-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.10/pageone.html <A HREF="http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.10/pageone.html">Laissez Faire City Times - Volume 3 Issue 10</A> The Laissez Faire City Times March 8, 1999 - Volume 3, Issue 10 Editor & Chief: Emile Zola ----- The Republican Liberty Caucus: an interview with Robert Booth by Alberto Mingardi Libertarians and conservatives are shaped by two different perspectives but have a lot of things in common. As Michael W. Lynch recently noted in Reason, both groups emphasize the ideals of the American Revolution: the heritage of liberty, free markets and natural rights. Both are also members of the revolutionary capitalist "class" which supports individual liberty and is oppressed by the State. On this point, consider for a moment the revolutionary nature of capitalism as seen by a German radical in the early 19th century: The [capitalist class] cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. . . Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish [this] epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their taint of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into the air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life and his relations with his kind." Is the capitalist "class" sufficiently well represented by the miniscule Libertarian Party in the U.S.? In the Laissez Faire City Times we�ve discussed natural allies of the capitalist class: libertarians, republicans, the religious right yes, the religious right no. . . Now is a good time for an interview with Robert Booth. Mr. Booth is one of the leaders of the "Republican Liberty Caucus" (RLC, http://www.rlc.org), an interesting organization that promotes libertarian ideas inside the Republican party, and defines itself as an "Enemy of State". RLC supports lower and fewer taxes, the right to privacy, the right to keep and bear arms, educational choice, alternatives to the drug war, privatization of government functions and similar ideas. Their "champion" is Murray N. Rothbard. That says a lot in itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Professor Walter Block recently told The Laissez Faire City Times that despite Ron Paul, the GOP is "a wasteland for liberty." How do you respond to a criticism like this ? It would depend on what Professor Block means by the GOP and "wasteland". If he means that there are not any libertarians besides Ron Paul elected to the federal legislative bodies, he has a good point. There are some libertarian-leaning Republicans elected to office, but even they would balk at being called a libertarian. If he means that there are not any libertarian Republicans elected to office at the state level, I would like to point out some very good people. Greg Kaza was a state representative for six years in Michigan and now he is running for the state Senate. Brian Thomas is a state representative in Washington State, and he is very libertarian. There are quite a few others as well. If Prof. Block means that there is a wasteland among grassroots GOP activists, I would object even more strenuously. We find people every day who are committed libertarians and are active in the GOP. Finally, if he means that there are no libertarians amongst the people who vote Republican, I have to seriously disagree. According to some polls, 20-30 percent of the American populace is in general libertarian. This is on the same level as the number of people who are described as being conservative, liberal or moderate. Given that anywhere from 90-99 percent of the voting public votes for one of the two major parties, that means that many are looking at these parties to produce libertarian candidates. In business terms, there's a big demand for a product that isn't out there. We're trying to help one party, the Republicans, meet that demand. For those not familiar with the US political system, we have a bit of a different dynamic than you do in Europe. Nearly all elected offices are in "single member districts", that is, there is no proportional representation. This pretty much guarantees that there will be two major parties at any given time. These two parties have to maintain a large coalition of diverse interests. While many political groups seek to work outside these coalitions, we want to try to make sure the leaders of the coalitions have to listen to us. What are the reasons for the alliance of conservatives and libertarians? Conservatives are a diverse lot, and it's hard to say what they specifically believe. It would be fair to say that conservatives favor "limited government" in the general sense of the term. They also favor reducing the power of the federal/central government and turning those powers over to the state and/or local governments. If we can both wrestle the power away from the federal government, we as libertarians will fight later on to reduce the power of state governments. Conservatives also, in general, favor the rights of the individual, although they're not as consistent as we'd like them to be. I'd point out that someone ought to be there and hold them to being consistent. The traditional problem between conservatives and libertarians was in the nature of the threat the Soviet Union posed. Conservatives were willing to compromise much to fight this threat, and libertarians were uncomfortable with that. With that stumbling block to cooperation gone, we can work together much better. The most important reason for the alliance: conservatives will vote for a libertarian. Votes win elections; elections give those elected the power to make changes. If libertarians never get elected, they never get to change anything. I didn't sign up with the libertarian movement to publish books or raise money. I signed up to cause change. On foreign policy: how does the RLC judge Clinton's actions in Iraq, and what is your opinion of George Bush's "New World Order"? President Clinton's recent actions in Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan have been judged harshly by individual members of the RLC. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), immediate past chairman of the RLC, spoke out specifically against the bombing of Iraq on the eve of the impeachment vote. Iraq policy has been poorly handled, and I think those in charge have a rather naive view on how to protect ourselves from whatever threat Iraq could possible present. They seem to think that sanctions, on-site inspections and diplomatic words will make Saddam Hussein drop whatever plans he has on developing weapons of mass destruction. The nature of chemical and biological weapons make it virtually impossible to stop a determined individual from developing them. I think we have to recognize that fact and respond accordingly to protect ourselves, and not rely on the wishful thinking of diplomats. It's very hard to decide what Bush's "New World Order" is and what that phrase has come to mean today. I seem to remember him meaning the label as a way to describe the world after the Soviet Union fell. Now it seems to mean a new globalism, and that doctrine is not very popular among the RLC members I talk with. Although the term "isolationist" is rather vague in its meaning these days, I think most people in the RLC would be comfortable describing themselves as non-interventionist, and the "New World Order" has come to mean massive global intervention. Who does RLC support in the next Presidential campaign? For the GOP, the names of Steve Forbes, Liz Dole and George Bush Jr. are frequently mentioned. Who is the more libertarian, from your point of view? In 1996 the RLC officially endorsed Steve Forbes in the Republican primaries and the "eventual nominee of the Republican Party" in the general election. Since that time Steve Forbes has tried to position himself further towards the "religious right" and has taken some positions on issues seemingly designed to alienate his libertarian supporters. (For example, he opposed the right of terminally ill people to use marijuana as a pain reliever.) As a result there doesn't seem to be a groundswell of support for any one particular candidate. Steve Forbes could have had it, but he's lost it, although some people will probably still support him. George W. Bush is still something of an unknown quantity. He is popular as a governor in Texas, but he doesn't seem to be able to point to any specific thing that would make him interesting to libertarians. He is reaching out for support from libertarians. Martin Anderson, an RLC Advisory Board Member and scholar at the Hoover Institution, has supposedly gone to visit and advise him. This could be a good development. Mr. Anderson pushed for ending the draft when he was an advisor to President Nixon, and it ended. Reinstituting the draft was brought up during the Reagan Administration, and President Reagan asked Mr. Anderson about it at a cabinet meeting. Mr. Anderson replied that it was wrong to defend liberty with conscripts and it died there. Very little is known about Mrs. Dole. We'll have to wait and see. She seems like a nice person. Why did you think that it was better to create a "Republican Libertarian Caucus" then to pursue politics in the Libertarian Party? Many in our group have been LP members, some still are. The RLC Chairman, Professor Clifford Thies was the Treasurer of the national LP at one time. Our past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul, was the LP presidential candidate in 1988. Our Treasurer, Mike Holmes, was a founding member of the LP. A former chairman, the late Roger MacBride, cast the only electoral vote the LP ever received. Everyone in the RLC joined for their own reasons, but it can be presumed that they all would agree that in many races the GOP is the best way to go in order to actually get a libertarian elected. It can also be said that the LP runs educational campaigns, where the goal is not actually electing someone, but educating the public about the libertarian philosophy. We are interested in getting someone who holds the libertarian philosophy elected. Which libertarian think tanks hold political positions similar to the RLC? There are many, many libertarian think tanks. In the US, however, think tanks generally enjoy status as tax-deductible organizations. One of the conditions of this tax-free status is that they may not engage in partisan politics or try to influence the passage of specific legislation. So, they do not have the freedom we do. We are registered as a political "club", we are allowed to endorse candidates, try to influence Congress on legislation, all sorts of things. The biggest and best-known libertarian think tank is probably the Cato Institute. They publish papers, magazines, journals, support scholars' research, etc. We also have a close friendship with the Reason Foundation. They are well known for Reason magazine and their work on privatization research. Several other think tanks that certainly merit mention are Heartland, Independent and Manhattan Institutes. Another nationwide advocacy group that I admire is Americans for Tax Reform. They are best known for pushing candidates to sign a pledge not to raise taxes. What distinguishes the RLC? The RLC is a unique group in the libertarian movement. We involve ourselves in the real world of political activity, and try to get libertarians elected to office. Most, almost all, libertarian groups are involved in educational activities exclusively. The RLC identifies libertarians active in the Republican Party, spreads the word about them, and perhaps most importantly raises money for our Political Action Committee (PAC). This money in turn is donated to libertarians running in races they can win, and then set an example of what libertarians can do when they're in power. We have a good record of supporting candidates financially, and they have done liberty well. What sort of libertarianism (anarchocapitalism, minarchism, etc.) do you advocate? The RLC is deliberately vague about these questions. We are interested in the big picture of advancing liberty, and not in establishing litmus tests to make our group smaller. Individual members don't have to swear allegiance to any particular "brand" of libertarianism. Amongst our members are anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, Constitutionalists, and "moderate" libertarians of the Milton Friedman school. We all see that the United States is far from a libertarian country by any definition, and we have to work together to advance our cause. I personally am an Ayn Rand-influenced minarchist, but the funny thing is that these questions rarely come up amongst ourselves. I know, almost by accident, that we have Christians amongst our membership, as well as representatives of the Jewish faith, philosophical heirs to Murray Rothbard or Ayn Rand, and people who don't talk about their philosophical underpinnings. I view this as a good thing: libertarian-minded people in the US are too prone to fights over purity and philosophy. We don't have these fights and we get things done. How much weight does the RLC carry in the GOP? Well, we have a mailing list that totals nearly 4,000 people. Our dues are on a calender-year basis, so everyone's dues were due in January. We are in the process of collecting them, so an exact number of members doesn't exist at the moment. Probably nearly a thousand. We have grown a good deal over the past few years. Our PAC is also a good gauge of our strength. The numbers are available at the Federal Election Commission's web site, www.fec.gov, so I won't get into the details. I'll just mention that we have made large donations to the most libertarian Congressman in modern history, Ron Paul of Texas. For example, in the 1996 election campaign cycle, we gave him $5,000 for the primary (party) election and $5,000 for the general election. (That's the maximum allowed by US law.) It's this kind of activity that makes the difference in modern American politics, and we have thrown ourselves into the middle of it. The Republican Party leadership now understands that they have to listen and cater to libertarians if they want our vote. -30- from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 3, No 10, March 8, 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Published by Laissez Faire City Netcasting Group, Inc. Copyright 1998 - Trademark Registered with LFC Public Registrar All Rights Reserved Disclaimer The Laissez Faire City Times is a private newspaper. Although it is published by a corporation domiciled within the sovereign domain of Laissez Faire City, it is not an "official organ" of the city or its founding trust. Just as the New York Times is unaffiliated with the city of New York, the City Times is only one of what may be several news publications located in, or domiciled at, Laissez Faire City proper. For information about LFC, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
