We’re in danger when the conservative instinct to defend law and order … defies law and order.
Conservatives often talk about the Constitution and the importance of defending our founding charter. After all, without a strong rule of law, we could never have the kind of society worthy of conservative standards to begin with. One of the reasons many cite for voting Republican in a presidential race, even if they dislike the candidate, is that they believe at the very least, the Republican will nominate palatable Supreme Court Justices who interpret the Constitution conservatively, in effect defending the aforementioned centrally important rule of law. At times however, it seems that some people are confused about the context of the ‘conservative’ label. A conservative (IE: originalist) reading of the Constitution is not the same as a conservative (IE: political) interpretation.
The latter is judicial activism. It in no way differs from the “discovery” of rights that created the precedents necessary for Roe v. Wade to exist – and we all know one of the foremost conservative arguments against that case is based on the fact that it stands on rather shaky constitutional grounds; a defense rooted in a pro rule of law argument. But, it appears that for some (in particular the many pro-life Congressmen and Senators who favor the PATRIOT Act), it’s only convenient to use a constitutionally based argument when it suits your particular issue politically.
So what then, are orginialists who support the Constitution regardless of emotional arguments on issues deemed politically conservative, to make of last week’s PATRIOT Act renewal battle? Ultimately, despite the disappointment, it seems that Republicans with libertarian and constitutionally conservative values are at least making some progress.
Particularly positive is the fact that many freshmen who won on the tea party wave are taking seriously the fact that the PATRIOT Act does violate the Constitution. As Rand Paul, who filibustered the act, eloquently noted on the Senate floor, we cannot preserve the 4th amendment without the 2nd amendment, or the 1st. In fact, we need the entire bill of rights; it cannot protect our freedoms unless it comes together as a whole.
In the Senate, with some shady maneuvering (what else is new?), Harry Reid bypassed Rand Paul’s attempts at a filibusterby tacking the vote to reauthorize the provisions onto the Small Business Additional Temporary Extension Act of 2011. While only four Republican Senators voted against the act, Heller, Paul and Lee (on the tea party side of the spectrum) and Murkowski (a moderate), we ought to keep in mind that one individual Senator has a great deal of power, and that three new Senators with tea party sympathies making a difference on this issue is a flicker of hope as we emerge from the darkness of the Bush era.
Later the same day, the House voted on the provisions, which were reauthorized with the support of 196 Republicans and 54 Democrats. Given Harry Reid’s suggestion that Rand Paul’s attempts to filibuster the PATRIOT Act indicate support of terrorism, I suppose the 122 members of his party who share Senator Paul’s position must also be in consort with our enemies. But Reid didn’t say that, did he? The Majority Leader’s insanity aside, it’s interesting to consider the House Republicans who voted against this renewal.
Out of the 31, 13 were freshman, which certainly indicates a step in the right direction. Particularly notable is the fact that two of the aforementioned freshmen are career military men – Allen West and Chris Gibson. While West, who openly ran as a tea party candidate, is considerably hawkish from a non-interventionist standpoint, he deserves credit for his statements against irrational nation building and these PATRIOT Act provisions. It clearly shows that, as someone with the experience, West is at least somewhat capable of distinguishing between needed powers and ‘it will keep us safe’ rhetoric; even if he supports a broader military presence than some of his more libertarian colleagues. Gibson is of interest because he has stated:
“Since the fall of the Soviet Union we have not reviewed in a meaningful way what our requirements are to protect our cherished way of life so that it reflects the realities of the 21st century, not the second half of the 20th century. There are still four combat brigades in Europe. I think they should be brought home. I don’t think we need forces in Okinawa. We have troops in over 100 different nations. We’re all over the world. I think we need to reassess that.”
Although the offending provisions were ultimately renewed, it’s promising to see that at least some newly elected Republicans are shifting paradigms. Genuine conservatives concerned with long term law and order are putting fidelity to the Constitution before partisanship and the kind of elitism that leads elected officials to believe that it’s permissible for controversial powers to be given to government as long as they are controlling things. The problem with that view, of course, is ultimately that trustworthy people won’t always be the ones in positions of influence, government almost never shrinks, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
On the other hand however, we have Congresswoman Michele Bachmann as a negative example on this matter. She has branded herself as a tea party leader and constitutionalist – she’s even flirting with a presidential run. Despite these factors, Bachmann not only voted in favor of renewing the PATRIOT Act provisions in question, she passionately defended them on the House floor in her capacity as a member of the House Intelligence Committee.
Bachmann, however, struck a noticeably different tone when discussing the matter on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano last month. Pressing her about the inconsistency of her support of the PATRIOT Act and the Constitution, the Judge said to the Congresswoman:
“The PATRIOT Act lets federal agents write their own search warrants in violation of the 4th amendment – why did you vote to reauthorize it? Isn’t the whole concept of the PATRIOT Act, that the government can bypass the Constitution in hard times, one that you, and I, and that people who are faithful to the Constitution would reject?”
Instead of disagreeing with the Judge’s premise, Bachmann replied by beating around the bush with rhetoric about bipartisanship and technicalities regarding recent votes as not reauthorizing the act fully (not acknowledging the fact that she’s always voted for the act in any form it has been presented).
Congresswoman Bachmann said:
“What we need to do is we need to make sure that American’s 4th amendment right to be free and secure of unreasonable search and seizure by the federal government is protected, I don’t back down from that at all – or 1st amendment protections as well. We need to make sure that those amendments are held strong in a bipartisan manner.”
It’s clear that Bachmann never had the concerns she claimed to on Freedom Watch when pressed to discuss the matter. On the House floor after the vote, she explained her support of the ‘lone wolf provision’, which clearly allows federal agents to go after suspects without warrants. If that’s not a 4th amendment concern, then I don’t know what is. This all being the case, I’d simply request that Bachmann and her other ‘constitutionalist’ colleagues grace us with some intellectual honesty. Don’t pretend to be a defending our founding charter simply because it’s rhetorically – and electorally — pleasant to do so.
Truly upholding the Constitution requires taking the moral high ground and looking at the long-term picture. Sadly, most people seem to want instant gratification without considering the consequences. Not surprisingly, our representatives end up reflecting that fact; and then we wonder why our government is cumbersome, spends unsustainably, and is largely ineffective.
Ultimately, we need to remember that these issues are not limited to our time and a government we might trust to ‘protect us’ in the interim. Conservatives are falling into a dangerous trap if we allow ourselves to forget our nation’s history. Yes, times are different, but it doesn’t mean that we should abandon basic due process laws that have been valued in western jurisprudence for several centuries and enshrined in our Constitution. While I think Congresswoman Bachmann and many of her colleagues have the best of intentions, the fact remains that their conservative instinct to defend law and order is ultimately defying it.
“(The PATRIOT act allows) warrants that are written by FBI agents; no judge reviews them. This is specifically what James Otis was worried about when he spoke about general warrants that didn’t specify the person or the place, and were written by police officers…. We have checks and balances to try to prevent abuse ….. It will not always be angels in charge of government. You have rules because you want to prevent the day that may occur when you get someone who takes over your government through elected office or otherwise, who is intent on using the tools of government to pry into your affairs, to snoop on what you’re doing, or to punish you for your political and religious beliefs. That’s why we don’t ever want our laws to become so expansive.”
(For future reference, Young Americans For Liberty put together a timeline of the PATRIOT Act battle between Reid and Paul, spanning from February until the vote in May.)
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
This week Senator Rand Paul (RLC-KY) sent out a lengthy letter urging Republicans to sign a petition to Congress on behalf of the National Right to Work Committee in support of the National Right to Work Act which is being considered in the Senate. The email was almost bizarrely long, but I think I can summarize the idea in a few short words. The act would protect workers from being forced against their will to join unions and pay inflated dues which often support political causes they personally oppose.
Those of you familiar with the traditions of the Republican Party – the traditions which the Republican Liberty Caucus wants to restore – know that a cornerstone since the founding of the party has been the idea of free labor. That workers should have the right to choose where they work and to change jobs without coercion from government, employers or unions. This includes the right to join a union, but also the right not to join a union if they prefer not to. It includes equal access to employment for which they are qualified, but also the right of employers to make their own decisions on their own criteria for hiring. Just as we need free markets in goods and services a free society demands a free market in labor.
The text of the petition reads:
Whereas: Federal law permits Big Labor to confiscate $8 billion from American workers’ paychecks every year just to get or keep a job;
Whereas: This forced unionism breeds violent strikes and a hate-the-boss mentality which drive good jobs overseas, jack up prices and risk re-igniting inflation:
Whereas: Union bosses use this forced-dues fortune to corrupt our political system with over a billion dollars every election cycle;
Whereas: Union-puppet politicians routinely vote for higher taxes, bailouts, job-killing bureaucracy and even more porkbarrel spending keeping our nation locked in recession;
Therefore: I urge you in the strongest possible terms to strike a blow for freedom and American prosperity by co-sponsoring and casting your every vote in favor the National Right to Work Act.
Please help support our work to bring our government under control and restore our liberties by donating using the PayPal link below. You can also join the RLC to become part of our network of member-activists.
To make a recurring monthly donation try this link:
Enter the maximum amount to pay each month:
$
USD
Sign up for
The bill is authored by Jim DeMint (RLC-NC) and co-sponsored by all of the RLC endorsees in the Senate. Information and the actual text of the act can be found on OpenCongress.org.
I want to encourage all RLC members and supporters to sign the petition and support this effort. Protecting the rights of workers and employers against the increasingly abusive force of unions is the best way to strike a blow at the heart of the progressive agenda promoted by the Obama administration.
You can find the petition on the NRTW Site. And don’t forget to make a donation to the RLC while you’re here (see links to the right). We need your support to keep aggressively promoting pro-liberty and smaller government legislation like this.
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
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.
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
On Thursday afternoon I’ll be a guest on the Debate Day Moneybomb for the Ron Paul 2012 campaign. I’m lucky enough to be appearing during the segment hosted by noted liberty pundit Wes Messamore and we’ll be talking about Ron Paul, liberty issues and the upcoming debate.
I’m on at 2pm (EST) and you can tune in on the runronpaul.com website. I’m in the honored slot right after Dr. Paul himself and I’m the lead-in for Adam Kokesh. There will be other interesting guests from 9am (EST) up until the start of the debate on Fox at 9pm (EST).
And if you’re watching the debate, come to the RLC website and you can join RLC members and special guests for an online event where we’ll be discussing the debates live and then have a post-mortem after the debate wraps up with a special guest.
Keep fighting for liberty,
Dave Nalle
National Chairman
Republican Liberty Caucus
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
As liberty voters we’re very lucky this year that we have a better choice of candidates than we have had since the days of Goldwater and Taft. With both Governor Gary Johnson and Representative Ron Paul running some of us are finding it hard to figure out which candidate to support and others are bickering and squabbling over their choices rather than celebrating how lucky we really are. Liberty is catching fire in the hearts of America and this campaign proves it.
At this point, early in the primary process, it benefits us to have as many candidates as possible talking about cutting back the federal government and reclaiming our rights. Right now there are no delegates at stake and no serious establishment frontrunner to focus on defeating. That will probably remain true through the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, where it’s all about exposure and there aren’t many delegates to win. After that the race gets serious and there are more and more delegates to be won. At that point we’re going to have to make a choice of who to throw all our efforts and resources behind and it seems obvious to me that the right choice is Ron Paul.
I’ve reached that conclusion for reasons which are both pragmatic and political, and from both perspective he is the gold standard for liberty in 2012.
Practical Advantages
Paul’s practical advantages are obvious. He is better known, has a large established base of followers and a national organization which is well established with an extraordinary record of fundraising success. Fundraising will be particularly important in a race where the Democrats have promised to spend a billion dollars. Paul is already all over the media, especially the cable news networks. He is better known than the other hardcore conservative candidates like Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty. He has multiple bestselling books in print and his followers promote him tirelessly. The level of love and support he has generated says a lot about the man and his ideas. Plus we saw his success at spreading his message in 2008 and now he can build on that base to go even further. Paul has shown he’s a strong debater and an energetic campaigner despite his age, and we need that enthusiasm to beat Obama.
Paul also has long-term associations which will benefit him in the election. He has long been a supporter of pro-liberty groups like the Von Mises Institute and the John Birch Society and was a founding member of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has a wide base of support on the internet from groups like Justin Raimondo’s AntiWar.com and Lew Rockwell and the many political writers at LewRockwell.com, and has built powerful tools for communication on his own networks like RonPaulForums.com and for grassroots support in Campaign for Liberty. Plus it can’t be forgotten that the idea of the Tea Party originated in Paul’s 2008 campaign and many Tea Party voters are still drawn to him.
The Right Ideas
On his political positions Paul is also superior. People keep comparing him to Gary Johnson, but it’s a false comparison. They’re not nearly as similar as Johnson supporters would like us to believe and they really aren’t even competing for the same voters. Ron Paul is a true constitutional conservative and it’s a mistake to call him a libertarian, even if he has a lot in common with that movement. Gary Johnson is more of a moderate libertarian. He’s a minarchist who is a liberal on social issues. He’s closer to Ronald Reagan or the old Rockefeller wing of the party on many issues and he’s too liberal on social issues for Republican primary voters. Paul has a more clearly defined constitutional position and an established reputation for standing on principle.
Ron Paul’s positions are more appealing on a number of issues. He’s the only candidate who is willing to stand up and call for an end to the Federal Reserve, which is a dangerous cabal run by foreign bankers with no basis in Constitutional authority. He’s the only candidate who believes in sound money and a return to the gold standard rather than fractional reserve banking. He’s also the strongest candidate supporting states rights and state sovereignty and an end to federal tyranny under the 14th Amendment.
Perhaps most importantly, Ron Paul is the only candidate brave enough to have a foreign policy which admits the mistakes we’ve made overseas and the disastrous and parasitical nature of our relationship with Israel. It is Israel and it’s powerful lobby which have drawn us into war after war and made us the target of terrorism, and Ron Paul would end that relationship and he would withdraw all of our military bases outside our border and stop spending money to prop up dictators and intervene in the affairs of countries all over the world. He’d get us out of the United Nations, thumb his nose at the New World Order, and strengthen our borders to protect our workers and our jobs.
What is absolutely essential for the primary election is that Paul’s personal values can win over GOP primary voters. While he believes that states rights are sacrosanct and is willing to leave many things up to the states to decide, Paul personally believes in fundamental moral values. He believes in the sanctity of human life from conception, opposes the immorality of gay marriage, supports the right of students to pray in school and the posting of the ten commandments on public property. He believes in economic liberty, but also the liberty to practice religion freely and maintain a traditional Judeo-Christian moral code in our society without the interference of the federal government.
It is these values which do the most to differentiate Paul from Gary Johnson, and it is these values which will win him the support of key voters in the religious right so that he can win a primary victory. When traditionalist Christian voters discover that Johnson personally supports gay marriage and abortion and letting the federal government dictate social policy to the states they will turn against him in droves. Unless Ron Paul is there for them to turn to they may support a socially conservative candidate who is terrible on other issues like Mike Huckabee.
Winning in 2012
Gary Johnson is a great spokesman for libertarian ideas, but he is out of step with many in the Republican party and while he might draw Democrats and independents in the general election, he cannot win in a Republican primary because of his controversial views, and you don’t get to the general election without winning the primary. As a true constitutional conservative Ron Paul does not have that liability. Once his message gets out most Republicans will realize that he’s got the right ideas for them.
If you believe in the Constitution, states rights, ending the Fed, sound money and a non-interventionist foreign policy, then Ron Paul is your candidate. He will end the abuses of the last two administrations, cut back the overgrowth of the federal government, get us out of hock to foreign bankers and end the Bush-Obama era of imperialism, torture and murder.
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
The important Republican Party primary process has begun and two candidates with unapologetic libertarian leanings have entered the Republican field: the elder statesman-country doctor Ron Paul and the former Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson.
The case has been made that you should support both candidacies by leaders in the liberty movement including Nick Gillespie and Peter Schiff. Ultimately, you can only cast one primary vote.
Conventional wisdom supports the notion that Congressman Paul has the organization and fan base to compete. There’s no denying that he has an impeccable ability to fundraise and a fervent fan base. Whether these items will translate to votes is a different matter entirely.
What are the differences between these candidates, who should you pick, and why?
Gary Johnson started a company from scratch in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 1971. The business, Big J Enterprises, eventually grew to employ over 1,000 New Mexicans when he sold it in 1999. It is still among the largest job creators in the state. The Big J way — Gary Johnson’s approach — is simple. He lays it out in his forthcoming book, “The Seven Principles of Good Government.”
His first principle is to become reality-driven. Gary Johnson gathers data, analyzes it, and determines the costs and the benefits. While governing, it’s no surprise that Governor Johnson weighed the costs and benefits of government programs and ultimately made the tough choices that were unpopular with special interest groups and partisans, but created a period of unmatched economic prosperity for New Mexico.
Johnson’s second and third principles are to be honest to all people and always do what’s right. Numerous people have told me that Governor Johnson should simply “switch” his position on the abortion issue to gain popularity, but that would be a far cry from honest. As Governor, Gary Johnson supported legislation that banned late term abortions and allowed parental notification for minors seeking an abortion. He was not only endorsed by the Right to Life Committee, but he also signed on as a supporter to every bill supported by New Mexico Right to Life. President Johnson would appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade, believing that states should make their own determinations on the controversial and personal question. He also supports a woman’s right to make a decision during the early stages of pregnancy, making him personally pro-choice — a position also held by libertarian Republican hero Barry Goldwater.
Living his fourth principle — determine a goal, develop a plan, and act — he emerged from obscurity to win the primary and general elections when the deck was stacked against him. In his recent article “The Guy That Barack Obama Should Worry About,” author Brian Ross, a journalist who was living in Santa Fe in the ‘90s, observed that Johnson won in part by going “after the old-boy political machine” — a necessary piece of the victory puzzle. Johnson introduced himself to the Republican Party, was told he had no chance to win the primary, won, and then went on to win the general election by 10 points.
He won, in part, because of his fifth principle: Communicate to your audience. A recent op-ed from a New Mexico newspaper (El Defensor Chieftain) opined, “In these times of the coached, coiffed and vacuum-sealed candidate with the entourage of handlers and spinners, the candidate who manages to be just himself is a breath of fresh air. His message will appeal to independent-minded Republicans, Independents and anybody else who’s fed up.”
This principle will help Johnson in early GOP primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire, which require candidates to actually have conversations and sell themselves to primary voters. Governor Johnson is going to take the time to meet with people one on one. He is able to connect with those he talks to and can convince people through conversation to embrace the liberty message. After all, connecting with people is what allowed Governor Johnson to succeed in business and in state politics.
Principle six for Governor Johnson goes along with his direct nature: Don’t hesitate to deliver bad news. Governor Johnson has zoned in on the debt issue and has made it his signature issue. Every speech he gives hones in on how 43 cents of every dollar the federal government spends must be cut. He hammers at the debt problem and delivers the bad news with the optimism that our economic woes can improve — with the same libertarian solutions he implemented in New Mexico from 1994 to 2003.
Gary Johnson’s seventh and final principle: Do what it takes to get the job done. Johnson has invested the last year and half to meet with liberty activists and concerned Americans all across the country. He is determined to have his voice heard in the 2012 debate and insists he would not be running if he didn’t have something to add to the race.
You’ve already met Congressman Paul. Here are Governor Johnson’s comparative advantages, as I see them:
Issues Distinctions
Both Paul and Johnson have the same policy prescription at the federal level regarding abortion: get the government out of the issue. They largely agree on economic policy, with both subscribing to the Austrian school of economic thought — but there is variation. Unfortunately, Paul opposes NAFTA, while Johnson supports it. Congressman Paul is one of the most aggressive earmarkers in Congress, even while often — though not always — voting against the final versions of the bills in which the earmarks are placed. Both support auditing and abolishing the Federal Reserve, although Paul has made it his signature issue. Both candidates support the repeal of the income tax and replacing it with nothing, the flat tax, or the Fair Tax. Johnson favors term limits for politicians at the state and federal levels, while Paul does not.
Regarding foreign policy, Paul supporters have argued that Governor Johnson supports “humanitarian wars,” which I previously explored and refuted. Both candidates have opposed all recent interventions — Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya — but Johnson says we should assist foreign nations in select cases where genocide is occurring. He recently stated that he supports keeping Guantanamo open because prisoners would have to be kept somewhere else if it was closed. His statement did not discuss the treatment of those being held, despite misleading attempts by Johnson critics to insinuate otherwise. Recently, Gary Johnson clarified his stance on Guantanamo:
“- No criminal or terrorist suspect captured by the U.S. should be subject to physical or psychological torture. This includes water-boarding and other interrogation techniques that may yield inaccurate information or permanently damage a suspect. Likewise, no criminal or terrorist suspect captured by the U.S. should be transferred to foreign agents who may resort to treatment methods deemed cruel and unusual by the U.S.
- Individuals incarcerated unjustly by the U.S. should have the ability to seek compensation through the courts.
- The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba must be closed after all detainees have been tried by courts that presume innocence before guilt.”
It’s interesting to note that four of the aforementioned issues of disagreement — earmarks, term limits, Israel, and Guantanamo — are areas where Congressman Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul, agrees more with Gary Johnson than his father.
The social issue and immigration policy distinctions are where Johnson scores the most points. Congressman Ron Paul recently expressed support for the Defense of Marriage Act, voted for a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, and is an advocate of removing birthright citizenship from the Constitution. Governor Gary Johnson believes gay marriage is a state issue and supports gay civil unions. As a former border state Governor, he adamantly opposes a border fence and hopes to establish a temporary guest worker program and enforce current immigration laws to secure the border. Both candidates are opposed to the War on Drugs and favor drug decriminalization.
Electoral and Governing Experience
Gary Johnson entered politics for the first time in 1994. After approaching the GOP about the gubernatorial nomination, he was told he should run for the legislature. Undeterred, he instead spent his own savings to promote his common sense, business approach to government. His platform emphasized tax cuts, job creation, halting the growth of state government, and a tough line on law and order. His campaign slogan was “People Before Politics”. He first won the primary against a state legislator and subsequently won the General Election against incumbent Democratic Governor Bruce King, 50% to 40%. Party registration in the state of New Mexico at the time was 2-to-1 Democrat.
While serving in office, Governor Johnson vetoed 200 of 424 bills put in front of him in the first six months — 48% of all legislation — and used the line-item veto on most of the remaining bills. According to former New Mexico Republican National Committee member Mickey D. Barnett, “Any time someone approached him about legislation for some purpose, his first response always was to ask if government should be involved in that to begin with.” This was not only because of Johnson’s personal principles, but also in keeping with his campaign promise of approaching government from the perspective of costs versus benefits. In 1995, he called on the Republicans in Congress to eliminate the budget deficit through proportional cuts from the entire federal budget .
Hear Johnson’s approach in this recent interview with CNN:
In 1998, Governor Johnson ran for re-election against Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez. He campaigned on continuing the programs of his first term: improving schools while cutting state spending, taxes, and bureaucracy, along with using “common sense” veto power to rein in on waste. Fielding a strong Hispanic candidate in a 40% Hispanic state, Democrats expected to oust Johnson, but he won 55%-45%, illustrating his broad support base among independents, fiscally conservative Democrats, voters of different ethnic backgrounds, and Republicans.
Johnson proposed wide-ranging tax cuts — repealing a tax on prescription drugs, cutting income taxes by $47 million, and cutting the state gasoline tax by six cents per gallon. He set state and national records for his use of veto powers, vetoing nearly 750 bills (not including thousands of line-item vetoes), gaining him the nickname “Governor Veto.” He also worked diligently in his second term to implement a school voucher system, which never occurred due to inaction from the legislature. In 1999 and again in 2000, he proposed the largest school voucher system in the country to enroll 100,000 students in its first year.
Congressman Paul has run numerous campaigns from the mid-1970s to present, so there’s no doubt he’s an experienced campaigner – having won election eleven times. In addition to losing the U.S. Senate race against Phil Gramm in the early 1980s, Congressman Paul also lost two Congressional races, one in the mid-1970s and another in the late-1970s. He has also only won election in his Lake Jackson/Victoria area district in Texas (whose district number was changed various times over the years), where citizens largely already agree with him on policy issues and the population is roughly 650,000 and far less diverse than New Mexico’s population, both in terms of ideology and ethnic background. Johnson, by contrast, campaigned in a state of 1.9 million people in a majority Democrat area and a majority-minority (non-white) state. Johnson’s electoral successes illustrate a strikingly broad appeal.
While Dr. Paul has stayed true to principle, he has been far less effective in the legislative process, i.e., his attempts to pass legislation have not been successful. He now chairs the House Subcommittee overseeing the Federal Reserve, which is a long-awaited and well-deserved recognition of the popularity of his views on the Fed resulting from the 2008 campaign.
Governor Johnson is a tested candidate, since he had to actually run the state of New Mexico. He did it with tremendous courage and conviction, proving that he can be trusted to follow through on campaign promises and is committed to principle.
Selling the Message and Growing the Movement
Who is attracted to the messages being sold by Congressman Paul and Governor Johnson?
There’s no concrete data as of yet, but Johnson has a history of attracting moderates, fiscally conservative Democrats, Republicans (of course), Independents, and white and non-white voters. This is a broad base of potential supporters.
Some of Paul’s supporters, while enthusiastic, also turn people off from their candidate by making statements which don’t really represent his positions accurately. At RonPaulForums.com and DailyPaul.com, criticisms of Israel and the Federal Reserve too often focus on Jews as the problem rather than more substantive concerns. Such conspiracy theories and attacks are not productive for the liberty movement. In fact, they hurt the liberty message and their sentiments are anti-libertarian according to Congressman Paul himself. Unfortunately, neither the Congressman nor his numerous organizations have ever put out a message to clearly distance themselves from these unappealing arguments.
The goal of both campaigns is to grow the movement (and hopefully win election). Governor Johnson is best suited to do that because most GOP primary voters and 2012 GOP debate watchers will have already heard Congressman Paul’s message. By supporting a new messenger with a different approach to selling the message, there is a tremendous opportunity to turn more people on to libertarian principles.
Additionally, who do we want to sell the liberty message at the grassroots level? Johnson can attract new and different voices, such as women, gays, and Hispanics into the Republican Party and the liberty movement. Given the growing Hispanic population in our country, this demographic will be an important factor in future electoral successes, and Johnson has a proven track record of gaining their support.
“Gary Johnson has no name recognition,” some Paul supporters chant. Neither did Ron Paul when I first became active in his campaign in January, 2007. Fortunately, the first GOP Presidential debate is on Thursday, so Johnson will have the opportunity to increase his name recognition.
The GOP debates and the 2008 campaign dramatically increased Congressman Paul’s name ID and the same can hold true for Johnson in 2012. Given the age difference between Dr. Paul — who is 75 — and Governor Johnson — who is 58 — it’s very reality-based (using a Johnson principle) to assist the former Governor increase his name identification for not only his 2012 campaign, but also for future endeavors.
Most importantly, it is key to have a leader who can run in future elections should 2012 not be the year Americans embrace our message.
Unresolved Baggage
In addition to the vocal conspiratorial-minded supporters who are a challenge when trying to make a dent in electoral politics, Paul also has two items of baggage which his opponents in the primary or in the general election are going to raise to attack him.
First, he has not addressed criticisms in the media about accepting money from known white supremacists like Don Black, who donated $500 to the Paul 2008 campaign. Mr. Black was the former Grand Wizard of the KKK. It seems that keeping his $500 would have been less important than sending a message opposing Black’s views by rejecting that donation. That would have been a smart move for a campaign focused on winning.
Second, the media is not on Paul’s side and they gleefully targeted him for harassment and marginalization in 2008 because of material published in the Ron Paul newsletter. Those attacks have not been answered effectively and will be raised against Paul again in this campaign. These newsletter articles appeared under Paul’s name and included racist comments which clearly do not reflect his beliefs. They implied that blacks were more likely to commit crimes than whites as well as rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King, Jr., who is described as a “pro-Communist philanderer.” While Congressman Paul did not write or approve the articles before they were published, it is inevitable that they will be used against him again because he has not identified the author or held him responsible.
Given that Paul’s general election opponent would be Barack Obama, if Paul makes it through the primary his general election campaign might be over before it even begins when the media starts to play up these two items of baggage.
In comparison, Governor Johnson has relatively little controversial baggage. One issue that has been brought up is that he and his wife divorced in 2005 — which is true — and his then ex-wife passed away in late 2006 of hypertensive heart disease. Governor Johnson’s two adult children both support his 2012 Presidential campaign, so there isn’t any issue here except that the Johnsons divorced. It has also been mentioned that Governor Johnson is not presently married. While true, Governor Gary Johnson is engaged to be married.
Electability
The last time a member of the House of Representatives was elected President was James Garfield in 1880. It’s more likely that a former Governor would be elected President, and someone with real business and executive experience can more easily expose Obama’s unsuitable credentials. As I noted above, early primary state voters identify with candidates who are willing to meet with them and discuss issues in a face to face setting.
Congressman Paul is in impeccable shape and his mind is sharp. However, the fact is that he is in his mid-70s. Age combined with his responsibility to his district and in Congress require travel between DC and Texas — a lot. This reality makes it less likely that Congressman Paul will campaign for weeks at a time in key states like New Hampshire or South Carolina. By contrast, Governor Johnson is invested in the 2012 campaign, is unconstrained by a current elected position, and appears to have tremendous focus on making a dent in the New Hampshire primary.
Johnson has yet to be formally introduced to the GOP electorate nationwide, but when he is, I suspect he will be considered among the most likable of 2012 hopefuls. As John Avlon writes in The Daily Beast,
“In Johnson, libertarians might have their most accomplished modern advocate — a proven vote getter with demonstrated crossover appeal, a self-made millionaire and iron-man competitor who supports marijuana legalization (and let’s be honest, that libertarian plank has always been a source of the movement’s popularity on college campuses). More importantly, he has actually reined in government spending as an executive — leaving his successor a budget in the black.”
If your first choice and mainstream Republican Party members’ second choice — a position that Governor Tim Pawlenty, “everyone’s backup choice”, seems to be holding at the moment — then Johnson can do very well in 2012. Based on likability alone, Johnson’s chances are promising given the lackluster field. Even if he doesn’t win in 2012, he could run in the future — something that would be less likely for Congressman Paul due to his age.
Having two pro-liberty GOP contenders is better than having just one. In these two men we are fortunate enough to have candidates who will not talk negatively about each other, who believe in our message, and who can speak to different constituencies.
In Governor Johnson you find a man with clear principles, integrity, entrepreneurial, and executive experience. And he even climbed Mount Everest with a broken leg.
Our government is broken and people need their faith restored in the American dream, so look “big picture” when choosing a candidate.
Which messenger can help us restore in liberty now and in the future?
I urge you to let Gary Johnson sell palatable libertarian solutions to America so we can once again be a free people.
Without support from liberty-minded activists, Johnson’s campaign won’t be able to reach these folks with the liberty message, so get involved today.
Aaron Biterman was involved in the early stages of the Ron Paul 2008 campaign, participating in a conference call with Dr. Paul and the Republican Liberty Caucus in January, 2007 and subsequently creating the Ron Paul 2008 Facebook group that eventually gained more than 80,000 members during the campaign.
He has been active Republican politics since 2004. He is an Advisory Board member of the Northern Virginia Tea Party and writes for The Tea Party Review, the only print publication of the Tea Party movement. Send him mail.
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
Longtime RLC Advisory Board member and past Honorary Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus Dr. Ron Paul announced that he has formed an exploratory committee, the first step in his formal process of seeking the Republican Party nomination in 2012.
On Monday, the soft-spoken country doctor appeared on ABC’s “The View” as well as “The Colbert Report” on Comedy Central.
On Tuesday, he formally announced his exploratory committee and released his Iowa campaign team’s leadership. The news received widespread mention in the press, including the Des Moines Register and the Boston Globe, Politico, FOX News, USA Today, Washington Examiner, and Huffington Post, among many other publications.
Here, Congressman Paul talks about the race on CNN’s morning program, earlier this morning.
Congressman Paul was the Honorary Chairman of the RLC for one term, 1995-1996. He is known for his pro-liberty positions on the issues confronting our country.
The RLC has not endorsed any Presidential candidates since Steve Forbes in 1996. We let our members decide who they want to support and only formally endorse a candidate if our chartered state affiliates unanimously agree on a candidate to endorse.
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
Last week, the day after former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson announced his Presidential bid, antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo authored a piece he likely had been salivating to publish for some period of time entitled “Gary Johnson: Caveat Emptor.”
It’s the attack on Gary Johnson heard ‘round the Paulosphere, having been circulated by fans of likely 2012 Presidential candidate and fellow libertarian Republican, Congressman Ron Paul.
Raimondo, a skilled writer, did some digging on Gary Johnson to spread the word to the faithful that they shouldn’t waste their time on what he makes out to be an unprincipled sellout — a real statist hack.
Raimondo’s three main complaints with former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, as outlined in his article, are that: • Johnson supports what is referred to in a Weekly Standard article as “humanitarian wars”; • Johnson supports the U.S. alliance with Israel; and • Johnson is supported by the “cosmotarians”, as Raimondo’s subheading asserts.
Cosmo-wha?
Let’s take this third point first, since it has little to do with policy and much to do with personality. Raimondo spends more than 1/3 of his article talking personality and internal movement politics.
Lew Rockwell, a longtime Raimondo ally, wrote at least two negative commentaries about Gary Johnson on days one and two of his campaign (1). Raimondo and Rockwell belong to the segment of the broader liberty movement that is unapologetically anti-war. While they also call themselves “anti-state,” the movers and shakers in this faction often hold conservative positions on social issues. In other words, sometimes they prefer government interference and other times they do not. (Note that these same authors criticize the inconsistencies they see in others on an almost constant basis.)
This is in tune with their most prominent advocate, Congressman Ron Paul (a RLC Advisory Board member held in great esteem by this author), who shares their libertarian bent but feels at ease with the paleo-conservative wing of the Republican Party. As an example, hit piece author Justin Raimondo was involved in Pat Buchanan’s campaigns in 1992, 1996, and 2000. Congressman Ron Paul recently expressed his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, voted for a fence on the U.S.-Mexico border, and is an advocate of removing birthright citizenship from the Constitution.
This “paleo” wing of the liberty movement has long disliked the “libertarian” wing of the liberty movement, who they call “cosmotarians” or “Beltway Libertarians.” The “beltway” crew consists of what Raimondo labels in his article the “Kochtopus” (brothers David and Charles Koch), the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine. The history of the infighting between these factions dates to at least the mid-1980s and won’t be settled anytime soon.
The key point here is that Justin Raimondo approached his article from a biased perspective to begin with. In other words, the score was settled long before Gary Johnson arrived on the scene. Johnson is the unfortunate punching bag because of his interest in bringing more people into the libertarian movement — the types of people Raimondo may not want to join us.
“Humanitarian Wars”
Is stopping genocide the same as a humanitarian war? Is it possible to stop human rights abuses via government action without engaging in a war?
Author Justin Raimondo claims that Governor Gary Johnson supports humanitarian wars. However, nowhere does Johnson mention the word humanitarian, the word war, or both words in conjunction with each other (2).
Instead, Johnson says that “in principle” he would try to “positively influence” or “stop” genocide in foreign nations. He doesn’t say he would intervene in ALL foreign nations where genocide is occurring, but he does say that he does not support nation-building in any form or fashion. Couple this with his principled opposition to the wars in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and you have a candidate who is a non-interventionist with the possible exception of using government to aid people being oppressed in foreign nations.
Call me crazy, but this is hardly the least libertarian position I’ve heard on foreign policy — especially among those running for President. Most libertarian Republicans I know supported intervention in World War II, in part because the United States was attacked, but also because millions of Europeans were being slaughtered and tortured.
To rule out supporting Governor Johnson on the basis of his policy position to potentially stop genocide in a foreign nation is silly.
Unsurprisingly, Justin Raimondo misleads his readers to draw the conclusion that Governor Johnson’s foreign policy is similar to the Obama Doctrine. Raimondo’s false conclusion ignores the fact that Governor Johnson opposes the the War in Libya. How is a candidate opposed the Obama war equated to supporting the Obama Doctrine? It doesn’t add up.
Big, Bad Israel
Raimondo’s favorite topic — undoubtedly — is bashing Israel. Gary Johnson’s Our America Initiative issues page indicates that Governor Johnson supports Israel’s right to defend itself. That is a reasonable position for any libertarian to take, as I explain in my article “Rand Paul’s Stance on Israel A Lesson for the Liberty Movement to Follow.”
Senator Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul), during his 2010 campaign, defended Israel’s right to self defense, saying, “As a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself. Whether it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone.” More recently, Senator Paul has advocated ending U.S. aid to Israel.
In a document I obtained from Gary Johnson’s (c)(4) group the Our America Initiative, Governor Johnson says that “a clear national security interest and the fundamental defense of the United States” justifies U.S. support for Israel. “Our direct military funding support to Israel totals about $3 billion a year, and the majority of that money is spent buying equipment and technology from U.S. companies. That $3 billion is less than we gave General Motors, and the cost of not having a strong, democratic ally in the Middle East is incalculable,” Governor Johnson concludes in the document. He says the costs of the continued relationship are “paltry when compared with th(e) benefits”(3).
Gary Johnson also says that, as President, he would work to support Israel in case it is attacked “militarily.” That’s a big if, since the Arabs have lost six wars in the Middle East in the last six decades. Governor Johnson, like many others, sees the United States having a strong relationship with the one nation in the Middle East region which provides rights and liberties to its people as valuable. While most libertarians do not support alliances in any form or fashion (including this libertarian), obviously Governor Johnson does in one instance. He should explain more about why the U.S.-Israel alliance is more important than other alliances.
Fortunately, you don’t have to agree with Governor Johnson on the issue of Israel to support his candidacy in the same way that you don’t have to agree with Congressman Paul’s vote to build a fence along the Mexican border.
Mr. Raimondo attempts to paint Gary Johnson as a statist throughout his article, but he concludes that Governor Johnson is “Ron Paul Lite” — a palatable, principled advocate of individual liberty and limited government.
Gary Johnson, says Raimondo, is “Paul Lite, Paul without the hard edges, without the ‘kooky’ end-the-Fed stuff, without the social conservatism, without the stubborn devotion to principle and to Austrian economics, specifically – in short, a hollowed out libertarianism, without any style and surely without its soul.” (Note: Gary Johnson has said he would audit and abolish the Fed and adheres to the Austrian school of economics.)
Welcome to real politics, Mr. Raimondo, where (unfortunate as it may be) kooky doesn’t win elections.
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson won election in a majority-minority state — a state that is two to one Democrat — twice (1994 and 1998). In Johnson, we’re fortunate enough to have a Presidential candidate who is committed to principle, has a record to prove it, and is a willing and able-bodied standard-bearer to spread the libertarian message to the masses.
There’s simply no reason you should accept Justin Raimondo’s bid to make the perfect the enemy of the awesome.
(2) The article in question is from the Weekly Standard. “Humanitarian war” is coined by the author. View the original article and the author’s follow-up.
(3) The document I obtained is called “Continued Investment in U.S.-Israel Relations is Worth the Cost.”
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
On April 21st, from the shadows of the New Hampshire state capitol building, as well as the national political scene, Gary Johnson announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination for President in 2012. Just four days later, it became known that Ron Paul was forming an exploratory committee, a first step in a process that almost certainly will end in an official presidential run. This back-and-forth is in many ways emblematic of the growing divide between supporters of Johnson and Paul.
Many of us saw this coming. There is this underlying perception that the liberty movement ain’t big enough for the both of ‘em. Each side is concerned that the other candidate will hurt their candidate’s chances to win the GOP nomination. I believe it is from this that all other debates stem. Don’t get me wrong; each side has raised legitimate points, but fear of the harm the “other” candidate will do is what is making the disagreements personal. I want to address the concerns in hopes that I can help quell the personal and divisive nature of Johnson v. Paul 2012.
It is somewhat true that the presence of multiple libertarian candidates will to a certain extent split the vote. The Paul supporters will claim that Johnson is stealing former and potential Paul supporters. While it is true that this has and will occur, Johnson supporters can just as easily make the claim that Paul will be stealing potential Johnson supporters because Johnson was the first to announce his candidacy. Come to think of it, Ron Paul has yet to announce he is running for president. This is nothing more than jejune bickering, and it needs to stop.
Though there is a semblance of truth to it, the vote-splitting concern is a little overblown. Each candidate that enters the race is going to siphon votes from the most ideologically similar candidates. This is the nature of primaries, and as each candidate drops out of the race, most of the votes that had gone to him or her will be divided among the remaining candidates. If at some point Johnson or Paul decides to drop out of the race, I believe it is almost a certainty that one will endorse the other; that will give the remaining candidate an observable boost, which will at least promote the perception of momentum. If neither candidate drops out of the race, the result would be two prominent libertarian voices in the Republican race.
And isn’t that what all of this is about? Ron Paul’s 2008 race has been an immeasurable boon to the liberty movement. If we are to look seriously at that run, though, it was never about winning. Dr. Paul has made it clear he has little if any desire to actually become president. If he does officially run for president in 2012, it will be a reluctant response to public pressure. Ron Paul ran as a message candidate in 2008, and he’s going to be doing the same thing in 2012. The RealClearPolitics aggregate poll has Paul polling at 6% right now. While I would not suggest it is impossible for Ron Paul to win in 2012, starting out with that low of a number does not bode well for victory.
Gary Johnson will be doing the same thing in 2012. This election cycle will be for Gary Johnson what 2008 was for Ron Paul. This effect would be greater if Paul ultimately decided not to run, but in either case Gary Johnson is not going to win in 2012. For Johnson, this is more about 2016 than it is about 2012. Given the political reality that neither is going to win, there should be no reason to attack either one of them for ruining the cause or whatever other ridiculous allegations are being said. When you are a message candidate, you want your message to be as loud as possible, and two voices are louder than one.
Both Johnson and Paul supporters should welcome the other candidate because of this. Paul supporters should think back to the 2008 debates (well, the ones in which Ron Paul was actually allowed to participate). Do you remember the ostracism and general disrespect with which Dr. Paul was treated? He was cast aside as a lone kook rambling on about the Fed and other crazy things. That’s an easy thing to do when only one candidate is speaking the words that are being dismissed as looney. If you add another candidate to the mix saying the same thing, it adds credibility to the message of both. In a sense, Johnson and Paul need each other to be taken seriously.
It is my sincere hope that these reasons will lessen the infighting that so often plagues the liberty movement. In Part II of this article, I will go over the actual policy differences that are often the subject of ridicule from the opposing camp. As I will show, although each side will focus on the differences, even where Johnson and Paul differ, they aren’t that different.
So let us put this behind us. I thought this was a revolution. I’ve been seeing much more hate than love recently.
This is not the Ron Paul movement. It is not the Gary Johnson movement. This is the libertarian movement, and the more soldiers for liberty we have the more successful our fight will be.
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
Republican Liberty Caucus Advisory Board member and Chairman of the Our America Initiative, former New Mexico Governor Gary E. Johnson, yesterday announced that he is seeking the Republican nomination for President of the United States.
Governor Johnson appeared on Dylan Ratigan’s show on MSNBC, on FOX Business, and on John King USA with Jessica Yellin filling in for John King. View his appearance on John King USA, which was very good.
News articles about Governor Johnson’s campaign were featured in almost every major news outlet, including Politico.com, DailyCaller.com, USA Today, CBS News, ABC News, Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor, and numerous other publications.
Governor Johnson has made a tremendous effort to meet with RLC members from across the country as Chairman of the Our America Initiative. Most recently, he spoke at the 2011 RLC National Convention. He is known for his pro-liberty positions on the issues confronting our country.
The RLC has not endorsed any Presidential candidates since Steve Forbes in 1996. We let our members decide who they want to support and only formally endorse a candidate if our chartered state affiliates unanimously agree on a candidate to endorse.
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC.
On Thursday afternoon I’ll be a guest on the Debate Day Moneybomb for the Ron Paul 2012 campaign. I’m lucky enough to be appearing during the segment hosted by noted liberty pundit Wes Messamore and we’ll be talking about Ron Paul, liberty issues and the upcoming debate.
As liberty voters we’re very lucky this year that we have a better choice of candidates than we have had since the days of Goldwater and Taft. With both Governor Gary Johnson and Representative Ron Paul running some of us are finding it hard to figure out which candidate to support and others are bickering and squabbling over their choices rather than celebrating how lucky we really are. Liberty is catching fire in the hearts of America and this campaign proves it.
