Liberty Movement

Some time ago I asked about a new name for the tea party, since it had some branding problems. Some were self-inflicted, most were not. In the video below, Tom Woods, a Ron Paul supporter and author, uses the term "liberty movement" to describe what we are doing.  The term is not evocative of a political party, unlike "tea party." I think the use of "party" in "tea party" helped cement an association with the Republican party. Many of my fellow SLOBs would vehemently object to association with the GOP.  Here in San Diego, Republicans have numerous associations with crony capitalism, a favorite object of scorn and derision in our group.

If you think liberty movement better describes our efforts, I would like to hear your comments.  Much better than my original term "freedom coalition."

No Year's Resolutions

I stopped making New Year's resolutions a long time ago.  Most of what I want to accomplish in my life changes little from year to year, so I don't see the point.  For example, the purpose of this blog, from my first post in 2008 remains the same:

I started this blog to champion the principles upon which our nation was founded, as informed by my Christian belief. I intend to champion free markets, free trade, and freedom of speech, equal justice for all human beings and a constitutional republic with powers of the government strictly limited. I will propose paths forward for those who believe that expanding government is the chief threat to the freedom and wealth of the world today.

However, the new year is a decent time to reflect on how we have done and think about what we might do differently.  For example, there is some debate about rebranding the tea party movement, as the left has had some success in tarnishing our image.  If others in the movement wish to do so, I would be supportive.  My first attempt at an agenda that captured my belief that economic liberty issues should take center stage was called the Freedom Coalition Agenda, it is occasionally updated and is linked at the top of the page.  It was originally meant to be an agenda for libertarians inside the Republican party, but it certainly could be an agenda for Democrats and independents who dislike the direction the left is taking the country.

As for rebranding, distancing ourselves from the Republican party will allow us to retain independence and allow us to attract new followers.  If that means a new name, because the Tea Party has come to mean a subset of the GOP, then I am in favor.  Even though I am a Republican, I am not enthusiastic about the party, because too many elected officials are wedded to some aspect of big government.  As to a new name, Freedom Coalition seems too stilted; but something evocative of a coalition dedicated to liberty is needed.  Liberty Coalition?  I still don't like it.  Your suggestions are welcome.

Does It Deserve Majority Status?

The Republican party that is. Consider Pennsylvania, where the GOP has control of the Governor's mansion and both branches of the legislature. From today's WSJ, Gov. Tom Corbett (R-PA, pictured) rightfully called education reform the "civil rights issue of the 21st century." Both Dean and I have despaired of the GOP doing anything about this issue, even though it could be part of an agenda that reaches out to minority voters. Throughout the nation, efforts to give children in failed schools have been led by blacks and Hispanics, whom I presume were Democrats. Getting serious about this issue shows you seriously understand a top concern of minority voters. (As opposed to professional minority exploiters like the NAACP, who oppose school choice.)

Back to Pennsylvania, where a bill to offer school choice to children of failing schools is languishing in the legislature. There is plenty of finger pointing about who is at fault, but in the end, voters will only know that Republicans failed to deliver for minorities. Unfortunately, the New York Times is reporting that there are divisions within the Tea Party movement over the bill. Dick Armey's FreedomWorks, which has done good work, put some pressure on the House Speaker Mike Turzai to push through the bill. He resented the pressure, of course. Here is what the NYT is reporting, although I am not sure I trust their veracity:

Instead, the bill, which would provide vouchers to poor families who want better schools for their children, has sparked what one Tea Party activist called a “fight within the family.”

Many Tea Party groups oppose the bill because it does not establish universal school choice, and call it a bailout of failing schools. They accuse those who support it — who are backed by a powerful Washington group that has helped cultivate the Tea Party — of selling out to the kind of politics-as-usual approach that the movement was founded to oppose. Supporters say those opponents do not understand that compromise is part of politics.

My reaction: Of course it doesn't provide universal choice. You're not going to get a Democrat co-sponsor of the bill with that approach. Universal choice would be great, but denying the children in the worst schools an avenue of escape misses the opportunity to change the political dynamic. How are you going to build a new majority coalition with an attitude like that? The political calculus for the socialist wing of the Democrat party is pretty bad right now. Pealing off a few percent of black and Hispanic voters will wreak havoc with its electoral chances and drive it back towards the center of American politics and away from the path of socialism it is now on. It is in the best interests of the country that racial minorities be well represented in both parties. Time for Republicans to do something about that.

Freedom Coalition Update - 2011 UPDATE

I started this blog in November of 2008 in the hope that it would become part of a broader movement to effect a real change in the Republican Party. At the time, I viewed the election of Barack Obama as a largely preventable mistake that I laid at the doorstep of an unprincipled Republican party dedicated to pork and its own re-election. Despite my dislike of the President-elect, it occurred to me that the public had made a rational choice. Given two parties dedicated to big government, one should vote for the one that seemed less corrupt, less hypocritical about their belief and less likely to favor corporations over average folks. At the time there was no real opposition, leading me to conclude that only a Republican party truly dedicated to limited government and freedom could restore balance. I thought the effort would take years, but the emergence of the Tea Party so soon after I started blogging vastly lifted my spirits. I have a saying about the seemingly spontaneity of many people coming to the same conclusion at the same time, "Circumstances and logic prescribe a narrow set of solutions."

This post is an update, with changes highlighted in blue.

UPDATE: In the comments, John Hitchcock points out that the more insidious reason that earmarks are poison is that they buy votes that go towards ever more massive budgets. I was previously aware of this phenomena, but had forgotten. I am updating the agenda in red. I wish to thank John for his help, so check out his eminently readable Common Sense Political Thought.

In my experience, being right on the issues isn't enough, one's coalition must pick issues that are winners and that capture the public imagination.

The Republican party was founded as the party of freedom, but by 2006 they were identified as the party of big government. I therefor propose this Freedom Coalition agenda to get the party back on track. I hope the Republicans adopt a true freedom agenda, if they don't, they won't get my vote. As with any agenda, this will change with circumstances and I will update it periodically.

FREEDOM COALITION AGENDA 2011

• Defeat Government Take Over of Health Care. This is our signature issue today. We must defeat the current Democrat/Socialist plan, but we also have a plan of our own. We have shamelessly taken much of John Mackey's program and adopted it as our own. (Paul Ryan (R-WI) has also adopted elements of this plan.) We should further make every effort to repeal the so-called Health Care Reform act. That includes outright attempts as well as incremental efforts as well as court challenges when it is clear the act has violated constitutional principles.
  

1. "Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts." Patients who have skin in the game and market knowledge will reduce costs faster than any government program.
   
2. "Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits."
   
3. Allow competition across state lines.
   
4. "Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover."
   
5. "Enact tort reform."
6. "Make costs transparent."
   
7. "Enact medicare reform." Medicare policies that are mimicked by the private sector are strangling the medical profession.
   
8. Revise tax law to make it easier to donate to those without insurance.

• Smaller Government and Reform. These issues go hand in glove. The public loathes the sight of big business getting handout in the form of bailouts, subsidies and tax code preferences. Removing earmarks, even if they are only part of the problems of bloat, will go a long way to restoring fiscal sanity. This is because earmarks are used to prime the pump of budgeting excess buying off the Congressman and blackmailing them with voting against a little local pork. They see the Congress get loads of campaign contributions and rightly conclude that the money is buying access that tilts the playing field, at best; or is buying Congressman at worst. Smaller government means less goodies to hand out. A reform agenda to end earmarks, end subsidies (even for ethanol) and simplify the tax code removes the incentives for business to try to buy the votes of the Congress. I can't find the original quote, but I remember Steve Forbes saying, "If you have a vermin problem in your kitchen, you can set traps and board up holes, but sooner or later your going to have to remove the cake from under the sink."
  

• Reduce Spending to Reduce the Deficit. This is simple economics, with government sucking up all of the present and future resources of the country, it is a beast that sucks the life blood of credit, resources and talent from the businesses, large and small, that are the economic engine of this country. Unfortunately, this means that we have to tackle entitlement reform. Neither party has been serious about this. Looking at the graph below, we see that mandatory spending is about equal to all of the tax receipts of the federal government.
  
• 
• Reform State and Local Government Employee Pensions. These pensions are bankrupting governments below the federal level. The total unfunded obligation is $1.5 trillion. The right of contract enshrined in the constitution makes this a tough nut to crack, but every governor, legislator, mayor and city council member should be judged on the seriousness of their approach to this issue.
  

• Reform Financial Regulation. The last recession wasn't caused by free market excess, but by too much government. Banks and insurers concluded they were too big to fail (TBTF) and called government's bluff. Many of them should have been allowed to fail. Further, as the big banks increase their market share, we demand that they carry higher percentage reserves, so that they won' fail. We call for an end to taxpayer subsidized speculation in the financial sector. We demand transparency in all things financial, including the pricing of assets. We call for an end to political interference that turned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into political vehicles to turn loans into votes. We call for an end to speculation with taxpayer insured deposits. We call on the Federal Reserve to open its books for inspection by the Congress that created it as well as the American people.

• Champion Freedom of Speech. We oppose campaign finance reform that protects incumbents and vested interests. Ultimately, these laws abridge free speech. There are so many examples of small groups harassed by monied opponents when they seek to organize to protect their rights. In Colorado, some neighbors who didn't want to be annexed by another city held some bakes sales to raise money for signs and ended being fined thousands of dollars. See Sampson v. Coffman. We also oppose campus speech codes that are intended to silence any point of view except the prevailing leftist orthodoxy. See FIRE article. This issue is a winner because Americans have long rejected the claim that others can tell us how to think and what we can say, especially when it comes to politics. Although they aren't happy about money in politics, it is easy to demonstrate that opposition to free speech isn't the answer. More on the right answer below.

• Oppose Eminent Domain abuse. Originally, the concept of eminent domain was meant to prevent individual property owners from holding the government hostage when building a road or other public good. Over time, this right of government morphed into the power to seize your land at the behest of the powerful for any reason, however flimsy. This view was challenged in Kelo vs. New London, but our side lost on a 5-4 decision, one of the most unjust outcomes since Dred Scott vs. Sandford. Fortunately, the appalling sight of the powerful and well connected preying on small business owners and individuals is fueling a backlash. But eminent domain abuse continues and this remains a powerful issue for our side. Here is an example of a hard fought victory n Long Branch, NJ, where officials want to replace middle class households with upper class ones. Frequently, the victims of this abuse are poor minorities. In this case a victorious homeowner was also presented an award from the NAACP. This is real outreach on issues that affect minorities that would benefit the GOP.

• Support School Choice. We could continue this outreach by taking on the school choice issue at full tilt. I previously blogged where the Arizona school teachers union wants to take away the ability of special needs kids to get much needed educational help through a voucher program. I think the Democrats are VERY vulnerable on this issue. School choice is the real civil rights issue of our day. Bad schools are wrecking the chances of poor and predominately minority students of being successful in college. Even the liberal University of California agrees with me that minorities are educationally disadvantaged. Interestingly, even though the academic literature on the benefits of choice are somewhat mixed, it seems to be that the greatest beneficiaries of school choice seem to be the urban poor. Further, as we experiment with choice we will find the combination of programs and incentives that really work. Interestingly, opposition to school choice is one of the stated reasons for the fleebagging in Indiana.
  

• Support Freedom Abroad. Newly liberated peoples the world over have shown a propensity to embrace freedom and markets when the yoke of tyranny has been lifted. The policy of America should be to actively work against dictatorship in all its forms (Islamic, Socialist, Fascist and Communist). We should seek to advance the cause of freedom, not through force of arms, but through steady pressure. Every piece of foreign policy should be weighed against this end. Further, we are also ready to use force of arms in this cause when defense of our national interest requires it. Americans resonate with the concepts of helping to liberate peoples from tyranny, this is a winner. We especially decry the pathetic kow-towing to dictatorship in our own hemisphere in the shameful treatment of Honduras by the Obama administration. Recent events prove the wisdom of this approach, I think.
  

• Oppose Partial-Birth Abortions. Because the practice is as odious and repugnant as the name suggests. Americans can viscerally understand this issue. How can it be legal to kill a baby 8 months into a pregnancy when that same child if delivered, would be afforded full protection of the law? It is illogical, and even though I am a Christian and hold all human life sacred, I don't have to rest my case on theological arguments. One need only talk to an abortion survivor to understand the horror of this procedure. I blogged about the politics of this issue here.

So that's my proposal. Short, but I hope substantive. I welcome your comments, disagreements, additions and satire.

B-Daddy

Democrats Advancing the Freedom Coalition Agenda

Before the Tea Party movement started, I blogged that the Republican Party needed a new agenda based on its founding principles. An early post was my Freedom Coalition agenda, which I revised again last March. One of the platform planks is school choice.

But the fact is that it is Democrats who are actually advancing this cause. Dean opines is because they have the constituents in the worst schools where conditions are horrific enough to prompt action. Dean has the goods on the latest effort in Compton. This is a classic showdown between traditional Democrat constituencies of inner city African-Americans vs. the teacher's union.

Following Up on the Pledge

A legitimate criticism of the the Pledge to America is that it doesn't get specific about how to slash the size of government, except for repealing the stimulus and Obamacare (not bad starts, however). Reason magazine steps into the fray with this month's issue appropriately titled "How to Slash Government Before It Slashes You." If Republicans are too get serious about governing they need to look at some of the best ideas (my picks, there were many more, so go subscribe already):

1. Reform Medicaid by changing the funding from a matching grant to a block grant. Matching funding encourages the states to just spend more, rather than getting costs under control.
   
2. Reduce federal education spending back to 2001 levels. The federal government doesn't educate a single child, but the Education budget has risen 80% in the last decade.
3. Switch to defined contributions pensions at the federal, state and local level. (This has been partially accomplshed at the federal level.) It won't solve the immediate issue, but the shift will pay long term benefits to both employees and taxpayers. (Meg Whitman has proposed this, I may vote for her yet.)
4. End Davis-Bacon "prevailing wage" laws. The requirement was originally a racist attempt to deny blacks jobs on federal projects, its impact is to increase the cost of all federal contracts to the benefit of union shops.
5. Bust up Fannie and Freddie. Because these agencies operate with the backing of the Federal Reserve, as well as the Treasury, they will continue to be a drain on the economy. Like a compulsive gambler with a trust fund, they will always take on excess risk and leave you, the taxpayer, stuck with the bill.
   
6. Just start cutting. In the 1990s, Canada, under a Liberal government even, mandate actual cuts in the size of government to deal with a ballooning deficit. The key was a concerted campaign by the Prime Minister to convince the public of the need for cuts. This might have to wait until after Obama is defeated in 2012, but it can be done.

I would like to add my own:
Reduce regulation and then fire regulators. Not only will this save money, but it will grow the economy as businesses are unburdened from the overwhelming number of new regulation that has piled up over twenty years.

There, the GOP needs to take a look at some of these ideas and get ready to govern. They better cut spending, or they will find themselves with primary challenges again. The Tea Party has shown its clout, time to use it for the good of the Republic.

The Platform for November

The conventional wisdom has the Republicans taking majorities in the Senate and House this November. I am not so sure, but to be sure that they govern with a purpose, rather than re-engage in the porkapoolaza of the Bush era, they need a serious agenda. I have heard that Republicans are preparing a sequel to the "Contract with America" from the 1994 campaign. Keeping in mind that sometimes less is more, I propose the following emphases from the Freedom Coalition Agenda:

1. Repeal Obamacare. There are so many reasons to make this a priority, Dean has cataloged many of them. One more issue detailed in this month's Reason is the budget busting nature of Obamacare mandates on state budgets, which comes at a particularly bad time. More details here.
2. The Deficit or Reduce Spending. Republicans have campaigned many times on reducing taxes. That's easy, figuring out how to reduce spending is hard and necessary, or we will just end up raising taxes later or igniting inflation. The Bush tax cuts should remain in place, but if you are going to govern, you need to explain what you are going to cut. I would start by de-funding the vast new bureaucracy needed for Obamacare. Returning all unused stimulus money to the Treasury would also be a nice start.
3. The Economy. High unemployment and no growth can be laid at the footsteps of the Democrats. But what policy prescriptions do we advocate? This is where we can make the case for the tax cuts. But excessive regulation is also killing American business and destroying our freedom. (From the link: "People who don't know if their day-to-day behavior will trigger prosecution are not truly free.") Unfortunately, the cozy relationships between regulators and the regulated have given regulation a bad name. We should be calling for simpler forms of regulation across government. Obamacare's regulatory regime makes the most obvious target, because it has yet to be implemented. In the financial sector, simpler rules that would shift risks to stockholders and away from government are all that is really required. For example, to prevent the "Too Big Too Fail" scenario, we need to increase capital reserve requirements as firms gain market share. This will increase the cost of capital for firms that grow too quickly by taking on excess risk.
4. Culture of Corruption. (Or process, as Dean puts it.) The staggering ways in which both the Democrats in Congress as well as the Obama administration have disobeyed their own promises and ethical rules is an easy target. But the whole process is foul. A pledge to end earmarks would be a good start. Reducing the size of government is a good way to also reduce the corruption that taints the process, illegal and otherwise. This also sets up the Presidential race in 2012, by attacking what was once seen as Obama's strength.
   
5. The Border. Republicans need to pledge they will keep faith with the American people and enforce the border before they tinker with other aspects of immigration policy. "Comprehensive reform" may be necessary, but we need the government to establish trust with the people first.

Issues like flag burning, prayer in school, creationism, and strengthening wiretapping laws will sap my enthusiasm immediately. The Democrats will come at the Republicans with two lines of attack. First, they will suggest that the Republicans are tied to the financial establishment, health insurers, and assorted fat cats, no matter how much Goldman Sachs donates to Obama. Second, they will claim that the Republicans are "the ones who got us into this mess." To counter these claims, the Republicans need to explain the nature of regulation and how "regulatory capture" is creating a false sense of security that is not supported by the actual outcomes we see. It is a fact that Republicans did help get us into the mess, starting with the first stimulus. But the Republican argument should go like this; we learned our lesson, and decided that stimulus and debt are no longer good ideas. This puts the Democrats in the awkward position of admitting they are just continuing the "failed Bush policies" of the past.

The most difficult conversation will be over the nature of regulation, but if the Party is going to do the hard work needed to govern effectively, regulatory failure must be explained.

Scheduling Alert - San Diego

April 8 - San Diego City Council District 6 debate at Clairemont High School at 7:00 p.m. I will be covering and asking the following question, if allowed: "What action will you take that will save taxpayer dollars but will be opposed by the employees unions?" Four of the five candidates in the race will be there. See my earlier post on the candidates here. So far, the candidates are not impressing me. Kim Tran has not responded to my request as to why she is not participating, but a commenter, who seems to be working for/with Kim had this to say in the comments:

Most community organizations are comprised of Democrat and or Republican Partisans. Kim understood early on after she was not invited to the North Chamber candidate forum that these venues were not friendly to her campaign or any other campaign not funded by the local County Parties.

My personal opinion is that candidates have to get in there and slug it out, no matter what. This is going to be a different election year and I think that if Kim is truly the outsider candidate, she has a great chance, but she needs to make the case. I am inclined to support her, but I don't have enough information and her lack of participation in the debate isn't helping.

April 11 - Brad Dacus, founder of Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) will be speaking at Clairemont Christian Fellowship (4570 Mount Herbert 92117) at 10:30 a.m. PJI has defended family and religious freedom though out the western states. Nice discussion of their work that prevented Rancho Cucamonga from shutting down a home Bible fellowship here. Mr. Dacus will be available at 9:00 a.m. to answer questions on religious freedom and family rights issues. I will cover this event.

April 15 - Tax Day Tea Party protest at the Midway Post Office at 3:00 p.m. I see there is a suggestion to start at Rosecrans and Midway where there will be a lot more traffic. Plenty of time to stop in and protest since folks will be dropping off there tax returns until midnight. Unfortunately, that might include B-Daddy. Sarah wants you to come decked out in your finest protest gear. Depending on how my taxes are going, I may provide coverage. Maybe I can convince the mighty Waynok to get some more video.

Freedom Coalition Agenda 2010

I am revising the Freedom Coalition Agenda for 2010. Most of the positions haven't changed, but I am changing the order to reflect the concerns of the Tea Party Movement. One of the reasons I started this blog was to advance an agenda that would further the cause of freedom. In my experience, being right on the issues isn't enough, one's coalition must pick issues that are winners and that capture the public imagination.

The Republican party was founded as the party of freedom, but by 2006 they were identified as the party of big government. I therefor propose this Freedom Coalition agenda to get the party back on track. I hope the Republicans adopt a true freedom agenda, if they don't, they won't get my vote. As with any agenda, this will change with circumstances and I will update it periodically.

FREEDOM COALITION AGENDA 2010

• Defeat Government Take Over of Health Care. This is our signature issue today. We must defeat the current Democrat/Socialist plan, but we also have a plan of our own. We have shamelessly taken much of John Mackey's program and adopted it as our own. (Paul Ryan (R-WI) has also adopted elements of this plan.)
  

1. "Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts." Patients who have skin in the game and market knowledge will reduce costs faster than any government program.
   
2. "Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits."
   
3. Allow competition across state lines.
   
4. "Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover."
   
5. "Enact tort reform."
6. "Make costs transparent."
   
7. "Enact medicare reform." Medicare policies that are mimicked by the private sector are strangling the medical profession.
   
8. Revise tax law to make it easier to donate to those without insurance.

• Smaller Government and Reform. These issues go hand in glove. The public loathes the sight of big business getting handout in the form of bailouts, subsidies and tax code preferences. They see the Congress get loads of campaign contributions and rightly conclude that the money is buying access that tilts the playing field, at best; or is buying Congressman at worst. Smaller government means less goodies to hand out. A reform agenda to end earmarks, end subsidies (even for ethanol) and simplify the tax code removes the incentives for business to try to buy the votes of the Congress. I can't find the original quote, but I remember Steve Forbes saying, "If you have a vermin problem in your kitchen, you can set traps and board up holes, but sooner or later your going to have to remove the cake from under the sink."

• Stop Spending to Reduce the Deficit. This is simple economics, with government sucking up all of the present and future resources of the country, it is a beast that sucks the life blood of credit, resources and talent from the businesses, large and small, that are the economic engine of this country. Interest on the national debt in fiscal year 2009 was $383 billion, 2010 is on track to hit $492 billion. If interest rates go up even slightly, interest payments on the debt will be in the trillions per year. Alternatively, we will get inflation that will make the 70's look mild.
  

• Reform Financial Regulation. The last recession wasn't caused by free market excess, but by too much government. Banks and insurers concluded they were too big to fail (TBTF) and called government's bluff. Many of them should have been allowed to fail. Further, as the big banks increase their market share, we demand that they carry higher percentage reserves, so that they won' fail. We call for an end to taxpayer subsidized speculation in the financial sector. We demand transparency in all things financial, including the pricing of assets. We call for an end to political interference that turned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into political vehicles to turn loans into votes. We call for an end to speculation with taxpayer insured deposits. We call on the Federal Reserve to open its books for inspection by the Congress that created it as well as the American people.

• Champion Freedom of Speech. We oppose campaign finance reform that protects incumbents and vested interests. Ultimately, these laws abridge free speech. There are so many examples of small groups harassed by monied opponents when they seek to organize to protect their rights. In Colorado, some neighbors who didn't want to be annexed by another city held some bakes sales to raise money for signs and ended being fined thousands of dollars. See Sampson v. Coffman. We also oppose campus speech codes that are intended to silence any point of view except the prevailing leftist orthodoxy. See FIRE article. This issue is a winner because Americans have long rejected the claim that others can tell us how to think and what we can say, especially when it comes to politics. Although they aren't happy about money in politics, it is easy to demonstrate that opposition to free speech isn't the answer. More on the right answer below.

• Oppose Eminent Domain abuse. Originally, the concept of eminent domain was meant to prevent individual property owners from holding the government hostage when building a road or other public good. Over time, this right of government morphed into the power to seize your land at the behest of the powerful for any reason, however flimsy. This view was challenged in Kelo vs. New London, but our side lost on a 5-4 decision, one of the most unjust outcomes since Dred Scott vs. Sandford. Fortunately, the appalling sight of the powerful and well connected preying on small business owners and individuals is fueling a backlash. But eminent domain abuse continues and this remains a powerful issue for our side. Here is an example of a hard fought victory n Long Branch, NJ, where officials want to replace middle class households with upper class ones. Frequently, the victims of this abuse are poor minorities. In this case a victorious homeowner was also presented an award from the NAACP. This is real outreach on issues that affect minorities that would benefit the GOP.

• Support School Choice. We could continue this outreach by taking on the school choice issue at full tilt. I previously blogged where the Arizona school teachers union wants to take away the ability of special needs kids to get much needed educational help through a voucher program. I think the Democrats are VERY vulnerable on this issue. School choice is the real civil rights issue of our day. Bad schools are wrecking the chances of poor and predominately minority students of being successful in college. Even the liberal University of California agrees with me that minorities are educationally disadvantaged. Interestingly, even though the academic literature on the benefits of choice are somewhat mixed, it seems to be that the greatest beneficiaries of school choice seem to be the urban poor. Further, as we experiment with choice we will find the combination of programs and incentives that really work.

• Support Freedom Abroad. Newly liberated peoples the world over have shown a propensity to embrace freedom and markets when the yoke of tyranny has been lifted. The policy of America should be to actively work against dictatorship in all its forms (Islamic, Socialist, Fascist and Communist). We should seek to advance the cause of freedom, not through force of arms, but through steady pressure. Every piece of foreign policy should be weighed against this end. Further, we are also ready to use force of arms in this cause when defense of our national interest requires it. Americans resonate with the concepts of helping to liberate peoples from tyranny, this is a winner. We especially decry the pathetic kow-towing to dictatorship in our own hemisphere in the shameful treatment of Honduras by the Obama administration.
  

• Oppose Partial-Birth Abortions. Because the practice is as odious and repugnant as the name suggests. Americans can viscerally understand this issue. How can it be legal to kill a baby 8 months into a pregnancy when that same child if delivered, would be afforded full protection of the law? It is illogical, and even though I am a Christian and hold all human life sacred, I don't have to rest my case on theological arguments. One need only talk to an abortion survivor to understand the horror of this procedure. I blogged about the politics of this issue here.

So that's my proposal. Short, but I hope substantive. I welcome your comments, disagreements, additions and satire.

B-Daddy

Tea Party Saturday in San Diego

We made it to the Tea Party rally on Harbor Drive in San Diego this morning. Both boys wanted to go, so it was a family outing. Credit to Waynok for today's pictures and video (if I can get a YouTube account going and fix Java, I may upload some clips.) We were a little late to the proceedings, having stopped at the Starbucks near the trolley station prior to taking public transport to the event. Turns out the opportunity cost wasn't as high as we might have thought. Someone at the City, hearing about the event, decided to gouge citizens $10 per car, for what is normally free parking. (I have no problem paying for parking, but when the city uses it as a means to attempt limit freedom of assembly, when parking is normally free on the weekend, then I take issue.)

We had a great time showing solidarity with the hundreds who ignored the rain to have a great time. We signed petitions and listened to speeches and shook hands with people whose signs and T-shirts we liked. Bought some T-shirts from SarahB. We heard appeals from representatives of not one, but two candidates, who want to challenge Susan Davis in our predominantly Democrat 53rd Congressional district. Something is definitely going on.

Lots of folks driving by honked their support. Even a driver of a city bus honked, smiled and waved too. Something is going on.

Across the street the counter-demonstration was pretty thin. A few dozen tops. Also, I couldn't figure out their purpose. A bunch of them had peacenik signs, as if a pro-war platform is the focus of the Tea Parties. Another group had signs supporting universal health care, "Single Payer Now" and "Health Care is a Right not a Privilege" were two signs. But then I noticed that they also said they were from socialistworkers.org. What morons. The Tea Party position is that the Obamacare and like bills are socialist, and you guys go and make our point. Thanks for the help.

Roger Hedgecock was great. He talked about one person making a difference and standing up for what's right. I admit that I have often concluded that the average American didn't care about constitutional limits the way I did, but now I know otherwise. Like Winston Churchill said of another war against tyranny:

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Afterwards, we got lunch nearby. We ended up at Cefalu Pizza. I may post a full review on B-Daddy's Other blog, but suffice to say they had Stone Pale Ale on draft and a terrific torpedo sub on baguette.

B-Daddy in his Viva La Reagan Revolucion shirt enjoying a Stone and Torpedo.

All in all and excellent day.

P.S. I have changed my masthead tag line to reflect the way that I believe I can best support the Tea Party movement, (Unofficial Chief Ideologist of the San Diego Tea Party Movement.) However, my ideology may or may not be mainstream to the movement. I invite the comments of Tea Partiers after viewing the Freedom Coalition Agenda, my semi-official platform, which pre-dates the Tea Parties. I will admit in advance that I am remiss in posting a plank about financial regulation and bailouts.

Apaches, Aztecs and Tea Parties

In my on line "Leadership for the Information Age" class, we were assigned reading in Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom's book, The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations. I remembered that SarahB had commented on one of Dean's posts that the Tea Party movement derived much of its power from the concepts in that book. In the first chapter the book describes how a small group of Spanish conquistadors under Cortez managed to defeat the entire Aztec nation by capturing Montezuma and sealing off the capital. Later, when the Spanish encountered the relatively unsophisticated Apaches, they wind up on the losing side of a 200 year war, in which the Apaches only grow stronger and control more territory.

The secret of the Apache success was their decentralized structure. They had no leader in the authoritarian sense, only leaders whom some tribal members chose to follow, but were not required to do so. When the Spanish burned Apache villages, they abandoned villages and became nomadic. The more the Spanish fought them, the stronger they became and the Spanish could not defeat them because they were so decentralized that no decisive blow could be brought to bear against them.

The Tea Party movement, is very much Apache in outlook, recent events notwithstanding. And I hope it stays that way. This is why the attacks on the movement have been so unsuccessful to date. In fact, this style of organization deliberately confounds the Alinsky tactics of the other side. Alinsky in turn devised his tactics to take down political entities that are in my view, mostly Aztec (centralized) in their structure (with some elements of Apache) by attacking the inevitable fissures in such organizations.

The Tea Party must coalesce around a few simple concepts, then it will have lasting impact. When key beliefs are widely agreed to, then the cultural norms will become self-enforcing and we will have a lasting movement. I nominate fiscal responsibility and a strict respect for the limits the constitution places on the federal government as the two most important and easily agreed upon planks for the movement. I welcome comment from my fellow tea partyers.

For a more comprehensive set of policies, see the Freedom Coalition agenda.