(This was written as a personal statement to the members of the Republican Liberty Caucus, of which I am Chairman. I'm sharing it here on Blogcritics because I believe it has value in explaining the organization to a broader audience.)
I consider myself to be socially conservative in my personal beliefs. I'm not about to marry a man, encourage my daughter to have an abortion, picket a military recruiting office or smoke marijuana. But I am also a libertarian, so I do not believe in using the power of government to force my values on other people. I hope and believe that as a group the Republican Liberty Caucus shares this perspective, and that our members understand that like the Republican party, we are a "big tent" with room for anyone who agrees with our core principles of limited government, free markets and individual liberty.
The RLC is not just a bunch of Libertarians who got tired of the bickering in the Libertarian Party. Many of us are long-time Republicans who are inspired not by Ayn Rand or Murray Rothbard or the modern gurus of the libertarian movement, but by the fundamentally conservative belief in liberty which descends from enlightened conservatives like Edmund Burke and the founding fathers and was reinforced by the great leaders of the Republican party like Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
Reagan described his own philosophy of government as libertarian; he saw no conflict between his libertarian beliefs and his personal moral principles. Like many Republicans, he understood that there are separate spheres for the political and the personal. The RLC operates in the political sphere and is not in the business of advocating for or against any moral belief held by any individual. While it is true that we do not believe that it is the role of the federal government to legislate morality, that also means that as a group we do not advocate or oppose any position on personal moral, religious or social issues. There are other groups, both inside and outside the GOP, which address those issues quite well without our help.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - El Bicho
Good questions, Fernando
2 - roger nowosielski
Fernando,
You may yet prove to be an asset. To keep Dave straight is quite a task.
3 - Baronius
Fernando, Dave does explain his position clearly. It doesn't matter whether you or I think he's wrong.
4 - Dave Nalle
1. Claims in an earlier post to be Pro Abortion and now claims to be Socially Conservative???? Well which one is it?
In this article I clearly state that I am opposed to abortion as a personal decision. As a matter of policy I think that most abortions -- but not those which kill a viable fetus -- should be legal. This is the position I've taken here previously and does not contradict my position on the issue here.
2. Denies that fact that the RLC was founded and run by a bunch of Libertarian kooks "who got tired of the bickering in the Libertarian Party" . But anyone who does a little research on the RLC will find that thats exactly what it is, a makeover of Ron Paulbots.
Fernando, now you're being contradictory. If the RLC were dominated by Paulbots then like Ron Paul would we not be overwhelmingly extremely socially conservative? In fact, the RLC was founded by a diverse group of members, and I only joined it about a decade after it was founded, by which time it had matured and defined itself and broadened its membership.
Since Ron Paul kooks couldnt get their candidate elected they are now hell bent on turning the Republican Party into the party of kooks...just like they did to the Liberterian Party.
You seem to have confused the RLC with the C4L. Ron Paul has no official connection to the RLC and has, in fact, become increasingly distanced from the group as he continues to promote his non-Republican interests.
?Why do people who dont believe in Republican princples claim to be Republicans?
Certainly always something that mystifies me as well, Fernando. Virtually all Republicans express a belief in individual liberty and smaller government, which are at the heart of the republican ideology, yet in practice when it comes to specifics so few actually follow through on those principles.
Dave
5 - Dave Nalle
Fernando, you seem to have a fundamnetal inability to understand the difference between personal beliefs and political positions. If you can't get that basic concept then this discussion isn't going to get very far. I'll try to simplify for you.
I'm not getting any abortions or paying for them or urging anyone I know to get one.
but
I support the right of others to make a different moral decision because it's wrong for me to dictate their moral choices.
Does that help at all?
Dave
6 - roger nowosielski
Very nice distinction, Dave. I think it would be a great asset if more and more of us were able to keep it in mind. I think it needs reiterating time and again.
I myself may have been guilty of blurring the two now and then, so thanks for bringing this up.
Roger
7 - Dave Nalle
Dave why does the RLC website, the one that you run, in the October 2008 post, "Hope for America: Ron Paul for President in 2012?" list Ron Paul as an RLC Advisor? No connnection? Distant? Really?
Contrary to your belief, I don't personally run the RLC website, plus the article you reference is on the RLC blog, whose articles are written by various individuals and bear the disclaimer "The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the RLC." I'm Politics editor here and I also don't take responsibility for all the articles on BC.
That said, Ron Paul has been associated with the RLC since it was founded, but he has distanced himself from the group in the last few years, and we have done the same with him as he courted a more extreme audience. We haven't kicked him off the purely honorary Advisory Board list, because he is still an important voice for liberty, but that's largely meaningless.
And again, Ron Paul ought to be your buddy. He's way more socially conservative than most Republicans and most members of the RLC are.
Dave
8 - Dave Nalle
Fernando, I should have been clearer about Ron Paul's role, you're correct. He has no active role in the organization, doesn't set policy, doesn't run anything, but he is someone we respect and have given a position on the advisory board. That doesn't mean we agree with him in every way, of course.
Dave you bill yourself as RLC Party Chairman
The RLC is not a "party" it is a 527c non-profit organization.
and you claim that you have no control over the party website?
No, I claimed that I don't "run" the website, which I don't. The administrator of the website is Steve Redlich. I also pointed out that the blog section represents the opinions of individual members, not the RLC as an organization. But yes, if I thought an article needed to be removed I could get it removed with a quick consultation with the board. Sorry, what is your point again?
As an Political editor of BC if you saw a FALSE CLAIM posted I am sure you would take responsibility and have it addressed by the editors.
As I have a few times with articles. But I'm not the comments editor, so if you post any falsehoods or misrepresentations in the comments section it's up to them whether to delete them or not.
Dave, you are flip-flopping all over the place and should realize that at the end of the day, you must be held accountable for your words. Words "do" mean something.
Sure they do, Fernando, but only to those who can read and understand them.
Dave
9 - roger nowosielski
Fernando,
There is a deeper meaning to the distinction between political and personal beliefs that you're willing to admit.
You may be a fundamentalist Christian, or a Mormon, or a devout Catholic. But that doesn't mean that when in office, you must of should impose your personal beliefs on the body politic. In fact, often you're required by oath prior to taking office to disavow any allegiance except to the Constitution. One reason why Jack Kennedy was viewed with suspicion in the sixties was that he might try to allow his Catholicism influence decisions concerning the state.
Consequently, political positions often must transcend one's personal beliefs, whether we like them to or not, simply because there is a greater call - to allow for the voices of diversity within the Republic. And we don't want a dictatorship in America, do we?
"E Pluribus Unum" doesn't mean squelching diverging voices but unity in spite of diversity.
10 - Clavos
Tarde o temprano, nosotros los latinos siempre invocamos el racismo en disputas con los güeros.
¡Que pena!
No seas baboso, Fernando. Ese comentario no fue racista, y bien lo sabes.
11 - Cindy
Angry, overweight, confused, bald white men!
Ha! Sounds pretty much like why the entire world is in trouble, forget the Republican Party...
Clav, I sorta got that. Babelfish doesn't have the words I don't understand though.
(lol, just amusing myself whilst waiting for my two uncles to join me in online poker after having had 3 cherry martinis--guarantee I will kick both their asses and place in the tournament too. I am a might good at texas hold'em.)
Ah, martinis woohoo!
12 - roger nowosielski
It's almost a personal insult except that it was put in the plural. Saving grace.
13 - roger nowosielski
Good for you, Fernando. This is a public forum and whatever is going to be said, let it be said in public.
14 - Cindy
The internet is America???
Please write in English???
Why?
15 - Cindy
English is now 'public' and other languages are not 'public'?
16 - roger nowosielski
Thanks for the hint, Cindy. Nice translation engine. Now I don't have to do it word for word, which is time consuming and inaccurate.
17 - Cindy
come el gato Roger? probably not.
(sorry Clav, I probably got it wrong...close enough for government work though)
bad...bad...uncouth and vulgar.
18 - Cindy
fuck proper Fernando...
if i could manage it i'd probably be improper more often...
be improper any way you can, it'll do you good.
(takes about 3 martinis for me :-)
19 - roger nowosielski
This is fun!
20 - roger nowosielski
Well, I envy you there. Didn't have a drop in a week.
21 - Cindy
lol Roger, you translated what i said. a spanish fellow at the factory where i worked at 15 yo (you know, i lied and said i was 18) said that i should say that out loud. i was too smart..i refused. but i remember it still.
22 - roger nowosielski
Babelfish doesn't cover Swahili. Zedd should know.
23 - roger nowosielski
Well, I sort of did - but the word order was all fucked up.
Guess what. The Italian-Americans at my first job (Bof A on Wall Street) would also put me up to say shit to women coworkers. And I would oblige.
"I want to eat you," I remember distinctly. I got slapped on the face a few times, till I learned what it means.
24 - Cindy
why do all the people i end up disagreeing with most, always love and stand by the ad hominem attack fallacy?
25 - Clavos
Pobre de Fernando! Resulta que no habla el español.
Que lastima!