CPAC 2009: A Focus on Freedom

[Ed Hudgins]

CPAC 2009: A Focus on Freedom

by Edward Hudgins

March 6. 2009 -- Republicans and conservatives are not synonymous, nor are conservatives and friends of freedom. But after the 2008 Republican electoral fiasco, in large part due to their abandonment of the principles of freedom, many conservatives are recommitting themselves to those principles.

This commitment was on display at the February 26-28, 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). This event brings together conservatives and those who would make common cause with them on various issues. The first CPAC was held in 1973 with 125 participants. Ronald Reagan gave the keynote speech. In 2008 some 7,300 were in attendance; this year around 8,500 packed several ballrooms to hear the cream of the conservative crop and to show that the obituaries for the movement were premature.

The event can be viewed as an indication of what political activists will be focusing on in the future; the event gives us some hope for the future fight for freedom.

Three-Part Conservatism

Speakers at CPAC are chosen by the event’s sponsoring organizations and reflect the different perspectives in the conservative movement.

The movement is a sometimes-uneasy, sometimes-conflicting coalition of individuals with interests in three major policy arenas. First, most economic conservatives oppose the growth of government spending, interference in the economy, and redistribution of wealth. They favor low taxes, minimal government regulations, and protection of private property. A minority of populist conservatives—Mike Huckabee, who spoke at CPAC; Pat Buchanan—favor “family-promoting” economic policies or trade protectionist policies that limit economic liberty.

Second, most foreign policy conservatives favor a strong and active national defense, in the past to oppose the spread of communism, today to counter Islamist fanaticism. A strong neo-conservative minority have favored a Wilsonian-like crusade to spread democracy. A smaller minority of traditional conservatives would reserve the use of military force for responses to direct attacks, believing other uses don’t aid our security. All factions are concerned with loss of American sovereignty through the expansion of trans-national regulations in the name of the environment or economic coordination.

Third, social conservatives, usually with religious agendas, would actually limit individual freedom in the name of protecting the moral foundations of American society. Some, like Rick Santorum—who spoke at CPAC—reject the notion that the principal role of government is to protect individual liberty, believing that state power should be used to strengthen traditional families. It is over these matters that the movement has its most internal conflicts, and they rightly concern libertarians, Objectivists, and friends of freedom.

The CPAC Snapshot

This year’s CPAC offered a useful snapshot of the state of the conservative movement. Of the 8,500 registrants, 59 percent were 25 years old or younger, most of them students. This large number suggests a good future cadre of political activists, think-tank scholars, journalists.

Most interesting this year were the priorities of the attendees. A survey by Fabrizio-McLaughlin asked which one of three choices “comes closest to your core beliefs and ideology.” Of 1,757 respondents, a whooping 74 percent said their most important goal was “to promote individual freedom by reducing the size and scope of government and its intrusion into the lives of its citizens.” Only 15 percent answered “to promote traditional values by protecting marriage and protecting the unborn.” And 10 percent at most wanted “to secure and guarantee American safety at home and abroad regardless of the cost or the size of government.”

The survey then asked more specific questions. Some 27 percent identified “reducing the size of government” as the issue most important to them and 16 percent identified it as their second most important issue. Concerning “reducing government spending,” 9 percent ranked it the number one concern and 15 percent placed it second. The war on terror was most important to 12 percent, with 11 percent ranking it second. And 9 percent named “lowering taxes” as most important, with 13 percent ranking it second.

Since CPAC attendees are a self-selected group of the most passionate activists, these results are encouraging for friends of freedom. The pro-freedom convictions of conservatives are what most motivate them at this time. The prospects of unprecedented government spending and growing control of the economy by Obama and Congressional Democrats has focused their attention on this purpose more than at any time in the recent past. And the parade of speakers and panels at CPAC both emphasized the deadly seriousness of the current political and economic situation and provided much intellectual ammunition with which to fight for freedom.

Rep. Ryan and Rand

The keynote speaker at the 2009 CPAC and a true rising star was Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan. Ryan, whose theme was “Our Founding Principles: The Conservative Roadmap for America’s Future.”

Ryan argued that with the economy in decline in 2008 the voters punished the party in power—the Republicans. But he observes that Americans voted for sound economic policies and that Obama and the Democrats have offered an economic monstrosity. He fears that their plan “threatens to radically alter the relationship between America’s citizens and our government.” With “$56 trillion in promised entitlement spending that we haven’t funded” Ryan says such plans will “transform our entrepreneurial economy into European-style socialism.” The result: “Citizens who had governed themselves will become mere subjects of the state—more concerned about security than liberty. Once we reach this ‘tipping point,’ the friends of freedom will be reduced to silence.”

Ryan hit the moral nail on the head when he said that the kind of regime pushed by Obama and the Democrats “suffocates individual initiative and transforms self-reliance into a vice and government dependency into a virtue.”

This is a message that the friends of freedom must make Americans understand. Many conservatives see the most important moral challenge as returning to what they identify as “family values.” But most important to both individual happiness and belief in freedom is a morality of true individualism, which includes taking responsibility for one’s life and taking the initiative required to achieve one’s productive goals and personal values. A nation of dependent sheep will welcome servitude and their own enslavement, shackling the rest of us in the process.

Ryan enumerated principles of the Declaration of Independence as the standards that should guide conservatives and he offered a list of priorities that he hoped would spark debate and energize the movement. Most welcome was the first one on his list: “It is time to restore the Constitution’s guarantee of sound and stable money.” In addition to federal housing policy that contributed to the current crisis, the Federal Reserve’s pumping up the monetary supply after 2001 provided the fuel for the fire. It’s time to discuss getting rid of the Fed entirely!

Ryan outlined the causes of the current crisis and denounced the Democrats’ “audacious scheme: Set off a series of regulatory blunders and congressional meddling, blame the free market for the financial crisis that follows—then use this excuse to impose a more intrusive state. Sounds like something right out of an Ayn Rand novel.”

Energy and Putting People First

Carrying on a theme from last year that is even more important with the White House and Congress in the hands of the radical left, this year’s CPAC highlighted the full-scale war on energy and human beings in the name of protecting the environment.

On the energy panel Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality energized the audience with a stirring speech on how the poor most of all would be harmed by the “let’s cut down on use” proposals of this administration.

Another conference highlight was clips from the upcoming film, Not Evil, Just Wrong, by the Irish producer-couple Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer. Two disillusioned former leftists, the duo several years ago produced the film Mine Your Own Business, which showed the motivations of those who would stop mining companies from opening operations in less developed countries like Romania, Mozambique, and Chile as well as the terrible consequences to those countries’ people struggling to survive and to obtain the fruits of modernity.

In their new film they take on Al Gore and the global warming crowd. This film promises to be as powerful as their first. In addition to debunking the bad science behind this movement, it focuses on the sheer arrogance and disregard for people in the movement’s members. We hear, for example, actor Ed Begley Jr. saying that he’s seen the poor of Fiji and can tell by the look on their faces that they’re really happy living in their destitution. That’s not what the poor themselves say when interviewed for the film.

McElhinney and McAleer suggest a test: How many liberals would be willing to give their mothers one way tickets to live in a third-world village and cancel their moms’ passports so they can share the “happiness” forever?

The only exception one might take to Not Evil, Just Wrong is to the first part of the title.

The Real Rush

The biggest newsmaker from this year’s CPAC was radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, whose speech was broadcast live on the Fox News Channel and C-SPAN. Rush emphasized what he’d said on his show and in this newsletter: “I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation.”

In their coverage, most of the mainstream media spun the story as Rush wanting Obama to fail to fix the economy, thus leaving Americans in dire economic straits. They ignored the “if” part of his statement. The Obama White House quickly assembled had a team of old Clintonites to dub Limbaugh the real head of the Republican Party. They wanted to drive a wedge between Limbaugh’s supporters and those Republicans who think he’s too radical. This seemed one part of a Nixonian “enemy’s list” approach that targeted other critics of the administration.

So CPAC acted as a catalyst to expose the depth of commitment this president, who still has high personal approval ratings, to use any sleazy tactics to restrict freedom and remake the nation just as Limbaugh described.

The Future Fate of Freedom

While Objectivists and libertarians have philosophical disagreements with various conservatives on particular issues, this year’s CPAC suggests that conservatives are more focused and energized to battle for what too many Republicans turned their backs on during the Bush years: economic liberty and limited government. This recommitment hopefully will help the Republicans to continue to show some backbone and to begin to articulate exactly what is a stake in America today: the future fate of freedom.

----

Hudgins directs advocacy efforts at The Atlas Society.

For further reading:

*Edward Hudgins, “Freedom’s Filmmaker.” The New Individualist, March 2007.

*Robert Bidinotto, “Up From Conservatism.” The New Individualist, March 2007.

*Edward Hudgins, “The Battle for the Soul of the Republican Party.” The New Individualist, Fall 2006.

[galtgulch]

CPAC 2009: A Focus on Freedom

by Edward Hudgins

March 6. 2009 -- Republicans and conservatives are not synonymous, nor are conservatives and friends of freedom. But after the 2008 Republican electoral fiasco, in large part due to their abandonment of the principles of freedom, many conservatives are recommitting themselves to those principles.

This commitment was on display at the February 26-28, 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). This event brings together conservatives and those who would make common cause with them on various issues. The first CPAC was held in 1973 with 125 participants. Ronald Reagan gave the keynote speech. In 2008 some 7,300 were in attendance; this year around 8,500 packed several ballrooms to hear the cream of the conservative crop and to show that the obituaries for the movement were premature.

The event can be viewed as an indication of what political activists will be focusing on in the future; the event gives us some hope for the future fight for freedom.

Edward,

I understand that Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty supporters were well represented at the CPAC this year. They say there were about 140 volunteers present and they had a booth as well. They handed out literature.

You are certainly aware that Ron Paul created the Campaign For Liberty after he suspended his campaign. I joined it last summer when there were about 6000 members and now there are over 106,000 and it is spreading on campuses with the help of Young Americans for Liberty www.YALiberty.org.

As you realize in Ron Paul's best seller The Revolution: A Mainfesto he recommends Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged with "reservations." Naturally I have advocated that his supporters read Rand's essays and journal as well. www.DailyPaul.com

I wonder if you noticed their presence.

Despite Ron Paul's prolife position he is more reasonable regarding sound money, abolition of the Federal Reserve System, adherence to the Constitution, non interventionist foreign policy, abolition of the income tax, etc.

Wm

Edited March 8, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

Ed:

The old Clinton "wild bunch" of Carville, Stephanopolis, Emanuel and Begala and a poll firm owner decided, in late September, when it was apparent that there was going to be a coronation in November decided to target Rush as the anti-O'Biwan.

The pollster showed that Limbaugh had high negatives in certain groups that they could target. "Independent/moderate women", latinos, blacks etc.

The four horseman then decided that he would be the new Bush and the poster boy of the Republican Party.

Looks like a fatal decision so far, but I am afraid that we will be "too pure" to take advantage of it, as usual. Getting down and dirty has not been one of our strong suits politically.

Adam

[Ed Hudgins]

Galtgulch - A number of the Campaign for Liberty folks were at my talk the week before CPAC at the Students for Liberty event in DC. And I provided copies of the latest issue of The New Individualist for the Campaign for Liberty folks to pass out at CPAC to their volunteers and others as well as Atlas Society info. I've also had inquiries and have told students with this group that I'd be happy to speak on their campuses.

Adam - Yes, it's the same old crowd and the same old dirty tactics. The mainstream medis are as slanted in their coverage of the story as you'd expect. But Rush had a huge boost in audience because he was targetted and thanks to the internet and talk radio, the truth is getting out.

[galtgulch]

Galtgulch - A number of the Campaign for Liberty folks were at my talk the week before CPAC at the Students for Liberty event in DC. And I provided copies of the latest issue of The New Individualist for the Campaign for Liberty folks to pass out at CPAC to their volunteers and others as well as Atlas Society info. I've also had inquiries and have told students with this group that I'd be happy to speak on their campuses.

Adam - Yes, it's the same old crowd and the same old dirty tactics. The mainstream medis are as slanted in their coverage of the story as you'd expect. But Rush had a huge boost in audience because he was targetted and thanks to the internet and talk radio, the truth is getting out.

Edward,

That is all very good news. Especially your willingness to be available to speak on their campuses. I really think there is something happening here which could turn this country around and be of historic proportions.

In addition to the educational aspect which is widespread and will enlighten so many who are as open to such wisdom as ever given the plight of the economy, the Campaign For Liberty will energize men and women all over the country to run for office. Such candidates will speak the truth about what has brought such devastation to the economy.

I am thinking in particular to the role the government and ACORN played in igniting the sub prime crisis and the fact that Obama denies that the govt had any responsibility in causing it rather places the blame on the victims of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, the bankers who were compelled to lower their standards to enable the poor to realize the American Dream of home ownership.

Not to mention that candidates will be armed intellectually with the knowledge about how the free market works when the govt does not intervene.

I expect that Ron Paul just might have plenty of company in the Congress in a couple of years.

Thank you for your help.

www.campaignforliberty.com 9Mar 7AM 106159 meaning about fifty joined since midnight!

gulch

Edited March 9, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

Folks there are 20 months between now and the mid term congressional elections.

The current socialists have a 76 seat edge out of the 435 Congressional members, with 3 vacancies.

The current socialists have a 9-10 seat edge, + 10 being the cloture number that they need to rule with an iron fist.

House Senate

Membership Membership

* 100 Senators

(Vice President votes in case of a tie)

Party Divisions Party Divisions

* 435 Members * 56 Democrats

* 254 Democrats * 41 Republicans

* 5 Delegates * 2 Independents

* 1 Resident * 1 Vacancies Minnesota Coleman Frankin currently in Minn Court system

Commissioner

* 178 Republicans

* 0 Independents

* 3 Vacancies

We need to begin to line up our Congressional candidates NOW and begin working E.D. by E.D. and maybe we can take 30 or so Congressional seats which would make the margin of difference plus or minus 16 -19 with the vacancies.

The Senate, we will be lucky to take a net of one or two. The Specter of Arlen being re-elected is a negative. Dodd could be taken in Conn. 36 of the 100 seats in the U.S. Senate are being contested. Thirty-four of these are to six-year terms, from January 3, 2011 to January 3, 2017.

There is no time for discussion - we need to act locally and frankly, I would concentrate on the Congressional races before the Senate elections.

Why don't you consider running for Congress Gulch?

Adam

[galtgulch]

There is no time for discussion - we need to act locally and frankly, I would concentrate on the Congressional races before the Senate elections.

Why don't you consider running for Congress Gulch?

Adam

Adam,

For one thing, I could not afford the cut in pay!

Actually there is a quite credible business man in my district who is planning on running for Congress and I will support him.

I have toyed with the idea of running against him in the primary to help generate news reportage of our ideas in the local media. We could debate amongst ourselves week after week on every imaginable issue which might help to enlighten the populace especially about the free market, the Austrian school of economics, the Federal Reserve SYstem, the Constitution, Article 1 Section 8,9 and 10, separation of State and the Economy, Education, Welfare, Health etc.

I also would offer the Objectivist view on issues and would voice the pro choice alternative. My concern would be that I might get elected!

www.campaignforliberty.com 9Mar 9AM 106163

gulch

Edited March 9, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

Gulch:

What district I would like to take a look at the numbers if it is not an imposition to your privacy.

Adam

[galtgulch]

Gulch:

What district I would like to take a look at the numbers if it is not an imposition to your privacy.

Adam

Adam,

There are ten Congressional districts in MA. I live in the third. You can find some info on it at the www.campaignforliberty.com website which includes a map. It stretches from Worcester eastward and then along the I-495 corridor to include a piece of Fall River. Clearly the gerrymandering was done to have the democratic cities counterbalance the Republican suburbs.

Our congressman is James McGovern who voted for the bailout twice despite my emails to him advising him to read a few Austrian economics books and articles at www.mises.org. He responded with a form letter thanking me for my interest and assuring me he was doing what he thought was best for his constituents. I let him know I will endeavor to inform the voters of his profound ignorance.

More info than you asked for. Third Congressional District

www.campaignforliberty.com 9Mar 10AM 106169, 5PM 106208 This is a faster pace than it has been. At this rate an additional 1000 members will be added every five instead of every 7 or 8 days.

I had occasion to seek treatment from an endodontist today. His nurse assistant told me that her brother in law suggested that she see Freedom to Fascism and gave her a copy. Small world, coincidence or our movement it spreading.

gulch

Edited March 9, 2009 by galtgulch

[Chris Grieb]

It would be delightful if Cong. McGovern could be defeated but the expression don't hold your breath comes to mind. I suspect Gulch will respond by saying I would not have wanted to start the American Revolution but I am a realist.

Ed; The report on CPAC is good news.

[Ed Hudgins]

Might as well post a pix of Rush doing his thing at CPAC to counteract the photo of him on the cover of Newsweek, a leftist publication dumping on him.

[Selene]

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/inde...mp;showVid=true

This is the entire speech

[Selene]

Chris, Gulch:

He has a "core" vote of approximately 152,000 out of 220,000 prime voters. A number of times in the last ten years he has run unopposed and still had 50 60, 000 voting "blank".

You would have to run two primary opponents against him and hammer him in his own backyard. You will also bleed his fund raising early and create enemies who you could bring to your side in the general election.

An additional option after a hard primary fight would be to form an Independent Community Party to take regular democratic votes a place to vote because they just will not vote Republican.

Adam