Libertarian Reform leader tells Paul supporters to check out CP platform

Writing for his own Libertarian Intelligence, Libertarian Reform leader Brian Holtz says, “some fans of Paul’s Campaign For Liberty are reportedly considering voting for the Constitution Party nominee instead of the Libertarian nominee … but many Ron Paul fans may not have read the lengthy CP Platform in its entirety.”

Holtz singles out the following passages from the CP platform:

  1. This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. […] The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations […] The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law […] All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith. […] We would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government. We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments
  2. The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. […]. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. […] We oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions […] We oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples. […] We stand against so-called “sexual orientation” and “hate crime” statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression.
  3. The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.
  4. We reject the policies and practices that permit women to train for or participate in combat.
  5. We also oppose all government “legalization” of suicide
  6. The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.
  7. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy. […] Our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.
  8. In no event will the U.S. tariff on any foreign import be less than the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production and the cost of production of a similar item produced in these United States.
  9. It is necessary that these United States prohibit fractional reserve banking.
  10. We favor a moratorium on immigration to these United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued
  11. We propose that the government of these United States restore and protect its sovereign right and exclusive jurisdiction of the Canal Zone in perpetuity, and renegotiate the treaties with Panama by which the ownership of the canal was surrendered to Panama. […] Congress and the President should take advantage of Panama Canal treaty provisions to negotiate the return of a U.S. military presence at the Isthmus of Panama.
  12. We support the principle of the Monroe Doctrine, which expresses U.S. opposition to European adventurism in the Western Hemisphere.

By contrast, Holtz says the LP platform “is a lean and clean statement of Libertarian principles,” which presidential candidate Bob Barr has “publicly embraced.”

132 thoughts on “Libertarian Reform leader tells Paul supporters to check out CP platform

  1. G.E. Post author

    Bigotry abounds, but for sheer ignorance, you can’t top #8.

    #7 is wrong on so many levels it almost makes my head explode.

    On the other hand, Brian singles out #9, which is merely keeping in the Constitution’s prohibition of counterfeiting.

  2. G.E. Post author

    Oh, and forgive me for thinking that a spelling error in the platform of a national party is remarkable. Particularly a party who emphasizes the primacy of English in America. I’ve also caught spelling errors at Chuck Baldwin’s site.

  3. amyb31416

    Yeah, GE, the CP isn’t a good alternative for me. I checked out their platform long ago and had considered Baldwin, I like the guy, but just can’t stomach their platform.

    That said, there are plenty of former Paul supporters who were voting for Barr, that have gone to Baldwin despite they hyper-religiosity.

  4. George Phillies

    As a general rule, if you are going to indulge in spelling flames you should know how to spell.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/acknowledgement

    As my sixth grade teacher, Mr. Johnson, said, “The New York Board of Regents wants to spell ‘acknowledgement’ without its ‘e’, but they’re a bunch of illiterates.” It’s only been 50 years since he made the remark.

    On the other hand, they are competing with the political campaign that hailed — or is that ‘heiled’ ?– George Bush for political leadership after 9/11, so attractiveness has its obstacles.

  5. G.E. Post author

    Baldwin, it should be noted (and I’m sure it will), deviates greatly from many of the worst aspects of the platform listed above. I strongly considered voting for him and probably would have if not for “Snubgate.” Ironically, though Baldwin did nothing wrong and everything right in that instance, I was influenced to vote for Nader based on his performance there and out of a desire to deny Barr third place. And OF COURSE Nader’s platform is extremely unlibertarian in many places (worse than the CP’s on balance, probably), but I still think he’s the best choice for anti-Barr libertarians who live in states where their votes for Ron Paul or the Boston Tea Party’s Charles Jay won’t be counted.

  6. G.E. Post author

    George – “acknowledgment” is the correct spelling. “acknowledgement” is antiquated, but so are you.

  7. Sean Scallon

    Baldwin is not a Peroutkaite, who have sent the Marines into a state that had abortion laws even if Roe was overturned. He is a federalists and decentralist that local communities can decide their own. Yes the CP is against abortion and homosexual marriage as you might expect, but they also believe in letting states settle those policies.

  8. G.E. Post author

    George prefers the British spelling because he’s such an anti-secessionist, he favors undoing the American Revolution.

  9. G.E. Post author

    Sean – I’m not so sure about your contentions regarding abortion. I am pro-life but decentralist like Ron Paul and Bob Bird. I don’t think that’s the case for Baldwin.

    I interviewed him and asked him specifically.

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/07/listen-ipr-exclusive-interview-with-chuck-baldwin-from-july-7/

    Baldwin says he supports Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act, which would define an unborn child as being a “person under the laws of the country.” According to Baldwin, this act would immediately overturn Roe v. Wade and “end abortion on demand.”

    But what about abortion that’s not “on demand?”

    When asked what he would do as president if a state passed “permissive abortion laws,” he said that the Sanctity of Life Act would “settle the matter.”

    If you listen to it, you can tell a lot from the tone of his voice.

  10. chuckmoulton

    Yeh, #8 is pretty ridiculous. That plank would single-handedly destroy the economy.

    Let’s look at history:
    1. The Embargo Act of 1807 killed the economy. Exports plummeted from $108 million to $22 million. Thomas Jefferson was so embarrassed by the Act that he did not list “President of the United States” on his gravestone.
    2. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was one of the major factors deepening and prolonging the Great Depression. Imports and exports dropped by half as other countries retaliated to America’s tariffs.

    I could go on, but suffice it to say any politician who advocates such policies is so ignorant of economics that letting them anywhere near decision making positions would be a disaster.

    I’m a single issue voter and not plunging us into the next Great Depression is my single issue.

  11. G.E. Post author

    I’m a single issue voter and not plunging us into the next Great Depression is my single issue.

    Already headed there.

  12. johnlowell

    And this calling of attention to the Constitution Party platform so as to scare off the sociopathological element in libertarianism so it’ll stick with Barr? Now there’s a tune that’ll have you tapping your foot, Bob Barr Uber Alles. I think I’d feel safer with Baldwin even in the presence of some project of his to root out the “dark forces” underlying international affairs than I would with the terribly scintillating, humble and all so courteous Bob Barr. I understand that some Vienna bakery has offered Barr a job sitting as groom atop one of their wedding cakes.

  13. G.E. Post author

    I understand that some Vienna bakery has offered Barr a job sitting as groom atop one of their wedding cakes.

    Following federal prosecutor (i.e. jailer of the innocent), CIA man, Congressman (i.e. criminal leech), and lobbyist, this would unquestionably be a step-up for Barr on the moral scale.

  14. G.E. Post author

    Even though I reject Holtz’s acceptance of institutionalized aggression against life and liberty, he is a damn fine writer and makes a lot of good points. He’s also a committed activist and apparently a superior tactician. If only he were on the side of good!

  15. Trent Hill

    5, 7, and 8 are unthinkable and terrible. 11 and 12 reek of Cold War interventionism.

    I’m thisclose to leaving the CP. Their platform, which I hadnt viewed in months, makes me seem like a terrible Chriso-fascist.

    Yep, im done.
    Back to the GOP with me.
    Good luck to all the CPers who are trying to reform that organization.

  16. Trent Hill

    Between this, the pressure I’v faced for putting Paul on the ballot, and the underwhelming candidacy of Chuck Baldwin—I’m done.

    And sadly, it isnt Chuck Baldwin’s fault. He is a great man and a good liberty-loving soldier in the Revolution–he’s just hitched to a slow wagon.

  17. sunshinebatman

    Mr Hill, getting Dr Paul on the ballot down there was a heroic move undermining that shithead totalitarian Jindal.

  18. Trent Hill

    Walter Block isnt the only one GE. DiLorenzo and Woods both have had decent things to say about them. Woods has said publicly, a few times now, that Baldwin is the best choice in the Presidential race this year.

  19. G.E. Post author

    Holtz was too kind to the CP. He omitted this winner:

    Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.

    Also, the entire Pornography plank is worth reading:

    Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

    With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.

  20. Trent Hill

    “The CP wasn’t libertarian enough for Trent, so he became a Republican”

    Ron Paul is a Republican,and he’s plenty libertarian for me. And the LP is filled with petty-infighting and still hampered by third-party detriments to success.

  21. G.E. Post author

    Trent -Woods’s assessment is a fair one. Block talks about the CP in general, though, but I guess he specifically mentions “liberty-minded” CPers (i.e. ones who reject their own party’s platform). What about DiLorenzo? I know he’s culturally conservative, but I can’t believe he could get behind a party with a platform so at odds with classical liberalism. Were his comments restricted to Baldwin?

    I’d like to hear Baldwin come out and say he rejects the platform. He was sort of evasive on the trade question in my interview with him.

  22. Fred Church Ortiz

    Ron Paul is a Republican,and he’s plenty libertarian for me. And the LP is filled with petty-infighting and still hampered by third-party detriments to success.

    These points I agree with. I still don’t know what the hell I’m doing. At least as a Republican in LA you can find some success, as a Republican in L.A. I would have none. Though I did meet quite a few interesting Californians at the R4R making a go of it, including a few that got elected to their county committees.

  23. VTV

    You know, when I look at that, I wonder if Bob Barr was secretly a member of the CP when he was in Congress. Sorry folks, this does not get Bob Barr off the hook. Just about everything Bob Barr did as a congressmen looks like it follows that platform. Maybe he should seek their nomination?

  24. Fred Church Ortiz

    He was sort of evasive on the trade question in my interview with him.

    Trade’s tough for a lot of people, Baldwin must not be an exception. Even if protectionism can be demonstrated as a bad idea, as with Chuck M’s examples, they still seem intuitively okay to many that don’t have the background.

  25. Mike Gillis

    Ron Paul is a Republican,and he’s plenty libertarian for me.

    But you’d have to admit that Paul is the exception rather than the rule.

  26. johncjackson

    Trent, join the LP. Instead of being outnumbered by non-libertarians 99 to 1 in the GOP, we are probably only outnumbered 98 to 1 here.

  27. Trent Hill

    “But you’d have to admit that Paul is the exception rather than the rule.”

    Sure. But remember that im not a doctrinaire libertarian either. Im an anti-war libertarian/conservative.

  28. Mike Gillis

    and trust me, as a Republican, you’d be even more of an outsider and more ignored and marginalized than you would as a member of the CP or the LP.

  29. Steve LaBianca

    As bad as the CP platform is, the gutting of the LP platform, by the Reform Caucus, of which Holtz is a major influence, stinks pretty badly as well.

    After all, the LP needed a platform which “the candidates could run on”. Barr/W.A.R. would be constantly having to explain their deviation from the 2004 platform if that was in place.

    Frankly, the LP platform is very libertarian. And surprise, surprise, neither are Barr or W.A.R.!

  30. Trent Hill

    Mike,

    False. During my short tenure as a Republican, I was almost elected to the State Convention. I have friends who were elected to county central committees and local offices.

    The CP has about 150,000 routine voters. I’d guess roughly 1/3rd of them are ACTUAL constitutionalists or thoughtful paleoconservatives.
    The CP has about 400,000 routine voters. I’d guess roughly 1/2 of them are consistent libertarians.
    In both of those parties, there are about 850 elected officials, 95% elected at the local level. The highest elected official in either party is State Representative Rick Jore in Montana. In the history of both parties, I believe 7 people have been elected to state legislatures (in Alaska, New Hampshire, and Montana).

    There are more successful options,hell–there are even more successful third-parties. The Progressives have 6 sitting state representatives and routinely score double digits in state-wide races. The mayor of Burlington, Vermont’s largest town, is a Progressive.
    The Alaskan Independence Party elected a governor/lt. governor in 1990 and has also had a State Senator and two State Representatives (I believe).

    But–within the GOP, the option I chose, there are something like 250 Republican congressmen. Of those, I can think of at least 3 who are admirable (Ron Paul, Jimmy Duncan, and Walter Jones). About 6-7 more I can name that have potential to be good. And at least 2 Ron Paul candidates who could break into Congress (like BJ Lawson).
    The CP and LP have NEVER elected anyone to Congress. The CP’s closest point came in late 2005 in a special election in California when Jim Gilchrist ran as the AIP candidate and raised 1 mill doing it. He won the most votes on election day, but absentee voting whipped him, he ended with 27.5%.
    I dont know the LP’s closest race.

    But in the GOP’s history, just in the past decade I can name numerous congressmen who were admirable or had potention. Anti-war conservatives like John Hostettler, John Leboutillier, H.R. Gross, and Helen Chenoweth-Hague, Larry McDonald (who was actually a Democrat), Mel Hancock, Gary Johnson, Goldwater Jr., William Dannemeyer, and Steve Stockman.

  31. G.E. Post author

    The CP has about 150,000 routine voters. I’d guess roughly 1/3rd of them are ACTUAL constitutionalists or thoughtful paleoconservatives.
    The CP has about 400,000 routine voters. I’d guess roughly 1/2 of them are consistent libertarians.
    In both of those parties, there are about 850 elected officials, 95% elected at the local level.

    You are getting a bit Milnesian in your calculations.

    I was looking forward to you helping reform the CP into a party that (1) actually followed the Constitution, and (2) realized that the Constitution itself sucked but was better than the alternative.

    The GOP is evil incarnate. It was founded on evil and it has stood for evil for the entirety of its existence, during which time there have been a half-dozen or so good men who have found “success” within it. But good luck nonetheless.

  32. Trent Hill

    GE,

    The Republican Party was founded upon the idea of abolition of slavery. Lincoln was a terrible president, but many of the original Republicans were pretty decent people. The Republican Party I want to restore is the conservative wing of the 40s and 50s.
    As for the CP being reformed into the party you described—Im just not sure that is possible.

  33. RedPhillips

    #7 is problematically phrased. To praise the First Amendment and then because of that oppose pornography is confusing. The issue is that the Founders never intended the First Amendment to apply to pornography. There is a very early court case involving nude art that makes this point as does common sense and any historical sense whatsoever. And the First Amendment was not intended to apply to States. States and localities should be free to regulate pornography. That should be the point of the plank.

    #8 is a mess even if you are not a free trader and support some form of protectionism. Such a thing would be IMPOSSIBLE to calculate and administer for every product. To avoid conflict on this very contentious issue I think endorsing a revenue tariff and abolishing the income tax is the best way to go.

    #11 is in there because the Panama Canal was one of Howard Phillips’ pet issues in the 80’s, and it was a hot button issue that really fired up the base. At this point I see no point in addressing it. An argument could be made that the Panama Canal Zone is the most bought and paid for piece of land in history, but a case could also be made that it was sold under duress. Either way, it is no longer a live issue.

    #12 is anachronistic. There is no need to restate support of the Monroe Doctrine. No European powers are meddling here, and I don’t see that as an issue in the near future. I’m not sure I would welcome any meddling but an entire hemisphere seems like a large area to carve out as your sphere of influence.

    Again, I wouldn’t welcome China invading Cuba, but #11 and #12 do seem to undermine somewhat the party’s claim to non-interventionsim. I recall a few Keyes supporters pointing this out.

    I was on the platform committee, and it was some very ugly sausage making. The basic platform remained unchanged unless someone proposed a change. I recognized a few of these problems, but you have to pick your battles. What we ended up with (long story) is, IMO, a cumbersome mess. There is a group working on streamlining the platform and the streamlined version may be the base we start with in 2012.

    For the record, I do not have a problem in general with #1. There is a debate between honest paleos over to what extent the “founding” was inherently liberal and hence not particularisticly Christian. But the true paleo bemoans and doesn’t celebrate any inherent liberalism. I do think the language of #1 may reflect an overly optimistic view of this debate.

    Trent, I would advise you to not be too hasty. You are an officer of the LA CP. This is a serious decision. If it is settled then you need to inform someone.

  34. G.E. Post author

    The Republican Party was founded upon the idea of abolition of slavery.

    WHAT?

    It was founded in the name of stopping the expansion of slavery and keeping blacks out of Northern white states. And in the name of mercantilism, high taxes, corporate welfare, and nationalism.

    Lincoln was one of the LEAST BAD Republicans of his era, which is why he disassociated himself from the party for re-election and took a Democrat as his VP.

    The Democrats have a far, far nobler recent history.

    See this: http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=22&articleID=261

  35. G.E. Post author

    Red

    #7 – You are correct when you say that the 1st Amendment was only intended to apply to the federal government (and, of course, nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government empowered to regulate obscenity, so that power does NOT exist). Whether or not “pornography” is “speech” is not germane to the subject, but the CP platform is too liberal (in the modern sense) to recognize that.

  36. G.E. Post author

    It would be really fun to be part of a movement to restore the Democrats to their libertarian principles. Efforts like the DFC are full of libertine statists that make the worst members of the LNC look like anarchists. They have contempt for gold, for life, and for federalism.

    But imagine if the Ron Paul movement switched to the Dems and declared, “These are traditional Democratic principles.” The Dems would then have to deny the truth about their history. If they played the “states’ rights = racism” card, then they’d be confronted with the fact that the Democratic Party does have an ugly history of racism. It’d really piss off the leadership!

    When you try to “restore” the Republicans to their “roots” — like the idiotic signs at the Rally said — you are being untruthful. What you’re really trying to do is “restore” it, in part, to the views that a tiny minority of its membership had for a brief period of time between World War I and the end of Korea.

  37. G.E. Post author

    And by the way, the CP obviously has more hope than the LP, in that it not only stood up to its own version of Bob Barr (Alan Keyes), but did so in resounding fashion.

  38. G.E. Post author

    When you try to “restore” the Republicans to their “roots” — like the idiotic signs at the Rally said — you are being untruthful. What you’re really trying to do is “restore” it, in part, to the views that a tiny minority of its membership had for a brief period of time between World War I and the end of Korea.

    To clarify, the “you” in this sentence is a generic you, not Trent Hill.

  39. Trent Hill

    “Trent, I would advise you to not be too hasty. You are an officer of the LA CP. This is a serious decision. If it is settled then you need to inform someone.”

    Already done.

  40. Trent Hill

    “The Democrats have a far, far nobler recent history.”

    No doubt. Jefferson-Jackson Dinners are still held in most southern democratic parties. But they seem to be even more convinced of statism,and there is not yet a significant freedom movement within that party. The “Freedom Democrats” basically dont exist.

  41. Trent Hill

    “When you try to “restore” the Republicans to their “roots” — like the idiotic signs at the Rally said — you are being untruthful. What you’re really trying to do is “restore” it, in part, to the views that a tiny minority of its membership had for a brief period of time between World War I and the end of Korea.”

    Tiny minority? Over half of the party supported Taft in 1952, and as you know–Taft should have won the 1952 convention, but didnt because of Eisenhower’s blantant use of racism to unseat the “black and tan” delegates. This is fact.
    Prior to WWII, the America First Committee was made up mostly of Republicans–this was the largest anti-war organization in the history of the US up until the Vietnam War.
    Show me a freedom-loving democrat, anywhere in the last 4 decades, who approaches anything like Robert Taft, Howard Buffet, or Ron Paul.

  42. G.E. Post author

    Yes. The Democrats have Jefferson-Jackson Dinners (I’d prefer Jefferson-Cleveland), while the GOP — at least in the North — has Lincoln Dinners. Do they dare in the South?

  43. Trent Hill

    “And by the way, the CP obviously has more hope than the LP, in that it not only stood up to its own version of Bob Barr (Alan Keyes), but did so in resounding fashion.”

    The CP is, in my opinion, not beyond saving. The LP is, unfortunately. When the Rothbard machine started fighting with the Koch machine, that really spelled the end. Previous to that, radicals and reformists had gotten along pretty well.

  44. G.E. Post author

    Show me a freedom-loving democrat, anywhere in the last 4 decades, who approaches anything like Robert Taft, Howard Buffet, or Ron Paul.

    There aren’t any. But these guys were anomalies. The Democratic Party (not just a few individuals) stood for good things and even elected a president — twice — who stood for those things.

    America First was a broad movement that included racists and leftists. It was not all freedom-oriented and it was certainly not all Republican.

  45. Trent Hill

    ” Do they dare in the South?”

    No. Lincoln dinners are unheard of in the south. Back in the 50s and 60s, Deep South states used to have Strom Thurmond Dinners and as late as the 70s and early 80s large groups of Democrats (including elected officials) were throwing “George Wallace dinners”.

  46. Trent Hill

    “America First was a broad movement that included racists and leftists. It was not all freedom-oriented and it was certainly not all Republican.”

    Never claimed any of that. It was dominantly Republican though.

  47. Trent Hill

    “There aren’t any. But these guys were anomalies. The Democratic Party (not just a few individuals) stood for good things and even elected a president — twice — who stood for those things.”

    Grover Cleveland? That was about a century ago GE–it may as well be a thousand years ago for all the Democrats remember.
    As you’ve admitted–you cant think of even one freedom-oriented Democrat. Most people dont even know who the “Freedom Democrats” are, or who their leader is. They cannot claim even ONE prominent member–not even a state legislator or mayor.
    The Republicans, on the other hand, have a small strain of freedom-oriented officials. Ron Paul, Walter Jones, Jimmy Duncan—this represents a small percentage, not an anomaly.

  48. Trent Hill

    Oh–and if you dont accept Walter Jones or Jimmy Duncan–then I can offer up alternatives. Simply look at the list I first posted.

    “John Hostettler, John Leboutillier, H.R. Gross, Helen Chenoweth-Hague, Mel Hancock, Gary Johnson, Goldwater Jr., Robert Taft, Howard Buffett, and Steve Stockman.”

    I can think of only ONE freedom-oriented Democrat in the last FOUR DECADES.

  49. G.E. Post author

    The Republicans have never elected a freedom-oriented president. Harding and Coolidge were less evil than most, but not freedom oriented.

    Having a handful of good — or in most of your examples, less evil — Congressman means NOTHING for the party itself. How many of those Republicans other than Ron Paul are not endorsing or voting for evil fascist John McCain?

    I’m not making the argument that the Democratic Party is more freedom oriented. I’m saying it at least has a legitimate history of being so.

    There probably were a few good men in the Nazi Party too.

    My only point is that it would be cool if people confronted the Democratic Party with its own history, and, YES, I think the Democratic Party is more salvageable (not only on that basis) than the Republicans. The defining characteristic of being a Republican is being an imperialist. The defining characteristic of being a Democrat is being “for the people” (i.e. for socialism, but that is more easily translatable into libertarian populism than fascism).

    Point out a few Republicans does not lessen the evil of the party. Are you really going to wrap yourself in the flag of Lincoln and pass out literature for John McCain?

  50. Trent Hill

    “Point out a few Republicans does not lessen the evil of the party. Are you really going to wrap yourself in the flag of Lincoln and pass out literature for John McCain?”

    Straw man. You know good and well I wont be doing anything of the sort. Anymore than you are going to pass out anti-wicca literature in support of Bob “The Mustache” Barr. Ditto for the BTP–parties mean very little.

    “The Republicans have never elected a freedom-oriented president. Harding and Coolidge were less evil than most, but not freedom oriented. ”

    I’d say Coolidge was mostly freedom-oriented, though certainly not as much as Grover Cleveland. I’d say Roosevelt, Wilson, Johnson, and company balance out the good of Grover Cleveland. Still—a century ago leaves nothing to be remembered. 4 decades ago is still within memory, and in the 90s there was a significant anti-war conservative wing within the GOP.

  51. G.E. Post author

    The action in the antiwar movement is on the left.

    Wilson, FDR, and Johnson, three of the most evil men in the history of civilization — and their ideas have been fully adopted, 100%, by the Republican Party.

    In the 90s, there was an anti-Clinton wing who opposed his foreign policy. Don’t mistake that for anti-war. Those same people were all for killing Arabs. They just didn’t like killing whites and defending Muslims.

  52. G.E. Post author

    Carter and Clinton were the two least destructive presidents since Coolidge… Or maybe even Cleveland. The Fed bubble grew under Harding and Coolidge who, if they were even remotely freedom loving, could have used some Jacksonian activism to destroy that creature in its infancy.

  53. Trent Hill

    “Walter “Freedom Fries” Jones is a former Democrat.”

    Former being a very key word there. And most of his bad policies (the protectionism and such) are probably due to his involvement in that party.

  54. G.E. Post author

    But that point is essentially irrelevant — as are the claims that Ron Paul, etc., in any way represent anything going on inside the horribly evil GOP. You believe there is an actual freedom wing of the GOP, which would be significant if it did exist, and I don’t. That’s where we differ.

  55. Old Whig

    Trying to find either virtue or freedom in the two major parties is like looking for teats on a flea without a magnifying glass

    O.W.

  56. Trent Hill

    “In the 90s, there was an anti-Clinton wing who opposed his foreign policy. Don’t mistake that for anti-war. Those same people were all for killing Arabs. They just didn’t like killing whites and defending Muslims.”

    This is patently false. Pat Buchanan led that wing, and is still against the War in Iraq. These people, if you met any of them prior to 2001, were just as anti-bush as anti-clinton.

  57. G.E. Post author

    Point being: If Walter Jones is “freedom oriented” (he’s not), then that would be a freedom-oriented Democrat, right? Or did he not become “for freedom” until joining the party that nationalized slavery?

  58. G.E. Post author

    Pat Buchanan endorsed George W. Bush in 2004.

    The people who followed him did so because of his bellicose culture warring and immigrant bashing, not due to his foreign policy. See Sarah Palin.

  59. Trent Hill

    “But that point is essentially irrelevant — as are the claims that Ron Paul, etc., in any way represent anything going on inside the horribly evil GOP. You believe there is an actual freedom wing of the GOP, which would be significant if it did exist, and I don’t.”

    Then feel free to explain how 1 million registered Republicans voted for Ron Paul. You know they had to be Republicans (in most cases) to vote,right? And most of them are remaining Republican,even if they are former LPers or CPers. Ron Paul is simply the legacy of a small freedom-strain within the GOP that identifies with Robert Taft, Howard Buffet, H.R. Gross, etc etc.

    As for the only Democrat I was talking about. Larry McDonald (D-GA)

  60. Trent Hill

    “Point being: If Walter Jones is “freedom oriented” (he’s not), then that would be a freedom-oriented Democrat, right? Or did he not become “for freedom” until joining the party that nationalized slavery?”

    No. During his entire tenure in the Democratic party he was a gung-ho war-lover. In the Republican party he converted after several years and because an anti-war conservative. His scores from the JBS have gone from 50s and 60s to consistent 98, 99, and 100s.

  61. Trent Hill

    “Pat Buchanan endorsed George W. Bush in 2004.

    The people who followed him did so because of his bellicose culture warring and immigrant bashing, not due to his foreign policy.”

    He did,and that pissed off ALOT of his followers. People like Daniel Larison, Daniel McCarthy, and (you guessed it) Bob Bird.
    Sorry GE–you clearly dont know anything about Buchanan’s movement. There were plenty of other social conservatives in the primary races of 92 and 96–people were attracted to Pat Buchanan because he was anti-war, anti-fed, pro-sound money, and anti-establishment.

  62. G.E. Post author

    Then feel free to explain how 1 million registered Republicans voted for Ron Paul.

    They absolutely didn’t.

    I voted for him. So did all of my friends. None of us were ever registered Republican.

    54,000 people voted for him in Michigan and not ONE was a registered Republican. What’s more, the Democrats didn’t even have a real primary, freeing leftists to vote for Paul in the GOP contest.

    Check the exit polling of any state, Trent. Liberals were the overwhelming majority of people who voted for Paul.

    Of “registered Republicans,” a huge percentage of them registered specifically to vote for Ron Paul.

  63. G.E. Post author

    War was not on the frontburner any time Buchanan ran. People did not vote for him because they were anti-war. The same people who voted for Buchanan did not vote for Ron Paul. There was some overlap, but not a lot. Just look at the exit-polling data — this is not a theory, it is irrefutable fact.

  64. RedPhillips

    G.E., the conservatives who supported Paul generally supported Buchanan in my experience. That Paul’s whole coalition was different is clear.

    The Gulf War was a BIG issue in ’92 when Buchanan ran against Bush. Buchanan almost single-handedly made it OK to be a non-interventionist conservative/Republican. There were others, Charlie Reese for example. But none were anywhere near as significant as Buchanan. I know because I was young and dumb then, and I was a Cold Warrior. It was reading and following Buchanan and a few other conservative non-interventionists (anti-Gulf War) who helped me see the light.

  65. Deran

    Harding?! Warren G. Harding? Seriously? His regime was so corrupt only Goerge W Bush’s regime has out done him. He was also responsible for signing the Wilsonian treaties after WW1 that have led to much of the trouble in the Middle East.

    And he and Collidge’s economic polcies were directly responsible for th economic dpression of the 30s. he followed very similar polcies as Bush 43. Graft, usury and coporate giveaways. The hyper-speculation and rapacity of the corporations during him and Coolidge created the huge wealth gap, and the ponzi scheme that led to the collapse of capitalism in 29/30. imho.

    I consider Babara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, and former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and to a much less degree, my very own Jim McDermott (I’ve never voted for him though), to be “decent” progressive populist Democrats.

  66. G.E. Post author

    Deran – The Great Depression was a result of the Federal Reserve — an entity set up to fleece the American middle- and working-classes for the benefit of the rich and politically connected. There’s only one thing either Harding or Coolidge could have done to help prevent the crash and that’s lead the movement to repeal the then-young Federal Reserve Act.

    I agree that Barbara Lee and Dennis Kucinich are “decent,” and two of the least bad people in Congress. Maybe #2 and #3 after Ron Paul, even though I vehemently disagree with them on many issues. On Afghanistan, Ms. Lee showed even more courage than Dr. Paul.

    Red – Charlie Reese was a great writer and I’m sorry to find out he’s retiring.

    You’re older than me (presumably) so I won’t contest your recollection of ’92. But that Gulf War was a joke, so opposing it was not as serious as opposing the current one.

    I don’t know the vote totals Buchanan racked up, but unless they were miniscule (and I’m assuming they were even larger than Paul’s), the simple math points out that the vast majority of Buchananites did not support Paul… Because the exit polling shows that the majority (if not vast majority) of Paul supporters clearly were not Buchanan supporters in ’92, ’96, or 2000. Unless you belief self-described liberal atheists who are pro-legal abortion supported Buchanan all those times.

  67. G.E. Post author

    Give Harding just a LITTLE credit. At least he pardoned Eugene Debs.

    Yes. And Teapot Dome was a joke compared to the scandals under virtually every president since then.

    Harding was a crook. Yeah, that’s part of the job description. How many people did he get killed, though?

  68. Trent Hill

    “I voted for him. So did all of my friends. None of us were ever registered Republican.

    54,000 people voted for him in Michigan and not ONE was a registered Republican”

    Not one? That’s a pretty outlandish claim GE. Ill just let it stand on its own.

  69. Trent Hill

    GE,

    The point of the whole thing is this–there is a longrunning strain in the Republican party that is freedom oriented. Sometimes that strain has become a wide stream (like in 1952). The Democratic Party, while boasting a more noble history, has no such strain—n0ne.

  70. johnlowell

    There is a peculiar schizophrenia about Buchanan. More than any positive analytical skills he might have – and those he pretends to have as a historian are not among them – ultimately what seems to matter to Buchanan is beating the liberals. For years contemptuous of our Middle East policies, in 2004 Buchanan endorsed Bush reasoning that the question of anti-Roe justices trumpted everything else. There were no guarantees about justices with Bush and there are less with McCain, but today, reading Buchanan’s columns, what is clear is his delight with Palin and the idea that a way has been found to stick a finger in the eye of Obama and his hope that with McCain Roe will be overtured. I’m Catholic, and hope for an end to abortion in this country but I’m not so stupid as to believe that McCain’s handlers will be offering social conservatives what they most desire without a price. There will be a Faustian deal, one that social conservatives, including Buchanan, will not suspect: An anti-Roe nominee who will also strongly support the notion of the unitary executive, someone not unlike Alito. In other words with a Roe-free America you get Caudillo. The ReichsChurch of Dobson, Land and Neuhaus won’t mind but serious, non-ideological Catholics like Dan McCarty will. A vote for McCain isn’t simply a vote for life. Like Josef Mengele, McCain is hardly loath to experiment on embryos and I’m quite sure he’s not likely to dislike the idea of being a kind of Franco redux either. Catholics need to be particularly vigilant here. The trade off is the loss of democracy.

  71. G.E. Post author

    Still–I’d bet at least half of them consider themselves “Republican”.

    Bad bed.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21228184/

    Only TWENTY PERCENT of Paul’s votes in Michigan came from people who considered themselves Republicans. MORE, 28%, came from Democrats. The bulk, 52%, came from “independents or something else.”

    Furthermore, the majority said they were moderate or somewhat liberal… Think these people voted for Buchanan?

    62% were 29 or younger… Too young to have voted for Buchanan.

    58% were atheists/agnostics… Think they voted for Buchanan?

    2/3 were pro-legal abortion… Buchanan voters?

  72. G.E. Post author

    You’d better check here, Trent

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21228180/

    Even in Louisiana, where you had to be registered Republican, SEVENTY-EIGHT percent of Paul’s votes came from people who considered themselves NOT Republicans.

    You need to reduce your 1.2 million down to, AT MOST, 300,000, and that’s REALLY pushing it. In fact, I might be inclined to take on this project and do the math.

  73. darolew

    Brian Holtz is right, the CP platform is horrible. I’ve read it before, and Holtz highlights most of its worst parts (except #9, which is mostly fine, and a few omissions). Any candidate who actually ran on the CP platform would be no better than the major party candidates. Baldwin makes some deviations, but not enough.

    On Republicans vs. Democrats: It’s unquestionable that the Democratic Party had a more liberty-orientated past. It’s also unquestionable that their past is dead. The Republican Party has a very small liberty movement today, which is more than the DP can boast.

    On Pat Buchanan: As I understand it from what Lew Rockwell has written, Buchanan originally started out with heavy emphasis on non-interventionism and low taxation, but then switched to social conservative issues, to the disappointment of many paleolibertarians who backed him.

    On party affiliation: I see nothing wrong with not having one. Well, in my state you don’t even declare a preferred party when you register, so that’s kinda the default anyway. Support good candidates as they come along, regardless of the party.

  74. G.E. Post author

    Oh, and the people who vote for Jimmy Duncan and “raise the minimum wage” Walter Jones, etc., for Congress are the same kind of people who vote for Ron Paul for Congress. In Paul’s district, he received only a smattering of votes in the presidential primary — check to see how he did in the district’s of these other so-called “freedom oriented” Republicans who are endorsing McCain/Palin.

    There is no movement. I’m saying that at least there’d be some intellectual consistency and honesty in starting one in the Democratic Party.

  75. Trent Hill

    GE,

    You cannot refute that in the past 3-4 decades there have been at least 15 pro-liberty congressmen/statewide officials in the Republicans. In the same time, there has been maybe 1 Democrat.

    As for the numbers,25% of 1.2 million is 300,000. Those 300,000 experienced FAR more press, fundraising, and excitement than anything the LP or CP have ever generated.

  76. Trent Hill

    “Oh, and the people who vote for Jimmy Duncan and “raise the minimum wage” Walter Jones, etc., for Congress are the same kind of people who vote for Ron Paul for Congress. In Paul’s district, he received only a smattering of votes in the presidential primary — check to see how he did in the district’s of these other so-called “freedom oriented” Republicans who are endorsing McCain/Palin. ”

    Im not even sure what you are saying here. I suppose you are saying that Ron Paul did not recieve many votes (for president) in his congressional district or those of his pro-liberty allies from congress? Duh. Its not like those are “pockets of liberty” or something. Ron Paul could be elected in any center or right-of-center district in the country, same for Duncan.
    We just need to elect more of them–Democrat, Republican, Independent–I dont care.

  77. G.E. Post author

    You cannot refute that in the past 3-4 decades there have been at least 15 pro-liberty congressmen/statewide officials in the Republicans. In the same time, there has been maybe 1 Democrat.

    I don’t refute it. It’s just that it means NOTHING.

    What I have refuted is your assertion that a) 1 million Republicans voted for Paul for president, b) that at least 50% of the people who voted for Paul were Republicans, and c) that the people who voted for Buchanan and the people who voted for Paul were even remotely the same group of people.

    I don’t know why you think Ron Paul could be elected anywhere but his home district, where he delivered a ton of babies and the people know him. There’s no evidence for your claim whatsoever.

    My point is that even in Ron Paul’s district, the people prefer McCain and Bush to Ron Paul. Paul got a pitiful number of votes in his own district. His own district is NOT “freedom-minded” — it is a wonderful cosmic mistake that Paul is somehow in Congress.

    I gave you 300k. That’s pushing it, though. That’s giving 25% when it’s almost definitely less than that.

    An assortment of moderately less statist Congressmen over the course of a couple decades does not equal any kind of “movement.” The movement IS the Campaign for Liberty / Ron Paul Revolution, which is a multi-party, diverse movement.

    So the Republican Party CAN be part of that… But there isn’t a movement of “anti-war, pro-liberty conservatives” in the GOP ready to take it over. This isn’t 1952 or even close to it. So good luck in the GOP. My prediction: You have too much integrity to stomach it for long. Let’s see if you can outlast my one meeting.

  78. Trent Hill

    GE,

    Lesening the number beneath 300k actually proves my point better. Those FEW people were able to get Ron Paul FAR more coverage and such BECA– USE he was a Republican.

    And–I will not be working through the GOP’s channels, but through the Campaign for Liberty’s.

  79. G.E. Post author

    Lesening the number beneath 300k actually proves my point better. Those FEW people were able to get Ron Paul FAR more coverage and such BECA– USE he was a Republican.

    That makes no sense.

    Why do you attribute the coverage only to the less than 300,000 who were Republicans?

  80. paulie cannoli

    It would be really fun to be part of a movement to restore the Democrats to their libertarian principles. Efforts like the DFC are full of libertine statists that make the worst members of the LNC look like anarchists. They have contempt for gold, for life, and for federalism.

    But imagine if the Ron Paul movement switched to the Dems and declared, “These are traditional Democratic principles.” The Dems would then have to deny the truth about their history. If they played the “states’ rights = racism” card, then they’d be confronted with the fact that the Democratic Party does have an ugly history of racism. It’d really piss off the leadership!

    Want to help me start a Jeffersonian Caucus?

    I was thinking of returning to the Democrats to do create ‘Democrats Against Democracy’ (an anti-ballot access group, using that name) but perhaps this would be more productive.

  81. G.E. Post author

    Actually, I would!

    But my preferred term would be “Gold Democrats.”

    Jeffersonian Caucus could be the official name, I guess.

  82. G.E. Post author

    Yeah. I made the Scotty Boman Web page you know… Or at least I managed the project and hired heroic entrepreneurs from India to do the actual coding and design.

    Let’s take this to email.

  83. paulie cannoli

    I’m still with the BTP and LP, and I have strong (free market) Green sympathies.

    However, I personally asked Cynthia McKinney what she would say to win over Libertarians who are not happy with Barr, and she did not have much of a response.

  84. G.E. Post author

    Showing up to Paul’s press conference was better than nothing. Nader’s appearance there is why I’m voting for him.

    Baldwin… I wish I could vote for him. In a lot of ways he deserves my vote… And I probably would have voted for him if not for Snubgate. But now I’m motivated to see Barr get 4th, so I’m voting for Nader.

  85. paulie cannoli

    Baldwin may come in ahead of Barr as well, he is certainly the top contender for Ron Paul supporters now. However he will be hurt by only being on the ballot in 37 states which have less than 60% of the voters total.

    I think Nader coming in ahead of Barr is certainly possible.

  86. darolew

    “Want to help me start a Jeffersonian Caucus?”

    That would be an interesting project. I wish you luck!

  87. Trent Hill

    As I said–CC me on everything. Im highly unlikely to join, but im interested and maybe there is some level of crossover.

    Besides–I live in LA. What better place to recruit? If I meet any Democrats ill urge THEM to join. =)

  88. amyb31416

    What sort of help do you need to get it off the ground?

    I’m a chemist, need something formulated, calculated or analyzed? :p

  89. paulie cannoli

    I got the impression you were/are a Ron Paul activist? What campaign activities were you involved in?

    Even if nothing else, another person to bounce around ideas would be cool.

  90. Fred Church Ortiz

    Anyone else want to help get it off the ground?

    I’m down to help, though I have no skills and won’t necessarily join.

  91. RedPhillips

    G.E., I am aware of some of the exit polling data you are referring to, and at the time I was surprised and disappointed by it. What I said was that the conservative element of Paul’s support also supported Buchanan in ’96. I don’t personally know any conservative Paul supporter who didn’t also support Buchanan in ’96 assuming they were politically involved at the time.

    Paul’s coalition was odd and probably unique to the man. He attracted some votes that were more generic protest votes. Some leftists. Many libertarians. His support among self identified Republicans was low. But many of the conservatives who supported him were not conservatives who identify as Republicans for good reason. The people who vote for him for Congress in his district are conservatives (with a Texas independent streak) and see him as such also

    As for the GOP or Dems, it is not a matter of which Party you want to “restore.” The history of the parties is interesting but largely meaningless. But which one you think would be easiest to infiltrate and transform or at least influence.

    Assuming a person has a set agenda they are trying to accomplish and isn’t a blatant political pragmatist, whether he works within one of the two major parties or outside them seems to me to be largely a matter of strategy and temperament. Is it more likely to reform the GOP or supplant it with a new party? I am not personally cut out for major party work, but more power to those who are.

  92. RedPhillips

    “G.E., I am aware of some of the exit polling data you are referring to, and at the time I was surprised and disappointed by it.”

    I mean this as an indictment of self-identified conservatives. Their lack of support for Paul indicates they are not serious about their conservatism or don’t really understand what it means to be a conservative.

  93. RedPhillips

    “I am not personally cut out for major party work, but more power to those who are.”

    I should add as long as he doesn’t slavishly vote for the nominee no matter how bad he may be.

  94. G.E. Post author

    Considering three things:

    1) The low level of “conservative support” for Ron Paul

    2) The high level of CP and LP support

    3) That “libertarian” wasn’t an exit-polling choice in terms of ideology

    … the fact is that a large amount of the self-described “conservatives” are likely to be Republicans. The Republicans who voted for Paul were probably largely liberal anti-war Republicans. Because you KNOW the CP voters said “very conservative.”

  95. amyb31416

    Paulie Cannoli sez:

    “I got the impression you were/are a Ron Paul activist? What campaign activities were you involved in?

    Even if nothing else, another person to bounce around ideas would be cool.”

    Well, if you’re talking to me, I was a precinct leader for RP, worked the polls during the primaries trying to get RP delegates elected, promoted RP online and donated more money than I could afford.

    Other than that I just like doing stuff other people are scared to do, like work with nasty chemicals…

  96. G.E. Post author

    Other than that I just like doing stuff other people are scared to do, like work with nasty chemicals…

    Maybe you could help us set up a Meth lab to fund our startup costs?

    [To be clear under the PATRIOT Act, the above was a joke]

  97. Trent Hill

    good thing you’ve got that disclaimer–otherwise your door would be getting kicked down right…..about…….NOW.

  98. chinese_conservative

    Actually these terms of conservatives and liberals is a bit too simplistic because Ron Paul is a neo-classic liberal and Joe Lieberman is a neo-conservative. What we need to keep in mind is that alot of “liberals” are actually conservatives who oppose neo-conservatism not neo-conservative. They would discover they were conservatives if there were more people like Ron Paul. These terms can be confusing.

  99. Michael Seebeck

    Red,

    “#12 is anachronistic. There is no need to restate support of the Monroe Doctrine. No European powers are meddling here, and I don’t see that as an issue in the near future. I’m not sure I would welcome any meddling but an entire hemisphere seems like a large area to carve out as your sphere of influence. ”

    Tell that to the Russians doing wargames in Venezuela and resuming bomber overflights of Canada. The Cold War is starting to come back into town on top of everything else, unfortunatey, but you won’t hear much about in American media.

    But I agree, #12 is simply hemispheric interventionsim. In fact, all of 1-12 are just weird, if not outright incorrect, as is the gambling and porn planks.

  100. Michael Seebeck

    To clarify, #9 is the least problematic, but it is still so in that it fails to mention the real problem behind fractional banking, which is fiat currency.

  101. G.E. Post author

    Actually, fractional-reserve banking existed before fiat currency. They are separate problems — but of course, fiat currency and a government-controlled banking system makes fractional reserve banking “work better.”

    I thought you said you agreed with George Phillies that “critics of central banking” should be shunned, Michael?

  102. Michael Seebeck

    Nope, G.E. I don’t agree with George on that one. Most anything centralized is a bad idea, mainly because it violates the principle of having a piece of bureaucracy at the proper-lowest level to deal with it. “Scope of control” I believe it’s called, but it has been awhile, so I could have that wrong. It’s twin is “span of control”, which means that control of a group should be limited to that which can be reasonably handled–another concept anatheme to centralization.

    Ironically, the military subscribes to these concepts and uses them usually pretty well.

    As for the fiat vs. fractional, you are correct, fiat makes fractional work “better”, as we’ve seen the past few days, but they both suck.

    And I don’t shun critics of anything. I may disagree with them, but because 80% of the world are well-meaning yet uninformed idiots, 10% are ruthless evildoers in charge, and the other 10% we fall into are the angry cynics that can tell the difference, it’s easy to disagree.

  103. libertyinlaw

    Blah blah blah blah. Arguing about who was or who wasn’t a liberty oriented or pro-liberty is a complete waste of time.

    Why are we relying on man’s corruptible wisdom? They all took an oath of office and were charged with following the Constitution. If they did not — that is the standard we use to dismiss their effectiveness. Not their ideas.

    It really is as simple as that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *