From Our America, the Gary Johnson Initiative:

A lot has been said of “principle over party” by the tea party movement in the last year. They stuck to their guns so strongly as to support a third party candidate over the Republican candidate in New York’s special District 23 election, because they felt the Republican candidate didn’t align closely enough with the principles they held so dear.

Videos on YouTube abound of tea party protesters shouting down and booing Republican speakers who dared come to their events to speak after voting for 2008’s financial bailout package. Over and over again, tea party leaders stress that this is about principles, not partisan politics- they could care less who has what letter next to their name. They only want people who stand for the right principles: limited government, individual liberty, Constitutional rule of law.

But there’s an important aspect of “principle over party” that cannot be overlooked. If the tea party neglects this one important thing, it will be doomed to fail in its attempt to limit and reverse the relentless expansion of government into our lives. That one crucial factor in its success is for the tea party to remember policy over personality.

While someone may have a good personality, a personality that seems conservative, down-to-earth, and middle-American; while a politician on stage might say everything you agree with and believe deep down in your heart; while that person may strongly affirm all of your principles… he or she might not really believe in them.

Is it so hard to think that a politician might capitalize on the tea party movement by telling us what we want to hear? Is it so impossible to believe that a politician would lie? There’s only one way to find out if someone believes what they say, and will truly work to advance your principles in our government: and that is to carefully examine this person’s past policies.

Read the rest of the article here.

The members of the Republican Liberty Caucus can do a major service by providing advice to the local Tea Parties.   In the early 1990s the GOP could still claim to be the party of ideas. Today, the pathetic remnants of those ideas are seen in the discredited neo-conservative movement and a handful of failed veterans like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Pailin.

The Tea Parties lack national leadership and need to focus on local candidates and issues.  But there is a danger that corrupt national leadership will co-opt them, filling the leadership vacuum at the top.  Part of the problem is a serious lack of competence among the Tea Party members, and part of the problem is the absence of a reservoir of successful potential GOP leaders at the local level.  RLC members can provide support in building a freedom-oriented leadership cadre and in educating the Tea Party.

Fox News has seen an opportunity and aims to fill the leadership vacuum.  Of course, the announcers on Fox are almost as limited intellectually as the Tea Party rank-and-file, and this is not a case of the blind leading the blind because the Fox network is very much part of the corporatist system whose interests would be threatened by a legitimate pro-liberty movement.

RLC members who are veterans of the libertarian movement or of past conservative battles can be of immense assistance to their local Tea Parties. For example, bridges and highways might be built from the local Tea Parties to the Foundation for Economic Education.  As I note on my personal blog, that fine institution has quietly served as a fulcrum on which the freedom movement has rested since the 1940s. Yet how many in the Tea Parties are aware of the FEE?

The members of the Tea Party are moral and see that there is a national problem but are not intellectually prepared to evaluate the opinions of the Fox announcers or to develop their own solutions.  They are inexperienced and need to educate themselves, for the public schools have not provided an education as to the values that built America. Fox is a source linked to the corporatist system and finds ways to sabotage the freedom movement at critical junctures.

The members of the RLC ought to be involved with their Tea Parties and play a role in guiding  the members and helping them to begin to educate themselves.

In the 19th century there were ongoing debates about the degree to which government should be involved with money. It was not until the 1930s, more than 150 years after the nation was founded, that government asserted a full monopoly on money by illegalizing the ownership of gold.

By February 1912, about 98 years ago, Senator Bob La Follette, a small business-oriented Progressive and presidential candidate that year, made a speech in which he noted that Wall Street had come to so dominate the media that even recently founded magazines were no longer independent. The next day the New York Times ran an article stating that La Follette had suffered a nervous breakdown, effectively ending his candidacy for president. He continued on as a Senator until the 1920s.

Since then the media has avoided discussion of Wall Street and the Fed. Some, like Glenn Beck, claim ignorance. Others simply kowtow to special interests across the board. Still other media outlets, the majority, do not know what news is, so cannot be expected to discuss a subject like the Fed. Still others are consciously linked to the interests of Wall Street. In any case, Beck is to be commended for being the first to speak on this issue. But is that really a good thing?

Glenda McGee just wrote me this e-mail:

“Glenn Beck and Sarah Palan had me and a few million others THRILLED for many months. The minute the TEA PARTY showed promise in Arizona and Texas they led the movement over the cliff.”

Beck needs to do a better job if he is to remain convincing as a voice for advocates of small government. To do so, he could try a few things:

1. Read a few books on money and banking, including Murray Rothbard’s What Has Government Done to Our Money and Hans Sennholz’s Money and Freedom. He might also read some Hayek and learn about the concept of free market money, an institution that existed here in the US for most of its history.

2. He could be playing an educational role. In the videos I’ve seen of him he claims ignorance. If he wants to be a leader, he should take the time to learn the issues. It’s fine to complain about the Fed’s ownership structure, but that doesn’t lead to any policy prescription.

3. He needs to learn basic history. Money has been a traditionally central argument in American politics until the past 80 years. The bad guys won and have been controlling the debate ever since.

4. Thus Beck could teach his viewers about: (a) the basic policy options, including competing, free market monetary systems and metallic-backed currencies and (b) the historical process by which centralized monetary control was rejected, re-adopted because it facilitates war (specifically the War of 1812), rejected again by Andrew Jackson, reinstated again in small part by the Republicans in order to finance the Civil War, rejected again during the Gilded Age , rejected by the public in the election of 1896, and then adopted by subterfuge in 1913 and re-enforced through fear tactics in 1932.

Shedding crocodile tears about the Fed’s ownership structure is a good way to seem like you oppose something that your boss at Fox really favors.

Let’s hope for a better performance from the undoubtedly theatrical but so far unconvincing Mr. Beck.

I was reviewing Sarah Palin’s speech at the Tea Party convention on Youtube and was reminded of her position on the 2008 bailout.  In a September 24, 2008 television interview Palin supported the bailout.  But at the recent Tea Party convention she objected to bonuses that the support she had previously advocated made possible. I think the expression is that she has been shedding conservative crocodile tears.

Conservatives love to hate Saul Alinsky but in fact all activists, conservative, libertarian or left-wing, follow his advice if they aim to succeed.  One of Alinsky’s rules for radicals is that a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.  This seems to be occurring with the Tea Party.

A reader suggested  this blog by the Alantic Magazine‘s Andrew Sullivan.  Sullivan argues that the Tea Party convention was not economically conservative but was rather dominated by Christian activists.  Sullivan writes:

“They have no plans to cut serious spending whatsoever. They love their Medicare, as they screamed at us last August. Do you remember them revolting against Bush’s unfunded, Medicare prescription drug bill, the worst act of fiscal vandalism since the Iraq war?”

I have attended my local Tea Party meeting in Kingston, New York.  I do recall others, besides myself, talking about economic issues. One individual brought up the exit of manufacturing from the US, another talked about corruption in government.  There are frequent references to the nation becoming worse for future generations.  These are all good signs and say to me that the Tea Party has potential left.

Since the Atlantic is not a libertarian source (disclaimer: I read it regularly more than a quarter century ago and not since) my gut would be suspicious of anything its writers have to say about the Tea Party.  However, Sullivan makes a good point.

It was obvious from the beginning that the Tea Party rank and file is largely inexperienced.  Moreover, these are people who have developed a bad habit of voting for big government candidates who say that they are for small government.  They did it for George W. Bush and they did it for George H. Bush.  They nominated John McCain, who lept at the bailout like a terrier at a steak, along with Palin and Obama.  The Tea Party people realize that something has gone wrong after decades of their de facto support for big government and their solution is…to do the same thing once again.  This is seen in their decision to ask John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, to be the keynote speaker at their convention.  Palin may speak economic conservative rhetoric at times, but she is not schooled in basic economics and can be seen in the September 2008 interview to be in the Progressive tradition.

I believe that libertarians need to work with the Christian right.  However, we have been hammered once before, with respect to George W. Bush.  The tactic of working with the Tea Party has helped expose our views, and it has been successful. But should libertarians continue to support the Tea Party?  I am not certain that the leadership of the Tea Party supports our mission of limited government.  Sarah Palin does not. I don’t think she understands that government activism in the bailout is logically inconsistent with support for limited government. The Tea Party may soon become a drag.

Has the Tea Party Been Hijacked?

by Aaron Biterman

Origins of the Movement

I have been active in libertarian circles for more than a decade, so when Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign raised more than $6 million in one day for our Presidential candidate, I was jumping for joy. That was in December, 2007, and was in conjunction with a nationwide “Tea Party” protest of Big Government. At our local event in Georgetown, Ron Paul supporters hosted our own fundraising event in which we wrote “Income Tax”, “Federal Reserve”, and “Invasion of Iraq” on boxes and tossed them out the 2nd story window of the event venue onto the streets of Georgetown.

The “Tea Party” was a nationwide event organized by Ron Paul supporters. Therefore the original concept of the Tea Party was libertarian — in favor of individual liberties (including personal freedoms and the ability to make any choice that does not harm another), limited government, and free markets.

The summer after the MoneyBomb fundraising success, in 2008, I participated in a Revolution March with Ron Paul supporters in DC (that’s me, with the Ron Paul sign, below right).  The march was quite massive, likely with between 7,500 and 10,000 participants from all across the country. It ended with a concert in front of the nation’s capital which lasted all day.

2009 Resurgence

Things went quiet for a while, until early 2009.  That’s when Rick Santelli drew attention for his remarks made regarding the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan in February of last year — from the floor of the CME Group during pre-market hours.  Santelli accused the government of promoting bad behavior and called for a Chicago Tea Party in response. Scattered cheers, whistles and applause could be heard from some of the personnel around the floor.

I participated in my second tea party event when I was asked to speak at the Reston Tea Party (in northern Virginia) on April 15 of last year. My speech focused on an economic issue that I believe important on tax day: repealing the Sixteenth Amendment. In my speech, I discussed how I never was duped into voting for George W. Bush, but that those who did can now redeem themselves by working for liberty in 2009, 2010, and beyond. I was well-received despite the hard rain pouring down on me as I spoke. At the time of my speech, I could tell that a broad coalition of folks were attending the Tea Party, and I surely realized that not all of them would agree with me — especially on social issues. So be it.

Hijacked Tea Party?

But it’s now a year later, and the Tea Party seems to be transforming from a libertarian gathering to promote less intrusive government and celebrate our freedoms to a neo-con group promoting War in Iran, criticizing immigrants and diversity, and persecuting those with different religious views. Rachel Maddow and David Weigel from The Washington Post have provided excellent coverage of this transformation from the very beginning, interviewing libertarian bloggers like Steve Gordon and Jason Pye and even interviewing Congressman Ron Paul to gain their perspective on the Tea Party hijack. Maddow was shocked to learn that three so-called Tea Party supporters challenged the inspiration behind the Tea Party — U.S. Rep. Ron Paul — for Congress in his rural Lake Jackson/Victoria area district in Texas.

The “far left media” recently crowned Sarah Palin the new mother of the Tea Party movement. This is problematic for several reasons.

First, Palin is employed by FOX News, which has a history of propping up increased foreign intervention — including the War in Iraq. Second, Palin is closely associated with people who support increased interventionism abroad. In her most recent trip to Hong Kong, she brought a prominent media relations strategist/lobbyist named Randy Scheunemann. Third, there is a correct perception that Sarah Palin is scripted — she’s using talking points from people writing speeches for her rather than sharing what she really believes. (I’m sure she has some core beliefs, but what are they?)

Increased foreign interventionism, bigger military budgets, and sending our troops to more countries abroad is the exact opposite of what the original Tea Parties were all about — so libertarians, paleo-cons, and traditional Goldwater conservatives should be rightful skeptics of the strategists who have put into motion the hijacking of the Tea Parties.

There are several national groups claiming to lead the Tea Party. These include:

* The Tea Party Express, which created a campaign called Our Country Deserves Better. Of the $1.3 million raised for their campaign from July to November, $870,000 plus of it went to a single Republican campaign firm in California.

* The Tea Party Nation, run by Judson Phillips, which organized the recent Convention in Tennessee. Libertarian-leaning groups like Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty and Eric Odom’s American Liberty Alliance decided not to participate after dealings with Phillips and his co-organizers.

* The Tea Party Patriots, which is working with FreedomWorks — headed by former U.S. Rep. Dick Armey.

Be wary of any national group trying to control local Tea Party organizations.

How Do We Proceed?

This is not the first time a libertarian concept has been adopted by others. It was libertarian economist Milton Friedman who developed the concept of school vouchers, but most of the credit was never given. The same is true of the Cato Institute, which developed the concept of Social Security privatization but is rarely credited with it. And who was it that was actively calling the War on Drugs a failure from the early 70s onward? Despite that most people recognize the failure of the War on Drugs, the Libertarian Party rarely receives credit for popularizing what is now plainly obvious: that the War on Drugs has not worked.

The original message of the Tea Party — let’s take our government back! – still rings true. It’s up to us to keep fighting to reclaim our personal and economic liberties — and that includes a humble and logical foreign policy.

I would encourage people who share the Republican Liberty Caucus commitment to limited government to attend local Tea Party meetings to get a flavor for what your local branch of the Tea Party is like. Certainly the flavor of the local Tea Party depends on who is leading it. The local Tea Party objectives should determine if it’s a good fit for you. If it isn’t, start your own Tea Party.

If more libertarian-leaning Republicans were leaders in the Tea Party movement, perhaps the Tea Party movement would have a decisively more libertarian flavor.

Overall, the credit for the Tea Party concept goes to the most innovative thinkers in politics today: libertarian Republicans and Ron Paul supporters. The current Tea Party is heading in the wrong direction, but whether it can reverse its course is up to us.

There’s never been a better time to get involved in the movement to change our government to one of, by, and for the people. I challenge you to become active in your area. Joining the Republican Liberty Caucus is a great place to start.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Aaron Biterman is Vice Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He is the Founder of LibertySlate.com.

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.

I attended the 9/12 rally that overtook Washington, DC on September 12, 2009.  I attended to take a few photos and (mostly) pass out literature about the Republican Liberty Caucus to targeted attendees.  To distinguish myself, I wore a Ron Paul hat that said “Real conservatives are against the War” and a t-shirt reading, “The community is worthless without the individual.”

As I handed out literature, I heard people talking about Ron Paul.  One young man from Georgia told his girlfriend, “I’m starting to like him. He makes the most sense.”  I handed out the literature to moms who had “Term Limits” signs and explained that we need to vote selectively for only small government Republican candidates.  Overall, the reception was great, the crowd was very committed, and I was surprised at its size and scope.

I have attended many rallies in DC over the years and this was by far the largest. The media can continue to say 75,000 people attended the rally.  I would estimate the number to be between 750,000 and 1 million.   It was overwhelming — it over took the city.  Even as I walked back to my car — from from the Capitol — I saw the 9/12 rally attendees … soccer moms, working dads, government employees, common folks … uniting for limited government.

What a sight!

Less government? Sounds enticing …

First Amendment and marchers!

This guy had a “Got Beck?” sticker on his driver’s side window.

Rally attendees. Notice all the Gadsen flags!

More attendees.

Darren Pope of the Columbia Independent Examiner reports estimates of the turnout to Saturday’s tea party  to have been as many as two million. That’s the largest I can recall, and I am old enough to remember all of the Vietnam protests. It was bigger than Woodstock.  Some claim that Louis Farrakhan’s 1995 Million Man March attracted nearly two million, but according to Wikipedia‘s article about Farrakhan’s  march, “organizers…were shocked when the United States Park Police officially estimated the crowd size at 400,000″.  In any case, the size of this march was greater than or comparable to the most publicized public events in my 55 years.

But unlike Woodstock, which still receives considerable media coverage today; and unlike the Vietnam War demonstrations; and unlike the Million Man March, the sources  to  which some Americans still look  for news attempted to minimize it and to spin the tea party participants as wrong doers and extremists. In contrast, Louis Farrakhan’s, the Merry Pranksters’ and the Students for a Democratic Society’s events are hallowed in the media’s view.   They paint the SDS in a more favorable light than the everyday Americans who are concerned about this country’s socialistic direction.

For many participants, this was their first political action.  The  dissonance that they will experience from the media’s distortions will spur them to further action.  Freedom-oriented Republicans need to seize this opportunity.  Organizing new political clubs, becoming active in your community, talking about the bail out and the freedom philosophy are all ways to make ripples.  Lots of ripples make waves and lots of waves make a tsunami.  There are tremendous opportunities, and the RLC is well positioned.

Reason Magazine’s Jesse Walker has an excellent article in this month’s issue concerning the left’s and the media’s strategy of painting people who believe in freedom as extremists who are violent.  Walker traces history going back to the days of Walter Reuther, who urged President Kennedy to use the FBI to attack conservatives, and quotes one of Richard Hofstadter’s articles about how accusations of extremism are often projections of one’s own tendencies.  Socialism and social democracy are  by definition ideologies that depend on violence. Hence, it is natural for social democrats to project and accuse those who disagree with them of violence.  Socialism is a violent creed and projection is a common psychological pattern.

Accusing others of violence is an ancient tactic.  In the late nineteenth century the labor movement was able to defeat more powerful opponents by showing that they had been victimized. Conversely, if labor could be made to look violent, management triumphed.  Public opinion swayed in the direction of those who could paint themselves as victims.  Much of “progressive” labor history  involves discussion of how workers were victimized (see, for example, Irving Bernstein’s Lean Years about the 1920s or John R. Commons et al.’s four volume History of Labor in the United States written in the early twentieth century).

The same tactic is part of what William S. Lind and Thomas X. Hammes have called Fourth Generation Warfare.  Fourth Generation Warfare includes (among other tactics) the manipulation of public opinion to immobilize your opponent.   This idea is not new, although Lind and Hammes show that war has increasingly depended the Fourth Generation strategy. 2,500 years ago, Sun Tzu, a Chinese general, wrote that “the way” or appropriate ordering of society is essential to win a war.

If a political faction can be painted to be disruptive to order or what Sun Tzu called “the way” then it will lose. Walker shows that the Democratic Party and its media are making repeated efforts to paint libertarians, conservatives, and anyone who disagrees with the Democrats’ claim  that we exist to serve the state  as violent extremists.

The reality, of course, is that it is the Democratic Party and the media that are extreme and violent, and the tea party marchers who are moderate and non-violent.  It is critical to keep this clear, not to let righteous indignation get the better of us and to disassociate from extremism.

Mitchell Langbert is associate professor of business at Brooklyn College. He can be visited at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com.

If you’re interested in making your feelings known or asking questions about health care or other issues currently before congress, there are over almost 100 Town Hall meetings scheduled for August and the early part of September all over the country. We want to encourage RLC members to attend and go prepared to hold our legislators responsible for the uncontrolled spending and infringements of liberty which have become the hallmark of congress and the current administration.

Work with your local RLC chapter to get groups organized to attend these events. We’ll provide as much advice and support as we can. And we’d love to have written reports to post here on the RLC site and videos of the events so we can learn from each other how best to take advantage of the opportunity which these Town Halls offer.

To find the event nearest you, download this PDF schedule.

Earlier in the month, RLC members from the Indiana and Missouri affiliate attended the Young Republicans Convention in Indianapolis to spread the message of individual liberty and limited government.

RLC members Rob and Karen Hillman and Charlie Kochenash hosted a Republican Liberty Caucus booth at the YR Convention. Two photos from the booth follow.

Dave Nalle recently posted a summary of the YR Convention results at this blog.

Charlie Kochenash, Indiana RLC Chair, also spoke at the July 4 Northwest Indiana Patriots Tea Party: