Wanted: Jeffersonian Republicans, Part II
Date: November 12th, 2008
Category: Ideology of Freedom
A little more than a hundred years after the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Congress acted again and passed the U.S. Sedition Act of 1918. Among other things, the act made it a crime to “willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States.”
And so it has gone. Power is a corrupting influence on those who achieve it. The very nature of a democratic republic makes it virtually impossible for a politician to adhere to libertarian freedom principles and manage to stay in office.
I believe that some people come to Washington with sincere intentions to roll back big government, eliminate federal handout programs, and abolish anti-freedom laws and regulations. But once in power, they become convinced of the need to buy votes, lest they find themselves out of the club and having to look for a real job.
As I have stated before, without several hundred million dollars at its disposal, a third party has virtually no chance of winning the White House. The Libertarian Party has been trying to gain national attention for thirty-seven years. I admire what its leaders have done, but it continues to be a tough sell without that several-hundred-million-dollar grubstake.
Ron Paul tried running for president on the Libertarian ticket, and ultimately concluded that running as a Republican was his best hope. But the press — and his own party! — simply ignored him (to put it mildly). When his fundraising became too successful and the cheering got too loud, the media simply pretended he didn’t exist and stopped listing him as a candidate. It gave new meaning to the word outrageous.
I believe that the best chance for liberty to make a comeback in the U.S. is for the Liberty-Education Revolution to become so widespread that some well-positioned, well-meaning politicians in the Republican wing of the Demopublican Party would be willing to embrace a Jeffersonian platform. They would have to be convinced that the public is ready to hear an unvarnished message about the efficacy of liberty.
Right now, the politicians who I believe are most likely to hold the seeds of Jeffersonian beliefs are Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and Sarah Palin. In Huckabee, we’re talking about a white country boy, a minister, a former governor, a guitar player, and now a TV star. It doesn’t get much better than that.
In Jindal, we’re talking about a good-looking, vibrant young man of Indian descent (meaning the country of India), a governor, and a do-it-now type of persona. In Palin, we’re talking about beauty, down-home charisma and charm, tenacity, and, like Jindal, a governor.
Huckabee and Jindal are easygoing and likeable. Palin is a mixture of easygoing and tough. She is beloved by her advocates and hated by her antagonists. But all three are hard-core free-market proponents.
If any two of these three would become convinced that people are ready to hear a platform based on individual freedom (as opposed to the phony, abstract “public good”), they could be an unbeatable team in 2012 — especially considering that the country will by then have experienced the pain resulting from a Marxist-oriented government.
In the meantime, let’s hope a Hussein Sedition Act isn’t enacted between now and 2012 — which could result in a “postponement” of the next presidential election for “security reasons.” It is this possibility that could present the biggest obstacle to a free-market ticket getting electing the next time around.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Dear Mr. Ringer,
So there it is. Instead of calling the
political party, the Libertarians, perhaps the
Jeffersonian Party would encourage the masses to be
curious about the man and READ more of his writings.
Sorry, that is probably asking too much, nowadays you
can hide anything in a book, and not worry about
theft.
Regards,
Dwight Kothmann
November 12th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Robert, I think getting prominent GOPpers to sign on is only a small piece of the battle. What is needed is to convince the mega-corps who FUND the party to agree that Liberty is in their best interests. That’s going to be a hard sell considering the obscene amount of cash the “lame duck” managed to funnel their way.
It’s a hard sell, because those same megas depend on the sheeples’ desire to be led into dumb purchases. CNN loves its ratings when the circus is in town.
The question hes to be, what is our fulcrum to pivot THAT???
November 12th, 2008 at 9:11 am
I think Dwight is on the right track with renaming the libertarian party, but for a different reason.
While explaining the differences in political parties to my 9 year old grandson, he commented that the word libertarian was too long and “complicated” to say.
He liked the principles behind it best but thought it should be easy for people to say and spell. He suggested the “freedom party” or something like that.
I told him I thought that was taken already but I think he’s on to something.
After 37 years of struggling along, the Libertarian party has a perception problem. Could we re-wrap the package?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I’m curious about the fact that you refer to Palin as a “hard-core free-market proponent”. I may be mistaken but I seem to remember reading that as governor she imposed a “windfall profits tax” on the oil companies. This struck me as being a decidedly left wing idea. Isn’t it anti-capitalist to decide what too much profit is?
November 12th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Really, Robert! “beauty, down-home charisma and charm”? That’s what earns your endorsement? Gov Palin deserves harder scrutiny than that before she earns this Libertarian’s vote. She has the potential to rewrite the definition of ‘abuse of power.’
November 12th, 2008 at 11:50 am
It would be too much like “Palin II” with her in the VP spot in 2012. And she needs time in the national and international sphere to be ready for battle in the oval office. Going in without her own big game tools and experience means she would have to depend on those of others and I’m afraid that would mean the standard insider CFR wolves. She has the will and conviction to rout out the vipers like Jefferson did but presently not the weapons or troops. Ditto with your other suggestions although Huckabee is close. He’s weak on immigration, though, and thus won’t inspire the liberty minded for whom strong borders are essential. He also lacks the energy necessary to compete with Obama level charisma. Bill and Barak have awakened democrats to the realization that the winning solution for their lack of substance is fireworks. Good looks and compassion for the ladies, coolness for the youth, hope for the envious, and absolution for white guilt feelings. I think this means Hillary’s ship has sailed never to return which makes me worry Obama might throw her a bone as head of his health care initiative.
All we have to fight with is our principles which the Republican party sold long ago (to the very vipers Jefferson hated) in a vain attempt to unify a meaningless Republican party.
What we need is someone in the oval office with the core principles and honest convictions of Ron Paul, the experience and respectability of McCain, the shrewdness of Hillary, and the charisma of Obama, in that order.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Reponse to scott.scholz@hotmail.com:
I didn’t say that I endorsed Sarah Palin. In fact, I didn’t say I endorsed anyone. I merely pointed out that she has a lot going for her, which she does. Whether you or I like it or not, charisma and charm carry a lot of weight with voters. It’s not a fair world, Scott, but that’s just a reality.
I totally agree that Palin deserves hard scrutiny. As much as I like her, I have the same reservations about her that I have with all conservatives – that, when push comes to shove, they tend to accept left-wing premises as the starting point for debating issues. I was impressed when Sarah Palin loudly and repeatedly referred to Obama’s policies as socialism, but dismayed when she declined to label HIM a socialist.
The only hope the Republicans have for ever winning another presidential election is to put someone at the top of the ticket who has the guts to call a socialist a socialist – and a Marxist a Marxist. That might end up being Sarah Palin … or Bobby Jindal … or Mike Huckabee … or someone else we don’t yet know about … or perhaps no one.
If it’s the latter, we all may as well get used to living in misery.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Response to KarenG:
Yes, a windfall-profits tax is a radical left-wing notion. As I said, Sarah Palin will have to prove that she is a true-freedom advocate rather than just another vote-buying politician if she is serious about leading the conservative charge.
Time will reveal all – just as it did with Mush McCain.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
If you truly want a change you’ll have to get involved. You can’t whine from the sidelines. You have to get in the game.
This country has given you a lot. You can either give it just a little bit back by running for one term as a Congressman and establishing the Libertarian Party as a real alternative or write forever about how bad the two parties are.
Ron Paul is a joke. Bob Barr offered him a chance to put that internet money to use by running as the Libertarian VP. Wayne Root offered to drop out to give Paul a real chance at spreading the Libertarian message. Instead Paul backed the American Taliban Party (Constituion Party)
I mentioned you on my campaign website which I haven’t taken down Mr. Ringer.
electkeithsmith.com
You’re still on the other Libertarian websites page…
So, either keep on thinking the Republican Party will actually make a change.. or have the courage to help give back to this country.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Mr. Ringer,
There is an issue of keeping Saxby Chambliss of Georgia in the 60th Republican seat so as to keep the Democrats short of the 60 votes they need to have absolute control over the nation. Since you were not in favor of McCain because of his being in office during the time of trauma would prove more damaging to the capitalist cause than Marxist Obama, do you likewise disapprove of the Republicans being able to block the socialist agenda? My feeling is the Democrats should be blocked at all cost. Please comment.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Response to Glenn Evans:
It doesn’t matter what I think, because I have no control over the outcome. Whether the Democrats get 60 seats or 59 matters little, because, regardless, they are going to be able to do pretty much anything they want to do. And what they want to do is spend, redistribute weatlh, tax, print, borrow, and regulate. And there will be more than enough conscience-deficient Republicans to help them do it.
Focus your efforts on fighting back against the coming Marxist onslaught, and help back some libertarian/conservative candidates who are prepared to fight for the cause of liberty.
November 13th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Response to wildmankeith:
Ah, there it is again and from a supposed Libertarian who should know better. Another lumping of all religious principled candidates with religious terrorists. I find it ironic that the very biblical foundations which gave birth to the original principles of American liberty, that is individual liberty, due process and equal protection, which have been not been found together in one nation since the time of the judges in Israel, inspire so much instant offense in our day. I didn’t vote for Chuck Baldwin but not because his liberty minded principles happen to have the same concrete foundation as the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Of course not all upheld the Apostolic Creed but it’s undeniable that all upheld the Bible as one of the crucial inspirations for the dimensions of liberty they risked all to give us. 150 years ago no candidate in America would have dreamed of running for political office without the public endorsement of his pastor. Such was not considered a breach of the First Amendment back then. So why the acrimonious name calling against the Constitution Party just because many in the party profess Christian worldviews? Christians above all have more to lose from a centralized theocracy. Why do you think so many national Christian ministries oppose the socialist platforms of liberals? Because such policies inevitably lead to increasing centralization of government jusrisdiction and power. Christians want to remain free to practice,defend and communicate their faith. For that to happen freedom of conscience must be defended for all. That’s the core meaning of the three above stated principles of our liberty. No Christian wants a Taliban style theocracy. Christians want to carefully preserve the foundations that gave birth to the principles intended to protect America from the centralization of power that sustains Talibans and socialism.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Mr Ringer,
I wonder about education being the entire approach. As you have said, “Freedom is not about government-enforced security and equality. On the contrary, freedom is about insecurity and inequality. In the words of the great historians Will and Ariel Durant, “Freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies.” Some of us value our freedom but I despair because it looks to me like so many people only value prosperity, comfort and entertainment. The road ahead looks pretty rocky to me. We the people are uneducated but do we even care? What is freedom when compared with our love for comfort and entertainment?
November 14th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Robert:
I have taken to heart all you have said about the Liberty-Education necessary for this country to get back on track, yet am often overwhelmed by the magnitude of such an undertaking. In the same way algebra must precede geometry, which must precede trigonometry, a foundation of knowledge is necessary before any real philosophical discussions may be held.
While at the gym this morning, I had a conversation with one who seems a “typical” American (the term used loosely of course). He voted for Obama because “Bush had manipulated the gas prices to benefit the oil companies.” Also, he opines that Bush did not support a bailout of the automakers because “they would only use the money to build more fuel efficient cars, and that would hurt the oil companies.”
So, then I realized any discussion of liberties would be met with a head tilt similar to my dog’s when he doesn’t understand anything I just said. Without a basic understanding of economics (micro and macro), the Constitution and government, history, and even the sciences how can anyone begin to comprehend the dangers of socialism and the erosion of liberty?
I hate to sound so cynical, but the populace (with exceptions of course) is too intellectually lazy to dig beneath the headlines and THIS will be our downfall. GAVEC would never happen if each of us would read a headline and ask ourselves, “does this make sense intellectually?”
I pledge to continue my part in the Liberty-Education University, yet I am afraid this is a huge mountain to climb, maybe too huge.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
“In the meantime, let’s hope a Hussein Sedition Act isn’t enacted between now and 2012 — which could result in a “postponement” of the next presidential election for “security reasons.” It is this possibility that could present the biggest obstacle to a free-market ticket getting electing the next time around.”
Considering his discussion about a new civilian national security force, I’d do more than hope.
September 18th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
For a man whose ability to reason I generally find quite sure-footed (and at times, even quite agile) I am a shocked and even a little perturbed by what I just read…
Huckabee?
Jindahl?
Palin?
My dear sir have you developed a serious cannabis problem?
Huckabee – is a proud, dare I say, zealous, social conservative, he is a Rush Limbaugh conservative NOT a Goldwater conservative and therefore completely anti-Jeffersonian. In fact when asked recently by Andy Levy on FNC what place he thought the Libertarians had in The GOP, he replied: “Well Libertarians aren’t true conservatives” and “you can’t be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.” ??? How is that Jeffersonian?
Jindahl – Sadly has all the charisma of a frozen haddock. Which is sad because he is philosophically the most Jeffersonian individual out of the bunch.
Palin… Huckabee, to the power of ten, minus the ability to construct grammatically efficient sentences.
Please, there must be some other members of the GOP you can champion: Ron or Rand Paul, or even Mr. Romney, who despite his conservative religious beliefs, still maintains that states rights come into play on the subject of abortion, legalization of drugs and other social/civil rights issues.