limited government

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: A source at the Americans for Limited Government in Washington D.C. called my attention to a dangerous piece of legislation that is working its way to the floor of the House of Representatives. This bill would restrict your rights as never before. Simply put, this would legislate that the Government could take an industry and slaughter it! And that is the least of the powers that they will gain if this is allowed to pass.

Left wing extremist, Henry Waxman and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is set to vote on legislation that would place tobacco products under the authority of the FDA. The bill could be on the President's desk as soon as this Summer. While I am not a smoker nor do I even support smoking in general, one does not have to agree with smoking to see that this bill only serves to further centralize government authority over our daily lives. Through classifying tobacco as a drug under the authority of the FDA, the Government then can force people to do as they say, and as a result, put thousands of people out of work and block new proven smokeless products from entering the market.

Instead of helping to fix the problem, the government will use force and coercion to influence the change that they want. They are gaining power to influence your daily life, and do not think for one second that they will not exploit this for their own benefit. Although the ears of the Arkansas and other Blue Dogs democrats appear to have been clipped by Speaker Peloisi, if they don't stand up soon for against the continued onslaught of centralized government authority, they will become totally co-opted by Pelois' liberal cronies. As for Arkansas Vic Snyder, no need seek help since he represents the liberal extreme interests. And as much as I would like to ask "former" blue dog Marion Berry, he appears to be out for nap most of the time.

But I am going to plead with the one able minded Arkansas Blue Dog congressman who in the past has taken stands for his Arkansas constituents. That Congressman is Representative Mike Ross of Arkansas' 4th Congressional District. So here goes: Congressman Ross, please do not support legislation that would restrict liberty and freedom. As long as people are not restricting the liberties of their neighbor, there exists no need to punish them. It is not the job of the Government to tell people how to live their lives, rather, it is the job of the government to defend us from those who would restrict liberty. Congressman Ross protect our liberty and freedom. We are all watching and hoping! Join me and Contact your representatives!

Crossposted at NextGenGOP.com.

A few hours ago, I received an e-mail from a Ron Paul supporter, and although the majority of the e-mail was rather condescending, the author makes an important statement that I do believe merits exploration:

You guys [at NextGenGOP] are … ignoring Ron Paul … and his contribution to gathering sincere and dedicated enthusiasm in American politics.

Indeed, the author is correct – our contributors have not really discussed the Ron Paul Revolution, despite the fact that there are a number of crucial lessons for the Republican Party to learn from his successes. Thus, without further ado, I will take this post to thoroughly explore this matter.

To his credit, Ron Paul’s campaign demonstrated that Republicans can indeed keep up with Democrats in the era of Web 2.0, particularly in the areas of grassroots organization and fundraising. In addition, his campaign won the hearts of many young voters in a way quite similar to that of President-elect Obama. This begs two critical questions: how did Ron Paul manage to accomplish these significant feats despite being widely regarded as a “fringe candidate,” and more importantly, what lessons must the Republican Party take from his success?

Ron Paul’s Successes

Let us begin by looking at the many successes of the Paul campaign, and how his performance compares to that of the two most significant candidates of the cycle: John McCain and Barack Obama.

1. Ron Paul energized his supporters, resulting in an incredible outpouring of enthusiasm for his candidacy despite being supported by an extremely small percentage of voters. McCain’s campaign created a short burst of energy during his selection of Sarah Palin and the convention, but it proceeded to fizzle out as time passed. Obama’s campaign continuously energized its supporters, resulting in unbelievably massive crowds at his campaign events. A Gallup poll from October 2008 confirms this phenomenon, clearly indicating the enthusiasm gap that Democrats had over Republicans.
2. Ron Paul effectively used the Internet to organize his grassroots efforts. Relying on existing infrastructures like Meetup.com – where he was able to recruit over 86,600 members in 1,150 groups that planned and held over 51,000 offline campaign events – the Paul campaign had enormous success in this arena. McCain’s website had its own network called McCainSpace, but at many levels it was not especially groundbreaking, and in contrast to the online outreach by Obama and Paul, it seemed to be used fairly lightly by supporters. In contrast, Barack Obama successfully built an incredible network at my.barackobama.com by bringing on Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. Ask almost any Obama supporter, and they’ll tell you that they used Obama’s online tools in one way or another. What’s unique about Ron Paul’s success, however, is that his campaign didn’t spend enormous resources building its own tools. Instead, it successfully took advantage of tools that already existed and thus was able to build an incredibly comprehensive national grassroots network without having to spend a significant amount of its own money.
3. Ron Paul’s ability to raise funds online is unparalleled in the Republican Party. Indeed, for the final quarter of 2007, Ron Paul outraised all of the other Republican Presidential candidates. McCain’s fundraising was generally unexceptional, and his strategic error in choosing to take public funding will almost certainly never happen again. And of course, we all know that Obama was a fundraising juggernaut, particularly online.
4. Ron Paul strongly appealed to young voters. Exit polls for early primary states like NH, MI, SC, and FL show that a disproportionately large percentage of younger voters pulled the lever for Ron Paul (in many cases, roughly twice the percentage of votes he received from other age groups). As we know from the exit polling of the general election, these young voters overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama over John McCain: CNN pegs Obama’s advantage at 66% - 32%.

How Ron Paul’s Successes Came to Fruition

At the most basic level, it was Ron Paul’s common-sense and decidedly libertarian platform that created so much interest in his campaign. While some of his positions, such as his staunch opposition to the Iraq war, stand in stark contrast to the Republican agenda, the fact is that the core of his message is quite in line with the traditional Republican message: reducing the federal government’s size and cutting its spending.

What made Ron Paul distinct, however, was his passion and commitment to accomplishing this. If you had to identify the single most important policy issue in a hypothetical Paul administration, it would unquestionably be reduction of government. Unfortunately, you cannot unequivocally say the same about any of the other Republican candidates, and certainly not of John McCain (read: McCain-Feingold, among other things).

Ron Paul’s steadfast and unwavering commitment to his limited government principles brought a huge influx of dedicated supporters to his campaign. The resulting enthusiasm among these supporters translated into impeccable successes.

Lessons for the Republican Party

1. Democrats aren’t the only ones who can fully take advantage of the Internet, both in donations and in building a grassroots organization. Indeed, you don’t even necessarily need to build new tools to win the battle online. That said, in order to see Ron Paul-like success, there are two crucial components that must exist. First, you must have enthusiastic supporters who are not only willing but excited to help the organization. Second, you must be willing to allow online tools to step into areas that have traditionally been controlled internally, such as grassroots organization.
2. We cannot underestimate the importance of our ideals of smaller, less expensive government – and our candidates’ commitment to these ideals. To paraphrase a McCain stump line, Republicans were elected due to their promises to change Washington, but instead they let Washington change them. As a result, the voters turned to Democrats in 2006 and 2008, at least in part because they simply don’t trust us to keep our word. In 2010 and beyond, we need to run candidates who have a proven commitment to these principles – perhaps signing off on a Contract with America 2.0 similar to what I’ve previously suggested – and in doing so we will generate an incredible amount of enthusiasm for our candidates.
3. Successfully using the Internet saves money. A lot of money. Of the major Presidential candidates, Ron Paul’s campaign devoted by far the smallest percentage of its budget to paying staffers. One of the most important reasons for this is simple: by successfully using the Internet to build the grassroots backbone of the campaign, there was considerably less need to pay staffers to organize outreach efforts. Yes, the sheer notion of such a decentralized campaign may be unsettling to those who are used to running traditional campaigns. However, Web 2.0 is shaking up the foundations of many traditional infrastructures with resounding success. If we want to survive in this new era, we need to allow it to shake up our organizations, too. Just imagine if John McCain had been able to slash his campaign’s payrolls by just 15% due to such decentralization – in fiscal year 2007 alone (well before McCain was the presumptive nominee), McCain would have been able to save $2.3 million.
4. Republicans can win back the younger voting bloc. My experience has been that the vast majority of my peers – voters age 18-29 – fundamentally agree that they want the government in their lives as little as possible. The Republican Party is the party of individual freedoms and liberties, and if we can manage to resecure the public’s faith in this, we can win back young voters.

The bottom line is that we simply cannot afford to discount Ron Paul as a “fringe candidate” whose successes hold no lessons of value for the Republican Party. Instead, we must to adapt these successes into the new Republican Party. Viva la revolución!

The good part for John McCain is that the debates are over. He has a clear 20 day path to cultivate and drive home the message he started to deliver tonight, uninterrupted by four show-stopping spectacles that don't easily allow for campaigns to find their groove, especially not those that need furiously to change the dynamic of the race.

Over the next 20 days, McCain must bring conservative independents home. These voters are skeptical of big institutions -- big government, big business, and big labor. Tonight, John McCain set up an important argument about taxes and spending that has the potential to bring this back to within the margin of error, and crucially, save a few House and Senate seats in the process.

The thing that's struck me about this year is that though Obama harps on "change", his message is decidedly unlike that of the last "change" candidate -- Bill Clinton.

Fred Thompson announces the launch of Fred PAC.   I'm very glad to see that.   What I really want to see in Republicans right now is framework-changing rhetoric - a politician who thinks and talks in fundamentally different ways.  Ideals like these are exactly right.

• The role of the federal government is limited to the powers given to it in our Constitution, and the bigger the government gets, the less competent it is to run our lives, and we must have leaders who understand that the market works best when it regulated and legislated least.
• A dollar belongs in the pocket of the person who earns it unless the government has a compelling reason why it can use it better
• We don’t spend money we don’t have or borrow money that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back, and we must have leaders who understand this and will listen to the will of the people.

I supported (and worked for) Fred Thompson precisely because of the way he talked about and thought about government.  Not in the weak, vapid, play-the-Democrats-game manner that most Republicans do, but as somebody who would refocus public attention on the costs and problems of government.   e.g...

September, 2007:

"We've been spending increasing amounts of federal money for decades, with increasing rules, increasing mandates, increasing regulations," Thompson said. "It's not working." [...]  "It's your responsibility," he said. "If you don't like what's going on, don't get in your car and drive by your school board and maybe drive by the capitol and get on an airplane and fly to Washington and say, 'I don't like the way the school down the street is being run.'"

March, 2007:

"Washington overreaches, and by doing so ends up not doing well the basics people really care about." Think Katrina and Walter Reed.

Fred PAC appears to be focused on exactly that sort of thing.  Federalism, limited government, free markets.   It's going to take quite some time and a great deal of effort to build the coalition and popular energy for our story, but those are the unifying ideals that can revitalize the Republican Party.

Everyone should know more about stuff like Yahoo Pipes. I use it to get my content out in new and innovative ways^TM and also to get content out of static sites into an easily digested RSS format. Craig has been a real pioneer in showing the way. -Patrick

I’ve been thinking that if we create RSS feeds and websites that focus on specific aspects of the conservative movement, we might be able to unite and mobilize better.

For example, I’ve used Yahoo Pipes and other web services to create an RSS feed that pulls together the YouTube videos of the Cato Institute, The Club for Growth, Friends of Americans for Tax Reform, ReasonTV and the Tax Foundation. I’m hoping that supporters of one organization may find the messages of the others interesting – uniting the fiscally conservative community on the web a bit further.

I also used the feed to create a self-updating webpage which I’ve embedded in a offensively basic, crude, caveman-esque framed webpage I called the Limited Government Network

A story that the Right needs to remember and explain:

1. Big bureaucracies are inherently dumb.
2. The Federal Government is the biggest bureaucracy in the world.
3. The Federal Government is the dumbest organization in the world.

The TSA (see link above) is maliciously dumb.  And yet, it is no more inherently rigid and unresponsive that any other government entity.  It's just more visible. 

The Right desperately needs to start telling that story again.  

Many years ago, the Right actively told the story of just how harmful government really was to society.   But then Republicans took control of government and we basically stopped telling that story.  As a result - and even thought government is far larger - the public and the media pay far less attention to the costs and consequences government; instead, they are clamoring for even bigger government.

Until we begin telling that story consistently and clearly again, it will be hard to convince the public of the importance of limited government. 

As the GOP in Congress appears about to be taking an "every man for himself" strategy for the fall elections, Gallup has just given the Republicans another gift (Americans Oppose Income Redistribution to Fix Economy). The results of this poll show that if the GOP ever gets back to preaching and adhering to the simple message that they used to have - one that they've previously ridden to victory on - they'd be shoe-ins in 2008. Whether or not the Republicans have cleaned their own house enough to take advantage of something like this remains to be seen.

Barack Obama is running on an economic platform that promises to "restore fairness to the tax code". On the same page of his campaign website that that quote came from, Obama also refers to Bush's "Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class". Put the two of them together and the message that Obama is sending to the public is that he wants to take money from the wealthy and give to the middle class - the very definition of the "Income Redistribution" that this Gallup poll measures public opinion on. Obama doesn't even have to actively do much for this redistribution to happen - all he has to do is let the Bush tax cuts expire.

The numbers in this poll are staggering. Overall, Americans are against the core principle behind Barack Obama's domestic economic policy - income redistribution - by an astounding 84% to 13%. Republicans oppose it 90%-9%, Independents oppose it 85% to 13%, and even Democrats oppose it 77% to 19%.

Gallup has been the gold standard of polling for Democrats for decades. These days, the media is continually promoting Obama's theory of "bringing back fairness" to the tax code. In fact, the "tax fairness" war-cry has been at the core of the Democrats' message machine, and has been endlessly promoted by their minions in the media, since 2000. With those facts in mind, these particular poll results are breathtaking. To give you an idea of how important even Gallup thinks this poll is, the explanatory narrative that goes along with the results were written by Dennis Jacobe, Gallup's Chief Economist:

PRINCETON, NJ -- When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly -- by 84% to 13% -- prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.

Americans' lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%). This sentiment also extends across income groups: upper-income Americans prefer that the government focus on improving the economy and jobs by 88% to 10%, concurring with middle-income (83% to 16%) and lower-income (78% to 17%) Americans.

In this poll, Gallup also asked another question - is the government, in general, doing too much or too little? While the results on this question aren't quite as dramatic as the results on the income distribution question, the poll still shows that a majority of Americans believe that the government is doing too much (read: screwing it up) as opposed to too little.

A separate question finds Americans more likely to believe government is doing too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses (50%) as opposed to saying government should do more to solve the country's problems (43%). This broad question is not directed specifically at the economy, but reinforces the general idea that many Americans are leery of too much direct government intervention in fixing the country's problems.

Americans of all incomes, social strata, and political affiliations get it - we can't tax our way out of this, and the government isn't the right entity to save us. The Republican message to Americans - before the Congressional GOP became the party of pork, earmarks, and corruption - was to keep taxes low and focus on improving both the economy and job creation by encouraging business to do what they are designed to do and do best - employ people and make money. As for the old "limited government" question - a subject of heated debate even within the ranks of conservatives today - this poll shows that the public clearly thinks that less government is better government.

Unless I'm mistaken, all of these results show support for - dare I say it - Reagan-brand conservatism. Even after all this time - after all the liberal garbage that the Democrats and the media relentlessly shove in our faces - when the public is faced with an economic crisis, Reagan's conservative message of low taxes and limited government still wins.

This poll clearly shows that the conservative message, especially on the economy, has gotten through. What's still unclear, however, is if the current group of Republicans are the right ones to take the GOP back to majority status. The Republicans in Congress have to be united and show some guts, something that they seem reluctant to do. For instance, the report in today's New York Times on the expansion of earmarks (Earmarks Persist in Spending Bills for 2009), especially coming after the Democrats rode to victory in 2006 promising to end them, is particularly embarrassing for the GOP. A true no-brainer, an earmark moratorium by the Republicans would send out a signal of fiscal responsibility to the public during a time of economic crisis that the Democrats would never be able to match, and the media would never be able to cover up. Coupling that with a promise to submit requests for funding all future non-emergency local projects to the appropriate committees to be inserted into the appropriate bills - where they can be seen and debated by all, including the public - is a political winner. Why the Republicans haven't taken these simple steps this year is beyond my comprehension.

I don't know what else can be said to convince the GOP to take such logical actions and re-embrace their conservative values, other than to point out the fact that if this bunch of Republican Senators and Congressmen don't get it, perhaps the next bunch will...

A few weeks ago at Next Right, Josh Kahn pointed to polling data showing that

the public simply does not like the Republican message

.  The public isn't buying what the Republicans are selling.

Today, Paul Krugman makes another important point...

Take, for example, that old standby of conservatives: denouncing Big Government. Last week John McCain’s economic spokesman claimed that Barack Obama is President Bush’s true fiscal heir, because he’s “dedicated to the recent Bush tradition of spending money on everything.”   ... the McCain campaign is deluding itself if it thinks this issue will resonate with the public.

For Americans have never disliked Big Government in general. In fact, they love Social Security and Medicare, and strongly approve of Medicaid — which means that the three big programs that dominate domestic spending have overwhelming public support.

This is an important, and painful, point for the Right.  Americans, as the old saying goes, are philosophically conservative, but operationally liberal. 

In part, Republicans haven't been able to get traction on enacting limited government ideas because Republicans have never come up with politically viable ways to limit government - and particularly to address the underlying public choice incentives that make the growth of government   Reagan entered office in 1980 promising to eliminate the Department of Education.   But there was never a politically viable way to do that...so the Department of Education grew. 

Republicans need to step back a few paces from the big limited government goals and start thinking first about the underlying incentives - the structural, public choice problems that make limiting government such a hard sell.   These may be difficult, but they are a much more practical way of rebuilding the Republican brand and making the Republican Party relevant to modern problems.  Some initial opportunities...

• Transparency
• Ethics reform
• Government accounting reform
• Entitlement reform - safety nets, not massive redistribution programs
• Tax reform - reduce perverse incentives, rather than merely cutting taxes
• Regulatory reform - elimination of regulatory capture that produces monopolistic practices and government-created cartels

What are your suggestions?