It has been interesting to witness the confusion amongst conventional politicos as groups like The Campaign for Liberty and The Republican Liberty Caucus begin to exert more and more influence over today’s political discourse. Members of these groups are fighting for issues and taking positions that don’t seem to fit neatly into the traditional left or right boxes. I recall hearing a long time Republican Party loyalist accuse one of these activists of being a “left-wing Obama supporter” because they questioned the GOP’s support of the Patriot Act. On another occasion I witnessed this same activist being mocked as a “right-wing extremist” by a long time member of the Democratic Party for suggesting that the federal government should have no involvement in the issue of health care. How can the same political activist be both “left wing” and “right wing”?
It seems that in 2009 politics, the “left” or “right” label is determined by where you stand on issues in relation to where the Republican and Democratic Parties stand on those issues. Oppose the Patriot Act, question the constitutionality of the war in Iraq or oppose government involvement in the issue of gay marriage and you will find yourself on the wrong side of the GOP and therefore labeled a “leftist”. However, oppose a federal health care bill, support the elimination of the federal Department of Education or speak out against the progressive income tax and you will be at odds with the Democratic Party and likely lumped in with the “right wing extremists”. The problem with this approach to politics is that rarely is the question asked why the parties hold their positions on various issues. And even rarer is an actual discussion or debate on the reasons for holding those positions.
Members of groups promoting liberty do not fit into the conventional Left/Right paradigm. When an issue is presented to a liberty activist, the first question is not where does my party stand on this issue, but rather what position protects the freedom and liberty of the individual. In looking at the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, Gay Marriage, Health Care, Education and Taxes, one must first have a clear understanding of individual rights, where they come from and the proper role of government. The Declaration of Independence clearly spells out the fact that our rights come not from man but from our Creator. And the United States Constitution clearly spells out what authority the federal government has in relation to those rights. It is from these two documents that all political issues should be discussed, debated and acted upon.
Does the federal government ever have the authority to violate the right of an individual to be secure in their person and possessions from search and seizure without probable cause? The answer is no and therefore the liberty position on the Patriot Act is to oppose it.
Does the Constitution give the Legislative Branch of the federal government the ability to transfer its authority to Declare War to the Executive Branch? The answer is no. And would allowing the federal government to violate its contract with the people potentially threaten the liberty of all individuals? The answer is yes and therefore the liberty position on the Iraq War has been to oppose it.
Is the federal government given any authority by the constitution to define or regulate the institution of marriage? The answer is no. And would allowing the federal government to violate its contract with the people potentially threaten the liberty of all individuals? The answer is yes and therefore the liberty position on the issue of any gay marriage regulation (pro or con) is to oppose it.
Is the federal government given any authority by the constitution to impose laws or to regulate the delivery of health care? The answer is no. And would allowing the federal government to violate its contract with the people potentially threaten the liberty of all individuals? The answer is yes and therefore the liberty position on federal health care legislation is to oppose it.
Is the federal government given any authority by the constitution to impose laws or to regulate education? The answer is no. And would allowing the federal government to violate its contract with the people potentially threaten the liberty of all individuals? The answer is yes and therefore the liberty position on funding a federal department of education is to oppose it.
Does government taxing the fruits of one’s labor threaten the freedom and liberty of all individuals? The answer is yes and therefore the liberty position on income taxes is to oppose them.
These concepts are pretty simple for those who get involved in politics for the purpose of ensuring that government protects the liberty of the individual. To those who complicate politics by focusing on things like party loyalty, personal ambition or political personalities, understanding exactly what it is you stand for can be a little more difficult. When you are not looking at issues based on a fundamental set of principles you will often times open yourself up to weak arguments or even worse, hypocrisy.
Understanding liberty and applying it to all political issues is a liberating and empowering experience. You no longer have to feel uncomfortable when asked your position on an issue because you will no longer have to worry about making the party line fit with your own personal logic. You won’t have to defend the inconsistencies coming from party “leaders” or political personalities. In essence “The truth sets you free”.
Yes a good understanding of the concept of liberty will change your scale from one measuring Left vs Right to one which measures Freedom vs Tyranny. And that is the only measurement that should matter in the fight for liberty.
John Stevens
RLCNEF Chairman
Loading ...
November 17th, 2009 at 7:59 am
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
November 17th, 2009 at 6:32 am
People like John Stevens give me hope for the Republican party.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Great article.. couldn’t agree more
October 4th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Freakin’ awesome, John. So well done, I almost tought it was professionally done…
September 28th, 2009 at 3:00 am
If we only move back to the Constitution, I could see no reason that the Republican Party would ever have cause to fear losing an election.
But in order to do that, first we’ll have to get rid of the ideas of personal power, and the “good old boy” mentality that is running rampant in all of modern politics. It’s time to return to what’s good for the people, not what’s good for the individual(s) in power.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Well put. The Republican party could not go wrong if it’s overriding goal was the protection of individual liberty and restricting the role of the Federal government to its constitutionally enumerated powers.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
This article is spot-on. Until people are willing to confront their personal biases and political parties finally become willing to divorce dogma and ultimately faciltate the sharing of ideas amoungst their own members which, b.t.w., were founded on these instruments the article references…..America remains almost dormant and unable to further the debate.
September 27th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
This is a fantastic article! This is the proper role of government. To secure liberty! Well Done!!
September 27th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Well written! This is how the electorate should start to think. The my team vs your team, red vs blue, left vs right, has led the electorate away from common sense and Constitutional principles. We must begin to ask for accountability from our elected officials and party leaders to uphold and adhere to those standards – written down in the U.S. Constitution. For without them, we have no guiding light, just a bunch of ever shifting, double-standard opinions. And we all know what opinions are like…
Some of my favorite Jefferson quotes:
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
—Thomas Jefferson