Some self-proclaimed libertarians and constitutionalists maintain that crime merits prosecution at the federal level.  With rare exception, there is no constitutional support to justify their claims.

Yes, the government is supposed to protect life, but there is no specific amendment of the Constitution that empowers the federal government to have jurisdiction on common crimes like theft, fraud, or murder.

Instead, the Founders explicitly warned against giving the federal government the power to deal with common crimes.

According to the late libertarian icon Harry Browne, “All crime is local. It occurs in the jurisdiction of a police department or sheriff’s department somewhere. The Founding Fathers wisely provided no Constitutional role for the federal government regarding common crimes of any kind.”

Browne concludes that a federal police force makes you less safe. In fact, the Founding Fathers would be shocked to see today’s federal police forces — such as the FBI, the BATF, and the DEA.

Of course, there are a select few crimes that the federal government does have jurisdiction on. National defense is a specifically outlined constitutional function of government, so acts against federal employees are punishable. Additionally, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 gives the federal government jurisdiction on piracy and this same section (Clause 6) gives the feds jurisdiction on counterfeiting. And Article 3, Section 3 gives the federal government authority on treason.

However, the federal government should have no jurisdiction on abortion. The RLC Statement of Principles says about abortion, “We support a resolution of this issue through the proper judicial and legislative channels specified in the Constitution.”

The proper constitutional channel is the Tenth Amendment, which gives powers not outlined for the federal government to the states and to the people. Thus, overturning Roe v. Wade would not only return authority to their proper jurisdiction, but it would also empower states and individuals to decide the proper course of action on the controversial issue of abortion.

If you support limiting the size and scope of government, then you can’t rely on the federal government to protect us from crimes like abortion. Crime and the protection of life should not be federal issues.

Think about it this way: The federal government does not deliver your mail on time. Why would you want to trust them on issues of life or death?

More importantly, they have no constitutional authority to protect your life, other than via national defense.

WAUSAU – At the 2011 Campaign For Liberty Annual Conference, which was held at the Patriot Center in Wausau, WI. on April 30, 2011, RLC-WI Chairman, Michael S. Murphy, was invited to be a panelist to discuss “Outreach in the Liberty Movement.”  Murphy’s co-panelists were ACORN Whistleblower, Anita Moncrief, and Wisconsin State Secretary of  the Libertarian Party, Paul Ehlers.

The decision by Jack-in-the-Box to nix the toys in their kid’s meals was the latest illustration of America’s nanny state gone wild. Following on the heels of the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s Happy Meal toy-inspired lawsuit against McDonald’s, it is becoming clear that American’s bulging waistlines are in the crosshairs of the food police’s snipers. At least these instances were done without governmental decree; the decision by San Francisco to ban the inclusion of Happy Meals with toys should disturb even the most health-conscious. These sorts of absurd acts make clear the direction this public policy debate is headed.

True, the roughly one in four obese Americans (with percentages even higher in Louisiana) serve as a testament to lack of dietary self-control. But does this call for governments to mandate restaurants serve items their customers might not want? Issuing public health guidelines is one thing; using coercion to force them on us is something else entirely.

Endurance and weight training as well as proper nutrition are excellent contributors to looking and feeling great. But shouldn’t engaging in these rewarding activities be a decision individuals make on their own accord? The cries for government action to combat the obesity crisis assumes both that Americans are too foolish to practice restraint and that private advocacy groups are too incompetent to educate consumers on the perks of healthy living.

If a critical mass of Americans began demanding nutrition labels on menus and sought to cut down on their processed food and sodium intake, establishments would respond to this as swiftly as possible before their competitor across the street did so. That is how a free market operates, not by twisting the arms of fast food companies to act contrary to their customers’ wants. One must wonder how much of a stretch it would be before carrot intake is required to combat blindness or Jack Johnson tunes in the car made mandatory to fight the War on Road Rage.

Likewise, it is inconclusive whether government intervention into its citizens’ diet actually produces the intended results. Lectures from the First Lady are not a guaranteed method of turning couch potatoes into Boston Marathon qualifiers; that is something each person has to want bad enough for themselves. Frankly, some are simply content being several pounds overweight.

The greatest irony of the debate over governments becoming involved in nutrition is the double standard of those agitating for it. There is often an overlap between those who embrace the pro-choice label and those leading the charge against choice in the dietary realm. Being in favor of “choice” apparently does not apply to weighty matters such as calorie counts or salt intake at lunch; apparently, in the minds of some, the masses are not to be trusted with the composition of their diet.

A citizenry truly in favor of choice would recognize that a country free to gorge itself into obesity is infinitely preferable to one where they are legislated into fitness.

Speaker John Boehner is engaged in an epic struggle to pass some sort of compromise plan to raise the debt ceiling while cutting spending, moving forward with desperation and a certain amount of bullying to push through a plan which has now been modified and reduced to the point where it can only be described as absurd. Feeling the pressure from the endless fearmongering of President Obama and Timothy Geithner, Boehner seems to have gone off the rails with a plan which actually offers fewer cuts than the Democrats and no spending cap at all.

It’s a very heated issue in which some of the facts are being lost, so let me straighten them out.

Boehner’s Plan

Boehner’s current proposal is being described in some quarters as an increase in cuts from his earlier proposals, but in fact the cuts included are bizarrely inadequate. The plan currently includes $1.2 trillion in cuts over 10 years with another $1.8 trillion in unspecified cuts to be implemented by a special committee at some point in the future, in exchange for a $2.7 trillion increase in the debt ceiling.

There are a number of problems with this proposal.

The first phase of cuts only comes out of discretionary spending and all cuts to entitlements are left to the bipartisan committee at some future date. Whether this committee or its cuts will ever happen is highly debatable when the balance in Congress shifts next year and plans get rewritten.

The cuts are spaced out over a 10 year period, amounting to only $300 billion a year, and with more than half the cuts still in abeyance, the real cuts in the first year are only $120 bilion or likely even less. In fact, the way the cuts are structured the cuts in the next year may be as low as $6 billion. And because the cuts are not enough to offset increases in debt just from interest, spreading them out over 10 years means that they will be outpaced by debt increase and never come close to catching up. Ten years of small cuts to offset an immediate debt limit increase only works if there are not more debt limit increases down the road, and with cuts so small further increases are unavoidable.

The total cuts over a 10 year period, assuming even the entitlement cuts happen is less than the proposed budget deficit for the next two years, leaving 8 years worth of further debt increase in the next 10 years adding up to an increase of almost $10 trillion in the national debt. So the net result of the plan is a massive increase of the debt, not any real reduction.

The current Boehner plan also includes no provision to pass a strong Balanced Budget Amendment as a prerequisite to any debt limit increase. Every Republican in the House and Senate signed on to the Cap, Cut and Balance pledge and Boehner’s plan fails to meet its requirements. It also puts no caps on federal spending except for discretionary spending which makes up about a third of the budget.

Boehner’s plan is so bad that Sen. Harry Reid can actually make an argument that his proposed plan has more real cuts than Boehner’s does, because Reid’s plan includes substantial cuts to military spending and more overall cuts per year. It still results in a huge net increase in spending, and it raises taxes on those who already shoulder most of the tax burden, but in total it’s just a different bad plan, not really any worse than Boehner’s.

The Fearmongering

Perhaps the biggest lie in this whole melodrama is the claim coming from the White House and from Tim Geithner that the US will default and have our credit rating downgraded next Tuesday if we don’t raise the debt ceiling. These claims are nothing but an irresponsible intimidation tactic.

As Senator Rand Paul eloquently points out, and as I explained in detail in a previous article, there is absolutely no need to default on our debt if the debt ceiling is not raised. By prioritizing spending we can easily meet the requirements to servie the debt and provide for entitlements out of incoming revenue and we could probably keep doing that for 6 or 8 more months before it became a real problem.

Of course, this would put a lot of pressure on the administration because Obama and Geithner would be the ones who would have to make those spending decisions and they would get the blame for cutting subsidy programs, furloughing federal workers, closing down national parks and the other small short-term austerity measures necessary to meet obligations. They’d rather scare us with empty threats than admit the truth that we’re broke and need to tighten our belts – even in the federal government.

The other big lie here is that raising taxes on the “wealthiest among us” will actually solve the problem. If we were to raise taxes substantially on the top 1% of earners that would not be enough to balance the budget. Even raising taxes to the 70% rate of the Reagan era – almost double the current rate – would only raise about $300 billion more a year at a huge cost to the economy. So when Obama talks about raising taxes on the rich, he’s mostly making an argument for a symbolic act of class warfare.

What they also don’t point out is that we’re just as likely to have our credit rating downgraded if either of the current proposals passes. Because both Boehner’s and Reid’s plans are so inadequate they don’t represent the kind of real solution to the long term debt problem which international credit agencies are looking for, so they’re really worth nothing at all.

Real Solutions

The reality is that we need to put all this bickering aside and pass a real plan which actually addresses this problem in a substantive way. We’re not getting out of this mess without major cuts and a real cap on spending along with some policy changes which will spur economic growth.

• Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment and cap spending at a level tied to a percentage of GDP like the 18% proposed in the Cap, Cut and Balance pledge. Only by capping future spending can you make long-term cuts offset short term debt increases.

• Make cuts equal to or greater than any increase in the debt limit and make them take effect more quickly so that they reduce debt faster than interest increases it. A minimum of $600 bilion a year for 5 years would be a responsible proposal. And to do this you would need to go beyond the Boehner proposal to go after both military spending and entitlements. Just ending our current foreign deployments would take care of most of these cuts.

• If a tax increase is what it takes to get President Obama on board for real cuts, then let him have an increase of 10% on those earning in the top 1% (over $380 million a year), but offset that increase with a 10% cut in capital gains, which would have a great stimulative effect on the economy.

• Do the only thing which will really spur the economic growth which will get us out of a recession relatively painlessly. Cut corporate taxes. They don’t bring in that much money and that revenue is going down as companies offshore to avoid what is now the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Cut the rate substantially or eliminate all corporate taxes so that they will come to the US as a tax haven instead of fleeing and taking jobs and money out of the country with them. Short of lowering wages – which is not at all popular – cutting taxes on businesses is the easiest way to create jobs and grow the economy.

At this point the melodrama surrounding this issue is becoming embarrassing. Real problems need real solutions, not pandering, fearmongering and passive-aggressive walkouts on negotiations. Boehner, Reid, Geithner and Obama need to start acting like grown-ups, make serious proposals and work out compromises which give up more than either side wants for the good of the people and the nation.

This article appeared previously on Blogcritics Magazine.

One of the serious problems facing the Republican Party is that their leadership cadre is aging and ossifying. The people who make up the county and state committees all over the country are getting older and older and increasingly out of touch with the grassroots of the party and the younger people who vote Republican but aren’t at all satisfied with what the party has come to stand for or the way that it is run.

The party desperately needs new blood and younger leaders who can relate to young voters. Yet it’s awfully hard to get the entrenched blue-hairs to open their fists and share a little power, and even when they do they often aren’t comfortable with the results. Young people want to actually do things and stand up for principles and make the party dynamic and effective and for people who are set in their ways and just want to do the same things that have produced mediocre results for years, that’s threatening.

A classic example of this conflict between the dinosaur elite and the younger generation who want to make the GOP an effective party and a party to be proud of is now on display in Tucson Arizona. Last year they elected as Chairman a young Air Force veteran who had just concluded an unsuccessful run for Congress. 36 year old Brian Miller seemed to be the model of what the party leaders were looking for in a younger Republican to join their ranks. He was younger but not too young and had a military background they could admire, plus he was articulate and had already showed his political commitment by running for office.

For a few months it looked like the Pima County GOP was going to move forward and do great things under Miller’s leadership. Then came the horrendous death of Jose Guerena at the hands of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department SWAT Team. Guerena was a decorated Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq War who was gunned down unnecessarily in a bizarrely excessive SWAT raid on his home in which he fired no shots and was shot 22 times.

The incident became an international scandal. Miller was understandably outraged by the situation and sent out an email as Pima County Republican Chairman objecting to the tactics used by the police in the raid, writing “It is my hope that this tragic event will lead to a renewed discussion of the policies that routinely lead to heavily armed and militarized local police invading private homes and a renewed interest in the civil liberties codified in our Bill of Rights.”

Miller continued to be personally outspoken about the need for an investigation and accountability in the case, not saying anything much different than the criticisms of the raid in local and national news media, but this began to rankle some members of his County Republican Executive Committee who like many older Republicans subscribe to a law and order mentality which assumed that whatever the police did was right because they were the good guys and anyone they went after was automatically guilty by assumption.

Miller disagreed, citing things like the rule of law and due process and the Bill of Rights, but that didn’t mean much to his critics who accused him of causing “division and chaos” and that his statements “created serious problems for our elected officials.” The Executive Committee board issued a statement condemning their own Chairman and ultimately demanded his resignation. When he refused they voted 10-2 to effectively suspend him as chairman pending a vote of the entire County Executive Committee on the issue of removing Miller from office. That vote would require a 2/3 majority and is scheduled for tonight.

Miller has been waging a quiet campaign to build support for his position in the several weeks leading up to this vote. He has sworn not to give up without a fight. The outcome of the vote is by no means certain, because as is the case in many county parties nationwide the rank and file precinct chairs are a much more diverse than the established leadership and also tend to be younger. With a 2/3 majority required to oust Miller the vote will likely be very close.

Miller has described the campaign against him as a “political witchhunt” and that some on the board are “avenging old political scores.” It seems quite likely that outrage against Miller’s statements in some quarters are being used by others to advance their desire to regain control of the party leadership.

This specific situation is troubling, but what is more worrisome is what it says about the current state of the Republican Party at a key organizational level. This problem is not isolated and it is not unique. It is something the party will need to come to terms with if it is to survive. It is unhealthy to suppress the next generation of leadership and alienating Republicans who want to be involved from the party leadership is a sure formula for disaster.

It’s a particularly ugly situation because in this case Miller was just speaking up for principles which he grew up believing were what the Republican Party stood for. The party claims that it champions civil liberties, human life and keeping the government off of our backs. The preamble to the Arizona Republican Party Platform says:

“…the citizens of our great state might blossom under
new freedoms borne from less government regulation; and, the prosperity of a society that shall one day come to recognize fully the value of life, the value of each individual, the value of responsibility, the value of the rule of law, and the value of personal dignity.”

Those are the kinds of values the Republican Party is supposed to stand for. In his statements about the Guerena case Brian Miller was clearly concerned about those very issues, justifiably angry that Guerena was deprived of life and dignity and his individual rights in violation of the rule of law and the kind of responsibility we should expect of our government and its agents.

Miller merely asked his fellow Republicans to stand up for the values they claim to believe in and that got him labeled a traitor.  What kind of message does that send to the other young Republicans around the country who might want to get involved in the party?  What kind of party is represented by that kind of hypocrisy?

More and more it has become clear that we have two Republican Parties in the United States.  One is dedicated to principles and one is dedicated to holding on desperately to status and position and failed ideas.  The party of principles is the party which Brian Miller spoke for which he spoke up for Jose Guerena.  That’s the Republican Party I want to be part of.

This article appeared previously on Blogcritics Magazine

When a virtual army of RLC endorsees including Senators Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey and Mike Lee plus Congressmen like Jeff Flake and Ron Paul are all backing something you know it has to be a good idea and an important statement for smaller and more responsible government. While some congressional leaders like Sen. Mitch McConnell seem ready to sell out to the Obama administration’s demands for more taxes and spending, responsible leaders with principle are promoting the “Cap, Cut and Balance” pledge.

With the US facing an unavoidable debt crisis, we’re not going to be able to balance the budget and revitalize our economy on the backs of taxpayers or with superficial cuts in a few programs or cuts put off over long periods of time. We need real and substantial cuts now, including an end to our unnecessary wars, restructuring of entitlement programs and a program by program audit of every aspect of the federal government.

Faced with demands to raise the debt limit without implementing needed cuts, fiscal conservatives in Congress are signing the new “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge which follows the guidelines of the Republican Study Committee and demands real and immediate cuts, enforceable spending caps, and Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

As proposed by the Republican Study Committee, Cut, Cap, and Balance entails:

* Cut – Immediate spending cuts to reduce the deficit by half next year. According to March projections from the Congressional Budget Office, this would require spending cuts of approximately $380 billion in the 2012 fiscal year.
* Cap – Statutory, enforceable caps that bring spending into line with average revenues at 18% of GDP. Reps. Kingston and Mack have each introduced legislation that would ratchet total federal spending down to 18% of GDP over the course of 5-6 years.
* Balance – House and Senate passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that includes a spending cap at 18% of GDP and a supermajority requirement for tax increases. The House Judiciary Committee and all 47 GOP Senators have endorsed Balanced Budget Amendments along these lines.

You can show your support by signing the pledge too at www.cutcapbalancepledge.com.

And please help support our efforts to promote liberty issues and reform the Republican Party by joining the RLC today or by making a donation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teachers unions and their political allies argue that market forces cannot supply quality education.  Yet Americans would find the current politicized and monopolistic approach ludicrous if applied to other vital goods or services, says Donald J. Boudreaux, a professor of economics at George Mason University and a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center.

Suppose that groceries were supplied in the same way as K-12 education.

• Residents of each county would pay taxes on their properties.
• Nearly half of those tax revenues would then be spent by government officials to build and operate supermarkets.
• Each family would be assigned to a particular supermarket according to its home address.
• And each family would get its weekly allotment of groceries — “for free” — from its neighborhood public supermarket.

Of course, the quality of public supermarkets would play a major role in families’ choices about where to live.  Being largely protected from consumer choice, almost all public supermarkets would be worse than private ones.  In poor counties the quality of public supermarkets would be downright abysmal.  Poor people — entitled in principle to excellent supermarkets — would in fact suffer unusually poor supermarket quality.

Responding to these failures, thoughtful souls would call for “supermarket choice” fueled by vouchers or tax credits.  Those calls would be vigorously opposed by public supermarket administrators and workers, says Boudreaux.

In reality, of course, groceries and many other staples of daily life are distributed with extraordinary effectiveness by competitive markets responding to consumer choice.  The same could be true of education.

Source: Donald J. Boudreaux, “If Supermarkets Were Like Public Schools,” Wall Street Journal, May 5, 2011. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704436004576299571015982098.html

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 Case for Gary Johnson

Why Liberty Advocates Should Look Big Picture in 2012

by Aaron Biterman

Topic Index: Skip to:

1) The Big J Way

2) Comparative Advantages

3) CNN Interview

4) Get Active

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?

The Big J Way

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.

Comparative Advantages

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.”

Meanwhile, Congressman Paul is among the most vocal critics of Israel in Congress, once charging that “Israel created Hamas” on the House floor and that Gaza is “almost like Concentration Camps”. Hamas, which won election in 2006 to rule Gaza, is widely considered to be a terrorist organization, but it was in fact created by seven Palestinians as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Governor Johnson supports Israel’s right to defend itself and believes that the U.S.-Israel alliance is valuable and should be kept in tact.

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:

CNN Interview

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.

Get Active

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.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

About the Author

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.