United Liberty

We are 47 days away from Election Day. Republicans are trying to excite voters over Mitt Romney, desperately hoping to bring an end to Barack Obama’s political career. And while anything is still possible, it’s not looking good for Romney, who is trailing Obama in 9 of 10 swing states.

And, sure, you can say that’s one specific poll or that it’s a Politico link, a site that doesn’t typically favor the right. But that fact remains – no matter what the polls say – that the Romney campaign isn’t doing well at all lately.

And now, on top of that frustration, a GOP takeover of the Senate, once thought to be highly probable, is in jeopardy.

We should be focusing our efforts where they’ll have the most impact, and given the outlook of the presidential election, it may be time to shift our focus to the Senate.

Of course, I’m not saying we should just concede the presidential election. If you’re in a swing state, it makes sense to focus some time on the presidential election, but if you’re in a decidedly red (or blue) state, time spent helping Senate candidates may be a better choice.

And, yes, we could also argue that Republican activists in non-swing states could be making calls for Romney to voters in swing states just as easily as they could make calls for Senate candidates, but some of these Senate races are closer than the presidential election.

And if Obama is going to be re-elected, which seems likely at this point, Republicans need to have control of the Senate.

Late last week I saw a headline about Paul Ryan that said he didn’t think the federal government should interfere with states on the medical marijuana issue. That’s not exactly what I’d expect to hear coming from the Romney/Ryan ticket, but I certainly wasn’t upset by it.

I think Ryan was making a point that too many people miss. When talking about the War on Drugs as a Republican in favor of ending it yesterday, it’s a hot topic, and I’m not usually in the majority. The argument I run into so often is this:

Drugs are bad. People shouldn’t use drugs. We should ban drugs.

End of argument.

And that’s without getting into the cost of law enforcement, the overcrowding of prisons for nonviolent crimes, the cost of outsourcing prison space, the dangers of prohibition, or the fact that prohibition simply doesn’t work.

The ironic part of this is that these folks who cheer for calls to return to the Constitution couldn’t legitimize the War on Drugs with any portion of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

And that, I think, was Ryan’s point. This isn’t a federal issue. It’s a states’ issue. If marijuana is to be legalized – for medicinal or for any other use – it’s an issue for the states to decide, not the federal government.

Earlier this month, I said that one of the reasons you may want to vote for Mitt Romney is if you think the GOP is too conservative. My premise in that statement is that the party will move the direction of its leading politicians until they are rejected. Based on some new data, we see that already taking place, without Romney even being elected.

The data is part of a poll that compares responses of registered voters in April and then again four months later in August. The telling data is with voters who consider themselves “conservative” or “very conservative.” Here is the chart used on that WP article I linked to above:

Notice the blue sections in the image. In April, roughly one-fourth of conservative and very conservative voters said Romney was too liberal. In August, those numbers decreased, and there was an increase in the number of voters who say Romney’s views are “about right.”

Of course, this doesn’t hit specific issues. It’s a question about a candidate. If respondents were asked specifically about issues, we probably wouldn’t see such a quick change. Two important things that would impact this data have happened since April:

1. Romney is the last man standing.

Part of the Republican Party platform to be voted on at the national convention this week is language that calls for a crackdown on the porn industry.

Before we jump the gun on anything, it’s worth noting that the party platform isn’t binding. The GOP platform has called for lots of things Republicans don’t actually endorse, so we probably shouldn’t panic too much…yet.

So, if it’s not binding, what’s the problem with having issues like this in the platform? Here are a few reasons:

1. It distracts from the real issues.

Today the news isn’t talking about a massive budget overhaul. They’re talking about how Republicans want to prevent adults from accessing pornography. We have a $1.5 trillion annual deficit. We are fighting wars we can’t afford. We are heading toward complete fiscal ruin, and Republicans want to talk about banning porn? It’s nothing more than a distraction to take our eyes off of what’s important.

2. It gives politicians an excuse to expand government.

When a Republican decides it’s time to make legislation to control the behavior of others, he’ll have an easier time getting support for it when it’s part of the platform. Legislators can use the “well, it was in the platform, so I supported it like a good little Republican” excuse and support the expansion of government without fear of blowback from the party.

3. Protecting me from myself is not a legitimate function of government.

There is no scenario in which keeping an adult from viewing pornographic material created by consenting adults is a legitimate function of government. Whether we’re talking about state or federal government, that type of law is inappropriate.

Senator Rand Paul and Kentucky Agricultural Commissioner James Comer are teaming up to fight a battle over industrial hemp. Since the plant, which is great for making all sorts of products, is a cousin to marijuana, it remains banned in the United States.

Hemp is one of the great examples of the failure of the War on Drugs. An attempt to control citizens’ behavior has eliminated the use of a crop good for making a number of useful products. Seriously, go look at that list.

Senator Paul is making the argument that federal regulations are impeding his state’s agriculture industry. And while he’s absolutely right – there’s a lot of money to be made from growing hemp – it’s important to realize that isn’t the primary reason we should be fighting for the legalization of hemp.

We should be fighting for the legalization of hemp because prohibition is wrong.

The fact that it can be used to make quality clothing doesn’t matter. The fact that it can be used to make strong ropes doesn’t matter. The fact that it can be used for anything doesn’t matter.

If somebody wants to grow hemp just for the sake of growing it – with no useful intent whatsoever – it should be legal. That’s called freedom, and freedom for the sake of freedom something we should be pressing toward more often.

Though Senator Paul has a valid argument in calling for legalizing hemp to aid in growing Kentucky’s agricultural business and creating jobs, we should remember that fighting for freedom to grow hemp – simply for the freedom to do it – is all the reason we really need.