Victories for Liberty Outweigh Tuesday’s Losses
By Dave Nalle - November 9, 2012 at 2:29 AM
Filed under Congress , Elections , gallery , News , Opinion , Presidential , RLC News , State races
Filed under Congress , Elections , gallery , News , Opinion , Presidential , RLC News , State races
This has been a long campaign for liberty and many people have earned our thanks. Republican Liberty Caucus members played leading roles on every front in 2012 – running for office, working on campaigns, donating unprecedented amounts of money to our federal PAC, helping to promote and fundraise for candidates and serving as delegates to state conventions and ultimately the national convention in Tampa where we were witnesses to the beginnings of the events which culminated in this week’s historic defeat for the Republican Party establishment. You worked hard with little respect or reward for a cause whose victory sometimes seemed distant and in peril.
There are many who are claiming that this election was a massive defeat for the Republican Party, but after studying the results for two days I’m surprised to be able to report what looks like some major victories for the liberty movement within the party. Yes, the party took it on Mitt Romney’s chiseled chin, but the party’s losses are not necessarily our losses and while I certainly would have liked to have done better, in comparison to the party as a whole our candidates and our issues fared remarkably well.
Perhaps the most significant victory is a sign of change to come While the party lost seats in both houses of Congress, the balance of power shifted and liberty candidates gained seats while the party was losing them. Our endorsees and other sympathetic candidates now control a larger number of seats in both houses of Congress than ever before. We lost only one incumbent House member and gained at least two solid seats in the Senate while the party lost 3 and gained more seats in the House than the party as a whole lost, effectively doubling the significance of our wins. The failure of the party leadership and the Romney campaign did suppress turnout and that flowed down to races at lower levels, costing some of our most promising candidates wins they might have had in better years. Yet 2014 is just around the corner and I expect many of those same candidates to run again and in an off year election we can anticipate the same kind of strong results we had in 2010 and more.
Two RLC candidates won new seats for liberty in the Senate, Ted Cruz (TX) and past endorsee Jeff Flake (AZ). Four new liberty candidates took seats in the House, including RLC endorsees Steve Stockman (TX-36), Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11), Thomas Massie (KY-4) and Ted Yoho (FL-3) who was overlooked for endorsement. Many previously endorsed candidates won reelection in the House, including Justin Amash, Tom McClintock, Walter Jones, Jim Jordan, Mick Mulvaney and others. Perhaps most significantly hundreds of our endorsees won or held onto seats in state government, giving us a very deep bench to run for higher office going into the 2014 election. Many other great candidates ran strong campaigns and came awfully close to winning, but the weakness of the national campaign and lack of support from state and national party organizations were challenges they couldn’t overcome. With more independent funding and resources we expect them to do much better in 2014.
We also saw victories on key issues in several states. Marijuana was legalized in Colorado and Washington and decriminalized in Massachusetts, which is likely to lead to a very important showdown over state sovereignty as the Obama administration and the DEA crack down on those states attempt to form independent drug policy. In addition, Washington, Maryland and Maine voted to legalize same-sex marriage, a clear challenge to the unconstitutional federal Defense of Marriage Act, and while we prefer a non-governmental solution to the marriage issue, the passage of these propositions was at least a politically achievable step towards greater liberty for more people. Less publicized but possibly equally important, Alabama, Montana and Wyoming voted on initiatives to nullify aspects of Obamacare within their borders, another development likely to provoke a constitutional showdown with the Obama administration. It’s not going to be an easy four years for the president or his unconstitutional abuses of power.
Finally, after the attacks on the grassroots of the party launched by the Romney campaign, party leaders and special interests, in many ways a Romney defeat is a victory for Liberty Republicans. In the long term it may benefit us more than defeating Obama would have. The party establishment and the special interests which back them placed all their bets on Romney and his failure was their failure as well. They have lost credibility with all the grassroots groups in the party and they are saddled with the blame for the abuses of power and bad choices which led to this debacle. Now everyone knows what we have known for years. If the Republican Party is to survive it needs a substantive change of leadership and a return to principles which can win elections.
After this election it is much more likely that our next presidential nominee will have strong liberty principles and Rand Paul’s stock as a presidential contender is way up. We should also expect to see the party distance itself from single issue voters on the religious right and a deemphasis of divisive social issues. This might well be the jolt the party needs to become the fiscally conservative and socially tolerant party which it needs to be in order to win and if it doesn’t happen quickly, we’re here to give change a push.
While this may not be the time for open celebration, this election has created many opportunities to expand the liberty movement within the Republican Party and our voices will be stronger and our opponents weaker than every before as we start a new political cycle. We have more members with substantial campaign experience, we have better campaign funding channels and we have more experienced candidates. Plus the Obama administration will supply us with plenty of opportunities for issue activism which can raise the profile of RLC leaders and our pro-liberty, small government agenda.
I’m looking forward to two years of great opportunities for growing liberty and winning key victories in the ongoing campaign to reclaim the Republican Party and make it the vehicle for the restoration of the Republic.
On November 9th, 2012 at 2:51 am
The Libertarian party MUST evolve quickly. This is only the beginning!
On November 9th, 2012 at 2:58 am
RLC, please don’t take the bait on the homosexual “marriage.” Using the coercive power of government in an effort to redefine one of the most fundamental institutions of society is a massive disservice to liberty. If RLC becomes pro-”gay marriage,” it will lose all of my support and the support of many others. Don’t do it. Just stay away from the issue if you have to…. I support ending the drug war, but state-sanctioned murder of babies and using government to try to put perversion on an equal footing with the institution of marriage is just wrong.
On November 9th, 2012 at 8:13 am
Did you mean to write “dissolve” there, not “evolve”?
On November 9th, 2012 at 8:17 am
We’re not pro gay marriage. We favor keeping the government out of marriage entirely as that is the only way to protect the rights of individuals and of churches. However, it has become very clear that this approach is too difficult to pass in left leaning states, and in those cases permitting same sex marriage seems to be the only way to deal with the genuine problem of inequity and equal treatment under the law for same sex couples.
I’m sure that given your bigoted language you’re not prepared to accept this concept, but the RLC believes in liberty and that means that one way or another all people ought to be treated equally under the law.
On November 9th, 2012 at 9:19 am
I came to this website after reading the latest entry by Randy Barnett at VC, whose work I admire and support. Never heard of the RLC but I’m glad I’m here.
Also – thank you Dave Nalle for your comments on “True Liberty”‘s bigotry.
I’ll be coming back frequently and learning more.
On November 9th, 2012 at 9:30 am
Fiscally conservative, socially tolerant is the way of a Libertarian. Why? If we believe in individual sovereignty, then individual choices on social matters is the natural conclusion. Let people make their own decisions, take the consequences and learn from their actions., for good or bad. Why does that not apply to fiscal policy, where we seek a group cohesion to conservative principles? Because we share a common purse or debt. Someone’s choices on drug use primarily affects themselves alone, and if that choice harms others the are laws already exist ant to deal with consequences. Someone’s choices on welfare and warfare or even public funding of abortion or anything else affect ME and everyone else in the pocketbook, resulting in confiscating the results of any good financial decisions I made myself. That confiscation removes the reward part of the learning process.
Finally, we need to win on principle and perception. Voters voted on who they perceive to be caring about themselves. Democrats run on good intentions, on caring. Conservatives actually do more caring ACTS but that doesn’t get publicized. We need to connect the dots,that a fiscal conservative policy is caring because it leads to future strength rathe than future insolvency and unsupportable debt. Remember, it’s for the children that we DON’T spend more than we make.
On November 9th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
It should be added that Missouri passed the Missouri Health Care Freedom, Proposition C with 70% of the vote. This proposition prevents the Govenor from establishing a statewide healthcare exchange as required in Obamacare.
On November 9th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
I don’t know if you get track backs so here is a bit I did on this column:
http://classicalvalues.com/2012/11/republicans-lost-liberty-won/
And a comment I left on another thread at the above site:
I can work with Republican socons. But you should see the hate fest in some places against the Untrue Republicans. Paulites. The followers of Gary Johnson. Those favoring the end of prohibition. Those who think the government should stay out of the marriage business. Those who want government to stay away from our personal lives.
I fit a couple of those profiles.
It is their God given RIGHT to use a government stick against us. How dare we not ask for another beating.
====
And exactly how many folks in the electorate are going to ask for a beating. How many folks are pure enough to avoid all beatings?
Well not enough to win an election in the most favorable climate in 30+ years.
On November 9th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
I will be unable to visit Washington and Colorado. I am so allergic to marijuana smoke that the tiniest whiff makes me seriously sick. You don’t seem to understand about “same sex marriage”. The purpose of that is NOT to let people marry people of the same gender. It is to force the REST of us to recognize their situation and lifestyle, and provide services, even if it is against our religious faith. Think about the fact that the most anti-liberty candidate also approves of “same sex marriage”.
I think Johnson’s candidacy cost us dearly. I have no hope that we won’t soon be living under fullblown tyranny, making these little pyrrhic victories obvious for what they truly are.
On November 9th, 2012 at 9:58 pm
It’s ok ‘TrueLiberty ‘ I think we can live without your support. We want the govt out of bedrooms as much as we do out of our wallets, equality for all under the law. I’m sure Bachman, Santorum and Co would love to hear from you.
On November 10th, 2012 at 8:27 am
Well now that I know where you stand I guess I’ll make sure to avoid the RLC like the plague and advise other Christians to do the same.
As a Christian, in accordance with the teachings of Christ, I love homosexuals just as I love all sinners – all of us, myself included. However, failure to acknowledge that sin is sin is what got our country to this miserable state in the first place. Failure to identify theft as theft, for example.
I am opposed to adultery and fornication and I condemn them both, so I myself have committed numerous sins in my life. That does not make me a bigot, and for you to suggest it does reveals to me that you are not qualified to run an organization called “Republican Liberty Caucus.”
Your response – “in those cases permitting same sex marriage seems to be the only way to deal with the genuine problem of inequity and equal treatment under the law for same sex couples.” – shows you have no understanding of what liberty is.
We cannot “permit” “same sex marriage” because there is no such thing as “same sex marriage.” A sinful relationship should never be artificially placed on the same footing as marriage through the coercive force of government, and for you to advocate that exposes you as a statist with no moral compass.
I support allowing homosexuals sign whatever contract with each other that they mutually agree to. The courts should enforce those contracts. If homosexuals want to call their relationship a “marriage,” it is not the government’s place to stop them (unless we’re talking about adopting children) anymore than the government has the rightful authority to ensure that everyone uses proper terminology for anything else.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
- John Adams
On November 10th, 2012 at 11:11 am
As a side note, I should mention that statists have always understood that the key to undermining liberty and expanding the state is the destruction of the family. If people who support liberty hope to preserve the little bit we have left or maybe even increase it, they must understand that this battle is on several fronts, especially education and family. We must get the regime out of education, partly because it is teaching our kids atheistic-socialist values that go against the traditional family. If they succeed in destroying the family, dependence increases, people lose their natural sense of security, and so support BIG GOVERNMENT TYRANNY to replace what was lost in the nuclear family. If you want to see how this works, check out the Soviet Union, Red China, Scandinavia, etc.
On November 10th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
TL, I don’t quite see where we differ here. Your statement:
“I support allowing homosexuals sign whatever contract with each other that they mutually agree to. The courts should enforce those contracts. If homosexuals want to call their relationship a “marriage,” it is not the government’s place to stop them (unless we’re talking about adopting children) anymore than the government has the rightful authority to ensure that everyone uses proper terminology for anything else.”
basically agrees with the RLC position as I stated it earlier.
Dave
On November 10th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
For those of you that believe that God, the church, the bible, etc… should be the final answer on all things. Think of this…. God gave everyone free will. Free will to choose our own course in life. Free will to make mistakes. Free will to choose right from wrong. Those who want laws to remove God’s free will are the biggest offenders of God’s word. The problem with the Christian movement within the Republican Party is that people are trying to play God and remove God’s free will. This includes gay marriage. God gave each of individual person their own free will. Who are you to remove God’s free will through man’s law?
On November 10th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Dave & TL,
I hope you will continue this conversation. I am deciding whether I would like to continue an association w/RLC, and your discussion is quite helpful.
Dave- as a side note, it seems to me that you differ w/TL on at least two main points: A) TL doesn’t consider his/her language bigoted, but honest and straightforward, and B)it sounds as though you are encouraging govt (state) sanctioning of same-sex marriage, while TL clearly stands against it.
I am pleased to see a debate/discussion based on reasonable discussion- such a rarity!
On November 11th, 2012 at 7:21 am
Intentionally misusing words in a contract is fraud that makes the contract voidable and perhaps VA18.2-111 & US mail/wire fraud. Errors of equivocation or dissemblance create terms that cannot be resolved to truth – if done unintentionally it gives rise to disrespect – if done intentionally it flirts with criminal behavior the may become crime.
In marriage the parties are essentially writing each other a blank check that may be presented for payment in the amount of the other party’s choosing – making the party whose check cannot be honored guilty of the common law and VA crime of “UTTERING”. The only way that any marriage cannot become a crime is for GOD to be the third party that acts as surety for the man and woman parties.
On November 11th, 2012 at 7:36 am
When a man gives a woman his sperm it may essentially be giving her his endorsement on a blank check to his account. Once given he may not be able to lawfully retain control of the consequence.
By natural law’s definition adult homosexuality is a vain labor. And as such its rewards need be defined by no more than the Laws of Nature” – In these times the state has no business taking an interest except when the state expects to be engaged in a battle-o-the-babies like ancient Israel was. God may have a greater depth and scope of interest, but that is God’s business with the parties – Today, in the USA, no one else need be or should be privy to homosexuality or its consequence.
On November 11th, 2012 at 9:32 am
WHY I’M THROUGH WITH THE RLC
Time for sensible Republican libertarians to find a new home.
The opinion piece above is just about the most ridiculous bit of “whistling past the graveyard” nonsense I’ve ever seen.
The “Republican” Liberty Caucus has, as far as I’m concerned, forever forfeit its right to use the GOP brand. It has been guilty of incomprehensible puerile idiocy; endorsing Gary Johnson for president. I shall not, if it hasn’t already expired, renew my membership in this moribund organization of intellectual dreamers utterly divorced from reality. It should drop the work “Republican” from its title and go join the absurd Libertarian Party in self imposed political irrelevance.
Romney was my LAST choice for the GOP nomination, but we HAD to defeat Obama and the isolationist zanies of the Ron Paul school, including Gary Johnson, will never be more than an absurd footnote to American political life. The RLC has been “weighed in the balance and found wanting.” When the party makes its choice, it is the duty of all REPUBLICANS to put aside differences and pull together.
Think there’s “no difference” between a Romney country and a Marxist Obama one? Then you are a moron no matter how “intellectual” you consider yourself! Obamacare is currently a malignant tumor that’s about to metastasize into full blown national cancer, destroying our economy, our healthcare industry, AND our liberty. And you boobs let it happen!
If you are relying on socialized medicine being so unpopular that it will be thrown out after people see how vile it is, think again! I work in the software technology industry (corporate, marketing, sales) and keep daily tabs on various vertical markets including healthcare; news, blogs, newsletters, press releases etc. Since the election, numerous healthcare businesses, rather than opposing Obamacare, are trying to figure out how to survive it and get as much “free federal money” as they can. In my OWN industry, software, just about everybody is busy lobbying for more federal regulation and money to promote use of their products; “healthcare IT” mandates from Obama’s various medical “Czars.” They’re lining up at the trough!
Just a bunch of slimy “Jim Taggerts?” [small test of your scriptural knowledge of Ayn Rand] You bet! Lots and lots of ‘em. They’ll very soon create a huge constituency for Obamacare, along with the usual socialist drones out looking for “freebies.” It may be impossible to root out socialized medicine here, as it has been in Europe. Too many “piglets at the teats.”
Folks, like the RLC, who live in an intellectual “cloud ku ku land” of philosophical “purity” eschewing the real day to day fight, are almost as much responsible for the destruction of our nation as the actual socialists. “Evil prospers when good men do nothing.” The RLC, along with millions of “Christian conservatives” who sat out the election are guilty of criminal neglect. Y’all are almost as BAD AMERICANS as the Obamanistas. Goodbye forever!
On November 11th, 2012 at 9:41 am
I DARE you to let my post through. Or will you “moderate” it away a la Goebbels and Obama?
On November 11th, 2012 at 11:06 am
Dave Nalle, your piece above is one of the two best post-Nov. 6 election pieces I’ve read. You really nailed it.
TrueLiberty, with all due respect, I suggest if you wish to argue “liberty” I suggest you read some Andrew Napolitano books, perhaps starting with It’s Dangerous To Be Right When The Government Is Wrong.
I would also add that ‘government’ should never have begun to get involved in marriage. It was a church issue for centuries and worked quite well that way. And of course you would agree government has no business in church matters, either in doctrine or the establishment of a state religion.
“Liberty or Death”
Russ
On November 12th, 2012 at 12:31 am
Bryan. I have no problem letting your post through since it’s arrant nonsense. The RLC did not endorse Gary Johnson in the primary or afterwards. That’s a matter of record. And under our bylaws we are required to support Romney as the party’s nominee and many of us did so fairly enthusiastically.
This does not mean that we excuse his behavior at the GOP national convention or his failure as a candidate. It wasn’t the RLC which lost this election, it was the party establishment. The fact that this creates an opportunity for us to push for positive change in the party is a good thing.
Dave
On November 12th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Dave, while I somewhat agree with the overall tenor of your posting, I have some ice-cold water to throw on your optimism. This isn’t because I’m not also an optimist, but because I see grave challenges coming soon, and if we don’t prepare for the worst, we have no chance of achieving our hope-for-the-best.
#1. Yes, the balance of power has shifted somewhat away from estab-repubs, and therefore somewhat to the liberty-leaning repubs like Flake and the tea-party-repubs like Fischer (plus of course Cruz who qualifies as both). But you misinterpret the risk here: if enough of the estab moderates are driven away, they will side with the dems, which is to say, they *already* side with the dems in terms of maintaining the twin-party duopoly where both of the major-party-nominees are indistinguishable on key issues (and argue about Too Big Bird To Fail as a distraction instead). When liberty-repubs control one large portion of a much smaller pie, that is still a loss overall. Was it really the case that 4 more of Obama will be better for liberty than 8 more of Mitt would have been? That is an imponderable.
#2. Yes, we had some wins with Cruz/Heller/Flake/Fischer joining Rand/Lee/DeMint in the senate, and that might even give us enough to get minority whip for DeMint instead of for Cornyn. Furthermore, the failure of Mitt to excite the electorate, garnering only 57m votes compared to 60m for McCain (who might have beaten Obama this time!) was the biggest reason that repubs had a net loss of neg2 senate seats, not the expected gain of +5 or +6 seats we needed to retake control of the body. However, another factor that was utterly corrosive in terms of mathematics, albeit not message, during this election *was* the Libertarian party. The reason that Mourdock the tea-party guy lost Indiana wasn’t his misconstrued comment on rape, it was the 5% of the voters that picked the libertarian senate candidate. Classic case of where the election-math which is the true driver behind the lesser-weevil rule-of-thumb hurt liberty. Ditto for Rehberg in Montana, where the libertarian ticket swiped 6% to give the dem a win. Arguably, the losses for Mandel in OH and also for Wilson in NM can be attributed to the libertarian bloc, also, but in those cases (as with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in the presidential election race) you have to posit some voter fatigue/confusion/whatever due to splitting the message, criticizing our buds, and similar factors. 2 or maybe 4 losses is the difference between losing seats in the senate, and gaining seats.
#3. Hey, if you assume that unquestioning loyalty to Mitt by the pauliticians would’ve boosted overall turnout *and* depressed third-party defections significantly, you might even say that Berg in ND and Thompson in WI could’ve won their senate races also, which would have been enough to win control of the senate by one seat. Gary Johnson did worse than expected, barely getting a million votes, and not even quite hitting 1% of the very-low-turnout-popvote… when polls suggested that he would easily get twice that much, and more than likely 3 or 4 times that much, this November. That said, while Gary Johnson and Ron Paul didn’t spoil the election for Mitt *mathematically*, many in the mainstream repub party (and even some in the Ayn faction of the liberty-leaning repub world such as Bryan… or the Palin-tea-party world such as Shelly Dankert) will be happy to blame pauliticians and libertarian-leaning repubs for the loss anyhow. They are on shaky ground, both logically and in the mathematical sense, but emotionally they are seeking somebody to be the scapegoat, and Ron Paul types are going to get it, including the RLC for endorsing.
#4. You are pointing out, here on this blog, that establishment repubs aka elistist-DC-moderate-neocon repubs (Ginsberg/Rove/etc and their hand-picked presumptive frontrunner turned presumptive romineey) were directly responsible for the low turnout this year. They cheated at the natcon. They gave the voters a choice between a socialist-leaning liar with a record of big-government big-spending policy, and a centrist-leaning liar with a record of big government big spending policy. You saying they deserve the blame now isn’t controversial, at all. Grover Norquist of taxpayer-pledge fame predicted all the way back in January that this would happen. “If Ron Paul speaks at the GOP convention, as he was not invited to do in 2008, the party will be united, and Romney will win in November 2012. If Ron Paul speaks only at his own rally in Florida, as happened at the 2008 GOP convention in Minnesota, the party will not be at full strength.” However, you and Grover do not control the mainstream media, you and Grover do not control the establishment republican leadership, you are Grover are *correct* but that does not matter, because what matters here is how everyday repubs will *perceive* the situation. We already know the answer — see number three.
#5. We can defend ourselves against the coming counter-attack by the establishment, via the newly-rammed-through rule#12, the one rule to wring them all, only if we are strong and unified. But we are weak and divided. Many people in the mainstream repub party already have a hatred for pauliticians, and many in the broader liberty-movement can be prodded into ideological purge behavior (cf Virgil-Goode-style liberty in comment#2 as well as Yaron-Brook-style liberty in comment#18… which btw the spelling is Taggart). Elsewhere we see folks in the liberty-movement hating on Benton/Olson/Tate for failing to magically give Ron Paul victory, or hating on Rand for endorsing the party romineey when it became mathematically guaranteed he would be, or hating on Gary Johnson as practically a warmonger because he would only close 50% of overseas bases not 80% of them, or hating on Ron-Paul-write-in-voters as foolish dreamers, or other lunatic behavior (on top of the existing lunatic truther/birther/bilderberg/jfk conspiracy theories … why hunt for secret conspiracies when we have video evidence that the nomination process was rigged by a plain old boring power-cartel?).
#6. All in all, taken together these facts make for a very touchy situation already. To make things worse, there are people in paulitician forums gloating at the pain Romney-supporters are feeling, pouring salt in their wounds, calling them names, and bear-baiting them online. Dave, I know you, so I know that was *not* your intent with the article here… clearly you are just looking at the truth of the situation, analyzing the possibilities, and trying to gauge correct tactics for the future. What I’m trying to do here isn’t to call you on the carpet for acting like some of our bad apples in the liberty movement (since you are *not* acting in any way inappropriately), but instead to warn you: tread carefully, because there are many hurt feelings out there right now. We need to take that into account, when we predict the future, because if we just look at the election-math when we analyze the outcome, we are going to be in for a nasty surprise when the RNCmte abuses rule#12… while half the folks in the tea party cheer them on.
Anyways, I suppose I ought to say something about how I’m sorry to be a downer, but I’m not really sorry, so I won’t say it… instead I’ll just say why I’m not saying it, which is that we must be realists and pragmatists now. Rule#12 is going to determine whether all our gains in 2010 and 2012 are eliminated during 2013 and early 2014, long before the actual midterm primary season even gets going. That said, I’m very glad at our gains in 2012. They weren’t spectacular, as some in the liberty movement were hoping for, but they were significant, and I expect they will continue to increase in 2014 and 2016 and beyond… if we can thwart rule#12 that is.
If I had to pick one particular flaw in your article, it is your boldfaced baldfaced assumption, near the end. “Now everyone knows what we have known for years.” This is totally false. We are, at this very moment, locked in a battle to shape the discourse. There are a few million hardcore liberty repubs that know what you and I know. There are well under a million corrupt elite DC insiders, that do *not* want everybody to know such things, and who have control of the press and control of the party hierarchy and way way way more money than we do. Their message to the 50m everyday repubs that voted for Romney-Ryan is simple: blame the libertarians for the loss of the whitehouse and the senate. Our message to that same group is also very simple: blame the cheating and lying by the elite pooh-bahs for the loss of the whitehouse and the senate. Their message is better funded, plus, there is a kernel of truth: libertarians *outside* the repub party in fact did split the vote in a couple of key senate races, causing losses by Mourdock & Rehberg. Our message is on a shoestring budget, plus, sounds like a conspiracy theory.
We better focus, if we want to survive to enjoy our 2012 liberty-victory. How many counties have passed resolutions? How many NCM and NCW and state-chair votes do we have in our favor? We need 26% min.
On November 12th, 2012 at 11:38 pm
On the question about whether traditional marriage is the liberty-position, or whether LBGT couples with adopted children ought to also be considered marriage and families, there are many intertwined issues.
First, there is the issue of whether the government, and especially the federal government, ought to be involved with this stuff in any way. The correct liberty-stance is, as usual, for the government to keep their nose out of our business, and their hands out of our pocketbooks, and their laws to themselves. It is not the role of the government to provide dictionary-definitions for everyday English terms, nor is it the role of government to pass laws encouraging any particular social arrangement, and by the same token, discouraging any particular social arrangement. The proper role of government is to defend, preserve, and protect individual rights of all citizens equally — liberty and justice for all.
Does this mean that the government can give married couples a tax-break? Does this mean that the govt can provide special incentives and loopholes that only apply to married couples, or only apply to biological children? Does this mean the government can outlaw polygamy, mutually consenting sodomy between adults, lesbian sex, homosexual sex, homophobic speech, male prostitution, adult pornography, transgender surgery? Does this mean the government can mandate polygamy, monogamy, sodomy, homophobia? Does this mean that the government can fund pornography, hateful speech, and transgender surgery?
The liberty-stance is uniformly: nope, to all. Obviously, with the possible exception of Nevada as portrayed in fiction, there is *nowhere* in the USA that even approximately follows the liberty-stance.
Dave asserts, without proof, that the correct tactic to move towards greater overall liberty in the distant future, is to compromise in the now with dems (“left-leaning states”), helping them to pass same-sex-marriage statutes, or amend their state constitutions equivalently. He implies, but does not come right out and say, that the RLC must also therefore oppose any attempted one-man-one-woman statutes or amendments in repub-leaning states.
However, as Pat quite correctly responded, the purpose of same-sex-marriage statutes is not to *allow* people who are LBGT hold hands, have sex, date, fall in love, live together, take vows, raise kids, merge their property, act as a legal beneficiary, and so on (in whatever order they select). Contract law is *completely* sufficient for such things, in general, is it not?
There are some unfair existing statutes (e.g. which give tax-breaks to married couples), but the point of same-sex-marriage statutes is never to *overturn* the unfair existing practices, but rather to define LBGT relationships as constituting marriage — which is to say, it is mostly about demanding equal respect, demanding equal recognition, and (to a lesser but not insignificant extent) demanding special services (e.g. ability to get married in a church… even one that is theologically against LBGT unions… or risk court-mandated penalties). The push for same-sex marriage statutes is never about repealing unfair portions of the tax-code, or clarifying portions of the insurance-beneficiary regulations by adding new verbiage to cover LBGT couples… it is always about mandating that LBGT relationships *are* marriage, and therefore *should* get those same unfair benefits that hetero couples are getting, in terms of the tax code and other such things.
I’m in favor of people doing whatever they want with their love-lives, and I’m in favor of the government keeping to their proper role, but I’m not in favor of using the government to mandate respect for LBGT unions as officially “being” marriage, any more than I’m in favor of using the government to mandate respect for traditional marriage above all “perversions”. The incorporation-doctrine of the scotus, that the 14th amendment implies that the 1st amendment also applies to the states, also must be taken into account: back in 1795, it was legal (and very common) for the states to institute official religions via statehouse statutes, now called blue laws. Now, though, the states cannot do such things, because the first amendment prohibition (“shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”). They do anyways, of course — when you, hypothetically speaking of course, look for a drive-through hard-liquor shop that is open for business on Sunday mid-morning, and cannot find one, there is a religious reason for it. The loophole is whether or not *individual* statutes that have a religious basis count as establishment-of-religion. Pretty clearly they must not be so counted, because then you couldn’t have a law against theft, or against murder, for instance.
“… the genuine problem of inequity and equal treatment under the law for same sex couples … the RLC believes in liberty and that means that ONE WAY OR ANOTHER all people ought to be treated equally under the law.” (emphasis added)
This is not quite correct. A law that says all citizens will have their right arm chopped off on the 4th of July (assuming the procedure wasn’t already done on some earlier year’s celebratory-arm-chopping-day) absolutely treats individuals equally under the law. But it just as clearly violates individual rights to life/liberty/property/pursuit-o-happiness. The correct stance for an organization devoted to liberty should be that individual rights must be protected & preserved, therefore any laws (however equal they might be!) which fail to do so are thereby Bad Laws.
“unless we’re talking about adopting children”
That is the place where TL and the RLC disagree, methinks — TL does not mind (much) if LBGT folks use the word marriage solely in their own personal private contracts with each other, but he wants the government to continue to subsidize traditional marriage via the tax code, and furthermore, wants to only permit traditional marriage couples to be adoption-recipients. This goes back to the John Adams quote, with the implication that *only* religious folk can possess morality (cf Ayn Rand), and in particular that only Abrahamic religions and especially the protestant flavors thereof can properly control our civilization. Cf the deist Jefferson, the finest friendship Adams enjoyed, for a contrary view.
This whole issue is a very tough walnut; I have no easy solutions. Cf the abortion issue, which has no easy solutions either. (Walter Block suggests that a third alternative to pro-life-even-in-rape-cases versus pro-abortion-even-for-unwanted-two-year-olds that I found intriguing, based in property rights.)
On November 13th, 2012 at 12:28 am
@Bryan, when you say that Romney was your last choice, did you mean even lower than Naked Cowboy and the unimitable Vermin Supreme? Where did you place Gary Johnson in your ranking, and for that matter Ron Paul, since both of them were running for the repub nominee slot — above Mitt Romney, we must assume?
While we’re on the subject of reality, please give us your reasoning for why 8 years of Mitt the liar, who talks the talk of capitalism but fails to walk the walk (he can in the same breath say he will end crony capitalism like Solyndra… and increase R&D grant money from the feds for energy research), would objectively be an improvement over 4 years of Obama the liar, who talks the talk of progressivism but fails to walk the walk? In other words, can we trust Mitt to kill the *right* kind of people with his killer robot drones, and indefinitely detain the *correct* citizens with his NDAA-mandated powers, and most importantly *properly* pick the time to invade Iran? Obama is in favor of all those things, as you know, and just because Mitt might do them a bit differently, for 8 years instead of 4 years, can you really say that Mitt is actually an improvement? If so, better check your premises. (While we are on the subject, explain how federal RomneyCareVersion3 with the individual mandate would be an improvement over Obamacare with the scotus-approved penaltax.)
Last, and most crucially, I triple-dog-dare you to justify how it is the moral DUTY of all people that are in the repub party to pull together in favor of a nominee that NOBODY in the tea party wanted, that NOBODY in the liberty-movement wanted, that NOBODY in the objectivist bloc wanted, that in point of fact NOBODY wanted except the elite DC insiders and their controlled media minions… especially when we have video of cheating (in the form of both fraud and physical force) being used at the state level, and the teleprompter-scripted deaf chair gambit at the federal level, to rig the entire process?
Can you honestly say *that* is what you mean, when you say that “the party” made its choice? Because if so, then you must think that Ben Ginsberg and his friends are the definition of “the party” whereas to me “the party” can only be constituted by the voters thereof and the registered members thereof. Are you in favor of rule#12, which will be used to guarantee that all future nominees are just as horrible and last-place-but-hold-your-nose as the romineey was?
Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together, but the creator is the man who stands alone. The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality. The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. –Ayn
Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid. –Reagan