Big Sky Blog

The biography photos look almost the same as the main Republicans… old white guys. Honestly, couldn’t they just align themselves with the Libertarians? And the State Chapter Director is in Wisconsin!

It just reminds me why I’m a Conservative.

Jen, it’s my understanding that Aaron is the Director of Chapter Development and not necessarily the “head” of the Montana Chapter (Aaron is also the moderator of the Jewish Libertarian group forum).

Since the RLC is endorsing several incumbents, including Conrad Burns, I conclude that they are happy with the current situation.

Their “PAC FAQ had some interesting (almost Libertarian) positions, but seems a bit out of date.

No, we’re not at all happy with the current situation. But you don’t change things by sitting on the sidelines and sniping. You change them by picking a horse and trying to affect policy.

The Republican Liberty Caucus is ideally a conservative conscience for the Republican party. That strongly aligns us with Libertarian views in many policy areas (small government, individual liberties), but also includes a desire to impact policy decisions by taking politically viable positions and supporting viable candidates. Granted, sometimes endorsements reflect the least worst option, but the least worst is still better than the worst. And yes, “politically viable” is another term for “not the best.” But if you put enough bricks on the pile eventually you may have a structure…maybe not always a dream home, but something that will work while you continue to gather bricks.

The Montana RLC chapter is just getting up and running. I encourage anyone who’s interested in forwarding the concepts of limited government, personal freedoms, and results-oriented action to check it out at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rlcmt. We’re still putting meat on the bone and defining the MT RLC. And we’re looking for people to be a part of that defining process.

Carl Graham

Thanks for the response, Carl. I think it’s great that the RLC is trying to reform the Republican party.

Many years ago I was a member of the LP – interesting talk but not much action. Clearly, the RLC is taking a different approach. The RLC is “constrained” in that it is a party organization – but at least it’s not a “talk shop.”

Good luck with your program. To me, on the national level at least, the current administration has destroyed any linkage between the words “Republican” and “libertarian.” Maybe the RLC can change that.

Thanks for the kind words, Big Mike. In reference to your comments, I’m less interested in restoring the linkage between the words “Republican” and “Libertarian” than I am in getting the Republican party back to fundamental (not fundamentalist) conservative principles that currently only really have a home in the libertarian camp.
Depending on the issue, libertarians may feel at home with either major party, but they have a lot more room to roam with the Republicans.

And I think Republicans could be a lot more welcoming if they’d get back to their conservatie roots and stop bending conservative tenets to appease the policy preferences of select constituent groups. It’s pretty simple stuff, really. I can’t for the life of me figure out why it’s so hard.

In the meantime, count me as a Republican with libertarian views. And I like being around Libertarians who want to make change more than they want to make noise. Actually I kind of enjoy Libertarians who just make noise, too. But it’s not as productive.

I wonder if the Montana Liberty Caucus is in agreement with Mitt Romney, who looks to be a serious presidential candidate? What do you think?