April 15th – Tax Day – inspired protests across the nation. Demonstrators rallied for smaller government, lower taxes, and liberty. They want government off their backs. They demanded it, in fact, and they are demanding that the Republican Party delivers it. The majority of the conservative movement is uniting around these central tenets of conservatism, which would typically bode well for the upcoming primaries and general elections. A handful of social conservative leaders, however, are reacting to this development with fear, and they are pushing back in ways that could cost conservatives dearly on Election Day.
While most social conservatives wisely believe the best way to protect our nation’s values is to keep the corrupting influence of government as far from our values as possible, a few social conservative leaders want to use big government to promote and enforce social values policies. These leaders advocate for expansion of government to achieve their aims, and they are not happy with the ascendancy of limited government conservatism. “There’s a libertarian streak in the tea party movement that concerns me as a cultural conservative,” Bryan Fischer, director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the American Family Association, recently told Politico. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins expressed similar concerns to Politico as well.
In this political atmosphere, groups like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family (Focus declined a request for comment) now find themselves more likely to be laying off staff than significantly influencing the direction of the Republican Party. In their weakened state, these groups are now threatening to take their ball and go home. As was reported in this space a couple of weeks ago, Tony Perkins has lashed out against conservatives. Perkins called former House Majority Leader and current FreedomWorks director Dick Armey and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist “liars” for implying that conservatives want less big government in the social arena. Perkins has further stated that he is advising Family Research Council members to stop donating to the Republican National Committee.
The latest salvo was reported in the Washington Post – on Tax Day, no less. Per the article, “conservative groups” [(i.e., Focus on the Family (link)] are demanding that the GOP fight in Congress to ban online poker. They are even demanding that this effort be undertaken as an official party position. This effort includes even scorched-earth policies, such as distributing a memo within Congress reminding everyone of the Jack Abramoff scandal…the very scandal that started the GOP’s fall from power!
Going back to the founding of modern conservatism in the 1950s and Senator Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential run, true conservatives have always believed in limited government principles – fiscally as well as socially. That is why leading conservatives, including former senator and current Poker Players Alliance Chairman Alfonse D’Amato (R-NY), former House Majority Leader and current FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey (article), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) (video), George Will (article #1, article #2), Walter Williams (article), Grover Norquist (letter to Congress), and Jacob Sullum (article #1, article #2, article #3), publicly oppose efforts to prohibit online poker.
Conservatives have a good deal of momentum right now. If we do nothing from now until Election Day, the GOP could take at least one house of Congress. However, moves against online poker can only bring harm. While such moves may appease a dwindling handful of people who will vote Republican anyway, these moves would not earn the GOP one extra vote. On the other hand, moves against online poker would cost the party the votes of many poker players and enthusiasts, as well as the votes of those who believe in Internet freedom. Additionally, such actions would convince many Americans that the GOP was using limited government promises just to get elected, while planning on immediately reverting back to their pre-2006 ways once regaining control of either house of Congress. We all saw how unpopular that was with the electorate in November 2006 and again in November 2008.
Poker players are organized and energized. The Poker Players Alliance has over one million members, and they will vote for their liberty this November. One wonders how many votes the GOP is willing to give away in efforts to appease the rapidly shrinking big government wing of the party. The bigger question is, of course, how many votes true conservatives are willing to give away?
Furthermore, most Americans believe strongly in Internet freedom. This is especially true of younger voters. They do not want any government control of this liberating medium. Americans have loudly objected to government controls over the Internet in China and Iran, and they will not support similar controls in the U.S. Additionally, most Americans accept that the gaming issue has been long settled. Commercial gaming in some form – state lotteries, Indian gaming, riverboats, casinos, etc. – is lawful in all but two states, Utah and Hawaii. To most Americans, steps against online poker are seen as nothing but protectionist measures to maximize tax revenues from licensed gaming.
Not only are bans bad policy, but steps to ban online poker are doomed to failure. The Internet is international and the U.S. does not control this medium. Unless it is placed under government control like in China, any prohibition would be nothing but a feel-good (for some) measure. The real way to control this would be to permit U.S. based sites to open. Market forces would drive business to those sites, and they would operate under U.S. law. Sites currently offshore would have to find ways to place themselves under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts to be able to compete in this market. It is too bad that some are not yet interested in true solutions, preferring instead to pander to those who refuse to see that times have changed.
Unfortunately, a handful of veteran GOP lawmakers – insulated by the inside-the-Beltway culture – pay the same heed to Focus on the Family’s lobbyists that they did back in 1984. These lawmakers have made representing (or at least claiming to represent) the American people their life’s work. Unfortunately, a lifetime on Capitol Hill is no way to stay in touch with those whom they purport to represent. As a result, groups from the 1980s like Focus on the Family have residual inertia on the Hill, while groups representing today’s conservatives are working just to gain traction.
In this environment, perhaps it is not surprising that some Republican lawmakers feel that going after online poker could shore up the support of the dwindling ranks of social issue statists. However, this should alarm the rest of the movement, who rightly feel that this would do nothing but threaten to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It is up to conservatives to tell their lawmakers that they demand fidelity to conservative principles. If we want them to fight for smaller government, lower taxes, and liberty, we need to tell them. If we do not want them wasting political capital on online poker bans, and if we do not want them fighting for smaller government fifty percent of the time and for larger government the remaining fifty percent, we need to tell them. If we want – and demand – principled, limited government conservatism, we need to tell them, because those who want big government are telling them.
Similarly, it is time to tell Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and similar groups that they do not need big government to achieve their aims. While their founders may have grown up under progressivism and still see government as a useful tool, the rest of their members surely do not. As Tony Perkins feels it is time to stop donating to the Republican Party, perhaps it is time for us to stop donating to these organizations until they stop opposing limited government conservatism.
Focus on the Family used to use a two-pronged approach to achieving its goals. The first prong was the group’s ministry, where they used to excel. The ministry assisted people in choosing of their own free will the path Focus recommends. The second prong was Focus’ Congressional and state lobbying, where Focus sought laws restricting behaviors the group deemed immoral, thus using the power of the state to achieve its ends. Sadly, the fact that Focus laid off hundreds of employees since 2002, including seventy-five just last September, while doubling-down on lobbying shows a disturbing shift in the direction of the organization. The group now prefers forcing the changes they seek through the power of the federal government over encouraging people to choose the appropriate path, and it seems they wish to push conservatism in the same direction.
Regarding the last round of layoffs, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger said, “Managers are meeting with their employees, praying with employees. We want to make sure that even after this process, they have a transition package and that’s not just about money, but helping them find a new job.” That is kind of Focus, but one imagines it is cold comfort to the families of the laid-off employees who know those salaries are now going to Washington lobbyists. One wonders how many would have voluntarily given up their jobs to ensure that Focus had sufficient funding to continue their all-encompassing fight against poker players. As poker players are showing no signs of giving up, one also wonders how many years and how much donated money Focus is planning to put into this fight, and exactly how much they will continue to demand from the GOP in this matter.
It is time to move forward. Those who advocate for big government solutions for social issues need to understand that the nation, and their cause, will be better served by embracing true conservatism. As President Ronald Reagan famously said, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”