Wait, Déjà Vu Anyone?

In case you have been out of the loop, here is a quick summary of the political events that have occurred on the right side of the aisle these last few days:

1. Elections Occur on Tuesday, Rand Paul takes the Republican nomination for Senate over Trey Greyson, who was “favored by the establishment.” 

2. Antiestablishmentarian ‘conservatives’, libertarians and others celebrate the coming of the populist resurgence in American politics. 

3. Rand Paul is in trouble.

Yes, Rand Paul is taking some heat for his stance on myriad issues (most from before most of us at TheLobbyist were born) including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act among others.  Now, my link above is to the Salon and the piece(s) written about these matters, which may not be completely fair because they do not have a knack for being impartial if you get my drift.  Nevertheless, it is the best way to better understand your views; by taking in and understanding the most penetrating criticisms levied against you or your beliefs and learning from them (Madison’s contributions to the Federalist Papers were best at this in my opinion). 

I am not going to get into this Federal government vs State government, civil rights vs. libertarian, right vs. wrong stuff though.  I want to point out a coincidence I noticed:

At the liberaltarian dinner, many of the liberals persuasively argued that the pool of freedom isn’t fixed such that if government takes more, then there is necessarily less for the people. Many government interventions expand freedom. A good example would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was opposed by libertarians like Barry Goldwater as an unconstitutional infringement on states’ rights. Yet it was obvious that African Americans were suffering tremendously at the hands of state and local governments. If the federal government didn’t step in to redress these crimes, who else would?

This was written by Bruce Bartlett almost exactly a year ago.  I am not quite sure where Mr. Bartlett stands these days, probably more as a liberaltarian as a matter of fact; but I always enjoy a good coincidence.  Especially when the 1964 CRA was a point that Will Wilkinson at CATO also delved further into:

I think part of the problem is that if you hold up the Civil Rights Act as an example of libertarian success, most libertarians will deny that you are one. I think both the Civil Rights Act and the women’s movement did in fact lead to tremendous net increases in liberty. I think Bruce makes an excellent point. Federal intervention, while certainly limiting freedom of association and trumping more local jurisdictions, resulted IMO in an overall increase in freedom. That many traditional libertarian conservatives, such as Goldwater, seem to have been willing to sacrifice a great gain in overall freedom in order to maintain status quo levels local self-rule seems to me to betray a commitment to ancient ideals of liberty as community self-government in conflict with the modern idea of liberty as freedom from coercion.

All of this, a great dialectic between libertarians and liberaltarians, nearly a year before this current Rand Paul situation hit the fan. 

-rj

The Rand-Slide… and Other Tuesday Lessons

Wanted: A Mainstream Media That’s Actually Mainstream

Yesterday, an interesting series of articles came out that say a lot about the national media and the Tea Party movement.

First, allow me to introduce a Washington Post article describing the anti-racism battle the Tea Party movement is fighting in the public arena. I found the article on the Huffington Post political page (since updated). According to the article,

The challenge is made tougher by one of the defining elements of the tea party movement: No one person controls it. There is no national communications strategy. And incidents of racist slogans and derisive depictions of President Obama continue to crop up, providing fuel for critics who say the president’s skin color is a powerful reason behind the movement’s existence.

In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, most Americans see the movement as motivated by distrust of government, opposition to the policies of Obama and the Democratic Party, and broad concern about the economy. But nearly three in 10 see racial prejudice as underlying the tea party.

Supporters and opponents alike say the movement draws its strength from opposition to Obama’s policies, but they split deeply on the race question, according to the poll: About 61 percent of tea party opponents say racism has a lot to do with the movement, a view held by just 7 percent of tea party supporters.

A matter of perception

That indicates that the issue of race and the tea party is largely about differing perceptions, reflected in how people view the well-known illustration of Obama made up like the Joker from the Batman movie “The Dark Knight.” Some see the image, with its exaggerated lips, as an offensive reference to minstrelsy. Obama’s critics, however, say President George W. Bush was also portrayed as the Joker, as well as Dracula.

Now, there are multiple errors in this article, including the fact that neither of these Post sources regarding the poll cite the demographics in the poll- such as how many Democrats were polled, etc. Secondly, the article fails to note that the Joker picture was made by a liberal college student, not a conservative activist or conservative racist. Lastly, the racist slogans referred to could easily be the ones held by the liberal LaRouche supporters…but the Post simply sticks to the unprofessional and politically hackish general statement of “incidents,” without a single source or citation of the alleged incidents.

Next up on the “interesting article” stage is a Politico article describing the Post’s leftward tilt towards liberal bloggers. To be fair, the Post does have the tremendous writings of Charles Krauthammer and George Will, among other conservative columnists, but the article makes a great case that the Post is clearly heading towards a particular demographic- the young, Internet-savvy liberal. Given the initial article I quoted above, I think Politico was quite timely in its publication of the article.

Last, but not least, on stage we have The New York Times, which as of late has been acting strangely neutral/non-liberal in some of its articles. This latest betrayal of “mainstream” media values is a pretty interesting article about how a record number of black Republicans are running for Congress- a full 32. In the article, accusations of racism within the Tea Party are shot down by the candidates:

The black candidates interviewed overwhelmingly called the racist narrative a news media fiction. “I have been to these rallies, and there are hot dogs and banjos,” said Mr. West, the candidate in Florida, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army. “There is no violence or racism there.”

As Ed Morrissey noted (emphasis mine),

There was more violence at May Day rallies this past weekend than there have been in over a year of Tea Party rallies.  Did the New York Times [sic] cover those and assign them to the entire liberal politisphere in the manner they do here with conservatives?  Did they link that violence to the immigration-reform movement in the same way they have with no violence at all at Tea Parties with its attendees?

The same media double standard is true with the supposed racism they keep reporting at Tea Parties.  These rallies back candidates like West, Princella Smith, Vernon Parker, Ryan Frazier, and others.  They support these candidates for the simple reason that these candidates best represent their views on governance, fiscal policy, and national security.  Will they all win?  Probably not, although this year looks better than most, but it shows that conservatives have no barriers to entry except on policy and philosophy — just like any other political movement.  The media spin on Tea Parties and conservatives has gotten very, very threadbare — and increasingly desperate.

Morrissey is absolutely correct. Poll after poll, as well as outright statements, show just how much liberal power players and media members are missing the mainstream-America nature of the Tea Party, and in doing so, are alienating themselves and their influence in providing real news. When you lose the Times, though…maybe it’s time to admit you have a problem.

The Principled Pragmatist-Palin’s Advice to The Tea Party

In an interview with Fox News, Sarah Palin suggested that the Tea Party “take over the Republican Party … Get them to see the light.”  While such a statement carries a certain air of hypocrisy considering Palin’s endorsement of Senator John Mc’Cain over his far more conservative rivals, its inherent wisdom should not be overlooked.

The two-party division that dominates our political world was born only years after the ratification of The Constitution.  The Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, propounded a larger Federal Government that took a more expansive role in the lives of its citizens.  Ironically, it was the Democratic Party, led by Thomas Jefferson, that opposed the expansion of the Federal Government, and insisted, rather, that social programs and regulations be left to the control of state governments.  While the modern political parties have swapped ideologies, the classical alignment still exists, though, perhaps, somewhat muddled in the minds of individual americans.  It is that confusion–the ignorance of fundamental principles–that is to blame for today’s bloated expansion of the Federal Government.  Unable to articulate what they believe, modern conservatives, or those who would have allied themselves with the Democrats (or classical liberals) of Jefferson’s day, have, for over eighty years, found themselves voting into office leaders who have actually succeeded in increasing, rather than decreasing the size of the Federal Government.  The claim that there exists little difference between Democrats and Republicans is far more axiomatic than many realize.  The ideology of Jefferson’s Democratic party–the belief that the Federal Government should be limited to the express powers dictated by the Constitution and that social programs and regulations should be left to state governments–has all but disappeared from the political arena.  However, in an age were information is readily accessible, where the average american, by and through the aid of libraries and the internet, can obtain an education far superior to that offered by the university, Jefferson’s voice is heard once more in the mouth of the Tea Party.

As the Tea Party seeks to restore the principles of limited government, it has found its closest allies within the Republican Party.  And while many Republicans still believe in the expansion of the Federal Government, the movement would be wise to stay the course, and focus on reforming the party from within, rather than rejecting it from without.  Of course, when forced to decide between loyalty to party or loyalty to principle, the movement must remain true, even if it requires voting Democrat or Independent over Republican.

Misguided Minstrels–Keillor and Schwartzenegger Criticize Conservatives

On Tuesday, writer and talk show host Garrison Keillor criticized the hypocrisy inherit in the idolization of leaders who talk the small government talk, while simultaneously increasing the size of the federal government.  “Look at the recent powwow of the conservative choir in Washington. Their goal is to reduce government to where it was in Coolidge’s time. They are sticking to this, though their presidents, Reagan and Bush II, only succeeded in enlarging government.”  Later that night, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Governator of California, added insult to empirical injury, criticizing conservatives for “not going anywhere …” and concluding that, “in the end, when the economy comes back … the tea party will disappear …”  As wonderful as Gary’s writing and Arnie’s acting truly are, their analytical reasoning leaves much to be desired.  Conservatism is the most coherent and orderly political ideology ever conceived.  At its heart, it is purely pragmatic, seeking the highest quality of life for the greatest number of individuals possible while, at the same time, cultivating ingenuity and creativity by allowing for the greatest degree of personal liberty.  To accomplish that end, it requires fealty to the republican tenets of the Constitution, namely, a Federal Government limited, almost entirely, to national defense, and deference to state and local government for the administration of social programs and corporate oversight.  And, while many modern politicians, including Reagan and Bush, have ultimately failed to implement conservative policies, that does nothing to undermine or defeat the cause.  Rather, such failure is responsible for the the large influx of converts to the conservative movement.  Contrary to Governor Schwartzenegger’s prediction, this tea party has just begun.

What Can Brown Do For You?

It hurts, I know.  For the countless Conservatives and Tea Partiers who helped Scott Brown’s campaign make history, those who donated money from all around these United States (like the $348,000 spent by the Tea Party Express in California for a Scott Brown TV ad), those Republican operatives who boarded the buses here in DC and trekked northward into enemy territory to knock on doors: I cannot offer you and yours much comfort in my words.  Actions speak louder than words, and Conservatives, Libertarians and Tea Partiers seem to be uniting for the first time this year due to Senator Brown’s recent actions. 

It sucks; and nobody wanted to think this was going to be the case because as Glenn Beck said during his closing speech at CPAC, “it’s not enough for Republicans to just suck less than the other side.” 

What led us to this unfortunate quandary was the Senator’s recent vote against the filibuster for Senator Harry Reid’s Jobs Bill.  This will allow the Bill to reach a final vote in the Senate Wednesday.  His actions earned him praise from Maryland Democrat and Representative Steny Hoyer, which is the equivalent of Dallas Cowboys picking up L.T. and having Dan Snyder applaud the move as “great.”  It has also earned him some malicious scorn on his Facebook page and office phone lines; and a bit of criticism here at thelobbyist as well.   

Sen. Brown was probably pacing back and forth with his home state sticking to his shoes before returning to DC for votes this week.  He was probably taking a lot of information in about the problems facing Massachusetts, particularly unemployment which increased from 8.7% to 9.4% (November – December 2009), a considerable increase especially when compared to the rest of the United States.  All the while, Massachusetts’ Unemployment Insurance benefits have dipped $41.9 million into the red. 

I am not endorsing Senator Brown’s actions, nor am I even excusing them.  It is imperative that the Republican Party experience an eureka moment where they do not treat people who are for limited domestic influence by federal government as the fringe.  Can’t there be someone who can moderately explain why limited government involvement on the federal level is a good idea for the entire country?  Isn’t this where Reagan reigned supreme?  At the same time, can’t Tea Partiers, Conservatives and some Libertarians also come to accept that a Republican in Massachusetts will not be an exact replica of a Texas Republican, or a Carolina Republican? 

I am just asking for everyone to hold tight I guess.  I know we made Scott Brown into this last best hope, and I do not think that his voting in favor of this particular jobs bill shows us anything we really should not have already expected: Scott Brown is a Republican.  Not a Tea Partier, not particularly Conservative, and certainly not a libertarian.  Does this make him a RINO?  No… he is still a Republican and can still help us keep the $1 Trillion government slow-roll take-over of healthcare.  That means a lot more to me right now than the $14-40 Billion jobs bill.  Let’s not burn our bridge just yet, and keep our eyes on the prize.

-rj

Catholic Advocate

I just attended a forum that got my attention with “Is it time for a Catholic Tea Party?” (The idea is outlined in a column here.)

Deal Hudson, President of Catholic Advocate, was the main speaker- he feels that Catholics have let Evangelicals take the lead on life and gay marriage issues, and Catholics need to step up, donate money, vote for the right candidates, take the body shots, etc. He also felt that the USCCB has erred in some ways that it advocates for policies, and particularly regarding voter guidance. He talked a lot about the goals of Catholic Advocate (see their website here), in particular getting Catholic Members of Congress who are pro-life and in favor of traditional marriage. There was a time for questions, and a couple of people expressed great frustration at how lay Catholics, priests, bishops, etc. have failed to properly bring the message to voters and elected representatives. There was also talk about shutting off funding of organizations that are clearly not Catholic in action or faith.

I left for a few minutes, but when I came back there was discussion of how to properly balance life issues- for example, do the Iraq war, global warming and immigration issues outweigh abortion in regards to voting for a candidate?

Marco Rubio swung by to speak for a few minutes, and made the following points (paraphrased):

1. America is not the world’s police. That said, we are the only superpower that can stand against our enemies, even though our enemies constantly change- i.e. they may not have a capital.

2. Our domestic issues are related to our foreign policy issues, such as our owing debt to countries that don’t respect life.

3. Social/moral issues and economic issues are related. For example, our schools are not doing well, because of broken families and broken neighborhoods.

4. How can we help Rubio win:

A. Donate money. The campaign average is $100.

B. Spread the word.

C. Volunteer in the summer for the campaign.

I managed to get a two-minute interview with Deal Hudson, and asked him a couple of questions (paraphrased, as best I can remember):

DS: Why is gay marriage listed as one of your top issues, as opposed to immigration reform, healthcare reform, religious freedom, etc.?

DH: Religious freedom is above gay marriage. Regarding the other issues, gay marriage is important to keeping families, the basis of society, strong. No, it is not going to destroy traditional marriage, but it will subvert it. Marriage is not about committed relationships- it is about a singular kind of commitment created by God. (This last section, after the hyphen, is the best summary of what he said that I can remember. He did not say “God” in his comment, but I am interpreting off of memory. I do apologize for the lack of a direct quote.)

DS: We don’t live in a theocracy- how can we create a policy on gay marriage based upon our religious faith?

DH: Leave religion out of the policy debate. This is about the raising of children. Keep the argument focused on that.

The room was fairly full, with about 25 people in attendance. It was very interesting. I recommend checking them out- again, their website is here.

Set It Off

This morning, The New York Times published one of the most intellectually honest pieces to appear on its front page in a long time.  The five page essay, written by David Barstow, chronicles the rise of what has now become almost universally known as the Tea Party.  He describes the movement as “a political reordering that would drastically shrink the federal government and sweep away not just Mr. Obama, but much of the Republican establishment, starting with Senator John McCain.”  While admitting that the movement is still young, and lacking in political unity, he explains that there does exist uniform agreement on many issues.  “Tea Party gatherings are full of people who say they would do away with the Federal Reserve, the federal income tax and countless agencies, not to mention bailouts and stimulus packages. Nor is it unusual to hear calls to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.”  Mr. Barstow’s essay accurately identifies the Tea Party as a collective recognition that the Federal Government should be limited to those few powers enumerated by the constitution, and that great myth that Social Security, Medicare, The Department of Education, and all their sibling social programs are nothing more than an extension of Congress’s duty to regulate commerce must be dispensed with.  Hats off.

What it Means To Be A Conservative

From Austin Russell:

At times, it can appear almost impossible to identify the fundamental philosophical precepts that define the Conservative—or, as it has come to be called by many popular news sources— the Tea-Party Movement. Many dismiss it as nothing more than a marketing gimmick employed by the Republican Party to turn public sentiment against the current administration. Indeed, some argue that the only ideal underlying the movement is outrage. Politico reported yesterday morning—without providing any direct quote—that Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) himself, a popular figure within the movement, suggested that “the GOP should be wary of aligning themselves too closely to protesters who can be unpredictable in their actions and messaging.” The obvious inference is that the Movement lacks a firm philosophical leg upon which to stand.  Additionally, The New York Times yesterday published a criticism of Governor Mitt Romney for his participation in the formation of the Massachussetes socialized healthcare program. It calls Romney “One of the most prominent supporters of the main ideas behind the health care plan passed by the Democratic Senate”—equivocating support for state government social programs with that of federal social programs in an attempt to demonstrate that “the [Republican] [P]arty’s voice has been dominated by people who make things up, and then condemn the rhetorical phantoms of their making.” While the article does not directly refer to the Conservative Movement, it does place Rush Limbaugh, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Mitt Romney, and Governor Sarah Palin into the same philosophical camp, once more implying that there is no true difference between the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. The reality, of course, is that nothing could be further from the truth.

Barack Obama’s ascendance to the presidency, combined with the Democratic takeover of Congress did not, as many suppose, signal a desire on the part of the American people to empower, much less to expand, the size of the federal government. Rather, the continued expansion of the federal government under President George Bush and the Republican Congress, despite campaign promises to the contrary, convinced voters that the Republican Party was, at the very least, dishonest. It was upon Democratic promises of responsibility, accountability and change upon which so many relied for their vote. After all, if the previous administration had practiced a policy favoring bigger government, would not a change from such require a policy favoring smaller government? Unfortunately, the reality was not, as many supposed, a choice between big and small, but rather, big and bigger. In an effort to understand and correct their mistake, Americans have taken it upon themselves to more narrowly define what it is they actually want. And what do they want? The answer is obvious: a smaller, less intrusive, cleaner and more efficient federal government.  That is why the latest Gallup poll found that an overwhelming majority (40%) of Americans identified their political ideology as conservative.

The new movement favors principles over individuals and values what politicians do over what they say or how they present themselves. In short, conservatives care most about what happens rather than who is in power. If Barack Obama were, today, to begin supporting the ideals of smaller government, and individual liberty—and not only in word, but in deed—there is no doubt that those same conservatives that now seek his political head would rally behind him in numbers greater than those following his election fourteen months ago.

9-12 DC Rally

Next Page »