Independence Institute's 25th Anniversary Banquet

P. J. O'Rourke offered a perfectly delightful address at the Independence Institute's 25th Anniversary Banquet, held in Denver on November 19. He mostly blasted leftist policies but saved some of his best lines for Republicans. For example, he said that building a wall between us and Mexico would be a boon to the Mexican ladder industry.

I captured a number of interviews on camera:

July 4 Tea Party Arvada Colorado

I interviewed a number of participants of the July 4 Tea Party in Arvada, Colorado. Hear what they have to say:



Jon Caldara gave the keynote speech:



Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench Colorado outlined his case for voting against retention of four Colorado Supreme Court Justices:



Here are a few additional photos:









See also reports for Castle Rock and Colorado Springs. Please send in information about other July 4 Tea Parties across Colorado!

Commentary

I've heard estimates of a thousand participants. I imagine attendance was lower than at the Tax Day Tea Party because more people were at local events and many were busy with family gatherings.

It was a fun time. I helped hand out a couple hundred Ayn Rand Samplers and a few hundred "Clear the Bench" flyers.

The most troubling aspect of the event is that various speakers really laid on the religion. It was almost as much of a church service as a political rally. I heard quite a lot of the same crazy talk that cost Republicans control of government in the first place. While we heard from Jefferson's Declaration, we heard nothing about Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state. But religious tyranny is hardly an improvement upon leftist tyranny. For example, those who endorse the "personhood" measure next year are as much the enemy of liberty as are those who advocate socialized medicine, for reasons stated.

Yet some of the speeches were great; see Jon Caldara's speech above. And the people who attended went for their own reasons. One lady told me she was "pro-life" (i.e., an advocate of abortion bans), and at least two people carried signs proclaiming that America is a Christian nation. Yet most people I talked with were there for the obvious reasons: federal politicians are spending our money like drunken sailors and seizing control of broad swaths of the economy.

The right obviously still suffers from the schism that resulted in its downfall; it is torn between those who would impose their sectarian dogmas by force of law and those who advocate individual rights and a government devoted to protecting those rights. That intellectual battle continues to rage.

Yet I see many signs that more and more citizens are taking up the banner of individual rights.

Pork Roast Mixes Liberty, Populism, and Partisanship

It was a hugely successful rally today at Denver's state capitol to protest the so-called "stimulus" package that President Obama signed while in town. Hundreds of people showed up. Jon Caldara ripped up dollars as an act of civil disobedience to protest the "stimulus." The hugely popular Michelle Malkin arrived with roasted pork. A live pig trotted about. Speakers denounced the federal spending, guiding the crowd alternately in cheering, booing, and chanting. The media attended, and some even covered the event.

Despite the overwhelming media cheerleading for Obama's "stimulus" package, a lot of regular people remain angry about it, very angry, and the success of today's rally shows only a little of that bubbling to the surface.

At the same time, the rally sent a few mixed messages, a few of the participants stepped out of line, and Republican partisanship carried the day. Former congressman Tom Tancredo spent several minutes of the rally ranting against immigration, both legal and illegal. Several others wore anti-immigration shirts or carried anti-immigration signs. These folks don't want economic liberty: they merely want the federal government to control the economy in different ways. A couple of guys shouted down Michael Huttner, a left-wing activist, as I was trying to interview him. The fact that Dick Wadhams, chair of the state GOP, took the stage indicates the partisan flavor of the event.

A personal anecdote suggests why I felt a bit out of place. I had printed a few signs with two messages: "Stimulus? Try Liberty," and "What Would Mises Do?" Yes, I know that, in the general culture, Mises is an obscure figure recognized by few. Yet I still like the quote, as it might provoke some to look him up. I figured that Mises would be widely recognized by those at the rally and that the signs would elicit knowing glances of solidarity. Yet when I offered somebody a sign, I heard, "Who's Mises?" I explained with understatement, "He's a free-market economist."

Perhaps I shouldn't make too much of it; after all, somebody else had a sign referring to Hayek's Road to Serfdom, while another sign referred to Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Still. "Who's Mises?" At a rally supposedly about economic liberty? That's a bit like asking "who's Jesus" at Catholic mass or "who's Lars" at a Metallica concert.

But on with the rally. My photos of the event are available, and Slapstick provides video of the event. For those who prefer lower-bandwidth mp3 audio, I've provided a recording of the entire formal event.

Jim Pfaff from Americans for Prosperity kicked off the event:

Is everybody stimulated? [Crowd chants "no!"] Why not? Because it's not stimulus. We're here today today to say, Barack Obama, you don't know stimulus.

Stimulus is when individuals and businesses are able to take their own decisions and go out and make a life for themselves. To pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now do you pursue happiness through big-government programs? You make your decisions for happiness.

You should be able to make those decisions, and this stimulus package takes decision-making away from individuals like yourselves. And we want to say no more pork. ...

We want real stimulus, and that's what we're here to talk about today. When you consider Barack Obama's program, he takes money from current and future taxpayers, promising to "invest" -- so-called -- in the economy. Except that it's not going to work. He's going to have to come back and ask for more money, and we're here today to say, no more money.

That, to me, guys, looks like a Ponzi scheme. And in my opinion, Obama, Pelosi, and Reed are the Burnie Madoff Democrats who want to take our money and use it for their purposes, and we're here to say, no more!

Next, Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute took the microphone:

So, are we feeling stimulated yet? Let's make this clear: this is not what we usually do. Usually at this time of day, we're at work. All we want to do is get back to work -- and keep what we earn. According to the CBO, the long-term impacts of this is going to be about $30,000 per family. ...

Caldara introduced Michelle Malkin, who ripped also the Republicans who supported the stimulus:

Thank you, my fellow un-Patriots. You know, Barack Obama gave special phone calls to the members of what I call the turn-coat caucus, Specter, Snow, and Collins, who were behind the engineering of this trillion-dollar sell-out. And he praised them for their patriotism. And my response is, if selling out our children and our grandchildren's future is patriotism, I am very proud to be an un-Patriot in the age of Obama.

When President Obama signs the bill here in Denver, it will represent an unprecedented act of generational theft in this country.

Chuck Schumer said that there wasn't anybody in this country who cared about the pork in this bill. And I think that the most important reason that we're here today is to say, yes, we do care. ...

Caldara next introduced Tancredo. He said, "If President Obama wanted to do one thing for American workers... he would stop the illegal immigration into this country. He would reduce the number of people coming here every day legally." Wow. Not a single word about restoring economic liberty, because that is not a goal that the Tancredo wing of the GOP shares. Why Caldara invited Tancredo is beyond me.

Shawn Mitchell thankfully and predictably stuck to theme:

Today is unfortunately historic. It marks one of the biggest, most expensive mistakes in the history of American domestic policy. Obama-Reed-Palosi couldn't decide if they wanted a bill that was an economic boost, a big-spending welfare wish-list, or a politician free-for-all pork fest. So they did all three. I don't get it. If the problem is that people are borrowing too much on credit cards and on home equity, how does it help things for the federal government to shove us aside and show us what a world-class credit binge looks like?

We today, sadly, are betting our grandchildren's future on the falsehood that you can spend your way to prosperity. You cannot. The Obama-Reed-Palosi lurch to the left is not the change that Americans voted for. We need to remember, we need to get involved, and tell the federal government, live within your means. Thank you.

State Senator Nancy Spence, having to compete with the introduction of the live pig, made some noncommittal remarks about how politicians have to do something, just not what this bill states.

State Senator David Schultheis complained that the "stimulus" package does not sufficiently crack down on illegal immigration. It is a shame that Mitchell had to compete with such off-topic nonsense.

State Senator Kevin Lumberg again got back on track but offered no new substance.

State Representative Cindy Acree said, "Thank you Coloradans for joining together to say that we don't expanded government intervention in our lives. We can manage our lives, our businesses, our health care better than the government can."

Josh Penry, showing good stage presence, said, "I believe that history will remember this vote, this moment, this bill as the moment when Republicans reclaim the mantle of fiscal discipline that is rightfully ours." That would certainly be a nice change of pace.

Wadhams pointed out that many Republicans opposed the so-called bailout. Caldara followed the state GOP chair's brief remarks with the unconvincing note that "this is not a Republican or Democrat event." He then introduced yet another Republican politician, State Representative B. J. Nikkel, who delivered a nice if generic speech. Then Pfaff predicted that Colorado would again be a "red state."

State Senator Kent Lambert said:

We're going to start the road back this afternoon; I'm introducing a bill, we're going to have it here in committee this afternoon, to do something that many of you will find very interesting and will support. That's to put the state checkbook back on the gold standard. Starting this afternoon we're joining with other states to do this. We're going to bring fiscal responsibility back to the United States of America.

I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about. States cannot possibly reinstate the gold standard; that is a federal matter.

Peggy Littleton from the state board of education tried unsuccessfully to tie the "stimulus" to her position. (By this time I was wondering just how many speakers Caldara had invited. I guess it's good to get them on record.)

State Representative Frank McNulty repeated the same stuff. He did let slip, "How can a president who campaigned on change give us so much more of the same?" Do you mean, more of the same of what George W. Bush gave us?

Finally -- thank God it was nearly over -- Pfaff regained the microphone, which he passed off to Caldara to close out. Caldara said, "We believe we can spend our money better than government can. In order to support this package, you must believe one simple truth: that somehow Washington can spend your money better than you can."

Again, it was overall a great rally. Still, while it is totally legitimate to criticize pork-barrel, special-interest spending, the fundamental issue is not pork. The fundamental issue is that people have the right to control their own income and associate voluntarily, and therefore forced wealth transfers and political controls of the economy are wrong. The issue, then, individual rights, as manifest in a free market, the system of economic liberty. Yet, by my count, all the speakers combined mentioned the word "liberty" exactly once, and they did not mention free markets or individual rights. Caldara and Pfaff did say that people should be able to control their own resources, and several other speakers at least hinted that economic liberty is a good thing. Yet two of the speakers concentrated their remarks on further violating economic liberty through protectionist immigration restrictions. Thus, as successful as the rally was, it was also a missed opportunity in many ways.

I'll continue the discussion in a subsequent post, "Stimulus and Partisanship."

Caldara Reviews Initiatives, Buckley

In the recent election, Colorado's Amendment 49, which I supported, lost. It would have prevented government from withholding a portion of the income only of government employees for transfer to unions. Meanwhile, Amendment 54, which I opposed, won. Unless it is overturned in court, it will prohibit certain government contractors from making certain campaign contributions, which I regard as a violation of free speech. I was surprised by this outcome, so I asked Jon Caldara about it at the November 13 Independence Institute banquet. (Caldara heads the Institute.) We also discussed Christopher Buckley, mill levies, and campaign finance laws. Following is a lightly redacted transcript of our discussion.

Jon: By the way, congratulations on ten years of the Colorado Freedom Report.

Ari: ...and congratulations to you for a decade at the II. ... So I was disappointed that 49 lost. We have some idea of why that lost. Why do you think 54 won and that lost?

Jon: For two reasons, and two reasons only. One, in Colorado, people who write the proposals don't write the title language, the Title Board does. They had superb, wonderful Title Board language. 49 had awful language, and we have no control over that. Secondly, they had two million dollars behind them, which was enough to get the word out. 49 had [practically] nothing.

Ari: Well, thanks for doing that. Is there going to be any follow-up effort to do that statutorily, through another initiative...

Jon: I would like to, but of course this legislature is bought and sold by the unions, these are the same ones who wanted to change the Labor Peace Act... So it's not going to happen statutorily.

Ari: ...so there might be a follow-up, but there's no specific plan. ... So here's my next question. Christopher Buckley. What happened there?

Jon: It didn't work out. But he'll be back. Christopher is likely going to come back and join us for the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms party. Since he did such a great job with Thank You for Smoking and is such a humorist we thought that might be a better fit.

Ari: The word around the campfire is that you dumped him when he endorsed Obama.

Jon: I wasn't happy when he endorsed Obama, but we found I think a more appropriate place to use him at an II event.

Ari: What else [should we look for] over the coming year?

Jon: I think we ought to keep an eye on the mill levy freeze [See Benjamin DeGrow's article] lawsuit, because, my guess is that in two to three weeks we will have a ruling from the Supreme Court to see if our lower court ruling stands or not.

Ari: Another thing you're in court over is the campaign finance alleged violations. Where is that?

Jon: In fifteen days from now we'll find out... Briefly, the campaign against 47, the right to work, decided to also campaign against our initiative, but did not disclose so on the Secretary of State's disclosure forms. That's a blatant violation of election law, and I'm not a big fan of election law, but if it's there you need to follow it.

Ari: I was actually thinking of the previous thing... Aren't you still involved with the Referendum C case?

Jon: No, we won that handily... We were completely exonerated -- of course, three days after the election was over.

Ari: Well that is an interesting tension. Some people on the right are simultaneously using and complaining about the campaign finance laws. Where should we be headed about that as far as free speech is concerned?

Jon: As a free speech issue, we should change Amendment 27, which is now Article 28 of the state constitution, and allow free speech. If we can't do that, we should make sure that the campaign finance laws aren't just a slam dunk for unions and liberal special interests, but that other groups can use them to their advantage as well.

Ari: In other words, they're not selectively enforced, so long as they are enforced.

Jon: Absolutely... They made the rules, we can still win.

See the collected posts about the Independence Institute's 2008 banquet.