The Tea Party's Identity Crisis

I originally published this article at RevoluTimes on December 1, 2011

The political circus being played by the GOP must leave one wondering if the Tea Party has all but abandoned its goals of fiscal restraint and smaller government. Rick Perry, Herman Cain and now Newt Gingrich have all been declared the frontrunner at some point throughout the presidential race despite their support for Big Government programs and government spending. Mitt Romney continues to poll well throughout the country but many conservative activists have refused to warm up to the former Massachusetts governor due to his many inconsistencies on the campaign trail.

This strong trend of searching for the Anti-Romney (similar sentiments were held during his presidential bid in 2008 as well) is rather puzzling considering the embrace given to the aforementioned candidates by much of the Republican Party and Tea Party supporters. The Tea Party and conservative activists across the country pride themselves on being defenders of capitalism, lower taxes and cuts to federal spending; but their propensity to latch onto whomever the Republican Party and conservative media is promoting at the moment makes this claim questionable at best.

The schizophrenia of right wing voters began with Rick Perry. As I’ve documented elsewhere, the Texas governor has a laundry list of tax hikes, corporate welfare and even a government mandate for young girls to purchase and be submitted to an HPV vaccine. As if this wasn’t enough to eradicate any rumors of Perry’s fiscal conservatism, Perry staunchly supported the springboard for the Tea Party movement: TARP. Indeed, not only did Perry support the bailout, he co-authored a letter with then president of the Democratic Governors Association, Joe Manchin saying,

“…There is a time for partisanship and there is a time for getting things done…and now is not the time to assign blame. It is time for D.C. to step up and be responsible and do what’s in the best interest of American taxpayers and our economy…It’s time for leadership. Congress needs to act now.”

Perry’s well-known history of pandering to special interests and unimpressive debate performances led many within the Tea Party to look towards Atlanta businessman Herman Cain. Cain’s candidacy had been an afterthought for several weeks due to his lack of name recognition; but his apparent outsider demeanor made him far more attractive as voters looked for an anti-establishment candidate. Yet again the so-called conservative media and grassroots organizers touted the latest frontrunner as a stalwart defender of free markets and fiscal responsibility. Little did most Republicans know, (and most still don’t know), Cain oncecondemned a national sales tax only to propose his own, vehemently opposes the notion of ending the Fed and restoring sound money and the coup de grâce of course was Cain’s op-ed in strong support of TARP saying,

“…Wake up people! Owning a part of the major banks in America is not a bad thing. We could make a profit while solving a problem. But the mainstream media and thefree market purists want you to believe that this is the end of capitalism as we know it. It is not for several reasons that they have conveniently not explained…” (emphasis added)

It seems Mr. Cain believed the stealing of your wealth was just a wise investment the State was obliged to make for you. But despite his tarnished record and brand of political whimsy, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza held strong until allegations regarding his personal life were made public recently.

At this point the conservative masses were more than happy to offer the musical chair to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. It’s not surprising to see the Georgia native rising in the polls as he’s very well known for his debate skills. It is baffling however that anyone with a straight face could claim Newt Gingrich believes in the free market or fiscal responsibility in any form. Not only did Gingrich support TARP, he staunchly supported the creation of the unconstitutional Department of Education, (and continues to push for its expansion) NAFTA and GATT, various federal subsidies, flip-flopped on Climate Change, received nearly $2 million from Freddie Mac and has repeatedly expressed his support for a federal mandate to purchase health insurance in some manner. And just to illustrate how little concern he has for actually cutting spending, Gingrich referred to the rather modest cuts presented earlier this year by Congressman Paul Ryan as “right wing social engineering”, only to once again change his mind later.

If the Tea Party and its supporters truly wish to be an agent of change and usher in a new age of free markets, sound money and fiscal restraint, they have a very strange way of showing it. As of right now, their choices in a presidential candidate will only result in them becoming a silenced wing of the Republican Party with little influence, and even less credibility. I’d suggest they return to their roots.

More Freedom Means More Security

I originally wrote this piece for RevoluTimes on November 26, 2011

 “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” -Thomas Jefferson

The latest Republican debate over national security issues raised some very significant questions and was probably the most substantive debate thus far. Key among the concerns raised was the balancing act Americans continue to tolerate between preserving their rights and seeking security. The heated exchange between Congressman Ron Paul and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has gone viral and exhibits a fundamental difference between the two candidates. Many Paul supporters and libertarians rightfully grew indignant at Gingrich’s casual dismissal of the rule law and the Fourth Amendment in particular; but what should be more telling to conservatives and libertarians alike is Gingrich’s lack of support or understanding of the free market and his unwavering faith in government.

When asked if he opposed the Patriot Act, Congressman Paul stated:

“I do. I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our civil liberties […] we can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights.”

Paul would go on to argue that Oklahoma City Bomber, TimothyMcVeigh was indeed a “vicious terrorist” who was tried and convicted of his crimes without the use of any legislation such as the Patriot Act.

To this Gingrich shot back,

“Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That’s the whole point…I don’t want a law that says, ‘after we lose a major American city, we’re sure gonna come and find you…’

…I want a law that says if you try and take out an American city, we’re gonna stop you.’”

Ironically, the former Speaker’s candid statements in support of circumventing the Constitution drew a rousing applause from a Republican crowd that claims to revere the founding document. Though Gingrich’s line of thinking may be of some use as a bumper sticker, it fails to ask some vital questions. Why must we trust government for our security when it was government that failed in the first place to protect us from terrorists? Should we not be free to provide for our own security or to choose someone else to provide the service?

Nothing exemplifies this dilemma more than the Transportation Safety Administration, (TSA). Created in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, like the Patriot Act, it too has urged many to ask if Washington has crossed the line in infringing civil liberties for the sake of national security. The TSA’s enhanced security measures such as pat-downs and full-body scans of passengers have triggered many travelers to seek other forms of transportation or to resist the invasive measures altogether. Some airports are looking to provide safety precautions by other means to quell the growing animosity of their customers towards the TSA.   This is where Congressman Paul’s belief comes in that restoring our liberties, (in this case, economic) will actually make us safer.

Congressman Paul has been a staunch critic of the TSA for many years and has even promised to abolish the agency altogether if elected president. Paul supports the idea of turning airline security back to the private airlines themselves rather than depending on a government bureaucracy. The twelve-term congressman from Texas argues that private businesses are far more equipped and have greater incentives to provide sufficient security measures without violating an individual’s rights. But is such a position realistic? How would passengers know the airlines were safe?

These very questions came into play in a recent discussion between Democratic commentator Alan Colmes and former advisor to then Governor Jeb Bush, Justin Sayfie. When prompted with the question of whether or not he disagreed with Congressman Paul’s opposition to the Patriot Act, Sayfie replied,

“…I have to agree with Speaker Gingrich on this…Timothy McVeigh was able to commit an act of terrorism and the goal of the Patriot Act is to prevent acts of terrorism…I also don’t think Ron Paul got it right when he said you don’t have to sacrifice freedom for security or the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment is a very important right-to bear arms. Yet millions of Americans are going to be traveling on airplanes today and they forfeit their right to carry arms; and I don’t think most Americans believe that the Second Amendment believes–states that you should be able to bring rifles, and handguns and shotguns onto airplanes. That’s one example where Ron Paul’s philosophy is bumper sticker politics and it’s just wrong.”

Aside from the fact Sayfie seems to believe your rights are in reality privileges from the government and that Americans “forfeit their right to carry arms”; what is more striking is his blatant disregard, (and apparent acceptance) that this relinquishing of rights is not a voluntary act, but one compelled by government force. It’s reasonable to assume in any other scenario Sayfie would strongly decry the notion that your right to self-defense must be annulled; but in this case he makes even Alan Colmes come off as a conservative, (this is no small task).

Said Colmes in response to Sayfie,

“…You [Sayfie] should ideally be against the Patriot Act like Ron Paul is because part of the Patriot Act is they can look at your gun records. They can look at your library records…”

The news anchor prodded Colmes further,

“So you’re completely comfortable Alan, with someone getting on a plane with you-say you’re headed home for Thanksgiving-and they’re armed? You’re completely comfortable with that?”

Colmes responed saying,

“I didn’t say that. However, there’s no evidence the Patriot Act is going to prevent that. There’s no evidence that the Patriot Act would have prevented Tim McVeigh [from carrying out the Oklahoma City Bombing].”

What was neglected in this conversation and the recent GOP debate is the government imposed monopoly over security. As the mainstream media and politicians debate over symptoms of larger problems, they fail to comprehend the root cause of their dispute: lack of competition. Imagine private airlines free to manage and provide for their own security. The market would provide new and innovative techniques to ensure their customers’ safety without invading their privacy and develop various types of security measures tailored made to suit your demands. To those who ask what incentive a company has to provide better services than government, I ask what incentive does government have? No government employees were fired after 9/11, can you imagine any corporation not firing those responsible for allowing such a tragedy?

Had the airline companies retained their right to run their airlines as they pleased and pilots were given the opportunity to carry firearms, (which was forbidden at the time by government) it is likely that 9/11 would have never occurred. Though Justin Sayfie claims Americans would prefer a plane without armed passengers, in which scenario would terrorists armed only with box cutters, (or anything for that matter) be more likely to attempt to hijack a plane: when the government forbids firearms from being on board, or when the passengers and the pilots are likely to be packing heat?

Should you not feel comfortable flying under such conditions, (as it appears Mr. Colmes wouldn’t) or still feel TSA style screenings are necessary, the market would respond to this demand by providing alternative services to ensure your safety because they value your business and seek to make a profit. Losing customers to hijackings and plane crashes isn’t exactly good for business. Everyone expects airlines to provide multiple flight plans to accommodate their needs, why not extend that to the most vital part of the airline service?

To overcome the many ills we’re facing today, from national security threats, high unemployment, poverty and violence, we must first turn away from the institution that has not only failed to remedy such problems but has perpetuated them; and look to ourselves, to our families and our communities and build voluntary networks to protect that which we hold dear. A friend of mine once said, “The freer the market, the freer the people,” and a free people are what we should be protecting. If we must compromise our liberty and rights for security, what exactly is it that we’re trying to secure?

Newt Gingrich (D)

I originally wrote this piece for RevoluTimes on November 19, 2011

The growing sentiment across the country of “anyone but Obama” has placed the GOP, (driven by the enthusiasm of the Tea Party) front and center in American politics. The staggering number of Americans out of work and the unconscionable national debt has spawned a nationwide movement of voters searching for a candidate who will finally cut federal spending and shrink the size of government. Newt Gingrich is not that candidate.

Being a Georgia native, I’ve seen firsthand the masterful work of Gingrich the performer. It is unfortunately very rare to come across conservatives in Georgia who are aware of the former Speaker’s record. I’m sorry to say the two politicians Georgia is most noted for in modern times are Jimmy Carter and Newt Gingrich; contrary to popular opinion, the latter is no more conservative than the former. Despite his often touted, “Republican Revolution,” (which didn’t do much of anything at all) and harsh criticisms of Democrats’ endless spending, a look beyond the grandstanding and empty talking points reveals a charlatan, a professional blowhard who’s ability to rhetorically condemn big government policies is only overshadowed by his propensity to portray those same policies as conservative when they’re offered by Republicans.

One of the trademarks of George W. Bush’s big government conservatism, (and one of the scourges of the Tea Party) was the $400 billion Medicare Part D. Any self-respecting conservative has always wished to reduce the federal budget and the welfare state, not expand it. Gingrich on the other hand, strongly supported this increase in entitlement spending–and still does. Reports National Review:

“Gingrich supported Medicare Part D in 2003 — and the ensuing years haven’t made him any less supportive of the legislation. Asked in March if he regretted supporting the plan, Gingrich responded not with an apology, but with a ringing defense: ‘I feel strongly that the No. 1 purpose of health care is health, and Medicare was designed in the 1960s when pharmaceutical drugs were not a significant part of how you took care of people. And for us to have a government-run health plan that said we’re not going to help you with insulin but we’ll be glad to pay for kidney dialysis is an utterly anti-human provision. And so all I was in favor of was modernizing the system to recognize modern medicine.’”

While Newt’s words may indeed be comforting to seniors, they should be appalling to anyone who believes in constitutional government and particularly disturbing to those wishing to see a dramatic decrease in government spending and a restoration of the free market. Notice Gingrich does not seemed troubled at all by the notion of a “government-run health plan”; in fact he believes the government doesn’t go far enough. His statements regarding an opposition to government funded prescription drug benefits as being “anti-human” is predicated on the notion that without the State organizing and funding such care, it wouldn’t be available at all. How is this mentality and approach to government any different than that of liberal Democrats? For all of Newt’s lip-service to the free market, when the chips are on the table he folds every time.

Newt’s career is filled with endorsements of excessive and unconstitutional government spending and State interference in the marketplace. From ethanol subsidies, to No Child Left Behind and even a government bailout of the Mexican peso, one has to wonder how he’s managed to maintain his conservative cover for so long and why the Tea Party seems to favor him.

Perhaps it’s because the two policies most responsible for starting the Tea Party movement occurred while Newt was out of the limelight. His not being in Congress when TARP and ObamaCare were passed seems to have certainly helped to hide the fact that Gingrich supported TARP and has stated for years that he supports an individual mandate to purchase health insurance.
When asked in 2008 by George Stephanopoulos would he have voted for TARP, Gingrich replied:

“Sure, look, something has to be done. …I suspect were I still in Congress, in the end, George [Will] is right, and I would end up probably voting reluctantly yes…”

Newt’s right, something did need to be done, but not by the government. The market should have been allowed to liquidate the malinvestment, rather than such “troubled assets” being propped up at the expense of taxpayers. Newt’s tendency to presume so many social and economic ills can and must be remedied by government, rather than acknowledging government as the cause of much of our problems is further indicative of his insincerity when defending capitalism and the extent to which he’ll betray the economic freedoms and property rights of his supporters if given the opportunity.

One would think with such economic turmoil and anti-Obama sentiment pervading the country, supporting a government mandated purchase of health insurance would be a non-starter for anyone seeking public office. But the shape shifting Gingrich defies the odds as he has not only candidly admitted his support for an individual mandate over the years, but has also successfully condemned president Obama’s administration for imposing the same thing, simultaneously.
In an interview last May with NBC’s David Gregory on Meet the Press, Gregory played a video of Gingrich from a 1993 interview discussing health care in which Gingrich said,

“I am for people, individuals–exactly like automobile insurance–individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.” (emphasis mine)

When asked by Gregory does he indeed advocate for an individual mandate, Gingrich replied,

“…I believe all of us–and this is going to be a big debate–I believe all of
us have a responsibility to help pay for health care…”

Continued Gingrich,

 “…And, and I think that there are ways
to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently
we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you
post a bond…”

Not only does the former college professor have an obvious misunderstanding of libertarianism, but yet again Gingrich demonstrates his lack of conservative credentials. This notion of fixing big government rather than ending it has been seen throughout his career and persists in his current bid for the White House. His website remarks upon the need to “modernize the FDA”, (whatever that means) turn the Environmental Protection Agency into an “Environmental Solutions Agency that works collaboratively with local government and industry to achieve better results”, return to “Reagan era monetary policy”, (despite that Reagan appointed the destructive Alan Greenspan as Fed Chairman) and of course “Repeal and Replace” ObamaCare. Gingrich is the modern Republican Party personified. At no point is the prospect of actually reducing the size and scope of government and drastically cutting spending ever on the table. From the perspective of Gingrich and his fellow Rockefeller Republicans, excessive spending, crippling regulations and debasement of the currency aren’t to be condemned and certainly not to be reversed; but adjusted, revised and altered to the interests of the GOP.

The fundamental question that needs to be asked to Gingrich and each of the presidential candidates is this: Where are the actual CUTS in federal spending and where are you seriously shrinking the size of government? For far too long conservatives have confused pandering for principle, entertainment for integrity, and valued style over substance. If we are to truly turn the tide and rid our lives of government and restore prosperity, we can no longer afford to tolerate imposters, because political chameleons like Gingrich will always change their colors to mask what’s beneath the surface.