As was reported in this space just a couple of days ago, Bachus — who is in a battle for the chairmanship of the House Financial Services Committee with Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) — told the South Shelby (Ala.) Chamber of Commerce that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement cost the Republican Party control of the U.S. Senate. “The Senate would be Republican today except for states (in which Gov. Palin endorsed candidates) like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware,” Bachus said. “Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate.” He went on to say that Tea Party candidates did well in U.S. House races, but in the U.S. Senate races, “they didn’t do well at all.”

While Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) spoke out against Bachus’ statements, most business-as-usual GOP Congressional leaders remained silent on the issue.  That left Sarah Palin to defend herself from Bachus’ attacks.  She strongly refuted Bachus’ claims and then cited Bachus’ lengthy record of support for big government — which consists largely of support for government programs like TARP and “Cash for Clunkers,” various schemes to block Americans from accessing online poker websites, and any other big government plans that come down the pike — aptly calling it the “Bachus bigger government agenda.”

Sadly, the me-too establishment Republican Congressional leaders appear ready to embrace the Bachus bigger government agenda over Ed Royce’s principled stands for less government.  Royce, who cast votes in opposition to TARP and “Cash for Clunkers,” would appear to be the natural choice of the two to head a committee so important to the aims of those who voted for Republican candidates this year. Too bad GOP leadership seems to think this election win meant there would be more business as usual, because it does not.  One would have at least expected them to let the ink dry on the election returns before betraying the movement.

The 1994 Republican Revolution failed because voters failed to hold lawmakers accountable for their promises.  We have been there and done that, and we will not repeat that mistake.  This time, conservatives demand action from lawmakers.  Republican lawmakers can no longer simply talk the talk on the campaign trail.  They now have to walk the walk on Capitol Hill.

Republican politicians must choose.  Are they with the voters or are they with the party establishment?  Hugh Hewitt describes this as House Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner’s first big test.  This is an easy test.  Let’s hope Rep. Boehner passes.

He even went so far as to blame Palin and the Tea Party for the Republican Party not winning the Senate — the same Senate that had all of forty Republicans back when the party ran on the big spending, me-too policies espoused by Spencer Bachus.  Perhaps not surprisingly, the GOP establishment is preparing to reward Bachus with the chairmanship of the House Financial Services Committee, this despite his well-known failings in performing as the Ranking Member of that very committee over the past four years.

Rep. Bachus lashed out against Palin and the Tea Party on November 4^th while speaking to the South Shelby (Ala.) Chamber of Commerce.  “The Senate would be Republican today except for states (in which Gov. Palin endorsed candidates) like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware,” Bachus said. “Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate.”  He went on to say that Tea Party candidates did well in U.S. House races, but in the U.S. Senate races, “they didn’t do well at all.”  Bachus is mistaken in his attempts to place blame.  In fact, it is the very policies he champions that cost the GOP its chance to win control of the Senate.

Bachus is best known for his efforts to implement and enforce a ban on online poker.  His support for efforts to use big government to address non-core social issues are obviously not in sync with the priorities of limited government conservatism, so his animus toward limited government conservatives is not surprising.  However, his insistence on blaming them for the Senate outcome ought to be, given that the online poker issue proved to be the deciding factor in one Senate race and a huge influence in another.

Colorado GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck’s opposition to poker players as district attorney earned him the ire of the non-partisan, million-member Poker Players Alliance (PPA).  As Sen. Michael Bennet is supportive of the rights of poker players, PPA’s PAC — PokerPAC — chose to endorse him.  PokerPAC made use of robocalls and emails from famous poker professionals to alert poker players across Colorado of Buck’s support for statism over liberty in this matter.  Needless to say, in a race as close as the Bennet-Buck race, every vote counts, and the votes of poker players provided the margin of victory for Bennet.

Similarly, PokerPAC backed Sen. Harry Reid against Sharron Angle.  While Angle supported liberty in many other areas, it was unfortunate that she chose not to support the right of Nevadans to play poker in their own homes on their own computers.

Republican candidates endorsed by PokerPAC, including Reps. Joe Barton, Judy Biggert, John Campbell, Peter King, Ron Paul, and many others fared much better than did Republican candidates opposed by PokerPAC.

Conservative voters are sending a clear message to establishment politicians like Bachus.  Most conservatives believe poker and issues like it should be matters of individual liberty.  Even those who do not have strong feelings about the right to play do not wish to expend political capital on this, and they certainly did not wish to sacrifice any Senate seats over this issue.  While it is sad that Bachus seeks to blame limited government conservatism for anything negative in this election, it is refreshing that other establishment Republicans are finally waking up to the new realities within the conservative movement.  They now know that limited government conservatives will no longer accept lip service.  They expect action, and they expect politicians to EARN their votes by walking the walk.

Bachus typifies the problems with having a big government mindset regarding non-core social issues. He has spent so much of his time as House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member focused on efforts to ban online poker that he left important issues before the committee with insufficient conservative input, including bank bailouts, banking regulation, mortgage reform, and credit card regulation. In late 2008 he was almost removed as Ranking Member.  Rep. Roy Blunt, then minority whip, had to replace Bachus at the bank bailout negotiating table that same year. Bachus has not even been effective in his quest to ban online poker.  Online poker remains freely available in all fifty states, and current federal laws serve only to provide reverse protectionism, where offshore sites offer services but U.S.-based companies cannot.

It is unfortunate that the House Republican leadership is signaling likelihood that Bachus will be given the chairmanship of the House Financial Services Committee, especially given his record to date and his attacks on those who helped lift the GOP to victory.  It is not fitting that he be rewarded for this, especially as Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) is vying for the post and would clearly be a big improvement.

One disquieting issue is the lack of any requirement that these sites be found to violate the laws of the countries from where they operate.  In fact, under this bill sites operating perfectly legally under the laws of their own nations could be shut down by the U.S. Justice Department.

The concept that domain names of Internet sites operating legally in their home nations could be shut down by other nations for violation of their laws is one that should concern everyone.  For example, a few years ago a French court ordered Yahoo.com to block French citizens from accessing portions of the site deemed to contain content unlawful under French law. Yahoo.com resisted this demand, citing free speech issues. What if French courts had the capability to shut down the domain www.yahoo.com to force compliance with that decision?  What if every nation had the right to shut down Internet domains to force the entire Internet to comply with their local laws?  If the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act passes, a very dangerous precedent will be set.

Additionally, there is a threat that this power will be expanded well beyond piracy.  In fact, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (D) is already in court seeking seizure of the domain names of 141 Internet poker and gaming websites — none based in the Commonwealth of Kentucky — with claims that these sites compete with the state lottery and with the horse racing industry.

The likelihood of this effort expanding well beyond issues of online piracy is simply too great.  The Department of Justice should use its already ample tools and not resort to censoring the Internet.

The REINS Act would require Congressional authorization for any new Major Rule proposed by the executive branch. It now has now has 57 cosponsors, including noted Constitutionalist Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).  It also enjoys the support of the Chamber of Commerce.  Under REINS, the numerous proposed regulations pertaining to health care, climate change, energy, financial regulation, and our economy would have to be submitted to Congress for approval.   REINS would continue to allow the executive agencies charged with writing rules to propose draft rules, but would end the delegation of Congressional authority that has enabled these agencies to enact them unilaterally.

Our Founding Fathers recognized the pitfalls of an all-powerful chief executive.  Fearing tyranny, our nation did not even have a president until 1789, preferring instead strong states, a weak Congress operating under the auspices of the Articles of Confederation, and no executive branch at all.  As this proved to be too weak for national cohesiveness, our founders drafted the Constitution to provide the nation with three co-equal branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial.  All three were to operate within the limits defined by the Constitution.

Our founders took great care in limiting presidential power.  Presidential power is limited to the powers granted by Article II of the Constitution.  As further protection against tyranny, our founders created a system where the president is chosen by the Electoral College rather than via direct election.  This was partly to keep the president from exceeding the authority granted by the Constitution by claiming a popular mandate.  The Constitutional system kept presidential power largely in check (temporary wartime expansions under President Lincoln and President Wilson being very notable exceptions) until the election of President Franklin Roosevelt.

President Roosevelt greatly expanded the power of both the presidency and the entire federal government.  He was the first president to submit legislation directly to Congress.  When much of this was overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, FDR reacted by bullying the Court with threats to pack it with New Deal supporters.  Once the Court started upholding New Deal legislation, FDR used this green light to expand the office of the presidency well beyond its Constitutional bounds, shifting federal power from Congress and the Supreme Court to the executive branch in the process.  Most presidents since FDR have sought to further expand the power of the office.

President Obama has continued this expansion of executive power.  He has given a great amount of power to unelected bureaucrats within the executive branch and has then, in effect, created law via the regulatory process.  No Congressional approval was sought for any of these actions.

Congress is finally fighting back.  When introducing the REINS Act, Congressman Davis shared this disturbing information:

Last year, the federal government issued 3,316 new rules and regulations.  That is roughly 1.6 rules per working hour or 12.8 rules per working day!  In many instances, federal rules impose substantial compliance costs on individuals, businesses, and State and local governments.  Rules with at least $100 million of annual compliance cost or effect on the economy are classified as “Major Rules.”  In 2009, federal agencies issued 78 Major Rules.

The regulatory process has increasingly ceded power to unelected bureaucrats for major decisions that can affect all Americans.  Take for example the Democrats’ government takeover of health care.  This poorly drafted legislation repeatedly requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create regulations in areas ranging from what is required for “qualifying health plans” to the determination and disclosure of nutritional information for standard menu items in restaurants.

The American people agree. In February, a CNN poll found that 56% of Americans believe the federal government is so large that it threatens the freedoms of ordinary citizens.  It is time for Congress to assert its Constitutional role in federal governance.

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.”

Today’s political landscape is reminiscent of 1994.  Conservatives were incensed at big government.  Threats of national health care legislation, gun bans, and tax increases woke up the movement.  Conservatives demanded limited government.  They made themselves heard and they put Republicans back in charge of Congress.  America had a conservative Congress for a few years, thanks to principled conservatives like Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich.

Unfortunately, some within the movement wanted to use the levers of power to achieve societal change.  As I detailed in an earlier column, a handful of aging social conservative leaders who still cling to the statism of the progressive movement of their youth wished to use the power of big government to change American society.  Rather than seeking to prevent big government from harming traditional values, they instead thought big government could promote values by limiting freedom.  Needless to say, this was the wrong direction for a party elected on the promise of limited government, and it would not be long before they were put out of power.

In the final years of GOP control, all we saw was big spending and even bigger government.

In fact, if he chose to, President Obama could plausibly claim that he has simply continued GOP-era big government.  After all, Bush and the GOP establishment gave us the unfunded prescription drug benefit program, bailouts for Wall Street and the auto industry, an attempted big government ban on online poker (legislation that even forced banks to act as an unpaid arm of the Justice Department), and huge budget deficits.

Unfortunately, there are already warning signs that this pattern will repeat itself.  Former Gov. Mike Huckabee refused to attend this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), claiming it was too libertarian.  He was actually confused and offended by the refusal of the attendees at CPAC to focus on empowering the federal government to force societal changes.  Similarly, Politico recently reported on the growing rift between some social conservative leaders and the rest of the conservative movement.  In the article, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council calls Americans for Tax Reform and FreedomWorks leaders “liars” for implying that conservatives want less big government in the social arena.  [Focus on the Family declined a request for comment.]

For limited government to succeed, it must be limited across the board.  If we allow government to expand in one area, it will naturally expand in other areas as well (as we saw with Bush’s prescription drug benefit).  Fortunately, we can accomplish all we want – without big government.

For example, pro-lifers can be pro-life without being pro government.   Legislation can be based on protecting the unborn from the aggression of others, rather than on the morality of having or performing abortions.  This is how many Libertarian presidential nominees have been able to be strongly pro-life (including Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root in 2008 and Ron Paul in 1988) without being statists.  Protection of rights is a proper function of government under any definition.  This is why no one thinks laws against murder or robbery represent big government.

Likewise, we do not need laws against things like online poker.  People who do not wish to participate can simply choose not to participate.  Problem solved!  The Internet is a wonderful tool that is best kept outside the realm of government prohibitions.  If one group wishes to control one part of the Internet, another group will seize control of another part, and soon we will have a far less free Internet.  It is time to step back and leave the Internet alone.

Big government is the problem, not the solution. Most conservatives have seen the light. We have seen the corrupting impact of big government.  We have lived it, and we would rather protect our values from big government than entrust big government with them.

If we want to preserve the next electoral victory for limited government conservatism, we will all need to hold the GOP to its promises.  We will need to tell our lawmakers that we demand liberty.  We will need to tell them that their cushy seats on Capitol Hill will be at risk EVERY time they even hint at voting for more government.  We will need to tell them that we no longer accept lip service.

If the GOP can remain committed to limited government, we can have an enduring conservative majority.  If they cannot, it will be 2006 and 2008 all over again.

###

Follow Rich on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/TheEngineer2008

Follow BigGovernment.com on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/biggovt

Displaying the confidence that a year of solid wins on Capitol Hill has earned them, the PPA went to CPAC ready to take on the dwindling minority who would ban poker as well as those who believe poker rights ought not be a conservative concern.  They came armed with handouts on why principled conservatives ought to oppose a big government prohibition on online poker, copies of pro-poker articles by George Will, Walter Williams, and Jacob Sullum, free t-shirts, and 2004 World Poker Champion Greg Raymer, who was on hand to sign autographs.

2004 World Poker Champion Greg Raymer at CPAC

They also showed off the alliances they have with many within the conservative movement, including FreedomWorks, CPAC straw poll winner Rep. Ron Paul (video of Rep. Paul backing PPA’s position), and Americans for Tax Reform.

ATR’s Grover Norquist Visiting the PPA Booth, with PPA Grassroots Director Drew Lesofski

Attendees were very supportive of the agenda of the poker group.  PPA Executive Director John Pappas said hundreds of attendees stopped by to offer their support, while only one person expressed opposition.  Pappas further stated that poker players have sent hundreds of thousands of letters to Congress in support of their rights, an amount that often eclipsed issues like health care and banking reform.

Following the events of the first day, PPA, BigGovernment.com, and Americans for Tax Reform co-hosted what Time called the “coolest” party of CPAC.  Held at Medaterra, a restaurant within walking distance of CPAC, it included Andrew Breitbart, Michael Flynn, James O’Keefe, Grover Norquist, and Greg Raymer.  Time reported that the open bar got quite a workout.  From the event:

Andrew Breitbart and me

Michael Flynn and me

James O’Keefe and me

The second day was equally positive for the poker rights group.  100% of attendees who stopped by the PPA booth that morning were supportive of the group’s agenda.  Then, a college-age attendee from Focus on the Family — who advocate for a national prohibition of all forms of poker (online, card rooms, home games, etc.) – stopped by the booth.  Expecting opposition, I asked him for a comment.  Requesting anonymity, he told me that he supports the right to play poker but supports Focus on the Family in other matters.  Curious, I went to the Focus on the Family booth and asked the two youthful (under 40) representatives there if they personally wished to ban poker.  They replied, each with a smile, “no comment.”

Unlike older social conservative leaders who grew up in progressive eras and who seem to cling to their belief that big government can bring about positive changes to society, perhaps younger social conservatives are learning from their experiences with the problems caused by big government.  One imagines that they have seen the corrupting impact of big government and that they would rather protect values from big government than entrust big government with them.  Only time will tell.