The small, but outspoken, gay
conservative group just won’t go away, despite the best efforts of some of the
conservative leaders behind the Conservative Political Action Conference
(CPAC).
The American Conservative Union (ACU),
whose board grants access to the annual summit, began barring GOProud as a
co-sponsor in 2012 — after welcoming the organization in 2010 and 2011.
But why was GOProud barred from CPAC
sponsorship in the first place? That depends on who you ask.
ACU Chairman Al Cardenas addressed the
question in a radio interview on Friday, attributing their exclusion to
“over-the-top” behavior…
I’ve
seen a lot of talk in the last week about the differences between libertarians
and conservatives–what’s a ‘real’ libertarian or what’s a ‘real’ conservative?
Who is a libertarian and who is a conservative? Is Dr. Paul a conservative or a
libertarian? Is Sen. Paul really a libertarian or really a conservative?
Ron
Paul is a heavily-libertarian leaning conservative. So is Rand Paul. Both are
constitutionalists, hence the appropriate term “constitutional conservative.”
It
is entirely possible to be a libertarian but not be conservative. I know many
people who fit this description. But it is impossible to be a conservative
without also being a libertarian to some degree. When Republicans like Rick
Santorum and Mike Huckabee denounce libertarianism, it is no coincidence that
they also had ridiculously big government records. Republicans who don’t care a
whit about limiting government, don’t.
I
addressed this issue after CPAC 2010. In their glaring historical ignorance,
Republicans like Santorum who complain about libertarians not being ‘real’
conservatives simply don’t know what in the hell they’re talking about.
From
2010, via The Charleston City Paper:
During a question-and-answer session at
the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., one man
opined, “One thing I’ve learned here at CPAC is that the ‘C’ actually doesn’t
stand for ‘libertarianism.’ It’s not ‘L’PAC.” When Congressman Ron Paul won the
annual straw poll at CPAC, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh made a point to tell
his listeners that CPAC wasn’t conservative this year because a libertarian had
won.
Both men are worse than just wrong.
They’re out of their minds.
Arguably the most popular history of
American conservatism, George H. Nash’s book The Conservative Intellectual
Movement in America begins with libertarianism. In the first chapter titled
“The Revolt of the Libertarians,” Nash states: “For those who believed in the
creed of old-fashioned, classical, 19th-century liberal individualism, 1945 was
especially lonely, unpromising, and bleak. Free markets, private property,
limited government, self reliance, laissez-faire — it had been a long time
since principles like these guided government and persuaded peoples.”
Chronicling the intellectuals who tried
to rectify this bleakness, Nash begins his history with two men: economists
F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. Then he explains how these libertarian heroes
kick-started the American conservative movement. Few actually used the word “conservatism”
in 1945, a term that began to gain popularity when Russell Kirk’s book The
Conservative Mind was published in 1953 and with the founding of William F.
Buckley’s National Reviewin 1955. Nash notes that even Kirk was inspired by
both Hayek and Mises, writing to a friend that these men represented a “great
school of economists of a much sounder and different mind.”
After Hayek and Mises, Nash then cites
Albert Jay Nock, publisher of the unabashedly libertarian magazine The Freeman
in the 1920s. Writes Nash: “Nock came to exert a significant amount of
influence on the postwar Right,” yet was so libertarian that “Nock verged on
anarchism in his denunciations of the inherently aggrandizing State.” Noting
the impression Nock made on a young Buckley, Nash explained that “it was
Nockian libertarianism, in fact, which exercised the first conservative
influence on the future editor of National Review.”
Edwin J. Feulner, Jr., president of the
conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, says, “Nash’s work is one of
the very few books that must be read for a full understanding of the
conservative movement in America.” However, Feulner’s Heritage Foundation
advertises on Limbaugh’s show, where the host is seemingly oblivious to the
fact that the American conservative movement could not have existed without
libertarianism. Furthermore, pundits like Rush often claim to be “Reagan
conservatives.” However, they seem to forget that in 1976 said Reagan, “I
believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” As you can
see, advocating for “limited government” without employing some degree of
libertarianism would be logistically impossible.
Which is exactly why so many of today’s
so-called conservatives are so quick to dismiss it. If there is an interloping
ideology on the Right today, it is not libertarianism but neoconservatism, an
ideology born not of limited government philosophy but of ex-socialists who
migrated Right in reaction to the counterculture of the 1960s. Today, neoncons
are devoted to promoting the maintenance and expansion of America’s global
empire.
Whereas traditional conservatives
considered war — and the massive bureaucracy necessary to wage it — an
occasional, necessary evil, neoconservatives consider perpetual war a good
precisely because they believe it is America’s mission to export democracy to
the rest of the world.
Questioning the cost or wisdom of waging
perpetual war is considered unconscionable or even “unpatriotic” to
neoconservatives, which is why they are so dismissive of libertarians and
others who question foreign policy. Most neoconservatives instinctively realize
that their ideology is incompatible with the libertarian’s pesky obsession with
limited government, giving neocons reason to marginalize, or expel, any libertarian
influence that threatens to expose the statist nature of today’s mainstream
conservative movement.
Considering their new, radical
definition, it’s easy to see why Rush and other mainstream conservatives don’t
consider libertarians part of their movement —because they’re not. And while it
remains to be seen how the irreconcilable differences will play out between
limited government libertarians (whose numbers are growing) and big government
neoconservatives (whose ideology still dominates), let there be no more
ignorance about which philosophy is truly more alien to the historical American
conservative movement.
And let there be no further delusions
about which philosophy was most responsible for creating it.
Writes Seth McLaughlin at The Washington Times: Rep. Ron Paul and his loyal band of supporters were uncharacteristically missing from the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington last week — and high-profile Republican leaders say the party can’t afford for that to happen in November if the GOP is to win the White House. They pointed to, and applauded, the 76-year-old Texan’s unique ability to attract young, independent and first-time voters, giving his campaign a consistent level of energy and enthusiasm that is sometimes lacking in the other presidential camps… Mr. Paul’s supporters say he is the most genuine candidate and offers a unique brand of politics that doesn’t fit neatly into the Democratic-Republican duopoly that has ruled Washington for decades. Before it was chic on Capitol Hill, they say, he defended the U.S. Constitution, advocated for individual liberty and pushed for limited government through less spending and less taxation. He also has challenged the police-the-world mentality that he blames for steering the nation into military conflicts that have cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars and diminished the nation’s reputation on the global stage… David Keene, former ACU chairman, said the party’s slow embrace of Paul supporters reminded him of how Republicans were reluctant to welcome the evangelicals who followed Pat Robertson into the political fray during his 1988 presidential bid. In one instance, Mr. Keene recalled, a national committeeman likened attending a Robertson campaign meeting to “the bar scene in ‘Star Wars.’ “ “Party leaders, like the leader of any club, love to have your dues, or your vote in this case, but they really don’t want you hanging around voting for the offices or the leadership,” Mr. Keene said. “[Evangelicals] came in, they were attracted by Pat Robertson, who couldn’t get nominated, but attracted hundreds of thousands of millions of people. Some of those people went home because they were just attracted to him, as will some of the Paul people, and some of them stuck around, and today a lot of them are leaders in the party…” Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, his son, appeared at the event on his father’s behalf and told The Washington Times that he has noticed the other GOP candidates have started being “friendlier to my father.” “What the Republican Party needs to understand about the Ron Paul people: They are new to the party, they’re independents, they have youth and energy — all those things the Republican nominee is going to need,” the younger Mr. Paul told The Times…
WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Thursday, Feb. 9, Sen. Rand Paul spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. Below are his remarks as delivered, as well as video of his appearance.
TRANSCRIPT:
I have a question. A question for the President. Do you hate all rich people? Or just those who aren't campaign contributors.
The President sure seems to like George Kaiser, the twentieth richest man in America.President Obama likes him so much that he gave Kaiser's company, Solyndra. a half a billion, taxpayer dollars, which you may have heard got flushed down the drain.
To get Mr. Kaiser his money, the President came up with a brilliant plan. Let's appoint people to approve the loans who are related to people who are going to get the loans.
So Solyndra's attorney simply called up her husband who works for the Department of Energy to secure the half a billion dollar loan. What a great way to encourage campaign contributions, give away enormous taxpayer loans to campaign contributors.
So, to be fair, the President doesn't really hate all rich people, just those who don't contribute to his campaign.
They say it's not easy being rich, especially if you inherit the money. It's hard sometimes just playing polo and laying by the pool. So when I heard that Robert Kennedy Jr was starting his own company, I first thought, good for him I hope he will find satisfaction in good old fashioned work.
My good feelings soured, though, when I learned the Robert Kennedy's idea of work included $1.6 billion of taxpayer money.
So while the President roams the country moaning about millionaires and billionaires not paying their fair share, his aides in the White House are making sure that millionaires and billionaires get their fair share -- of your money.
How did Robert Kennedy, Jr. come by his $1.6 billion?The same way George Kaiser got his.Kennedy got one of his employees a job at the Department of Energy and then that former employee approved the loan. Where is the Taxpayer in all of this?Well, left holding the bag. Where is the country? Left with a $15 trillion debt.
So the President doesn't really hate all rich people, if you're a crony, stop by the White House, they've got a deal for you.
I have question. Another question for the President. Do you hate poor people or just poor people with jobs?
Your Chinese- made energy efficient light bulbs cost 4 dollars apiece. Who can afford them? Not to mention that you need a HAZMAT team if one of them breaks.
Mr. President, Don't you realize that as you've piled the debt on the backs of working people that gas prices have doubled, food prices are rising at double digits. 11 million people are out of work.
When you forbid the mining of cheap sources of energy, when you ban the new oil pipeline, senior citizens and working families are forced to pay higher electric bills.
I really want to know, Mr. President, does your ideology, your yen for windmills trump your concern for the poor? Does it bother you that Americans who live paycheck to paycheck are asked to pay for Mr. Kaiser's loan, to pay for Mr. Kennedy's loan?
Do you, Mr. President, ever reflect that a country that borrows $40,000 a second is heading for a cliff and you are at the wheel and stepping on the gas.
Spending is accelerating. We now spend almost 25% of our GDP in Washington and nearly half of all spending is borrowed.
Entitlements and interest on the debt will consume all tax revenue in the near future. It is not a question of will a debt crisis occur in America.It is only a question of when.
Now, in all seriousness, I don't think the President hates rich people or poor people.In fact, I don't impute to him bad intentions at all-a misguided philosophy, yes, but bad intentions, no.
Meanwhile, the President roams the country claiming millionaires and billionaires are not paying their fair share.
This is objectively false.Millionaires, on average, pay about 29% of their income. And, on average, non-millionaires (the rest of us) all pay less than 29%.The top ten percent of earners, pay over 70% of the income tax.Let me repeat:those earning more than $200,000 pay 70% of the income tax.
The rich and the upper middle class pay virtually all of the income tax. The bottom 47% of earners pay NO income tax. To put it kindly, the President is being disingenuous.
Is anyone out there tired of hearing about Warren Buffett's secretary? We are encouraged to mourn Warren Buffet's poor secretary, who some have estimated may make more than $200,000 per year.
Realize, though, that this is all a charade purposefully designed to attack any Republican candidate who happens to be successful. The truth is that Warren Buffet pays tens of millions of dollars in taxes and his secretary pays thousands of dollars in taxes. Buffet, in fact, pays about 1000 times more in taxes than his secretary.
I believe this election will be about the American Dream and whether we still believe in the greatness of our founding documents. Do we believe in an America where "we the people" interact voluntarily to determine the winners or do we want the President to dictate the winners and losers? Do we really want a Fairness Czar to enforce equality on us?
It's not as if we haven't seen attempts at a fairness doctrine before.The Soviets tried it.So did the Chinese.
A recent NPR story described the Chinese experiment with enforced fairness.
In 1978, in a small village in a remote region of China, several farmers gathered in secret and signed a compact.This compact was extraordinary and very dangerous.They immediately hid it inside a piece of bamboo in the roof of one farmer's hut.
The compact called for illegal action.The compact called for dividing the collective farm into plots by family and then letting each family keep the profits.Because capitalism and profit were illegal and could command a death sentence, each farmer agreed to raise the children of any farmer that was caught and executed.
The result was phenomenal. The largest harvest in recent memory. So large, that it did not escape notice and one of the farmers was hauled before the local commissar.But just as the interrogation was proceeding to a possibly violent end, word came from Beijing that the long dark veil of communism was being lifted.
As China awakens to capitalism, our President embraces big government to debt.
This election may be the last best hope of saving the American Dream. As we gather to make the choice of who will lead Conservatives, I am reminded of a story by Paul Kengor.
On a brisk evening in Dixon, Illinois in 1922.Returning home from a basketball game at the YMCA, an 11 year old boy is stunned by the sight of his father sprawled out in the snow on the front porch."He was drunk," his son later remembered. "Dead to the world . . . crucified."The dad's hair was soaked with melted snow, matted unevenly against the side of his reddened face.
The boy stood over his father for a minute or two.He wanted to simply let himself in the door and pretend his dad wasn't there.Instead, he grabbed a fistful of overcoat and heaved his dad to the bedroom, away from the weather's harm and neighbor's attention.
This young man didn't retreat or admit defeat.His family's struggles did not lead him to say,the world is against me and I can't succeed. When his family moved 30 times when he was growing up, he was not deterred.
This young boy became the man, Ronald Reagan, whose sunny optimism and charisma shined so brightly that it cured the malaise of the late seventies, an optimism that beamed so broadly that it pulled us through a serious recession, and an optimism that tugged so happily at all hearts that a generation of Democrats became Republicans.
Who will be our heroes?Who will become the next generation of great leaders?
America is great because we've always embraced individual liberty.This belief in the individual is the American dream.
To lead us away from the precipice that is the looming debt crisis, it will take someone who believes in America's greatness, who believes in and can articulate the American dream.
If the American Dream dies, so does our country.Our prosperity comes from our freedom, a freedom enshrined and protected by the Constitution.
Washington, today, is ruled by a different sort. Special interests on the right and the left clamor for more of your money. Even our party has yet to grasp the significance and imminence of the coming debt crisis.
It will take bold leadership to avert this crisis.It will take someone able to transform the coldness of austerity into the warm, vibrant embrace of prosperity.
We are in the process of discovering who that leader will be.My hope is that in searching for that leader, we also rediscover the passion for individual liberty that made America great.
