Santelli drew attention for his remarks made on February 19, 2009, about the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan, which was announced on February 18. While broadcasting from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Santelli accused the government of "promoting bad behavior", and raised the possibility of a "Chicago Tea Party". He suggested that individuals who knowingly obtained high-risk mortgages (and faced impending foreclosure as a consequence) were "losers". The Tea Party remark was credited by some as launching the Tea Party movement.Some credit a 2007 fundraiser for Ron Paul's second Presidential run on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, but Santelli's suggestion of a Chicago Tea Party not only come to came to fruition but quickly spread like wildfire across America. And keep in mind social conservatism and immigration opposition had been a part of national politics long before the new movement spread in 2009-2010, one that particularly focused on limiting government:
It demands a reduction in the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing government spending and taxes. "What started five years ago as a groundswell of conservatives committed to curtailing the reach of the federal government, cutting the deficit and countering the Wall Street wing of the Republican Party..."[NYT] The Tea Party has generally sought to avoid placing too much emphasis on traditional conservative social issues. National Tea Party organizations, such as the Tea Party Patriots and FreedomWorks, have expressed concern that engaging in social issues would be divisive. Instead, they have sought to have activists focus their efforts away from social issues and focus on economic and limited government issues...The Tea Party generally focuses on government reform, including a significant reduction in the size and scope of the government. Tea Party members generally advocate a national economy operating without government oversight. Among its goals are limiting the size of the federal government, reducing government spending, lowering the national debt and opposing tax increases.Now a logical consequence of limited government includes narrowing the expense and mission of the military:
Some Tea Party affiliated Republicans, such as Michele Bachmann, Jeff Duncan, Connie Mack IV, Jeff Flake, Tim Scott, Joe Walsh, Allen West, and Jason Chaffetz, voted for progressive Congressman Dennis Kucinich's resolution to withdraw U.S. military personnel from Libya.In the Senate, three Tea Party backed Republicans, Jim DeMint, Mike Lee and Michael Crapo, voted to limit foreign aid to Libya, Pakistan and Egypt. Tea Partiers in both houses of Congress have shown willingness to cut foreign aid. Most leading figures within the Tea Party both within and outside Congress opposed military intervention in Syria.As for immigration, you would think that a movement skeptical of Big Government and supportive of individual rights would be open to liberalized immigration:
Ideologically, support for immigration is thoroughly consistent with the Tea Party’s enthusiastic endorsement of the unfettered free market. In fact, for years, libertarian, pro-free enterprise groups like the CATO Institute have joined business groups and immigration advocates in calling for less government regulation of immigration — a position that critics call an “open borders” policy.It's clear where Gary North, the self-styled Tea Party economist, stands. Before going further, unlike other pro-liberty people, he does not shy away from the label conservative:
My first vote as an adult was for Goldwater in 1963. I have been in the conservative movement since 1956. How conservative am I? Consider this. I voted against Ronald Reagan in the 1966 Republican primary for Governor because I thought he was too liberal.So when he references 'conservative' here, I think he's really referencing right-wing populism, as I'll argue below:
Central planning by the federal government is officially opposed by conservatives until you show them a marker that says "United States" on one side, and "Mexico" on the other. Then: "Congress needs to build a fence!" The believers in fences offer many arguments. Some of them say this: "Those people want to get free government welfare. We cannot afford it."The defender of liberty replies in two ways: "First, these programs should be abolished. They are based on government planning and coercive wealth redistribution. They are the main problem, not any immigrants who may sign up. Second, the sooner they go bankrupt, the better. Let immigrants sign up."Here are some of his recent posts on Lew Rockwell's website:
Second, the conservative says this: "These immigrants will undermine our social way of life. They're just too different. The American way of life cannot survive open immigration. Change will overwhelm the American way of life." The defender of liberty responds: "The free market changes America every day. Innovations undermine our way of life, moment by moment. Innovation makes our lives better." Second, he replies: "Why do you think Congress can pass a law restricting freedom of travel and freedom of contract, and thereby preserve the good parts of our way of life? Why do you trust the federal government's good judgment in matters social and economic? Why have you become an apologist for central planning? Why have you become an advocate of social engineering by federal politicians and bureaucrats?" Conservatives remain silent. They have never thought of this, and they don't want to have to re-think what they say they believe in, namely, that Congress cannot safely be trusted on matters economic. They are saying that Congress can provide a Goldilocks solution: not too much social change, but not too little. The defender of liberty asks: "When has Congress ever legislated a Goldilocks solution? When has the federal bureaucracy ever enforced it as written, let alone as justified by members of the voting bloc in Congress that passed it?"
Third, the conservative says this: "Immigrants will get jobs here. They will take jobs away from Americans." It invokes nationalism over liberty.
No Need for Immigration American bosses will hire workers in foreign lands through Skype and digital English, says Gary North.
Do Illegal Immigrants Steal Americans’ Jobs? Only mercantilists believe that, says Gary North.
So when the Daily Caller piece cited above talks about a split in the Tea Party over immigration. I will submit it's one of basically two factions: pro-liberty conservatives (libertarian Republicans) and right-wing populists. (I list myself in the former group, which I consider the core faction and intellectual center of the Tea Party movement.) A decent Wikipedia compilations of relevant American politicians is here. I'm going to flesh out some of what North said and I'm going to also tie my point to a recent guest rant I posted on the Libertarian Republican blog (not related to the Wikipedia discussion).
But first note that even among the identified Libertarian Republicans there are some subtle differences. Let us recall the Libertarian Party's position:
We welcome all refugees to our country. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference. We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.For example, Ron Paul has offered at least 2 reasons to oppose open borders: trespassing private property and a more populist argument about immigrants driving down wages. Block notes that Ron Paul's arguments are weak and violate liberty principles. Rand Paul also shows a bit of a populist streak in paying lip service to securing the Mexican border and recently said, to my chagrin, that the French might want to rethink Muslim immigration in the aftermath of last week's Charlie terror attack.
Now if you've followed my FB Corner feature, there are a couple of standard talking points that constantly seem to be mushrooming every few days, and it's like playing constant Whac-a-Mole. One is the constant reiteration of Friedman's thesis over no legal immigration until we do away with our unsustainable welfare state. Actually, as I've pointed out, this is disingenuous because Friedman knew the win-win case for immigration, he praised contributions of illegal immigrants, and his concerns over immigrants exacerbating welfare state costs could be addressed at program eligibility policy. It's grossly unfair to scapegoat immigrants for the welfare net; note that during the nineteenth century we had strong immigration despite a small-footprint federal government and little, if any government services. But doing away with the welfare net is almost impossible: when exactly did Rome stop bribing citizens with bread and circuses? For every fiscal reformer out there, there's a demagogue waiting to run against him. The odds are stacked against any repeal, e.g., filibuster-sustaining minorities, vetoes, etc. And notice that it isn't just Democrats; many GOP politicians get elected on promises of "saving" the entitlements. Does any politician relish having to answer populist charges that the government is balancing the budget on the backs of the aged, sick and poor? It always seems to me that the argument is more a diversion and politically self-serving, e.g., the anti-immigrant argues that he is looking to shore up the welfare net for the sake of native citizens. Note, however, that there is deferred or no access to the welfare system depending on immigrant status, and Nowrasteh points out, unauthorized immigrant flows have correlated more strongly with a strong job market than with higher welfare system disbursements, which exploded during the Great Recession.
A second pet peeve deals with the endless corporation-bashing, especially in the Ron Paul group. I think this is another way Ron Paul shows a populist streak, because he emphasizes critiques of crony capitalism, Wall Street and corporatism, which, succinctly put, refers to a government-dominated economy nominally in private hands: government does not need to own production in order to control it with regulations and other dysfunctional policies. Leftists put the cart before horse; they start with the assumption that corporations "own" government, Big Business is intrinsically and independently evil, etc. To be sure, there are benefits for businesses that cooperate with government which has power over the economy and their industries:
Capitalism is a social system based upon the recognition of individual rights, including private property rights where all goods, both intermediate goods and final goods, are owned privately. The “rights” referred to above are ethical-legal principles that identify and sanction man's freedom of action strictly within a social context. Under capitalism, each individual possesses the legally unalterable authority to support and sustain himself, to conduct himself in accordance with his own independent judgment, to control the material product of his mental and/or physical labour, and, in connection with these rights, each and every individual has the legal authority to be free from the initiation of physical force. All relationships under capitalism must be formed voluntarily between consenting adults. Furthermore, this absence of aggression that exists under capitalism allows for the formation of the free market, the vast network of voluntary exchanges of property titles to intermediate and final goods.There's a reason I've been fleshing out some of Ron Paul's populism and minor deviations from pro-liberty orthodoxy positions like open borders. Let's review right-wing populism:
Corporatism is a social system where the government intervenes aggressively into the economy, typically with political instruments that benefit large corporations and enterprises to the detriment of smaller businesses and private citizens. Such instruments include subsidies, tariffs, import quotas, exclusive production privileges such as licenses, anti-trust laws, and compulsory cartelization designs. All involve the initiation of physical force: subsidies come from taxes, tariffs are taxes, import quotas restrict trade, license schemes prohibit non-licensed producers from producing certain goods, anti-trust laws allow competitors to gain or retain market share through legal competition in court, and compulsory cartelization speaks for itself. Similar to socialist governments, corporatist authorities seize control of land and capital goods when they feel it is necessary to do so without regard for private property rights. However, unlike socialist governments, corporatist states usually do not formally nationalize private sector firms, choosing instead to assume de facto control over them rather than de jure control. This difference however is procedural, one of style, not of essence.
It's fairly easy to see how anti-elitism fits in, e.g., the ruling class of professional politicians or unaccountable bureaucrats, Wall St. vs. Main St., a President who used to grocery shop at (pricey) Whole Foods, owns a mansion, socializes and fund-raises with Hollywood and other celebrities and ponders why Midwesterners cling to their Bibles and guns instead of voting for him. I want to suggest that there is a sense of cultural identity in American exceptionalism, including opportunities for upward mobility; the sense of preserving the culture may manifest itself in terms of a sense of patriotism and an accompanying belief in a strong national defense, and/or strict immigration controls.
Right-wing populism is a political ideology that rejects existing political consensus and often combines laissez-faire liberalism and anti-elitism. It is considered populism because of its appeal to the "common man" as opposed to the elites. In Europe, however, right-wing populist parties are generally known for their opposition to immigration and the European Union, as well as their increasing support for the welfare state and a "more lavish, but also more restrictive, domestic social spending" scheme. Right-wing populism is distinct from the historic right, which had been concerned with preserving the "status quo", and mostly do not have roots in their political parties.
Now for those of us in the pro-liberty camp, a large standing military is not only very expensive to maintain, but is a sore temptation to be used over and beyond legitimate self-defense in meddlesome missions and require unsustainable long-term resource commitments; we see unnecessary war as not only immoral but fundamentally destructive of the nation's wealth. We are skeptical of nationalism at the expense of individual liberty. We see a huge national bureaucracy in immigration as no more respectful of fundamental rights (including migration and a party's right to contract) than other forms of central planning.
As a case in point, consider the Libertarian Republican blog. The first thing you notice are pictures of Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater's image is overlaid with "national defense". (Friedman was nominally registered as a Republican. While Rand clearly loathed the leftist Democratic agenda and occasionally supported certain Republicans, she was an atheist and had issues with the Republican Party.) Goldwater had broken with the Old Right in a more direct challenge to Communism and had his own populist deviations from liberty principles, e.g., campaign finance reform.
In Saturday's post, I republished my recent rant comment in the Libertarian Republican blog. The blog is co-founded by a past Ron Paul staffer who does not share his non-interventionist views. Since the blog editors often speak of voting for Libertarian Party candidates when it seems GOP candidates have a lock on an election, I assumed the blog shared a number of their stands on the issues, like immigration; instead, the blog focuses a lot on Muslim radicalism and rising Muslim immigrant cultural integration issues in Europe. In part, there is a fear in Europe and to a lesser extent in the US (e.g., Pat Buchanan) of losing a cultural/ethnic identity (even Thomas Jefferson voiced similar concerns). Several weeks back, there was some description of nativism, and one of the editors wrote something to the effect of "hey, that's us--nativists". To me, it was totally unexpected; I commented back to the effect, "You realize that's not a good thing, right? Like the Know Nothing party, the KKK, etc." But it soon became clear this was no mistake; if and when the blog features immigration stories, they are usually reflect a negative perspective.
I had been biting my tongue for some time as the blog has redefined left- and right-libertarianism. Consider this sample comment from an editor:
In fact, Ron Paul is commonly characterized as a right-libertarian as in the above-cited Walter Block piece. And again, here:
- Correction: That's left-libertarians who fail in the GOP, like Ron Paul. Centrist libertarians like Johnson, and right-libertarians like Cain can succeed, and do.
Queenstown, Md.: Ron Paul is considered a right-libertarian, more of the Rothbard-Rockwell wing of the libertarian movement. Are left-libertarians, the more permissive wing of the libertarian movement, as supportive of Ron Paul?I can only infer that Dondero's use of the term left-libertarian in the above quote reflects on Ron Paul's non-interventionist views, i.e., prominent alliances of left-wing groups with anti-war movements. But the unsustainable high costs of ill-advised foreign meddling and acquiring/maintaining an empire of territories, not to mention the hypocrisy of a country which won its independence from tyranny subjugating another, make a non-interventionist policy consistent with a right-wing principled, fiscally conservative perspective. The Old Right, including the late Sen. Robert Taft, pushed back over prospective wars, alliances, etc. Within the right wing coalition there are at least two groups with a relevant coherent perspective: libertarians (this is a natural consequence of the widely held non-aggression principle) and paleoconservatives (e.g., Pat Buchanan). Conservative icon Russell Kirk vehemently argued against Bush 41's (first) Gulf War. Whereas these groups may be small relative to the overall anti-war and/or right-wing coalition, arguing they don't exist is a state of denial. In contrast, consider Sheldon Richmond's description of left-libertarian, clearly not relevant to Ron Paul:
Nick Gillespie: Ron Paul channels a populist streak, which plays well with left-libertarians. His consistent and principled antiwar position is the single most important dimension of his appeal to all voters, I think.
Left-libertarians favor worker solidarity vis-à-vis bosses, support poor people's squatting on government or abandoned property, and prefer that corporate privileges be repealed before the regulatory restrictions on how those privileges may be exercised. They see Walmart as a symbol of corporate favoritism—supported by highway subsidies and eminent domain—view the fictive personhood of the limited-liability corporation with suspicion, and doubt that Third World sweatshops would be the "best alternative" in the absence of government manipulation. Left-libertarians tend to eschew electoral politics, having little confidence in strategies that work through the government. They prefer to develop alternative institutions and methods of working around the stateI found some additional insights to the distinction:
The way I always saw it, right wing libertarianism is founded off of negative rights: Don't tread on me, don't let the government interfere.
Left wing libertarianism promotes personal freedom but places a much higher emphasis on doing right, equality, and positive rights: Promoting equality for instance or social justice. This requires a more active state to right social wrongs rather than sit back and laissez faire. They are much more skeptical of large corporations and care a lot about "the people". They believe in free markets to a much lesser extent than right libertarians.
Left libertarians want to see reduced power of corporations, large banks, etc. and more worker's rights and income equality. They believe a true free market system would do this. In practice they're more willing to support laws to stop what they see as "robber baron" capitalism than right libertarians.
Right-libertarians tend to think that the threat of corporations is exaggerated, that they're misunderstood, and that corporations are a red herring, a boogeyman no different than the Soviet Union during the Cold War, paraded in front of the people to justify excesses and centralization of power that they wouldn't usually permit.
Left-libertarians, on the other hand, believe that corporations are just as bad as the government, are, in fact, another, nascent form of government, and that the fight for liberty must be carried out on two fronts.
Right wing libertarianism is anti-government pro-marketThus, I see the Libertarian Republican blog as more a right-wing populist one; I think this is confirmed if you look at the posts. For example, they cover a lot of stories on UKIP. Consider the following excerpt from UKIP's own website:
Left wing libertarianism is anti-government anti-market (big business in particular)
As a party we are unashamedly patriotic: we believe there is so much to be proud about Britain and the contribution it has made to the world. We believe Britain must get back control over its borders, while limiting the overall numbers of migrants and keeping out those without the skills or aptitudes to be of benefit to the nation.Eurotopics has a number of stories on UKIP and other parties under the heading "Right-wing populists on the rise".
I'm under the right-libertarian group of anarcho-capitalists and minarchists (myself). I think we're the ideologically consistent intellectual heart and soul of the Tea Party movement, although we are likely outnumbered by other conservative groups in the coalition.
