Unlike HCRP leadership, we are listening to you

The one thing about getting involved in a movement like this is that you have to have a pretty thick skin, and a sense of humor, because you start to hear things about yourself that you never knew. Rumors and innuendos are spread in an effort to discredit the messengers, rather than debate the message. As I discussed in an earlier blog, one of the first things I heard was that I, and my team, were Trojan Horses for people who still want to remove the pro-life plank of our party platform. Having shown that allegation to be hogwash, the new rumor is that we are disgruntled Ron Paul supporters who want to disrupt the party. Because this rumor could get in the way of further debate on the merits of what we are doing, I will address this rumor now to put it to bed.

I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of any political movement other than the Republican Party, which I have volunteered for, or run as a candidate for, in two different states over 33 years. I am not now, nor have I ever been a Libertarian. I am not now, nor have I ever been a supporter of Congressman Paul. I do not know the group that was involved in disrupting this summer's state convention; I was not involved in any way with that group or in that effort, and, to my knowledge, they are not involved in this effort.

However, labeling people as malcontents who should be ostracized from the party or distrusted, is inconsistent with the fundamental mission of the plan I have proposed, and with everything I believe. Many conservatives embrace the free-market and strict constructionist views of libertarian economists and legal scholars without embracing the broader Libertarian agenda. Should anyone who supports the economic teachings of Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek be driven from the party because a few people disrupted our summer convention? If so, I guess we better change the name of our annual Reagan Day Dinner, because Reagan was an enthusiastic believer in those economic teachings. Many libertarians in this part of the country are more closely aligned on social issues with traditional conservatives than libertarians in other parts of the country. Should they be ostracized? Many young people are embracing the libertarian label right now because it is more hip than the conservative or Republican label, but they don't really understand that the term libertarian has a distinct definition within the discipline and history of political science. Should we turn these young people away from the party?

As for disruptions, although I did not like what I saw and heard at the convention this summer, when did conventions become so orderly? Disorder and dissent used to be the hallmark of political conventions, allowing all factions to vent and then come together. The fact that we had people who cared enough to be a little rowdy may be a sign of future health, not a sign that the party is in trouble. If we are going to label any dissent as disrespect, our party's future is in more trouble than I thought.

We need to reunite all our factions against a common opponent. We need to embrace the energy of these people and, over time convince them that our views are more consistent with the fundamental principles of this country than are the views contained in the Libertarian Party or Paul agenda.

We need to focus on a strategy for winning elections by embracing all people who agree with our principles in every community and faction of this county, rather than ostracize or demean anyone. We absolutely don't need rumor and innuendo to drive these people away from us when they naturally agree with most of our agenda and virtually all of our principles, or to kill strategic change when it is desperately needed.