United Liberty

Buzzfeed, not exactly known for its credibility on the right, this week contributed to what has been an ongoing project among our ranks for years now: how to describe and label the different wings of Republicanism. Ben Smith put forth a valiant effort, attempting to simplifying the right into two sides: freedom conservatives and liberty conservatives.

When we write about the right these days, we tend to use a set of dated shorthand, overlapping categories drawn from different eras: neocons and tea partyers, libertarians and hawks, the establishment and the grassroots. …

I propose replacing the messy old terminology with a simple new vocabulary, one that has evolved organically, which has deep and consistent intellectual roots, no pejorative implications, and which political leaders use effortlessly and without reflecting. The division that will define the Republican Party for the next decade is the split between Liberty Conservatives and Freedom Conservatives.

He describes freedom conservatives as those, like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, who have more moderate views and are comfortable with government expressing power both internationally and domestically to pursue a conservative agenda. Liberty conservatives, on the other hand, like Rand Paul of course, are more rooted in the originalist view of the Constitution limiting the federal government to a few specific powers and a more limited role in foreign affairs.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that Eric Cantor has been defeated in the primaries by a “Tea Party” candidate. While everyone goes through mental gymnastics to figure out exactly why that happened, one thing should definitely be understood - Cantor’s constituents no longer want him to represent them.

That is an important point that is being lost, particularly by Michael Steele. He floated the idea that Cantor might make a good RNC Chair.

Someone needs a reality check, if they think that an incumbent that has just lost a primary is a good candidate to lead an entire political party.

It’s true that alternative media people have been saying that establishment Republicans are tone deaf to the desires of the rank and file voters in the party. Until now, it’s just been a lot of commentaries, that haven’t been backed by anything really measurable.

We finally have something to show that the establishment is not really representing the voters anymore. If Cantor ends up as the RNC chair, rank and file voters need to seriously consider whether or not they want to remain in the party. Talk about a third party gaining relevancy in the U.S. will have meaning if the RNC continues to try to make itself irrelevant.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul tops another list of popular 2016 Republican candidates in an unscientific survey by POLITICO.

More than 25 Republican campaign managers and strategists working on races this year named Paul over Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and others as their top pick for President.

From the story:

POLITICO put the question in recent weeks to more than 25 GOP campaign managers, strategists and aides in competitive races across the country. Though it was not a scientific survey, their responses offered clues about which potential presidential hopefuls have the most cachet with down-ballot Republicans right now — and why.

Operatives mentioned Paul more than any other prospective 2016 candidate. Christie followed — despite the fallout from the so-called Bridgegate traffic scandal — thanks largely to his continued fundraising prowess. In the next tier were Walker and Ted Cruz, whose diverging styles each appeal to segments of the GOP. After them, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio each got multiple nods. It all speaks to the rowdy selection process that lies ahead for the party in 2016 – and, in the meanwhile, the menu of prominent supporters available to candidates on the 2014 map.

Senator Paul’s grasp of the issues, fundraising prowess, and Senate profile are all reasons cited by strategists and staffers — anonymously in most cases, so as not to isolate themselves and their respective campaigns from other potential 2016 contenders.

In an Indiana University School of Journalism online survey of 1,080 journalists shocking probably no one, just 7.1% consider themselves Republican, compared to 28.1% who consider themselves Democrats. Another 50.2% of respondents claimed the “Independent” mantle.

“The American Journalist in the Digital Age” survey has been conducted five times since the 1970s — 1971, 1982, 1992, 2002, and 2013. In 1971, 35.5% of journalists surveyed considered themselves Democrats, while 25.7% considered themselves Republican. Democrat affiliation spiked in 1992 with 44.1% of journalists rallying behind team Clinton.

The Fix’s Chris Cillizza concluded:

Over the last several decades, three things have happened: 1) The number of Democratic-identifying reporters increased steadily prior to a significant drop in the latest survey 2) The number of Republicans has steadily shrunk with that number dipping into single digits for the first time ever in the new survey c) more and more reporters are identifying as independents.  What seems to be happening — at least in the last decade - -is that journalists are leaving both parties, finding themselves more comfortable as unaffiliateds.

Cillizza also suggests that the move toward the “Independent” moniker for journalists mimics a similar move by voters over the same period (according to Gallup), which — in this author’s humble opinion — is probably baloney.

The manufactured crisis last week that led to extraordinary, unprecedented change to the filibuster, prompted by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Democrats, is the first step down a road that undermines the nature of the chamber and will, almost certainly, lead to bigger changes.

The Senate was meant to be the more prestigious body of Congress and its members, given six-year terms, were selected to be responsive to state interests in Washington. Members of the House of Representatives, on the other hand, were meant to serve as the voices of the people, subject to re-election every two years.

Contrary to what President Obama said in his statement after the filibuster change, that “if you got a majority of folks who believe in something, then it should be able to pass,” the upper chamber was never meant to serve as a “voice of the people,” nor was meant to rubber stamp majoritarian views or interest.

It was meant, as James Madison once said, “to consist in its proceedings with more coolness, with more system and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.” Passing legislation and approving nominees based on consensus. The filibuster — which has existed as a concept since the chamber was created and in practice since 1837 — was a tool to achieve consensus.

But, over time, the Senate has become more and more like the House, beginning in 1913 with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, which mandated direct election of senators by voters in their respective states.

The Founding Fathers were concerned about a legislative branch that was too responsive to the whims of majority views, which could potentially be dangerous to essential liberty. In Federalist 10, Madison warned about the problem of faction.

More than a year ago, Pollster Frank Luntz stood before a group of about 40 House Republicans in a cramped conference room in the Longworth building.  “I need to tell you something,” he said.  “I’ve been looking at polling data from Congressional districts across America for the last three months.  I’m convinced that you are going to be in the majority next year.”  After a long pause, he added, “This time, please don’t screw it up again.”

I don’t think we will.

The message of the last two elections could not be louder or clearer.  Great parties are built upon great principles and they are judged by their devotion to those principles.  From its inception, the core principles of the Republican Party have been individual freedom and constitutionally limited government.  The closer it has hewn to these principles, the better it has done.  The further it has strayed from them…well, my God!

In the aftermath of the Bush debacle, House Republican leaders resolved to restore traditional Republican principles as the policy and political focus of the party and they achieved something no one at the time thought possible: they united House Republicans as a determined voice of opposition to the Left and rallied the American people.  Republicans rediscovered why they were Republicans, and Republican leaders rediscovered Reagan’s advice to paint our positions in bold colors and not hide them in pale pastels.

“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers.” - John Adams, Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1756

This week I had a discussion with a new friend about politics and the state of our nation. I was commenting on the corruption so rampant in government and he replied that we can no longer expect politicians to have integrity, and must be content to pick between the least corrupt of the candidates, or the ones that will direct the fruits of that corruption towards us.

Such cynicism is certainly understandable; just look at the politicians of our day. Bill Clinton’s legacy will forever be linked to a stained blue dress and what the definition of “is” is. Al Gore is a billionaire, becoming the false-prophet of fear mongering with the junk science of global warming (or “climate change” as it is now called). Charlie Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the most powerful committee chair in government which controls tax policy, is under investigation for tax fraud. Our Treasury Secretary is an admitted tax cheat, and many in Obama’s cabinet and senior staff have also had tax troubles. Ted Kennedy was a notorious drunk and a womanizer.

In this, the sixth in a series of interview with Liberty Candidates, Jason and Brett talk with Chris Simcox, discussing his campaign, his political activism, and his opponent, former Republican Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain.  Simcox is running in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Arizona.

This series is one devoted to showcasing liberty candidates nationwide.  Simcox talks about his Senatorial campaign against Arizona’s senior Senator.

You can download the podcast here. The introduction music is “Silence is Violence” by the always lovely Aimee Allen.

You can subscribe to the RSS of JUST our podcasts here, or you can find our podcasts on iTunes here.