A True Example of GOP Hypocrisy

Christopher N. Malagisi has an opinion piece on the Washington Examiner about the GOP debate that took place last week. In it, he rants that Gary Johnson and Ron Paul need to go to a different party and not disrupt the GOP because they don't agree (in his view) with what he sees as core Republican principles.

The Republican Party as a whole though is based on five fundamental principles – individual freedom, limited government, free markets, a strong national defense, and preserving our traditional values and heritage.

Really? If so, then there is some deep explaining to do.

Let's start with individual freedom. Even if you've been living under a rock for the past decade, you're familiar with the famous Republican usurption of individual rights known as the USA PATRIOT Act. (Of course, now the Republicans are blaming the Democrats for renewing it....) This Act usurped your individual freedom to privately check out a book from the public library without being suspected of conspiring to commit a criminal act (Section 215), your individual freedom to not be compelled to turn over private documents and data without probable cause — and your individual freedom to publicly acknowledge receipt of National Security Letter compelling such action (Title V), your individual freedom to provide material support or expert advice to individuals without direct knowledge that they are involved in terrorism (Section 805), and many other violations of individual freedoms protected by the Constitution.

In addition to the PATRIOT Act, we also have the issue of victimless crimes. Republicans are staunchly against legalization of marijuana, both for recreational and medical usage. They say that such laws protect the public from criminals. But from whom is the public being protected? Dealers and traffickers that protect their territory? No, that's a product of the black market created by criminalization. Users who decide to rob or steal to get the cash to afford their next fix? No, that's another product of the black market created by criminalization, and is also illegal under other laws to serve to protect victims.

To answer that question, we must really go back to the roots of prohibition. In the 1910's, there was a large influx of Mexicans into the American rural labor force. While the drug of choice for an American after a hard days' work was alcohol, the drug of choice for the Mexicans was cannabis. The tension between farms using American labor and farms using cheaper Mexican labor lead to cannabis prohibitions in the Southwest. Later in the 1930's, a method for efficiently producing paper from hemp was developed (later found to be ineffective). This lead to leading newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst to lobby Congress to prohibit the cultivation of hemp as a crop for goods manufactured from its fibers as it threatened his extensive holdings in the timber industry. DuPont also got involved, as they had developed nylon at the time.

Another victimless crime that intrudes upon individual liberty is the crime of uncompelled prostitution. Personally, I draw a clear distinction between a prostitute who chooses to sell sex for money and a prostitute who is being compelled by another entity (such as a pimp) to sell sex for money. If someone wants to be a prostitute, there should not be any legal barriers other than those necessary to address public health concerns. By supporting making the world's oldest profession a crime, Republicans support taking away the individual's freedom of choice to enter into a business transaction at will.

Moving on, we come to limited government. Now, the GOP gives President Ronald Reagan godlike status asserting that Reagan's Presidency was the pinnacle of limited government. What they don't tell you is what really happened during the Reagan Administration. Reagan massively increased the size and budget of the federal government to the point that, during the administration, it was the largest post-WWII federal government. In addition, the U.S. National Debt nearly tripled during his administration. Such expansions of government have been the theme of the GOP since. Yes, the Democrats try to expand government faster, but you should look at is as Republicans expand government in "Drive" while the Democrats expand government in "Overdrive". So much for the principle of Limited Government in the Republican Party.

Free Market? One has to look no further than corporate tax subsidies. According to the GOP, corporate subsidies are part of the definition of "free market". Last time I checked, the free market had minimal government involvement, and definitely not subsidizing particular industries.

Strong National Defense? Of course, I'm for a strong national defense. But most of the GOP will say that calls for invading countries like Iraq who pose no legitimate threat to domestic interests. Heck, even some of them say that you are Anti-American or Unpatriotic if you don't believe that the U.S. should assist and defend Israel at all costs.

And finally, as for "our traditional values and heritage", what values, exactly, is the writer referring to? His specific values? The values of a small segment of the population? What about the Constitutionally-protected value of Equal Protection? I certainly don't see that being preserved by the Right when it applies to groups of people whose lifestyles are in conflict with the average Republican's religious convictions. It seems to me that the GOP believes that those who do not adhere to the GOP's idea of a social norm are inferior and therefore do not deserve to be protected by and afforded the same legal rights as others. At least, that's what I gather from their staunch opposition on certain social issues such as LGBT rights. So I guess that the "our" wasn't meant to imply American values, but rather Republican-approved values.

I would have expected a much better level of rationality from a "President of the Young Conservatives Coalition, a National Review Institute Washington Fellow, and an Adjunct Professor."

The Republican Party has been referred to recently as the The Party of No. But I don't think that's quite accurate the more that I read articles and hear people speak about alleged Republican principles. A more accurate term might be The Party of Buts — "...based on five fundamental principles – individual freedom (BUT only those we approve), limited government (BUT so long as 'limited' means 'slower than Democrats'), free markets (BUT with federal financial support of private companies), a strong national defense (BUT only if it includes nation-building and holding Israel high on a pedestal), and preserving our traditional values (BUT only if those values don't conflict with our personal religious beliefs) and heritage."