United Liberty

One of the biggest struggles between conservatives and libertarians isn’t over gay marriage, abortion, or even the War on Drugs.  No, its whether libertarians should be faithful to the Republican Party.  This discussion has gotten even louder in recent weeks after Mitt Romney’s defeat at the hands of President Obama.

However, the question I personally have is whether or not libertarians would be even welcome within the party.  My fellow United Liberty contributor, Kevin Boyd, wrote this regarding his thoughts on what libertarians should do:

The solution is simple, we must launch a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. We need encourage our libertarian friends to abandon the Libertarian Party, which has accomplished a grand total of nothing in its 40 years of existence. Conservatives and libertarians need to get involved in the Republican party, especially on the local level. Work your way up the party ranks and eventually become the establishment.

I see what Kevin is saying, and he’s right about the Libertarian Party’s lack of accomplishment.  As a member of that party, I’m extremely frustrated with the poor showing during the last election by Gary Johnson, who I felt was a very solid candidate.

However, Johnson’s appearance on the LP ticket ties into my concerns about whether libertarians would be welcomed within the GOP.  Johnson was a two term governor of New Mexico, a clear fiscal conservative, and a man with solid “small government” credentials.  He was shut out.

Ron Paul made some waves this time around, and much of the derision he faced within the GOP could be argued to be the result of his fanatical supporters and their actions.  However, four years ago, he was right where Johnson was this time around.

Our rulers in Washington DC are fighting over the so-called “fiscal cliff” which means that at the end of the year a bunch of “spending cuts” and tax increases will take effect causing all sorts of calamities. Our wonderful representatives in Congress and our brilliant President/Messiah, Barack Obama are trying to work out a “balanced” deal to make everything alright. The “balanced” deal appears to be we raise taxes today, especially on the evil “rich”, and that we cut spending in a few years (ie. never). No one on Capitol Hill dares to suggest that instead of asking American taxpayers to pay more taxes that we actually, you know cut spending. The fiscal cliff debate is actually America’s time for choosing of whether or not we will be a country that values freedom and liberty or we will be a country subservient to the state.

Both parties proposals’ are generally the same. Higher taxes, no real spending cuts, and no real entitlement reform. The only differences are the numbers and who benefits and who loses. There is no real choice for those of us who believe in liberty and freedom. The Republican Party, which is supposed to be the party of limited government, is now actively purging fiscal conservatives from important committee positions. What are those of us who believe in liberty supposed to do?

In the opening sequence of the musical 1776, John Adams, played by William Daniel, laments the worthlessness of the Continential Congress. McNair, the custodian of the Congress, fetches Adams, telling him that his colleagues are about to decide an important issue — “whether or not the Rhode Island militia be required to wear matching uniforms.” Adams replies, “Oh, good God.”

Upset by the lack of a will to pass a declaration of independency from England, he walks into chambers at Independence Hall in Philiadelphia, saying, “I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress!”

That’s pretty much how I feel about the Republican National Committee after reading this story from Politico about the RNC’s newly launched review committee, which is supposed to determine what exactly went wrong in 2012:

The Republican National Committee is rolling out a plan to review what worked and what didn’t for the party in the 2012 cycle, appointing five people at the top of a committee that will make recommendations on things like demographics, messaging and fundraising.

The Growth and Opportunity Project is going to be chaired by RNC committee member Henry Barbour, longtime Jeb Bush adviser and political operative Sally Bradshaw, former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, Puerto Rico RNC committee member Zori Fonalledas, and South Carolina RNC member Glenn McCall. Priebus, who is running for a second term, is holding a call with committee members to roll out the plan this afternoon.

Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), has received a substantial amount of attention in recent weeks thanks to a handful of Republicans who have indicated that they are willing to go back on their pledges not to raise taxes on their constituents.

For years, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which is sponsored by ATR, has been a valuable tool in primaries as candidates frequently use it to show their commitment to fiscally conservative principles. As noted previously, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge simply states that the candidate will “oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses” and “oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.” This pledge is not made to Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform, or Republican leadership in Congress. It’s made to taxpayers inside that candidates district or state.

However, there are some that feel that there is too much of a focus on taxes and not enough on spending. Jonathan Bydlak, President of the Coalition to Reduce Spending, expressed this sentiment last week in a piece at National Review:

This post is a reminder about tomorrow’s new media lunch at the Cato Institute.

This year’s election served as a shock to Republicans, and now they’re scratching their heads trying to figure out what went wrong. With more Americans expressing viewpoints consistent with personal liberty — including marijuana legalization and support for gay marriage — the conservative movement, which makes up a chunk of the Republican-base, must now adapt to the changing political atmosphere or continue to suffer at the ballot box.

So what is a path forward for the Republican Party? In short, they need to become more libertarian. Tomorrow, our friends at the Cato Institute will host a new media lunch, featuring a panel on this very subject at its Washington, DC campus.

Panelists will include:

• Walter Olson, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute
• Alex Nowrasteh, Immigration Policy Analyst at the Cato Institute
• Jason Pye, Editor at United Liberty (that’s me!)
• Rob Kampia, Executive Director at the Marijuana Policy Project

The event begins at noon and will run until 1:30pm. Zachary Graves, Director of New Media at the Cato Institue, will moderate the discussion.

You can RSVP and check out the details by clicking here.

Last week, the White House made their initial offer on the so-called “fiscal cliff,” asking congressional Republicans for $1.6 trillion in tax hikes coupled with a $400 billion in spending cuts over 10 years. Republicans leaders, who have been open to the idea of raising tax revenue, dismissed the unrealistic proposal out-of-hand, rightly explaining that the White House gave them something that would never pass Congress.

Yesterday, Republicans made their pitch to resolve the “fiscal cliff,” making a counter-offer that that cuts spending, reforms entitlements, and raises $800 billion in new tax revenue:

House Republican leaders on Monday made a counteroffer to President Obama in the “fiscal cliff” negotiations that would cut $2.2 trillion from the deficit with a combination of spending cuts, entitlement reforms and $800 billion in new tax revenue.

Republican officials said their 10-year plan contained more deficit reduction than the offer the White House presented last week while standing firm against Obama’s demand to increase tax rates on the wealthy.

The White House quickly panned the offer, saying it contained “nothing new” and did not “meet the test of balance.”

The Republican offer came in the form of a three-page letter to the White House signed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and four other senior Republicans, including Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), the party’s just-defeated vice presidential nominee.

With Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) under fire from conservatives for his desire to raise taxes as part of a “fiscal cliff” deal, there is speculation that former Gov. Mark Sanford, who made news in 2009 due to an affair, could try to make a political comeback:

For starters he’s done the one thing political observers insisted was absolutely necessary in the event he wanted to attempt a political comeback – legitimize his love affair with Argentinean hottie Maria Belen Chapur.  Sanford proposed to Chapur last week in Buenos Aires … and she accepted.  The result?  What was once viewed by some as a tawdry affair now looks more like thehappy ending to a romance novel.

What else is Sanford doing?  Working the press … like Newsday contributor Lane Filler, who encountered Sanford in a very interesting location at the 2012 Republican National Convention this week.

“I saw him coming down the escalator at the press center of the Republican National Convention in Tampa,” Filler writes of his “surprise encounter” with Sanford.

Hmmmm …

So if Sanford has no political future (and ostensibly knows it) then what exactly was he doing lurking around the press corps at the GOP convention?

This year’s election served as a shock to Republicans, and now they’re scratching their heads trying to figure out what went wrong. With more Americans expressing viewpoints consistent with personal liberty — including marijuana legalization and support for gay marriage — the conservative movement, which makes up a chunk of the Republican-base, must now adapt to the changing political atmosphere or continue to suffer at the ballot box.

So what is a path forward for the Republican Party? In short, they need to become more libertarian. On Wednesday, December 5th, our friends at the Cato Institute will host a new media lunch, featuring a panel on this very subject at its Washington, DC campus.

Panelists will include:

• Walter Olson, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute
• Alex Nowrasteh, Immigration Policy Analyst at the Cato Institute
• Jason Pye, Editor at United Liberty (that’s me!)
• Mike Riggs, Associate Editor at Reason Magazine

The event begins at noon and will run until 1:30pm. Zachary Graves, Director of New Media at the Cato Institue, will moderate the discussion.

You can RSVP and check out the details by clicking here.

Of all the post-election autopsies I’ve read, this one may be the silliest. It is definitely an excercise in sticking one’s head in the sand, of deliberately ignoring what is going on around you. But since it is written by the President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, maybe I can give Richard Land some slack. Maybe. I mean, after all, it’s not like he’s going to say “Ignore me!” is he?

Here is what Mr. Land writes, in the New York Times of all places (so I suppose he’s just consigned himself to hell for writing in there):

The G.O.P. must not, and cannot, ignore its foundation and base. Exit polls show that white evangelicals made up 26 percent of the electorate, 3percent more than in 2004. Furthermore, these evangelicals voted for Mitt Romney in virtually the same percentages as the governor’s fellow Mormons (78 percent for Romney vs. 21 percent for President Obama, according exit polls by Edison Research). Obama received 26 percent of evangelical votes in 2008.

On the pro-life and same-sex-marriage issues it should also be remembered that while Obama won the total Catholic vote 50 percent to 48 percent, he won Hispanic Catholics 75 percent to 21 percent, while Romney won non-Hispanic Catholics 59 percent to 40 percent. On the issue of same-sex-marriage, the pro-same-sex-marriage forces did win their first electoral victories, but they did so in four liberal states: Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. And, in all four cases they won by relatively small margins in spite of having outspent their opponents by margins approaching nine to one.

While surfing Facebook yesterday, I came across an article by Morton Blackwell, founder of the Leadership Institute, that touched on a problem with the Republican Party; one isn’t often detected in focus groups and polls.

Since this election, political consultants have been brought on various television and talk radio shows to explain why Republicans have suffered at the ballot box. There are certainly issued-based causes that are often cited; however, another problem is the political consultant class itself.

Blackwell explains that consultants make a good chunk of money when their candidate runs an ad. For example, Blackwell notes that “for every $100,000 spent on broadcast media, the consultant pockets a cool $15,000 — plus his fees for creating new commercials.”

But the consultant doesn’t end there:

The consultant, now prosperous and enjoying a changed lifestyle, has ready access to and influence with some incumbent officeholders. He decides to branch out into lobbying, where his influence enables him to pull down some really fat fees from major corporations, trade associations, and even foreign governments which have major financial interests in the decisions of elected and appointed government officials.

While able to give his few early clients a great deal of personal time, the consultant quickly finds it impossible to give the same type of service to half a dozen candidates simultaneously.