several audience members said they were pleased with the quality of the discussion.

“The panel solidified many of the beliefs I already had,” said Ben Grivno, an audience member and self-described Tea Party activist.

Luciana E. Milano ’14 said she was glad to attend a contentious panel. “I was excited to see the bickering,” she said.

(c) 2011, Harvard Crimson.

One week after the opening of “Atlas Shrugged – Part I”, the movie adaptation of Ayn Rand’s classic novel “Atlas Shrugged,” the film is doing quite well:

“[D]espite (or because of) Hollywood’s best efforts to keep the movie down, “Atlas” is racking up dollar signs at the box office. With a hearty $5640 per theater in its opening weekend, “Atlas Shrugged,” based on the influential Ayn Rand best-seller, has left Hollywood insiders dumbstruck to explain its success.” — The Washington Times

The Hollywood Reporter says the film will expand its release from 299 theaters to 425 this weekend and to 1,000 by the end of the month.

Tea Party supporters and libertarians and objectivists of all stripes have hit the theaters across our country to watch and support “Atlas Shrugged” the movie. According to “Atlas” executive producer Harmon Kaslow, the film has over-performed in markets like Atlanta, New York, Nashville, generating as much as $12,000 to $25,000 per theater.

“People are hungry for what these characters are saying,” says executive producer John Aglialoro. “They’re telling the government, ‘Just leave me alone. Let me hang onto my life and pursue my passions and rational self-interest. That’s what will benefit society.”

That message is what is driving the success of “Atlas Shrugged.” Although it was written more than fifty years ago, Rand’s unabashed defense of individualism seems more relevant than ever before.

Check out the movie trailer here and go to theater near you to support this amazing film!

“Atlas Shrugged” remains one of the best-selling books of all time. More than 7,000,000 copies of the tome have been sold since it was first published. It is currently #4 on the Amazon best-seller list.

The New Hampshire RLC is playing kingmaker in state politics.

In addition to having a tremendous say on specific legislative measures — such as the Right to Work and the House-approved budget — they’ve also advanced the RLC’s mission by helping elect a Speaker of the House, Majority Leader, and State GOP Chair who are each friendly to the liberty message.

Recently, the New Hampshire RLC aired radio advertisements on AM stations WGIR, WNTK and WKXL urging citizens and legislators to support the $700 million in cuts passed by the House being maintained by the State Senate. The RLCNH says that citizens should urge legislators to “support the House budget” and directs listeners to a new caucus website, NHBudgetFacts.org.

Conservatives view the state Senate as more moderate than the House, whose budget is about $700 million less than the current two-year budget. Senate President Peter Bragdon, R-Milford, has said the Senate budget will probably be the same size as the House-passed budget — but with different priorities. Bragdon also said the Senate appears to be opposed to the House-passed provision to remove collective bargaining protections for public workers when their contracts expire. The Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday removed that provision from the House-passed budget.

Earlier today, with the support of the New Hampshire RLC, the New Hampshire legislature approved Right to Work for the Granite State.

“This veto-proof vote is a clear sign that the Senate is listening to the voters who sent them to Concord to attract jobs to New Hampshire,” said Andrew Hemingway, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire.

“A Right to Work law will make New Hampshire the only employee and business friendly environment in the Northeast. Everyone knows that a law that attracts new and growing businesses will attract good paying jobs.” States with similar Right to Work laws include Iowa, Virginia, and 20 other states.

If New Hampshire passes this law, it will create a magnet for businesses that will further enhance the New Hampshire Advantage, concluded the New Hampshire RLC.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire and its members have been following the Right to Work bill and consider it a high priority for job creation and protection of New Hampshire’s working families. The caucus will continue to follow this effort as it heads to a committee of conference between the Senate and the House and urges veto-proof House adoption of the compromise language.

According to the New Hampshire Union-Leader, “(Andrew) Hemingway’s profile continues to rise as the influence of the Tea Party and liberty groups also continue to rise in the state. Hemingway says he has been invited to speak at Harvard’s Institute of Politics on April 26 in a forum on the “impact of the Tea Party on the 2012 elections,” along with Jennifer Beth Martin, national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots.

Please get involved in the New Hampshire RLC today!

New Hampshire RLC Chairman Andrew Hemingway.

Republicans in Florida should be proud of the direction Governor Scott is taking the Republican Party (and state government). Thus far, there are several reasons to be pleased with Governor Scott’s budget and agenda:

• Scott proposed spending $4.6 billion less than this year’s budget and wants to eliminate seven percent of the state’s government jobs, which would mean about 6,700 state-worker layoffs — significant cuts and hard choices at a tough economic time. In fact, RLC member Kristi Dunn was recently interviewed about her support for Governor Scott’s budget;

• Tony Fabrizio, Scott’s campaign guru and advisor, polled the issue of legalizing marijuana in Florida and found that nearly 6 in 10 people support the idea — almost enough to pass a state Constitutional amendment. Of the 800 voters surveyed, 456 would have voted yes on a constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana, but 344 would have voted against it;

• Governor Scott is working with the legislature to cut government waste. Legislators even asked the RLC’s input on what to cut;

• Governor Scott is a vocal opponent of the Obama health law and refuses to implement it in Florida unless it is found constitutional; and

• Governor Scott’s decision not to accept a $2.4 billion federal grant for a high speed rail project was a “courageous choice”, according to a congratulatory letter he received from the Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida Chairman Matthew D. Nye.

Governor Scott spoke at a Republican Liberty Caucus of Central East Florida meeting in September, 2010.

The Florida chapter of the RLC will host its Lobby Days at the Capitol on March 14 and 15. The top issue on the agenda is a Taxpayers Bill of Rights for Florida.

From the New Hampshire Union Leader‘s John DiStaso:

“Tea Party leader and Minnesota U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s schedule for Saturday, March 12: Bachmann will attend a coffee sponsored by the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire for lawmakers who are members of that group. It will be held at the new Liberty Harbor Academy, a new conservative educational institute in Manchester. The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire is expected to become an important stop on presidential candidate schedules this year.

We will post additional details as they become available. This event will mark the first time the RLC has hosted Michele Bachmann at any event.

The state chapter has already hosted Governor Gary Johnson and Sharron Angle.  They will again host Governor Johnson in late April.

The resurgent interest in constitutionalism and sound economics within the Republican Party has been an encouraging sign. The debate within the conservative movement has advanced in a healthy direction thanks to the prodding of the Tea Party. Whether these moves by politicians were genuine or done out of pure survival purposes is still an open question, but the fact remains that the rhetoric has changed substantially during the post-Bush era.

One of the most demonstrable shifts has been the manner in which Republicans discuss the very institution of government. Our founders, in their rich understanding of private property and desire to zealously guard the liberties of the new nation’s citizenry, spoke of government in generally unflattering terms. While recognizing its presence in some restrained form was required, it was looked at as little more than a necessary evil. The notion of an income tax, federal welfare programs, corporate subsidies, and a fiat currency would have been abhorrent to the framers of the Constitution. In their minds, the main reason for a central government was national defense. The idea of government becoming a charitable institution was an aberration, as this was correctly viewed as the function of churches and individuals.

George Washington summed up these views when he stated that “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant — and a fearful master.” As recently as Ronald Reagan, our nation had a president who was well read in free market concepts and at least made an effort to relay these concepts to the country he served. “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem,” the fortieth president famously said, strong words to a country that had become comfortable with New Deal and Great Society programs. But this reinforced a crucial point that conservatives forgot in the following years. The Ayn Rand and Jeffersonian view was banished, and government became something to be adored and used towards one’s own ends. It became the solution instead of the problem to many beltway Republicans, and they paid for it dearly in ensuing elections.

The philosophies of our current presidents reflect the attitudes a majority of Americans have come to hold toward government. During the Bush years, the force of government ceased being viewed in negative terms by Republicans, and instead was embraced. If one was unaware of the history and aims of conservatism, words spoken by men like Reagan and Goldwater would have seemed downright foreign in the initial years of this new century.

Unfortunately, it took a president like Barack Obama and a movement like the Tea Party to finally wake up a critical mass of conservatives. Not only is the government viewed as the solution by the Obama administration, it is touted as the savior and embodiment of all things virtuous. The combination of coercive force and worship of the state became embraced to a degree which even exceeded the previous administration, revolting millions of Americans who value the concepts of self government. Let us hope that eloquence and slick productions are no longer all it takes to make Americans forget that a government operating outside of the bounds of the Constitution is not their friend, but instead a fierce foe.

Barry Goldwater, icon of the post-World War Two conservative movement, summed up the genuine conservative’s mindset when he said: “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.”

We know the conservative movement will never quite embrace the Obama version of rampant statism. But despite this, they had come pretty close in recent years, and are left with a major decision to make: will they settle and continue down the path of Bush-style, big government conservatism, or do they finally return to their Goldwater roots and begin stripping down the state to its constitutional size?

In essence, they must decide once and for all if government is a source of reason, or instead just a cleverly crafted form of brute force.

During the scramble for victory in Republican primaries, one of the most oft-repeated assurances each candidate attempts to make is their commitment to pro-life principles. Leaving aside a few socially liberal Northeast states, most Republican races consist of candidates offering reassurances that they will stand by these convictions and take steps to implement them once in office. While the track record is spotty at best when it comes to making progress in this department, it certainly is an issue that any candidate seeking to distinguish themselves as a conservative attempts to set the record straight on.

And this is admirable rhetoric. Protecting defenseless life is one of the few primary justifications for the institution of government, so a worldview that seeks limits on abortion does not conflict with a firm belief in smaller government. Though there could be a robust debate over whether this should be handled at the state level as many murder cases are, or at the federal level by way of constitutional amendment, seeking ways to curb abortion is nothing to be scoffed at. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll showed 50% of Americans describe their views as pro-choice, so this remains a touchy and divisive issue which ends up falling largely along party lines.

With the trend of evangelical Protestants joining the Republican party that began as a trickle in the 1970s before morphing into a full blown stampede in the 1980s, social issues like abortion became much more of a deal breaker within the party. This cycle became complete in 2008 when John McCain received upwards of 80% of the evangelical vote in many states, a percentage crossing north of 90% in some. And considering most of these voters are salt of the earth, hard working, church-going individuals, dissecting their voting patterns is vital to seeing where the heartbeat of America is during any given election period.

But there is a subtle danger posed when being pro-life is seen as the primary distinguishing trait of a conservative candidate. For example, if an issue such as abortion becomes the sole reason a conservative votes the way they do, this opens up the sorts of opportunities seized by Southern Democrats like Gene Taylor, Dan Boren, Heath Schuler, and Chet Edwards through the years. If it becomes the sole focus, traditional conservative values like constitutionalism and governmental restraint can become secondary, if not outright ignored.

It can also work for fiscally liberal Republicans who actually possess little commitment to smaller government, as demonstrated by the presidency of George W. Bush. No matter how much federal spending and entitlements expanded, defense of his alleged conservatism would always center around the claim of “well, but he is pro-life.” The fact that nothing ever gets done on this issue no matter the makeup of Congress might lead perceptive observers to wonder if it is little more than a political football, something Republicans running for office can always tease voters with. “Just re-elect us one more time, and we will close those abortion clinics once and for all” is seen as sufficient bait to maintain political power.

If it holds true that being pro-life translates into a more broad based commitment to limited, decentralized government, then looking at the relative economic freedom of countries with more restrictive abortion laws should reflect this. But these two are not necessarily synonymous. Venezuela, a country ruled by the iron-fisted Hugo Chavez and which grants its citizens minimal economic liberty, also happens to heavily curb access to abortions. Though its Catholic leanings influence this, it shows no correlation between views on social issues like abortion and those held regarding economics. Further evidence that a country’s willingness to curb abortion access is entirely unrelated to opening up other freedoms for its inhabitants is present. Chile, Mexico, El Salvador, and Argentina boast some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, but according to the 2011 Index of Economic Freedom rankings published by the Heritage Foundation, these countries were 11th, 48th, 68th, and 138th respectively.

This is not to say that individuals can hold pro-life views while subsequently desiring governmental non-interference in the economic sphere. The majority of conservatives certainly hold to these convictions simultaneously. But neither necessarily dovetails with the other, something many libertarians are quick to point out. Strongly desiring to legislate against aggressive action towards an unborn child is a worthy devotion to have, but confusing this for a well-rounded conservative philosophy can cause confusion. Labeling this candidate or that “staunchly conservative” based merely on a laudable pro-life stance can lead to the election of officeholders that hold little else in common with their constituents aside from this one position.

As evidenced by the economic freedom of nations like El Salvador and Argentina, one could have a full blown statist orientation while accordingly holding pro-life views. Conservatives must be more cognizant of this next time they go to the ballot box to act on the empty words of a cynical politician. Blind faith that platitudes promising to protect the liberty of the unborn will somehow translate into the guarding of the freedom of the born has proven to be unfounded.