The Public Religion Research Institute survey of libertarians in America

Ok, this is going to take a while.  The Public Religion Research Institute has surveyed people claiming to be small-l and large-L libertarians.  (Small-l libertarians generally believe in liberty instead of political demigods.  Large-L Libertarians share the same beliefs, but go so far as to join the Libertarian Party.) 
This is interesting stuff.  Hope you'll devote a lunch break to reading the whole thing here. 
Or just check it out on my site, with additional Whited commentary. 

According to a newly developed Libertarian Orientation Scale, less than 1-in-10 (7%) Americans are consistent libertarians, and an additional 15% lean libertarian. At the other end of the spectrum, an equal number of Americans are consistent communalists (7%), and an additional 17% lean communalist. A majority (54%) of Americans have a mixed ideological profile, falling in between libertarian and communalist orientations.

I don't believe that the communalists "lean" toward communalism.  I think they're leaning on me and you.  But that's quibbling over details. 

Compared to the general population, libertarians are significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic white, male, and young. Nearly all libertarians are non-Hispanic whites (94%), more than two-thirds (68%) are men, and more than 6-in-10 (62%) are under the age of 50.

I'm surprised these percentages aren't higher.  On the age issue, for instance, the closer you get to being in God's Waiting Room, the more concern you have about free goodies. 

The party affiliation of libertarians skews significantly more Republican than Democratic. Close to half (45%) of libertarians identify as Republican, compared to only 5% who identify as Democrat. However, half of libertarians identify as politically independent (35%) or identify with a third political party (15%), including roughly 1-in-10 (8%) who identify with the Libertarian Party. Roughly 4-in-10 (39%) libertarians identify as part of the Tea Party movement, while 61% do not.
Libertarians make up a smaller proportion of the Republican Party than other key conservative groups.  Only 12% of self-identified Republicans are libertarians, compared to 20% of Republicans who identify with the Tea Party, 33% who identify with the religious right or conservative Christian movement, and 37% who identify as white evangelical Protestant.

I had to read that last sentence several times.  Are they saying that Libertarians, Tea Partiers, the Religious Right, and White Evangelical Protestants are all religions?  Bizarre. 

Libertarians also constitute a smaller proportion of the Tea Party movement than other core conservative groups. About one-quarter (26%) of Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement are libertarians, compared to a majority (52%) who say they are a part of the religious right or conservative Christian movement, and 35% who identify as white evangelical Protestant.
Libertarians are composed of a disproportionately high number of white mainline Protestants (27%) and religiously unaffiliated Americans (27%). Only about 1-in-10 (11%) libertarians identify as Catholic, and no libertarians identify as black Protestant.

I would've bet on the "religiously unaffiliated" percentage as higher.  I know a lot of atheists.  All but a few are Libertarians.  (The others aren't really atheists, but are actually Secular Theists.) 



Generally speaking, libertarians are more opposed than white evangelical Protestants, those affiliated with the Tea Party, and Republicans overall to government involvement across a range of economic policies, such as raising the minimum wage, Obamacare, and increasing environmental protections.

• Nearly two-thirds (65%) of libertarians oppose increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.00 an hour, as do 57% of Americans who identify with the Tea Party. By contrast, 57% of Republicans overall and 61% of white evangelical Protestants support raising the minimum wage.
• Nearly all (96%) libertarians have an unfavorable view of the 2010 health care law, compared to 83% of white evangelical Protestants, 78% of Tea Party members, and 89% of Republicans.
• On the issue of passing tougher environmental laws, libertarians and Tea Party members are generally aligned in their strong opposition (73% and 74% oppose), while white evangelical Protestants and Republicans overall are also opposed but with less intensity (62% each opposed).

Ok, now I've got to go into the dangerous area of litmus tests.  According to the survey, 35% of libertarians don't oppose minimum wage hikes.  That's almost like saying 35% of Christians don't believe Jesus existed.  Are these people libertarians, or have they just heard a cool word and now claim to identify with it?  Or am I going into the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? 

Christ almighty, this is a depressing chart. 

Unlike economic questions, on which libertarians are generally aligned with other conservative constituencies, libertarians have a more distinct profile on social issues.

• Nearly 6-in-10 (57%) libertarians oppose making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion, a proportion identical to the general population. By contrast, strong majorities of Republicans overall (58%), Americans affiliated with the Tea Party (58%), and white evangelical Protestants (68%) favor making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion.
• Seven-in-ten (70%) libertarians favor allowing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to help terminally ill patients end their lives. Americans who identify with the Tea Party are closely divided on this question (49% favor, 51% oppose). By contrast, strong majorities of Republicans (58%) and white evangelical Protestants (70%) oppose this policy.
• More than 7-in-10 (71%) libertarians favor legalizing marijuana. By contrast, approximately 6-in-10 Republicans (61%) and Tea Party members (59%), and nearly 7-in-10 (69%) white evangelical Protestants, oppose legalizing marijuana.
• Unlike most other social issues, libertarians remain socially conservative on same-sex marriage. While a majority (59%) of libertarians oppose same-sex marriage, they are significantly less opposed than Republicans overall (67%) and than other conservative-leaning groups such as Tea Party members (73%) and white evangelical Protestants (80%).

I can't believe I just read that.  I don't know of a single Libertarian Party member who opposes same-sex marriage.  Ditto for weed legalization.  I think they surveyed some of the people that The New York Times interviews for libertarian viewpoints.  (But yes, differences in our viewpoints do exist.  We have some serious differences of opinion on abortion and immigration into a welfare state.) 

 

A majority (53%) of libertarian voters say they always vote in primary elections, a rate comparable to white evangelical Protestant voters (48%) and Republican voters overall (50%) but significantly lower than the participation rate among Tea Party voters (62%).




A majority (57%) of libertarians have a favorable view of the Republican Party, but a substantial minority (40%) have an unfavorable view of the GOP. Americans who identify with the Tea Party and white evangelical Protestants have a more positive view of the GOP than libertarians. Approximately two-thirds of Tea Party members (68%) and white evangelical Protestants (66%) have a favorable view of the Republican Party. Notably, libertarians hold more negative views of Democrats than they hold positive views of Republicans. Nearly 9-in-10 (89%) libertarians have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party including nearly two-thirds (64%) who have a very unfavorable opinion of the party.

Schizophrenia update:  I think that the Democrat Party is generally sillier than the Republican Party.  But I'm sick of Republicans promising small government and delivering a massive government.  That's why I vote for the Democrat when no Libertarian is on the ballot.  There really are some Dem politicians who consistently support Marriage Equality, ending the Drug War, and Weed Legalization. 

Among voters who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, support is spread fairly evenly across the potential 2016 presidential field in a head-to-head question. Eighteen percent prefer Governor Chris Christie, 18% prefer Congressman Paul Ryan, 15% prefer former Governor Jeb Bush, 14% prefer Senator Marco Rubio, 11% prefer Senator Rand Paul, and 11% prefer Senator Ted Cruz.

• Among libertarian voters who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, Paul (26%) was the most popular potential candidate, while 18% prefer Cruz, 16% prefer Rubio, and 13% prefer Ryan. Fewer libertarian voters prefer Christie (10%) or Bush (6%).
• Among Tea Party voters who identify or lean Republican, Cruz is the most preferred candidate (22%), followed by Rubio (18%), Ryan (14%), and Paul (13%). Roughly 1-in-10 Tea Party voters prefer Bush (11%) or Christie (12%).
• White evangelical Protestant voters have less clear candidate preferences than libertarian and Tea Party voters. Among white evangelical Protestant voters who identify or lean Republican, top preferences include Ryan (19%), Christie (16%), and Bush (15%), while roughly 1-in-10 prefer Rubio (13%), Paul (11%), or Cruz (10%).

As usual, the previous Libertarian candidate for president, Gary Johnson, wasn't included in the survey of Libertarian preferences for president.. That's ok.  We're used to it. 

 

Some of these findings confirm what I've long suspected.  Others surprise me. 

 

The relevant question is whether we'll allow ourselves to have a bigger and bigger tent. But Jesus Christ Almighty, are you really a libertarian if you support the minimum wage?   

David Nolan's Five Points Of "No Compromise"

Libertarian Party founder David Nolan had 5 points (yeah, a litmus test) that he used to determine if someone was a Libertarian. 

I like 'em. 

YOU OWN YOURSELF      First and foremost, libertarians believe in the the principle of self-ownership. You own your own body and mind; no extermal power has the right to force you into the service of "society" or "mankind" or any other individual or group for any purpose, however noble. Slavery is wrong, period.    Because you own yourself, you are responsible for your own well-being. Others are not obligated to feed you, clothe you, or provide you with health care. Most of us choose to help one another voluntarily, for a variety of reasons -- and that's as it should be -- but "forced compassion" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.  THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE     Self-ownership implies the right to self-defense. Libertarians yield to no one in their support for our right as individuals to keep and bear arms. We only wish that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution said "The right to self-defense being inalienable..." instead of that stuff about a "well-regulated militia".  Anyone who thinks that government -- any government -- has the right to disarm its citizens is NOT a libertarian!  NO "CRIMINAL POSSESSION" LAWS     In fact, libertarians believe that individuals have the right to own and use anything- gold, guns, marijuana, sexually explicit material- so long as they do not harm others through force or the threat of force. Laws criminalizing the simple possession of anything are tailor-made for police states; it is all too easy to plant a forbidden substance in someone's home, car or pocket. Libertarians are as tough on crime- real crime- as anyone. But criminal possession laws are an affront to liberty, whatever the rhetoric used to defend them.  NO TAXES ON PRODUCTIVITY     In an ideal world, there would be no taxation. All services would be paid for on an as-used basis. But in a less-than-ideal world, some services will be force-financed for the foreseeable future. However, not all taxes are equally deleterious, and the worst form of taxation is a tax on productivity -- i.e., an income tax -- and no libertarian supports this type of taxation.    What kind of taxation is least harmful? This is a topic still open for debate. My own preference is for a single tax on land. Is this "the" libertarian position on taxes? No. But all libertarians oppose any form of income tax.  A SOUND MONEY SYSTEM     The fifth and final key test of anyone's claim to being a libertarian is their support for an honest money system; i.e. one where the currency is backed by something of true value (usually gold or silver). Fiat money -- money with no backing, whose acceptance is mandated by the State -- is simply legalized counterfeiting and is one of the keys to expanding government power.    The five points enumerated here are not a complete, comprehensive prescription for freedom... but they would take us most of the way. A government which cannot conscript, confiscate, or counterfeit, and which imposes no criminal penalties for the mere possession and peaceful use of anything, is one that almost all libertarians would be comfortable with.

All of these seem to be common-sense principles. 
98% of the U.S. population disagrees with me. 

I got to meet the great David Nolan about a year before he passed away.  A really great guy. 

 

Pat Dixon, Tom Glass, and the Ed Kless Test

A few weeks ago, I got a disturbing letter from Tom Glass, a Houston attorney.  Tom and I are both members of the Texas State Libertarian Executive Committee. 

Tom has decided to run for Texas Libertarian Party Chair against the incumbent, Pat Dixon.  (I apologize for the poor scans and poor angles on Tom's letter.  If you right-click on each page you can increase the size in a new window.) 

That's one heck of a letter.  We're talking bribery and corruption in the Texas LP.

Let's hit the "pause" button for a moment.... 

I agree with my friend Ed Kless that contested races are a good thing for the Libertarian Party.  They can be a sign of health, and not just division. 

Ed wrote a good blog post last week about what an LP candidate should do to win his support in a contested race:

*Everything is on the table. There are no issues that I see that are off limits to constructive dialogue. Abortion, immigration, borders, liberty, toll roads, taxation, education, and drug laws are but a few of the important issues which need to be talked about in the open.

*No ad hominum attacks. The quickest way to lose my vote will be to attack your opponents with what are personal criticisms. This would include charges of violations of personal integrity. If you accuse someone of being dishonest, you better have some video evidence.

*Provide a clear vision of the future. I am interested in hearing what you have to say about the future of our country, state and party. The more you can illustrate your vision with specifics the more likely you are to win my vote. What is different about a country, state, or party with you at the helm?

*Exhibit a non-anxious presence. Anxiety and creativity are always inversely proportional to each other. The more anxious you are the less creative you will be. As a candidate for any position, I believe this is what is most needed today. In short, I want to see that you are calm under pressure. I want to see your ability to self-regulate your emotions.

*Embrace the genius of the AND by rejecting the tyranny of the OR. I want to hear how Libertarians are the future. I want to know how your candidacy will embrace the ideas the Libertarianism is about both debating the finer philosophical points AND can win elections. I reject the notion that they are mutually exclusive.

Let's repeat what Ed says in his second bullet-point:  "....if you accuse someone of being dishonest, you better have some video evidence."  

And you should be 100% right.  Not almost right, not kinda right, but "airtight right" if you accuse an LP opponent of dishonesty.  

I asked Pat Dixon to respond to Tom's letter. 

Here's Pat's reply.  Statements from Tom's letter are in italics:

"When Ron Paul re-entered politics as a Republican in 1996, I pursued the Republican Party route ..."

I have never been anything but a Libertarian. I joined the LP in college in 1984 and never left

"a big bucks donor offered her money to abandon her secure border platform"
"This attempt to sell our Party was done with the knowledge and implicit consent of our chair."

Joe Liemandt gave $100k to LPTX in 2009. He made a matching $150k donation in 2010. There were no strings attached. The LP TX state committee controlled these funds, not Joe. Our platform did not become open borders. Kathie Glass was nominated. Joe's investment had no impact on our platform or nomination. After Kathie's nomination, she and Tom approached me and Robert Butler about getting a donation to her campaign from Joe.

I met with them in Austin and they said they needed a lot of money to get the campaign off the ground and wanted me to help get financial support from Joe. I said that I know there is a difference of opinion about immigration policy but perhaps there is some common ground and that they would need to address that issue to get support from Joe. Joe declined to meet with them. Joe has never met or spoke with Kathie or Tom. Joe never offered money to her campaign and there was no attempt to sell the party.

"I was saddened to see how the party leadership not only failed to support but at times actively undermined our active, serious candidates "

Before I became chair in 2004, we were almost removed from the ballot. We had no money, no staff, few candidates, and little candidate support. Since then we set records for the number of candidates on the ballot and put staff in place to support candidates. There is no credible evidence that we actively undermined any of our candidates. We have been told that we give more support to our candidates than Democrats and Republicans give to theirs.

" our party must be more than a hobby"

That is why we have maintained full time staff ever since I became chair. Our staff along with many volunteers and county leaders provide efforts that amount to more than a hobby

"Guard against corruption of the LPT and our candidates"

There is no credible evidence of corruption of our candidates or our party. I have placed ethics and principles above politics in the Libertarian Party and in my life

"'Recognize the party is a service organization to our candidates"
"They need our support"

We have been told that we give more support to our candidates than Democrats and Republicans give to theirs. With full time staff we have provided more support in the past. We have offered training and provided resources while giving autonomy to candidates and their campaigns. We always strive to do a better job

"Craft messages that emphasize how our Party and candidates are aligned with the vast majority of Texas on the issues that matter to them"

I don't believe the chair of the party is the only messaging vehicle. Our candidates are the best vehicle for delivering the message and the chair does not dictate this message. There are times when the party issues press releases. There are times when the chair is interviewed. The chair should be grounded in the principles and platform of the party and present a message that is Libertarian

"We must implement the procedures an effective party requires - fund raising"

We went from no money in 2004 to a quarter million $$ in 2010.

(I got this chart in an email from former LP Executive director Wes Benedict as a response to Tom's attacks on Pat.  It doesn't show the last four years, but you can see the trendline of increasing contributions under Pat Dixon's leadership.  Grab a blue marker and draw the blue line up to $250,000.00  Wes has shown California on the chart for other reasons, probably to illustrate that liberty-minded folks are leaving that Statist Hellhole as fast as they can.  Sorry for the digression. - Allen)

", public relations, "

We have continuous media mentions of the party and our candidates through print, online, and television

" candidate recruitment "

We set all-time records for the number of Libertarians on the ballot in Texas

"database development "

We have an IT team that supports our customer relations management (CRM) system

"Failure to support our candidates, or worse"

We have been told that we give more support to our candidates than Democrats and Republicans give to theirs. With full time staff we have provided more support than in the past. We have offered training and provided resources while giving autonomy to candidates and their campaigns. We always strive to do a better job. 

"Pandering to major donors"

We have never compromised our principles or ethics to receive financial support. There are donors we have lost when they didn't care for our principled Libertarian position.

"Flawed messaging that fails to focus .. on common goals and motivations "

Sometimes the message that Ron Paul, Libertarians, and other liberty minded people deliver is not popular. We can't always pander and compromise on our message to get votes. We look at opportunities where we can deliver a message that is timely and pertinent to an issue in a way that can be persuasive while remaining grounded in Libertarian principles

"Serious fiscal mismanagement"

We do make mistakes at times. The position of treasurer is a volunteer position and there is a great deal of responsibility. We file reports with the Texas Ethics Commission. In 2006 we endured outside threats filed through the Ethics Commission and showed that our books were in order. Last year we had 2 internal audits. No serious problems were reported, however recommendations were made on how we can improve our reporting. We established a finance committee to implement these improvements. We have demonstrated to our state committee that our reports are accurate and that we operate within a budget approved by the state committee.

"Lack of transparency"

All of our meetings are open to the public. Our minutes are public record. Our financial reports are shared with every state committee member. Our annual reports are posted every year online where everyone can see them. Our financial receipts and expenditures are disclosed through the Texas Ethics Commission. When people have questions, we do our best to respond and provide information.

"Poor management of employees and staff"

I believe our staff and state committee can state that our management provides appropriate oversight without micro-management. Some staff members have been let go for performance reasons. We have done performance appraisals. We have discussed personnel issues with the state committee.

"Fear based, as opposed to vision based, fund raising"

Being honest with our membership and donors is fundamental. We cannot trick people into giving us support. In 2006 we said that if we do not receive $48k in 2 months we will lose Wes Benedict. We were honest about it and people donated to retain him. We have also sent fund raising letters talking about the great opportunities that await us and the achievements we have made. It is all about being honest. When we told you we needed support to retain Heather Fazio, you came through. Our honest approach to fund raising has worked and that is why our financial position has been the envy of every state affiliate of the Libertarian Party

"the incumbent has provided no vision for what our party should be going forward"

Last year I authored "Leading like a Libertarian"  http://patdixon.org/leading.pdf  Every year since I became chair our state committee derives annual goals. We post the results of progress to these goals in our annual report. At every state committee meeting I present a chair's report and these have been archived. We have toured the state of Texas talking at county meetings expressing the long term vision that we started in 2004. http://patdixon.org/wesandpat.mov

"extensive business and management experience, which the incumbent lacks"

My professional resume is http://dpas-inc.com/resume.html . I have managed projects and engineers for Fortune 500 companies and small startups. My project management experience and training has helped me in the many organizations I have led, including serving as president of an arts organization, a parks service organization, my church, the Libertarian Party association of state leadership, the Travis County Libertarian Party, and Texas state chair. I have served on the Libertarian Party national committee and was twice elected to city council in Lago Vista

" or calling the police (yes, you should ask the incumbent about that)"

This incident did not involve me. One of our state committee members, Michael Hansen, volunteered to host a state committee meeting in Victoria and the state committee agreed. Michael paid to reserve a room in restaurant in downtown Victoria. The week of the meeting, Kathie Glass announced she wanted to have marketing meeting at 11:30 am on the day of the meeting. Kathie was told she could contact the restaurant and make those arrangements. On the day of the meeting, I was in a library preparing paperwork for the meeting which was to start at 1 pm. I received a phone call at approximately 11:30 from one of our committee members asking if I wanted to meet for lunch because the building was locked. I immediately wondered about Kathie's meeting but was too busy preparing to go to lunch or address the issue.

When I arrived I saw 2 police officers leaving the building elevator. I was not present when any of this occurred. The information I received was that Kathie confronted the restaurant owner and demanded to be given a room. The restaurant owner offered a different room but this was not acceptable to Kathie. At some point the police were called. I did not call the police. A dispute between Kathie, a restaurant owner, and other Libertarians had nothing to do with me. I understand some people present may have different versions of the story, but I was not a part of it.

***********

That's what Pat Dixon had to say. 

So..... The Tom Glass letter has some glaring mis-statements at best, perhaps some mistakes, and some things that just aren't true.  How can someone say that the owner of this resume lacks business and management experience?  Pat Dixon is a freakin' professional project manager! He's an engineering consultant!  Is that statement in the letter a mistake?  A misunderstanding?  Or should Tom Glass issue a retraction before the sun goes down today? 

I've served on the State Libertarian Executive Committee with both Pat and Tom at different times.  Pat Dixon provides measurable goals for us each year, and I remember pass/fail exercises on whether we've attained them.  Pat has provided a clear vision for recruiting, fund-raising and the like.  To say that Pat has "no" vision for the party is like affirming that you sleep through the SLEC meetings.  Sheesh...

Pandering to major donors???  I believe we need some names on this one.

Our party must be more than a hobby???  Since I became Tarrant County Chair, this job has consumed me.  It's been all I can do to keep my day job covered.  I cannot image what it's like as State Chair.  (Tom called me a couple of weeks ago to ask if I'd be interested in running for Vice Chair as part of a Glass/Patterson "slate".  I declined.  Tarrant County is enough to keep me busy.)  I do know that this party is not my...."hobby".  Does anyone who receives Pat's emails, conference calls, meeting content, schedule, etc., really think that State LP Chair is Pat Dixon's "hobby", the little thing that he does when he isn't messing with his stamp collection?

Let me say this about "fear-based fundraising".  If Pat Dixon hadn't put out an all-hands-on-deck alarm for funding and allowed us to retain the incredible services of Heather Fazio, I would've lost my mind during the Precinct, County, District conventions and filing processes.  Heather is an incredible asset to the Texas LP.  Well done, sir.  Well done. 

I think Pat Dixon has made some mistakes.  I think Tom Glass has made some mistakes, some of them in this letter.  I wish we had candidates who've made no mistakes, mostly so we could build religions around them.  Pat Dixon has been pouring himself into this outfit since 1984, and has done one hell of a job.  Here's something I got the other day from LP Senate candidate John Jay Myers:

Pat is a great chair, and a long time libertarian, he has dedicated much of his life to this party, (the one) he joined in 1984.

But beyond that, he has taken Texas from a state with little or nothing going on, and brought a ton of life into this party.
Texas is the envy of every state at our national convention: our accomplishments, the number of candidates we run, our staff, and our gumption, all seem to make folks just say "wow".
They don't mess with Texas and a great deal of this is due to Pat Dixon.  Please join me in spreading the word about what appears to be an outright unfair attack against Pat, when he has been nothing but good for this party. Tom Glass' letter may sound good in form, but it is far from accurate in its account.

Well said, John Jay.  Spoken like a true Libertarian.  I could go on at this forever, but most of Pat's responses stand by themselves.  Yes, I realize that by my general tone in this post, I've violated the Ed Kless Test's rule #4 (complete and total failure to exhibit a non-anxious presence).  But then, I'm not running for office. 

This is politics, folks.  The Republicans went through this when they replaced Michael Steele with Reince Priebus.  You might remember the Democrat Party's PUMA groups (Party Unity, My Ass!), segments of the party who were upset by Obama's victory over Hillary.  I can't wait to watch the Ron Paul forces go against the Republican establishment in August. 

We Libertarians claim to be guided by a philosophy, not the prevailing winds.  Our party platform really doesn't change much.  Some of us represent it better than others. Attacks probably aren't necessary within the party, as we believe there are some absolutes in life, and these truths are knowable through reason alone. 

I'll close this out with one last quote from Tom's unfortunate letter:

"Guard against corruption of the LPT and our candidates"

Who should we be guarding against?  Who should we support? 
Which candidate can pass the Ed Kless test?

I believe it's Pat Dixon. 

(Here's an update for this post, written in 2014.  CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO MY ENDORSEMENT OF KATHIE GLASS FOR GOVERNOR.) 

The New Republican Litmus Test

Here's The Washington Post:

Conservative Indiana Republican James Bopp Jr. on Monday began circulating a draft resolution calling on the Republican National Committee to end funding and endorsements for any candidate who deviates from three or more of its ten planks.

Bopp, an attorney, is vice chairman of the RNC; ten other committee members signed onto his call to arms.

There follows a lot of blah blah blah and "Whereas Ronald Reagan", and "Whereas the Republican party", and "Whereas we're trying to avoid another electoral meltdown", blah blah blah.....

I'll cut to the chase. Bopp wants RNC cash limited to candidates who can affirm their beliefs in at least 8 of these 10 agenda items. It really isn't a system of beliefs, it's just a list of things that irritate Republicans.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;
That's a good start. Less government.

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
We're doing great. Once again, less government.

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
I can't believe it. The Republicans are for letting the market find less expensive solutions to the energy non-crisis. They're for less government !

(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
The secret ballot is the best way to ensure that there is no intimidation on the part of union thugs. And, as a general rule, less unions = less government. Go Republicans !

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
Hang on a second....a lot of those illegal immigrants are paying money into the Social Insecurity fund, money that they'll never be able to collect. Who or what is going to replace their contribution to the tax base and to the workforce? I don't see unemployed Wall Streeters applying to pour all that concrete or hang all that sheetrock. Oh well....the immigrants aren't worth taking a stand over.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
Wait a minute, wait a minute....let's go back to #1. How are we going to have smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes if we're going to go surging into The Sandbox, especially when each additional thousand troops costs us a billion dollars?
I think we have a contradiction here. #1 and #6 might be mutually exclusive.

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
I support containment of Iran and North Korea too. Especially when the containment is being done by France, Switzerland, South Korea, and China. See #1. I think we have another contradiction in the Republican Litmus Test.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
Once again, #1 rears its head. How can you advocate a "smaller government" everywhere but in bedrooms?

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and....
Well, dammit, did they totally forget #1 ? Is the government going to eliminate ANY denial of healthcare? Are our county "charity" hospitals going to be required to do kidney transplants on indigent 90-year-olds? The market currently acts as a rationing device, BTW.

Was this list generated by dividing up into small groups, and then each group appointing a spokesperson, and each group got to contribute two items, no matter what?

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy positions of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee.....

Wouldn't it be fun to question Republican candidates about their commitment to these ten resolutions?

************

The picture of people taking the loyalty oath came from here.