Working Within the System: The Republican Liberty Caucus

Following last month’s interview with the Democratic Freedom Caucus, The Free Liberal took a look at the other side of the aisle and found a thriving force for libertarian and classical liberal views within the Republican Party. The Republican Liberty Caucus [RLC] takes freedom seriously, beckoning the GOP toward positions that advance both economic and civil liberties. No shrinking violet, the RLC’s Chairman William Westmiller is quick to praise liberty-minded Republicans and just as quick to urge the Republicans to mend their ways and move in a more freedom-oriented direction. He and the RLC believe that freedom should evolve, but are open to more revolutionary steps toward liberty.

The Free Liberal’s contributing editor Robert Capozzi conducted this interview with Westmiller in April 2005.

The RLC’s website is www.rlc.org.

FL: Please tell us about the RLC. When were you founded? What are your organization’s primary goals?

WW: The RLC is the result of a number of efforts that were related to Republican/libertarian activism prior to the RLC. There was a group called the Libertarian Republican Alliance, which was founded by Joe Gentili and Cliff Thies and another organization called the Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee, which was founded by Eric Garris and Justin Raimondo. The RLC was first used as a name by a group in North Carolina that was supporting libertarian-oriented candidates. Activists from those organizations moved to the RLC during 1990 and 1991, and for most of the past decade, the organization has been run by two people: Cliff Thies and Mike Holmes. The RLC probably wouldn’t have gotten off its feet had it not been for Roger MacBride, who in addition to being the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1976, had been very active in the Republican Party and was very supportive of the efforts of the RLC.

We’ve been through about 15 years of activity, with all the problems and successes along the way. The organization has been expanding quickly, adding a dozen state chapters within the past year and we now have Coordinators in almost every state.

Our purpose is very simple: We are advocates for individual rights, limited government, and free enterprise. We are pursuing those ideals and objectives within the Republican Party. We support candidates who pursue those ideals. In addition to supporting candidates, we take positions on issues that match our ideals.

FL: Why not the Democrat Party?

WW: It’s a strategic perception of where the opportunities are. We believe that Republican Party members are going to be much more amenable to libertarian ideals. We’ve done a “Liberty Index” every year for the past fifteen, showing clearly that we are not left wing or right wing. We are in the Republican Party because we see people like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, and Representatives Ron Paul and Jeff Flake, who are pursuing our ideals much more than Democratic officeholders.

FL: Have there been any Democrats who have scored highly on the Liberty Index?

WW: Yes, Zell Miller, a Democrat from Georgia, came in as one of the top-rated Senators last year.

FL: Why did you feel the need to create your own caucus in the GOP?

WW: We were an heir to prior attempts to influence the Republican Party toward libertarian ideals. Our success fluctuates, with candidates and platforms, from year to year, but we are trying to move the party toward libertarian ideals. We’ve been successful in supporting a lot of candidates who advocate the positions we hold. We’ve been able to attract a large number of Libertarian Party candidates, who got 2 or 3% of the general election votes, to run as Republicans and get 35, 40 or 45%. We’ve actually elected several state legislators.

FL: Historically, while Republicans use a lot of free market rhetoric, domestic spending has jumped sometimes faster under Republican Presidents then under Democrats. Do you consider leaving the GOP with this track record?

WW: We don’t. But we don’t have any reservations about opposing and criticizing them, pointing out the “errors of their ways,” whether they are Republican presidents, or candidates, or Congressmen. We don’t pledge any fealty to the Republican Party, or to legislators, or platforms. We are explicitly there to change the party, not to just act as an auxiliary of the party. We specifically decided not to formally affiliate with the Republican Party, so that we have the flexibility to endorse the candidates we prefer in the primaries. Most of our activity occurs in primary elections. We’re looking for the best candidates to win the Republican Party nomination and actually change the direction of the country.

FL: Republicans tend to be more restrictive on social issues, perhaps more so in recent years with the rise in the so-called Christian Right. Christy Todd Whitman’s book warns that this could be the undoing of the GOP. How do you see the situation on social issues in the GOP?

WW: The RLC explicitly and intentionally takes no position on the abortion issue. That’s the only issue where our members can hold the same principles and come to different conclusions. We don’t even consider the abortion issue when we review candidates for endorsement. But, on a host of other issues, we’re very strong advocates for equal rights, civil liberties, and so on. We took a very strong position in opposition to the Federal Marriage Constitutional Amendment. We have a large number of members who are gays and lesbians. In fact, I’m going to be speaking to the Log Cabin Republicans (a gay Republican organization) soon. We do not advocate some of the radical position that the Libertarian Party does, but we favor evolution of alternatives, to the Drug War, to laws against marijuana, and so on. We work hand in hand with a lot of medical marijuana organizations and have exchanged our membership list with them.

There are a host of issues on which we conflict with the social conservatives, and we understand that. But we’re willing to look at the issues one at a time. So, while we might be focused on legalizing medical marijuana this year, next year we might look at the minimum sentencing laws on some of the harder drugs. We might look at reducing the FDA’s ability to designate certain drugs on its schedules of controlled substances, but we don’t insist that candidates support the legalization of all drugs tomorrow.

We’re an organization that sees the political process as an evolutionary one, not a revolutionary one. We’d be happy if the “revolution” came, but in the meantime, we’re happy to take it one step at a time and move the Republican Party in our direction.

FL: Which candidates do you support? Which Republicans in office do you find most in line with RLC’s approach?

WW: We do have a PAC – political action committee – that supports and endorses different candidates. It does include a fair number of incumbents, many of whom were unopposed in the last election. One that we consistently endorse is Rep. Ron Paul. We usually endorse Dana Rohrabacher, Congressman from California, although his rating has been a little soft lately. The highest-rated candidate last year was actually Rep. Jeff Flake from Arizona.

There are a fair number of others we endorse, for example, J. D. Hayworth, John Shadegg for Congress and Dean Martin for Arizona senate. Toby Nixon is a Washington state representative – a member who was endorsed by us, supported by us, and re-elected. We endorsed a fair number of U.S. Senate candidates: Sam Brownback, Robert Bennett, Jim Bunning, Todd Aiken and Zack Wamp, who were all re-elected. We also favor candidates who are running against those we consider to be authoritarian or statist, like John Thune against Senator Tom Daschle.

FL: You say: “We support the original intent of an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Let’s test that. Does that mean that NY cannot ban machines guns on the streets of Manhattan?

WW: Our position is very clear: The object is to support the Second Amendment, and to recognize the right of every individual to self defense. Our members may disagree on where the line gets drawn –at automatic weapons, or tanks, or nuclear bombs. Obviously, there is a line there where it ceases to be self defense, but there are plenty of laws that restrict the simple right to bear personal firearms that everyone recognizes as legitimate tools of self defense. There’s lots of work that could be done in that area without having to be concerned about atomic bombs.

FL: You say: “We oppose all corporate and business taxes, which are a form of double taxation of the participants on the same income or profit.” But the corporate form is a creation of the State, giving corporations “limited liability.” Why not charge them for that privilege?

WW: We would favor eliminating the privilege of limited liability. Strict liability should apply to all owners of a corporation. We oppose financial support for business – subsidies and legal concessions – as well as the burdens the government imposes, such as regulations and taxes. We are in favor of free enterprise and free markets. We oppose almost all of the regulatory institutions that currently exist in the federal government. In some cases, we are in favor of clear, rights-protecting laws that may have the same function as a particular regulation.

FL: By “rights protecting,” do you mean pollution?

WW: Yes. Everyone in our organization agrees that pollution is an infringement of rights; it’s an assault on people who have not voluntarily consented to it, and pollution of water is a use of public resources that’s injuring other people.

FL: You say: “We favor foreign military action only upon a Declaration of War by Congress in the face of an imminent and clear threat to the United States.” President Bush did not ask for a declaration of war in Iraq, nor did he make the case that there was an imminent and clear threat on the US from Iraq. Does the RLC support the Iraq War?

WW: The RLC has taken no official position on the Iraq war, because they disagree on the application of the facts to the principles. We favor a declaration of war, so we’re opposed to any war – since none has been declared since World War II – that isn’t authorized by Congress. We’re opposed to wars that don’t have a clear objective and don’t constitute a clear and present danger to the United States itself. We’re opposed to imperialism, adventurism, wars of convenience, but our members have disagreed on whether or not the Iraq War qualifies. I think all our members supported the attack on Afghanistan and the Taliban. Based on the evolution of the facts, I think most of our members support as prompt an exit from Iraq as possible.

FL: With the Christian Right and the corporate wings of the GOP firmly in charge, are you optimistic that you can move the Republicans in a libertarian direction? If so, why?

WW: I don’t know that it’s a factual proposition that the corporate wing “controls” the GOP. I do understand and appreciate that they have enormous lobbying power, and enormous influence on Congress. But, in terms of grassroots, local and state party activities, I don’t think it’s proper to say the party is totally controlled by corporate America. We have members who are in very prominent corporate positions who advocate, as strongly as anyone else, against both the subsidies and the regulations that burden industry. We have some grounds for sympathy for what you might call “corporatists,” but at the same time, we oppose all the pork-barrel spending, all the special subsidies, all the special rights that are extended to businesses.

What we have in common with the Christian Right is that we do believe that individual rights are a consequence of the nature of man; we agree with them on the foundation of individual rights. The difference is that most religious conservatives believe that the government should act as an agent for “good” social conduct. They think the government should get involved in both rewarding and punishing people to do “good” things. We would disagree with them on that. We think all government activities should be rights-based; unless there’s a violation of rights, the government shouldn’t be involved. It’s my personal opinion that the influence of the religious right – who advocate all kinds of restraints on the culture and social interaction to be dictated by the government – is becoming less and less influential in the GOP. The exit poll results in the last election, assuming “moral values” were religious litmus tests for voters, were grossly distorted.

FL: Ronald Reagan sometimes referred to himself as a libertarian, and so did Bill Clinton. Is there reason to believe that there’s going to be movement in an across-the-board freedom perspective?

WW: We see day in and day out a very strong inclination among Republicans – not quite so much Democrats – of claiming affinity with libertarian ideals. We hear talk show hosts Joe Scarborough and Sean Hannity frequently embracing our ideals. We’re impressed that former Congressman Bob Barr is now working for the ACLU. Because he’s taking a lot of libertarian positions, we endorsed him in his last Congressional race.

We are seeing a lot of conservatives mellowing their positions in favor of libertarian principles of government. In the media and mainline legislators, we see a building affinity for libertarian ideals. We’re very optimistic.

FL: Tell us about the “Liberty Index.”

WW: The Liberty Index was put together by Clifford Thies, a Professor of Economics at Shenandoah University. He was one of our first RLC Chairman, and served for eight years. He took David Nolan’s liberty graph, which accounted for a difference in the approach to economic and individual liberties that corresponded with the left and right spectrums, the most common political analysis image and changed it to a two-dimensional grid. Recognizing that a Congressman who was 100% in favor of economic liberty might be 100% opposed to individual and civil liberty.

Cliff took the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz” and applied the concept to actual roll call votes in both the House and the Senate. He took a large number – 20 economic and personal votes in each chamber – and identified those that he thought would correspond with the economic and personal liberty axes. He’s been doing that for 14 years. On our website, you can not only see the overall votes, but the roll-call vote ratings of every Senator and Representative over that period.

The ideal rating is 100% personal liberty and 100% economic liberty. We haven’t had anybody hit that, but we have had Ron Paul and Jeff Flake get 100% on either the economic or civil liberties rating. There are a fair number of Congressmen and Senators who end up being in the libertarian quadrant.

FL: Any parting thoughts for Free Liberal readers?

WW: The RLC strongly welcomes liberals just as it does conservatives who are active within the Republican Party. We recognize the importance of civil liberties and equal treatment under the law. We are as happy to have a liberal inclined to libertarian ideals as we are to have conservatives inclined to libertarianism. We have no litmus test for members; we have no litmus test on specific principles and positions. We’re willing to consider a wide range of candidates for our endorsement and support. Of course, we welcome anyone who is interested in joining our organization and advancing our goals.

FL: Thank you, Mr. Westmiller.