Intelligence, Please…

Las Vegas is insane.

Everything I’ve heard about this Disneyland-for-adults is true: neon, sparkles, bells & whistles, herds (and hordes) of people, STAR WARS slot machines (pictures later)…I will definitely have to come back here one day for purposes other than business. My friend Jon Henke (@JonHenke) and I flew from DC yesterday by way of Newark, NJ and didn’t even land in Vegas until 1am PT…it was a long day, and I slept in a bit. It was easy to do in my posh suite at the Venetian, with my sunken living room and remote-controlled drapes! Life is hard.

The first panel I attended today featured Todd Thurman (@toddthurman) of the Heritage Foundation, Brian Faughnan (@brianfaughnan) of Liberty Central, and Alexa Moutevelis (@alexashrugged) of the RNC, all moderated by my Liberty Pundits co-blogger Melissa Clouthier (@melissatweets). The panel focused on connecting grassroots activists in the field to policy shops in DC – like Heritage, Cato, or other think tanks – as well as to communications resources and activism training like those offered by FreedomWorks or the Leadership Institute.

Probably one of the better bits of information passed along during the discussion was the notion that activists in the field shouldn’t be shy about engaging DC-based resources. Yes, DC is busy. Yes, DC occasionally has a heightened, over-inflated sense of self. But DC is also sitting on piles of your cash, looking for a way to return value back to you. So don’t be shy about sending emails or picking up the phones to ask for help.

But more than just connecting grassroots activists to DC to get talking points and policy papers to support candidates back home, the panel focused on connecting activist to activist using technology – that means Twitter, Facebook, the blogosphere, and other online resources.

The RNC announced some nascent, new API and they are transitioning all of their online tools to an open-source platform…the API is apparently already available for developers…more on this later. Despite this move to make RNC resources more available to more people, there was some grumbling in the audience that the RNC fails (on occasion) to return voter vaults back to activists on the ground once they pull out of town following a race. This makes people currently involved with components of the Tea Party movement a bit reticent to cooperate with the RNC in Washington.

After a few questions, and after some dancing around the issue, I asked the panel: is there a sense, going into this November’s elections (and subsequently in 2012) that the Right should be worried about the Left exploiting a growing rift between conservatives and libertarians? If so, how can we, or more appropriately, should we be doing anything differently than the suggestions you’ve all made here today to, strengthen the coalition between these two groups?

The consensus from the panel seemed to be that there’s not really any danger this year – libertarians and conservatives agree in principle that the prevailing issue of this election is the economy, stupid. Throwing the bums out is priority #1 in 2010. But the funnel of candidates is currently full, and the new Congressional primary begins, effectively, on November 3 – it is possible that infighting on the Right might get nastier in 2011 and 2012.

Todd Thurman told me after the panel “We just need to make sure we’re talking, and that we’re sticking together in areas where we agree.” I agree in principle with this strategy, but only inasmuch as it’s a first step. Because there is potential for infighting to become nastier on the Right as we approach 2012, it’s important to talk about areas where we disagree too – libertarians remain (rightly) mistrustful of the Big Government GOP – the same GOP that is trying to ride the Tea Party Tiger into new majorities this fall. Ignoring our differences now can be our foil later.

Cross-posted at Liberty Pundits and The Next Right.

After running across this piece in the Economist today, I was reminded of that timeless adage “You’ll attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.” That’s a woefully good reminder for the Right as Election Day draws nearer.

Plenty of noise has been made in the past few weeks about the abrupt resignation/firing of Dave Weigel from the Washington Post blog “Right Now.” I have been a defender of Weigel’s, in large part because I think people’s expectations of Weigel were too high – and that’s not to disparage Weigel at all, whose work I have followed for a couple of years. The problem was, in my view, that lots of activists expected him to counter Ezra Klein’s “Wonk Book” with an editorial style, using his platform at the Post to propel the Tea Party to the revery where so many believed it belonged. Another part of the problem is that, as Dan Gainor at the Media Research Center notes, the Post was never clear about why it had hired Weigel in the first place. Reporting? Check. Opinion? Maybe? I still think Weigel does a good job of reporting, and if he’s guilty of anything, it’s a preoccupation with man-bites-dog narratives. Aside from all that, I don’t have much to add to the gallons of punditry sloshing around the Internet about Weigel-gate.

The reason I bring Weigel’s short-lived stint at the Post back up for discussion is that the reaction from the activist community to Weigel’s resignation – particularly on Twitter – was pretty vicious, with lots of “Good riddance” and “we told you so.” Then came the announcement that Weigel would be a paid MSNBC contributor on Countdown with Keith Olbermann – and activists were once again a-Twitter with disgust. Thankfully there was an equivalent outpouring of support for Weigel. I disagree with Keith Olbermann frequently, particularly when it comes to his sneering punditry and progressive worldview. I appreciate that he was the first (and for a long time only) mainstream media personality to cover the devastating flooding in my hometown of Nashville earlier this year, and he and I share in New York Yankees fan-dom. But why the Weigel witch-hunt on the Right?

And then it hit me: the Right and center-right are still obsessed with (plagued by?) litmus tests that, unchecked, can be impossible to pass. And not normal litmus tests either – sure, nobody wants to see another John McCain presidential campaign – I mean the conservative base is so energized right now that it has become bloodthirsty, and it’s beginning to feed on itself. Long-time allies to conservatives – the libertarians – have begun to take notice.

I urge everyone to check out this written exchange between Cato Institute’s Brink Lindsey, AEI/National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg, and FreedomWorks’ Matt Kibbe, a debate on where libertarians belong on the 21st century ideological spectrum, and how they can, should, and might play in the activist/political component of the Tea Party movement. Romantic libertarians like yours truly hope wistfully one day to inform a more rigorous social policy agenda – one that actually gets government out of people’s lives, including their marriages and sex lives – to complement existing tenets of economic freedom upon which, for the most part, everyone right-of-center seems to reaching consensus. But because of these purity tests, many libertarians worry that the emergence of centrist rhetoric at Tea Party rallies is nothing more than a ruse to grab handfuls of votes on Election Day 2010 and 2012, and then Big Government conservatism does us all in – again.

Remember: if the base were 100% correct, they'd be in power, and would never have to relinquish that power because they'd always be right.

I am sympathetic to Brink Lindsey’s point in this respect. Libertarians – who often sacrifice opportunities to “get involved” in lieu of safeguarding transcendent philosophical values for the sake of practical virtue – should not compromise their core beliefs just because Sarah Palin said we need less government and more personal responsibility. But I also think Matt Kibbe makes great points – the Tea Party movement is as fascinating a paradigm shift in American politics as I will likely ever see in my lifetime. It has unbundled the Left almost completely, who has tried to use every tool at its disposal – from race-baiting in formal media outlets to unscientific opinion polling – to couch the Tea Party movement as garden-variety Republican, and quintessentially racist, xenophobic, and homophobic. Kibbe insists that many Tea Partiers don’t know where to place themselves on an ideological scale, and notes that many have never been involved in political discourse before now. This groundswell provides libertarians with that romantic opportunity to inform the policy debate – especially issues like gay marriage, which Tea Party groups support, and like Kibbe, I think it’s hasty to accept Lindsey’s premise with open arms. So Lindsey’s libertarian protectionism can be just as dangerous and self-defeating as the Gainor conservative witch-hunts.

The Tea Party movement is still today very fragile, despite the noise the movement has made and the support it has drummed up. If libertarians and conservatives can agree about anything, it’s opposition to power-drunk Democrats; it’s probably best that everyone focus on that for now, instead of running rampant and reckless with purity tests – and when Republicans win, it will be up to them to follow through on promises they’re making to people getting involved for the first time. Those people don’t know where they lie on the ideological spectrum, but they know that the government is screwing them.

Cross-posted at TheNextRight.com.

That’s the subject of this event I’m attending tonight at Reason Magazine. Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks, Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online, and Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute will have it out about “where libertarians belong” in American politics. This has, of course, been an interesting and important question this election cycle, since libertarians make up a sizeable contingent of the Tea Party movement.

As much as I think it’s cool to be able to blog from my phone, live-blogging will probably be kept to a minimum for this. I will probably tweet more than blog in long form, because I’m interested to see where an activist, a journalist, and a think tank scholar believe libertarians can/will/should play in American politics. If you’re not on Twitter, you can click here and just refresh the page a lot.

Update 1

So I didn’t actually tweet a whole lot. Jonah Goldberg said something funny though…he said “For the record, I never really jived with George W. Bush’s philosophy, the whole ‘compassionate conservatism’ thing…My name is ‘Goldberg,’ I tend to be a little more Old Testament…I like my conservatism with a little more smite and wrath.”

Update 2

It doesn’t look like they have video of the event turned around and uploaded yet, but you can check back at either Reason’s YouTube channel (which is chock full of other good stuff), or Reason.TV. I’m sure the video will be up in another day or two.

From DC’s newest full-service political consulting firm, CraftDC (emphasis mine):

Here at CRAFT, clients often ask us who to follow on Twitter. While every campaign is different, following a small core of state and national bloggers from the onset can be an effective way to help grow your Twitter presence. Below is a list that we share with our clients. There are many other prominent and interesting bloggers out there. We invite you to comment and suggest others that should be included. (This list is not in any ranking order.)

• Allah Pundit @allahpundit
• Michelle Malkin @michelleMalkin
• Erick Erickson @ewerickson
• Andrew Breitbart @AndrewBreitbart
• John Hawkins @johnhawkinsrwn
• Instapundit @instapundit
• Moe Lane @moelane
• Jim Geraghty @jimgeraghty
• Ben Domenech @bdomenech
• George Scoville @stackiii
• Dan Riehl @DanRiehl
• Ed Morrissey @EdMorrissey
• Caleb Howe @CalebHowe
• Patterico @Patterico
• Jim Hoft @gatewaypundit
• Michael Goldfarb @thegoldfarb
• Phillip Kleir @philipaklein
• Tabitha Hale @pinkelephantpun
• Mary Katharine Ham @mkhammer
• Scott W. Graves @ScottWGraves
• Jimmie @jimmiebjr
• Nansen Malin @nansen
• Hugh Hewitt @hughhewitt
• Melissa Clouthier @MelissaTweets
• Stephen Green @VodkaPundit
• Just Karl @justkarl
• Robert Bluey @RobertBluey
• J.P. Freire @JPFreire
• Ali A. Akbar @ali
• Liz Mair @LizMair
• Jon Henke @JonHenke
• Patrick Ruffini @PatrickRuffini
• Soren Dayton @sorendayton
• Katie Harbath @katieharbath
• Matt K. Lewis @mattklewis
• Dan McLaughlin @baseballcrank
• Matthew Sheffield @mattsheffield
• Seton Motley @SetonMotley
• Matt Margolis @mattmargolis
• Amanda Carpenter @amandacarpenter
• Katie Favazza @KatieFavazza
• Mark Tapscott @mtapscott
• Sean Hackbarth @seanhackbarth
• Jill Stanek @JillStanek
• Jay Cost @JayCost
• Ace of Spades @AceofSpadesHQ
• Pejman Yousefzadeh @Yousefzadeh
• Andy levy @andylevy
• Jordan Raynor @JordanRaynor
• Rory Cooper @RoryCooper
• Kevin Madden @KevinMaddenDC

View the original post at their blog here. CraftDC is a one-of-a-kind political consulting firm, specializing in television, print, mail, and new media services, as well as public affairs/public relations services for political candidates and issue campaigns. They are truly a one-stop-shop of specialists, and their résumés speak for themselves.

There are plenty of people on this list I have never met, and plenty more with whom I disagree on certain issues. But the people I do know on the list have been great friends over the last year or three, and I’m not gonna lie: it’s nice to be counted among some of these high-profile bloggers. I’m flattered, really.

So do yourself a favor – check out Craft’s website if you haven’t already, and give them a follow on Twitter (@CraftDC). If you’re not using Twitter yet, registration is quick, easy, and free!

You won’t find it in statements like these:

This is an actual screen capture I took from the profile of a user suggested to me by Facebook, based upon friends this person and I have in common

To recap: a Christian, looking for Friendship, is telling the President of the United States that what is being proposed is not a possibility, and telling the Majority leaders in Congress to shove the ambiguous “it” up their rectums.

Nice, lady. Real nice. Thank you for making sure that nobody will ever take me seriously when I describe myself as a conservative. I can appreciate populism, misanthropy, and a general disgust for social engineering and statist governance as much as the next guy. Hell, I’ve been a lightning rod before myself. But you’re really screwing the pooch for the rest of us.

[Blogger's Note: I began this sometime last fall before COP15, but lost track before the holidays; despite my time management ineptitude, these topics are still as timely as ever.]

James Murdoch, son and heir-apparent to conservative media magnate Rupert Murdoch, argued near the end of 2009 in the Washington Post that conservatives and conservationists make natural allies…or at least they ought to. It’s a refreshing read, too, because with both major parties playing Alinsky politics it’s easy to forget that, aside from the sum of our available natural resources, our future economic growth and cultural-historical legacy are on the line. In the interest of full disclosure, I have been a fisherman since I could hold a rod and reel, I’m a habitual recycler-reuser-reducer, I really appreciate having had the good fortune to visit some really cool places during my short time thus far on the planet, and I firmly believe that there’s an economic opportunity here – involving the free market – that we don’t (or shouldn’t) want to miss.

Follow me: author David Pink argued in one of his books that right-brained people will rule the world one day. Certainly we can’t get along without the analytical types, but it’s the creative ones – the technological innovators – that have ushered man through various epochs across time and which policy makers seem to agree are the backbone of the American economy (this, by the way is true; small firms’ marginal costs of production are lower than those of larger firms). Pink’s argument goes something like this (and I’m paraphrasing here, not directly quoting):

Raise your hand if you own an iPod.

Lots of you? Good. Keep your hands up.

Now, keep your hands up if you knew you wanted one before they ever had been invented.

No more hands? I didn’t think so.

How could you possibly know you’d want a thing before it came to be? It’s the people thinking about what you want before you know you want it who really transform society – these are the people that reshape and redefine paradigms in a society.

This argument extends to green products, technology, and sustainable services. Glenn Beck may have assassinated Teddy Roosevelt’s character on live television at CPAC this year, but like my good friend J.R. Lind (@jrlind on Twitter) at Nashville Post Business once reminded me, sustainability is good business. Something tells me ol’ Teddy would be awfully proud of today’s Republican Party if they could find a way to get on board with sustainability-as-economic-policy ethos. It’s just going to require re-framing the debate to some degree.

Personally, I liked the way President Obama put it in his State of the Union address:

I don’t like the way the President and progressive Democrats are going about shaping and “solving” the problem…but I liked the way the President put it: whether or not the science is settled is not the chief issue here – there’s an economic opportunity to be had, and in the wake of an unemployment around 10%, it’s time for the Congress to act. We on the Right agree that bad science should not inform policy, but it’s equally important to remember that policy activists and elected officials are NOT scientific experts (unless by coincidence), and to paraphrase Dr. Richard A. Muller, PhD (Physics) the falsification of one area of data does not discredit an entire theory en masse. The Right is terrified that going green will mean capitulation to a radical socialist agenda [sic]; the most devout opponents of anthropogenic warming theory will reject any and all green movements. Of course, new regulatory schemes should be opposed, but it’s possible to look at conservation through our own lens.

Republicans won a major concession in the State of the Union, when President Obama included nuclear energy in his energy strategy. Nuclear power plants will help provide safe, renewable energy, and will create some jobs. Wind and solar will take a similar nibble out of the jobless numbers – but wind turbines are expensive and inefficient, and solar panels will get more expensive before they get cheaper.

The Right needs to go further. Falling back on small government and low tax rhetoric, too, simply won’t fill the bill – the average American doesn’t take our high polemic seriously anymore (beyond sharing our disdain for the sitting Democratic government – we should recognize that this could only be temporary). Republicans have plenty of momentum in their favor, and, like Rep. Paul Ryan, can seize this opportunity before sliding backward into campaign mode this year. Here’s the good news: it’s entirely possible to be green and pro-business all at once.

The government contracting apparatus provides the perfect setting for a pilot program to see the benefits of sustainability, with minimal impacts to the private sector. Last fall, President Obama signed an executive order establishing sustainability goals for greening up facilities and processes across the federal government, including prime and subcontractor goods, facilities, and practices. Contracting and procurement reform in this area – since it has to take place anyway in order for businesses to comply with as-yet undetermined standards and definitions – is our chance to establish a tiered, incentive-based approach to green business. Rather than allowing the federal government to bludgeon businesses everywhere by standing up new regulatory apparatuses with cap-and-trade schemes, the Right should prop up a reformed procurement system which gives preference in the awards process to contractors who meet certain tiered sustainability goals.

This is also a nice way for traditionally pro-Big Business Republicans to throw a nice-sized bone to small businesses, since the marginal costs of pollution abatement are lower for small firms than they are for large firms; the costs of risk-taking in green innovation are also smaller. The conclusion of this policy approach is a set of sustainability practices in the contracting environment (no pun intended) which can be voluntarily extended into commercial markets by companies who see real long-term benefits from sustainability in procurement space – just like John Q. Public who never knew how awesome the iPod would be before it was invented. Small businesses thrive, costs are lowered, small and large businesses collaborate, and the government is largely kept out of interfering with commercial markets – we merely reform a legacy process for the purpose of achieving a policy objective that has several fringe benefits. There are long-term political benefits to this strategy as well, as there is clearly a well-expressed demand for green products and investments/practices.

We – and certainly I – are a long way off from having an exhaustive, comprehensive approach for going green, framed within the context of our own ideological narratives. But it’s not altogether impossible with a little bit of creative thinking. We don’t have to agree on the science of global warming, but we should probably start from the same basic assumption that sustainability is good for business. Finally, we need to remember that we have a real chance to wrestle this issue away from the Left, but we have to act quickly and intelligently, and remember that committing to this policy arena is not capitulation if we come to the table with our own detailed approaches. Here’s hoping we have a champion on to take the reins and lead the Right into a new era.

Cross-posted at TheNextRight.com