Yesterday I discussed the Maine Republican Party Convention, where Delegates decided to adopt a new platform. Above is a very brief video of the vote taking place. Note how the Chair required two votes because she obviously did not think the Constitution-friendly platform was going to pass.
I wasn’t at the Maine Republican Party Convention this weekend, so it’s hard for me to comment on what occurred. From the accounts I have read, it appears that some of the constitutionalist wing of the Republican Party (Ron Paul supporters, mostly) — including some Tea Party activists — felt unrepresented at the previous Maine Republican Party Convention and planned to make themselves a known quantity at the Convention this weekend.
They did so by organizing in advance. Several of them made it onto the Platform Committee and several others had proposed changes to the platform that would strike moderate phraseology and replace it with more hard-line stances. I commend these activists for actually working to change the Republican Party from within. That’s the mission of the Republican Liberty Caucus!
About 1,800 folks attended the Convention, so for the Ron Paul faction of the party to have any impact at all shows just how much influence Ron Paul and the Tea Parties have had over the Republican Party in the past two years.
The platform now features:
- A declaration of state sovereignty
- A call for the passage of “read the bill” legislation
- Opposition to the fairness doctrine
- Opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act
- Investigation of global warming shenanigans
- Balancing the federal budget and paying off debt
- A call for Auditing the Federal Reserve
- Rejecting cap and trade
- Freezing future stimulus payments
- Institute zero based budgeting
- A statement that health care is not a right
- Eliminating the Department of Education
- Prohibiting funding for ACORN or like organizations
- Opposition to any and all treaties with the United Nations
- The passage of a Congressional reform act, including:
….. o 12 year term limits for all members of Congress
….. o Removal of Congressional pensions
….. o Forcing Congress to participate in Social Security and health care (the same system we use)
- “Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion”
- Nativist anti-immigrant language, including the removal of Maine’s “sanctuary state” status
- A declaration to “Seal the Borders”
- a statement that marriage should be between a man and woman
- “Return to the principles of Austrian economics”
- Resisting the creation of “one world government”
At first glance, this seems like a major victory, but hold on.
Republican Liberty Caucus of Maine Chairman Ken Lindell and former RLC National Committeeman Matt Gagnon (who hails from The Pine Tree state) both find several problems with the platform overhaul. I do, too.
According to Lindell, a former Maine State Representative, “There is a whole lot of stuff in the new platform that I really like and really dislike. It would have been better if the Platform Committee had done its job and taken the proposals for changes to the platform seriously. The end result would have been better written and more presentable.” Although he does conclude, “I think that it is a very positive development that activists who are new to the party have been able to succeed where earlier they were simply ignored and dismissed.”
Says Gagnon: “It is very obviously slapped together, and almost entirely Federally focused in nature. I do not believe this platform gives very many reasons at all for Maine voters to vote for the Republican Party.”
I agree with my colleagues.
But more importantly, when did gay-bashing, a fence along the border, or religious dogma become part of the movement for less government and more freedom?
Ron Paul supporters should respect Ron Paul’s original positions on these issues:
1) Homosexuals are fellow human beings who should be afforded equality under the law.
2) Immigrants should be respected with the same dignity we afford other Americans; people should be free to seek out better lives for themselves and their families; the problem is with the entitlement society that has been fostered by decades of government dependency.
3) Religion is a private matter that should be kept out of government.
I would have preferred the platform without the last six points mentioned above. I don’t know how returning to Austrian economics is possible when our country has never been guided by Austrian economics.
Overall, the platform is a step in the right direction, but it still not a libertarian document.
Many Ron Paul supporters find themselves at odds with the Republican Party over the issue of American involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Ron Paul they believe that wars of occupation and nation building are unconstitutional and they cannot understand why Republicans who claim to share their belief in the Constitution support those wars.
They make the same mistake that Ron Paul himself did when he attacked Rudy Giuliani over this issue in the first presidential debate of 2008. They make themselves look anti-Republican and even anti-American because they do not understand the perspective of many traditional Republicans or the basis on which those Republicans find themselves supporting these wars.
Then the battle-lines are drawn up and both sides become entrenched in their ideology without trying to understand each others’ perspective. The Ron Paul supporters become convinced that traditional Republicans are a bunch of pro-war “neocons” and more mainstream Republicans get the idea that Ron Paul supporters are radical, anti-American peaceniks, when the truth is that neither perception is even close to accurate.
While there are a small number of Stalinistic, pro-war expansionists in the GOP, their viewpoint is alien to the party and is not shared by most Republicans. Most Republicans who support our current wars do not do so because they are in favor of war or of imperialism, but because they are unquestioningly pro-America. They may believe in a strong national defense, but they do not believe in wars of conquest and occupation. They oppose the anti-war position, not because they like war, but because they dislike those who take issue with the actions of America as a nation no matter what the reason.
They operate from the perspective that our government is good, not because government is good, but because our government is American and America is good. They therefore assume that the actions of our government, including making war, must be good and right actions because they are the actions of an American government.
Despite its inherently irrational nature, this would be an understandable and even excusable position for them to take if the government of the United States were, in fact, the government which we are supposed to have under the Constitution and if the government still followed the principles of the Constitution and the founding fathers. If that were the case and the government entered into a war, then it would be impossible for that war not to be undertaken justly and it would be traitorous to oppose it.
Most Republicans act on the assumption that we still live under a government which operates legitimately and constitutionally and that is the basis for their outrage with those who oppose the government’s actions. They are not awakened to how far we have drifted from legitimate, American-style, constitutional government and they are still acting on the mistaken assumption that we have the government which we ought to have and that its actions are legitimate on that basis.
So if you are a Ron Paul style constitutionalist, don’t make the mistake of calling other Republicans “neocons” or warmongers just because they defend the nation’s actions even when you believe those actions are wrong. From their perspective that makes you a traitor and an enemy of the Constitution, because all they see is that you are attacking the Republic, not the reasoning behind your actions.
You can’t change the perception that the government is good by attacking the government because those who still believe the government is good will turn against you. It’s kind of a catch-22 situation.
You need to convince them not that our government is bad, but that the government we have is effectively not our government at all. You can do this by laying out for them what government ought to be under the Constitution and then let them see for themselves the shortcomings of government as it is compared to government as it should be.
The fact that the Democrats are in power also presents a valuable opportunity, because Republicans of all varieties are willing to believe that Democrats and their policies are evil. So if you go after big government and its excesses as products of Democrat policy you can get your foot in the door very easily.
It’s a short trip from condemning the actions of Obama and the Democrats to realizing that those actions are wrong even when they are the actions of Republicans. Patriotic Republicans who would never question the actions of their government under other circumstances will quickly change their tune when they are perceived to be the actions of Democrats or even of Republicans who are acting like Democrats.
Before you can even begin to discuss the war with them you need to lay this sort of groundwork and make them aware that our government is no longer operating on Constitutional principles. That is where you really disagree and once you resolve that disagreement by educating them, then the secondary issues of war and nation building and the tyranny of the security state will become ones on which you will soon find common ground.
When they understand that you are defending the Republic as it ought to be rather than attacking the Republic as it is they will understand that you are allies, not enemies.
Chris Moody at Cato blogs about a panel held at Cato in which three Members of Congress admit that most Republican Members of Congress now recognize it was a mistake to invade Iraq.
So why are the NRSC, NRCC, and Republican National Committee still propping up Dick Cheney and Karl Rove again?
The Alameda County Republican Party (ACRP) in California has a history of hostility, lawsuits, and in-fighting. But the November 17th monthly meeting is shaping up to be a war zone.
Last week, the ACRP Executive Committee gave their approval (4 ayes, 1 no, 1 abstain) to a resolution that would make a non-interventionist foreign policy the official position of the county party.
To pass, the resolution must receive 2/3rds approval from County Committee members at the November 17th meeting in San Leandro.
The county party is lead by RLC member Jerry Salcido, and most of its officers are also RLC members. Looking at the Alameda County GOP Central Committee, I see at least 12-15 RLC members, too. I guess we’ll find out if we have a majority on November 17.
Hopefully other county Republican Parties also consider adopting this proposed resolution.
Alameda County Republican Party — Proposed Resolution
Submitted by: Walter Stanley III, David LaTour, and Jerry Salcido
“Whereas, our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interests; and
Whereas, the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous; and
Whereas, propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers America and our allies; and
Whereas, occupying countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to the hatred directed toward us; and
Whereas, losing over 6,000 American Military personnel in the Middle East since September 11, 2001 is not a fair trade off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani and Afghan people are killed or displaced; and
Whereas, torture, even if referred to as “enhanced interrogation techniques” is self-destructive and produces no useful information and that contracting it out to a third world country or a corporation is just as evil; and
Whereas, war and military spending is always destructive to the economy; and
Whereas, war time spending is paid for through the deceitful process of inflating and borrowing; and
Whereas, war time conditions always undermine personal liberty; and
Whereas, we as small government conservatives see our government’s interventionist foreign policy providing the greatest incentive to expand the government; and
Whereas, the only logical, conservative position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world; and
Whereas, the official positions for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests; and
Whereas, the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations; and
Whereas, our aggressive foreign policy and seemingly permanent presence in other countries throughout the world has served to weaken our national defense at home; and
Whereas, the borders’ of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are more secure than our own borders here at home; and
Whereas, our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and never changes from one administration to the next; and
Whereas, Christianity teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression; and
Whereas, diplomacy is superior to bombs and bribes and the illusion of protecting America; and
Whereas, the aggressive foreign policy of so called “neo-conservatives” is anything but conservative and has wasted more than $1 trillion on nation building and billions more on foreign aid; and
Whereas, there is a strong tradition of non-interventionism in the Republican Party that is exemplified by the legacy of Senator Robert Taft and the Old Right.
Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Alameda County Republican Party supports a non-interventionist foreign policy as advocated by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and believes costly undeclared wars and the occupation of other countries only serves to weaken our national defense and strengthen the resolve along with the ranks of our enemies.
2009 is the year of the party purge.
That’s one way of characterizing what has been taking place in the Republican Party as it relates to Republican Liberty Caucus members.
As voters that identify as Republicans continue to plummet to new lows (just 20 percent according to an October ABC/Washington Post survey), some state or local Republican Parties have targeted their most liberty-oriented members (undoubtedly members of the Republican Liberty Caucus) for removal.
An interesting strategy to build the Republican coalition — let’s boot out the Republicans that most value the Republican Party platform!
RLC members in Florida and Indiana — and, now, Tennessee — have been removed from elected positions, or have been targeted for removal.
Last week, the Davidson County Republican Party — representing the largest county in Tennessee — announced an effort to remove Vice-Chairman Matt Collins from his elected position. The Davidson County Republican Party Executive Committee voted 14 to 5 to begin the process to remove Mr. Collins from his position.
Collins is also the Vice-Chairman of the recently formed Republican Liberty Caucus of Tennessee. In response, the RLC has issued a press release defending Mr. Collins.
“This is the third state in the last year in which party insiders have tried to purge grassroots activists belonging to the Republican Liberty Caucus,” said Dave Nalle, National Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus. Purges also took place in Marion County, Indiana, where RLC member Liz Karlson was removed from her Ward Chair position, and in Florida, where five Republican Liberty Caucus members were removed from the party for criticizing party leadership or opposing candidates with a history of fiscal irresponsibility and raising taxes.
The Republican Party has a tradition of diversity, tolerance, and support for freedom of speech and the right of dissent. The Republican Liberty Caucus is encouraging its members to contact RNC Chairman Michael Steele and Tennessee RNC Committeemembers Peggy Lambert and John Ryder to ask for their intervention in the matter. The RLC press release includes additional contact information for interested parties.
According to RLC Chairman Dave Nalle, “It looks like a weak faction which barely gained control of the county party decided that Matt Collins and his supporters threatened their positions of power, so despite the fact that he has not violated any rules, they decided to override the party members who voted him into office and force him out.”
I was very interested to see the reaction of many Republicans to the over-the-top behavior of the extreme right in the wake of the assassination of abortion doctor George Tiller earlier this week. On The Next Right they quickly removed an offensive article and comments had loudly condemned the author. On Little Green Footballs they posted a substantial article condemning commenters and posters on several other right-leaning blogs for their comments about Tiller. These reactions give a clear impression that more and more mainstream Republicans are fed up with the fanaticism of the religious right, sickened over their behavior over the Tiller issue and just about ready to give them the boot.
Is it possible that this incident is the straw which finally broke the camel’s back and has created an unhealable rift between rational conservatives and the extremists of the religious right? Even Republicans who are socially conservative seem to have had enough of the extremist rhetoric and support for violence coming from people like Fred Phelps and Randall Terry. They seem to have woken up to the fact that the fanaticism and terrorism they oppose in the Islamic world is not much different from the beliefs held by some they considered allies.
As Barry Goldwater pointed out many years ago, the one thing which Republicans ought to be extreme about is liberty and on all other issues they ought to be rational and pragmatic. Maybe that lesson which he spent decades trying to teach with his own actions, is finally sinking in.
The obsession with legislating morality and with opposition to abortion and gay rights is really not part of the core Republican agenda. These ideas and the fanaticism they inspire were brought into the party through its alliance in the post-Reagan era with religious conservatives. Historically, Republicans have had a laissez faire attitude, not just to the economy, but also on moral issues. Republicans used to be dispassionate, leaving moral decisions in the hands of individuals and keeping government out of the picture. It seems like the pendulum might be swinging back in that direction.
As Abraham Lincoln said many years ago, our nation and by extension the Republican Party, was “conceived in liberty” and that idea of individual liberty ought to be the basis of every policy and every decision which Republicans make. There is very little question that abortion is a sin, but shouldn’t that sin be a matter of personal responsibility to be resolved between the individual and his or her soul and church and god? Once you get government involved, a change in policy or administration could as easily mean forced abortion and sterilization as you have in China as it could mean protecting unborn fetuses. Putting such personal decisions in the hands of government can only work out badly when there is the potential to go to either extreme.
This change in attitude in the GOP seems real and very significant. It has been building for years, starting with uneasiness with many Bush administration policies and perhaps culminating with the Tiller incident. That doesn’t mean that I expect a wholesale casting out of the religious right, but it does seem as if the more reasonable elements of the religious wing of the party are finally realizing that they have to distance themselves from the exrtremists, and perhaps put broader priorities first if they want to continue to play a role in the party and if they want that party to be successful. Extremism has been like an anchor dragging the GOP down and if the party cannot cast itself free of that extremism and chart a better course for itself it will never be successful.
Fanaticism and extremism breed violence and terror and are the enemies of liberty. If we are determined to fight them in the War on Terror how can we be less vigilant in opposing them at home? If we are to have a Republican party which makes liberty its first priority, then it must reject extremism and intolerance in every form. We can still embrace conservative and moral values, but we must accept that these are personal values and that only evil and oppression can come from giving government the power to dictate morality and institutionalize the prejudices of religious fanatics.
Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com posted earlier in the week at his blog, asking “Are Republicans Going Galt?”
Pointing to the Tea Party’s origin within the libertarian movement, Silver questions whether the Republican Party is tilting in the libertarian direction in wake of their solid defeats in 2006 and 2008.
The objective evidence Mr. Silver presents includes:
• A recent Gallup survey suggests that 80 percent of Republicans believe that Big Government is a bigger threat than big business, versus just 10 percent who think the opposite. He says “it has now become almost a definitional issue for Republicans.”
• “The Republican alternative budget could be considered a somewhat radical experiment in libertarianism”; and
• Republican insiders are increasingly uncertain about whether gay marriage, which was such an important issue for the party over 2000-2004, is any longer a winning issue at all for them.
Comparing Big Government to big business doesn’t really tell us what we need to know, unfortunately. Big business may be one of the entities competing with limited government that Republicans “sell their souls to” — however, there are a plethora of other entities that Republicans have chosen before smaller government, including puppet politicians, special interest groups, neo-conservatives, pork projects, and religion, to name just a few.
The idea that the Republican alternative budget is radical in any way is foreign to me. It is a far better budget than any one that Republicans proposed under the Bush Administration (no surprise there), and this budget would ultimately reduce the size of government if adopted. However, it is not even close to “a radical experiment in libertarianism”.
Speaking to Mr. Silver’s final point: I’m no Republican insider, but I never believed gay marriage was an important issue for the GOP. Ditto on abortion.
In 2004, for example, the RLC issued a press release against the Federal Marriage Amendment. My recent post at this blog, “Are Republicans Shifting on Gay Marriage and the War on Drugs?“, indicates that at least some Republican legislators — most of whom were already in the moderate wing of the party — have had the courage to support equal rights for gays.
To this point, I count just two libertarian-leaning legislators (both from New Hampshire) who had the courage to take a principled stance of supporting marriage equality for gays and lesbians. If Republicans are going to stand up for equal rights in the near future (and why shouldn’t we?), it will have to be libertarian-leaning Republicans who lead on the issue.
As evangelical social conservative commentator Cal Thomas wrote recently, “The battle over same-sex marriage is on the way to being lost [for social conservatives]. For conservatives who still have faith in the political system to reverse the momentum, you are — to recall Harold Hill [in The Music Man] — ‘closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge’.”
In summary, I think the Republican Party is shifting, but it is not proven with the evidence provided by Nate Silver. Instead, I measure it by how fast the RLC is growing (at a very rapid pace — we can barely keep up!), the enthusiasm of the Ron Paul movement, and the anger in the faces of those who attended the Tea Party protests last Wednesday.
The battle for liberty has just begun. Brace yourself.
According to the Log Cabin Republicans, 36 GOP legislators in six Northeastern states (including several RLC-endorsed legislators) have voted to affirm individual rights on gay marriage votes. Widely-respected conservative commentator Cal Thomas recently wrote that perhaps its time for evangelicals to give up on the issue of gay marriage. He says:
“To those on the political and religious right who are intent on continuing the battle to preserve ‘traditional marriage’ in a nation that is rapidly discarding its traditions, I would ask this question: What poses a greater threat to our remaining moral underpinnings?
Is it two homosexuals living together, or is it the number of heterosexuals who are divorcing and the increasing number of children born to unmarried women, now at nearly 40 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention? Most of those who are disturbed about same-sex marriage are not as exercised about preserving heterosexual marriage. That’s because it doesn’t raise money and won’t get them on TV. Some preachers would rather demonize gays than oppose heterosexuals who violate their vows by divorcing, often causing harm to their children. That’s because so many in their congregations have been divorced and preaching against divorce might cause some to leave and take their contributions with them.
The battle over same-sex marriage is on the way to being lost [for social conservatives]. For conservatives who still have faith in the political system to reverse the momentum, you are — to recall Harold Hill [in The Music Man] — ‘closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge’.”
As evidence of Cal Thomas’s commentary, the Log Cabin Republicans have recorded the following recent legislative action affirming equal (not special) rights for gays and lesbians:
· On March 23, the Vermont Senate passed marriage with the support of a majority of the Republican Conference.
· On March 26, twelve Republicans (including two RLC-endorsed legislators) provided the margin of victory for marriage equality in the New Hampshire House.
· On March 30, three Republicans (including the RLC’s Art O’Neill) on the Connecticut legislature’s Joint Committee on Judiciary voted to codify the state’s marriage equality ruling.
· On April 3, six Republicans joined their colleagues in the Vermont House to send marriage equality to the Governor.
· On April 3, the Iowa Supreme Court recognzied the right to marry in an opinion written by Republican-appointed Associate Justice Mark Cady.
· And on April 7, the Vermont House and Senate successfully overrode a governor’s veto to make Vermont the first state to enact marriage equality without the order of a court – and six courageous House Republicans provided the margin of victory.
There may also be a shift among at least some Republicans on the issue of decriminalizing (and taxing) marijuana and medical marijuana. In a New Hampshire vote earlier this week, nearly a dozen RLC-endorsed legislators (including Reps. Coffey, Ingbretson, McGuire, Hopper, Ober, Pratt, Reagan, Renzullo, Soucy, and Vaillancourt) voted for HB 648, which permits medical marijuana use in New Hampshire if prescribed by a physician. The bill, similar to the California law that has been under attack by the federal government for years now, passed the House and now moves on to the Senate.
In a 1997 poll, 57% of Republicans supported marijuana for medicinal purposes. Is that number on the rise? There is no recent polling data measuring Republican opinion of decriminalization or medical marijuana and New Hampshire is the only state with RLC legislators that has pending legislation addressing the issue of medical marijuana. So perhaps it is too soon to tell what the trend among Republicans is, but if New Hampshire is any indication, there has been a shift of opinion on medical marijuana among Republican legislators.
Medical marijuana is currently legal in Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
It seems that there is a positive shift in priorities among Republicans.
Perhaps focusing on critical economic issues instead of hot-button social issues will provide Republicans the leverage they need to once again become the party that advocates limited, Constitutional government and protection of individual rights.
Online forums frequented by grassroots activists are abuzz these days regarding the grassroots political movement in the states to reaffirm that our states are sovereign entities while rebuking the federal government’s over-involvement in key areas of our lives as well as mandates pushed onto the states by the federal government.
In 2009, there has already been a move among legislators in more than 25 states to push for some type of state sovereignty resolution. 
Oklahoma’s sovereignty bill, which passed their House last session but got stalled in the Senate, came out of the House with near unanimous support. In the House, longtime champion of the RLC Charles Key is the author of the legislation and second-term incumbent Jason Murphey is a vocal advocate for the bill. Murphey was endorsed by the RLC in 2006 and 2008. The Senate bill is being championed by Sen. Randy Brogdon, a great friend of the RLC. “What we are trying to do is to get the U.S. Congress out of the state’s business,” said Brogdon.
The bill is currently in the Senate. Without the RLC’s strong citizen legislators in Oklahoma, this bill would never have been drafted. Rep. Murphey recently penned an editorial published in The Edmond Sun explaining his state’s sovereignty bill and linking it specifically to the unfunded mandates and massive spending in Obama’s stimulus bill.
Similarly, in New Hampshire, Dan Itse, a favorite among RLC members in the Granite State, filed a bill to affirm sovereignty in the New Hampshire House. Itse was on Fox and Friends and Glenn Beck recently to promote the bill, citing No Child Left Behind and the PATRIOT Act as examples of the federal government over-stepping its boundaries.
In Pennsylvania, Rep. Sam Rohrer, who the RLC endorsed in 2008, has been fighting against REAL ID since it passed Congress. Rohrer cites the following examples of state sovereignty erosion:
- By collecting taxes from state residents and then using that money to compel sovereign state governments –- through the use of “strings” attached to federal funding – to implement programs and provide services in accordance with the desires of federal authorities;
- By pushing states toward financial distress by providing financial incentives to implement programs and services without supplying adequate federal funding.
- By enacting national laws that go far beyond the federal powers enumerated in the U.S. Constitution; and
- By potentially providing federal funds to fill state budget deficits, which were created, in part, through over-spending prompted by federal financial incentives to create new programs.
In Montana, the state sovereignty resolution was introduced by (among others) RLC-endorsed first-year legislators Wendy Warburton (left) and Gerry Bennett. Aubyn Curtiss, who endorsed Ron Paul for President, is the Senate sponsor of the legislation.
Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, and Maine may see similar measures introduced this session.
Links to the legislation: GA, MI, MO, MT, NH, OK, PA, SC, WA
