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.”

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.

Heartless progressive women’s groups don’t want Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow to speak. They don’t want him to tell his story. They wish he was never born.

The Women’s Media Center and over 30 other liberal and women’s advocacy groups sent a letter to CBS urging the channel not to air a Super Bowl ad about Tim Tebow’s birth. The Heisman Trophy winner and Focus on the Family will air an ad during the game on Tim’s story.

Tim Tebow was born on August 14, 1987 in the Philippines to Bob and Pam Tebow, who were serving as Christian missionaries at the time. While pregnant Pam suffered a life-threatening infection with a pathogenic amoeba. Because of the drugs used to rouse her from a coma and to treat her dysentery, the fetus experienced a severe placental abruption. Doctors expected a stillbirth and recommended an abortion to protect her life. Pam carried Timothy to term, and both survived- via Wikipedia.

Now Tim Tebow wants to tell his story. He wants to air an ad at the Super Bowl. Earlier this week he responded to the attacks by progressives:

It’s not surprising that the progressives don’t want Tim to tell his wonderful story. They want his story hidden from the public. It disturbs progressives. It threatens them. It may persuade a woman to keep her baby.

Of course, this is not so surprising considering their past. Progressives have a history in genocidal movements and have a history of hiding this fact.

Founding Bloggers reported:

When the Progressive movement in this country gained steam in the early twentieth century, they spawned the genocidal Eugenic movement which directly led to the Holocaust. That’s not an exaggeration either. American Progressives worked DIRECTLY with the Nazis in their quest for race purity.

Progressives own the Holocaust, a fact they conveniently ignore today. Funny how they make a big stink about everyone else owning up to their history, but when it comes to them, they are exempt from their own rules.

And, of course, abortion was seen as one way for progressives to get rid of the undesirables.

Progressives don’t want you to know Tim Tebow’s story and they don’t want you to know their history. That’s part of their game.

These heartless progressives owe Tim Tebow and his mother an apology.

The conservative movement is not homogeneous.  Rather, the movement consists of fiscal conservatives, limited government conservatives, libertarians, pro-business conservatives, social conservatives, neoconservatives, and others.  When Democrats control government, these disparate conservative groups share many common goals. They all wish to reduce the power of government and they all wish to reduce taxes and spending.  As a result, they usually form a very effective alliance while out of power.

We saw this in 1993 and 1994.  Conservatives rallied around core beliefs like limited government, term limits, Second Amendment rights, and low taxes.  Party leadership rolled out the Contract with America to universal conservative acclaim.  Conservatives all rallied around statements like, “guns don’t kill people…people kill people,” while GOP candidates gladly signed term limit pledges and Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge.  United, the GOP won control of the House and the Senate in 1994, and later won the presidency in 2000.

This coalition remained united in opposition to President Clinton through the remainder of the 1990s.   George W. Bush’s presidential victory in 2000 gave the GOP total control of the federal government and, unfortunately, sometimes nothing ruins success like success.  Far from losing their way, factions within the GOP simply asserted their own visions of conservatism.

The first casualty was any support – beyond empty rhetoric – for limited government.  This should not have been surprising.  Some within the conservative movement believed as a matter of principle that the federal government should be limited in power.  Others, especially leaders of the social conservatives, simply wished for the federal government to be weaker when Democrats were in the majority.

Many social conservatives were unhappy with changes that occurred in America since the 1960s.  Rather than relying on changing the hearts and minds of Americans within the context of a free society or advocating for a small federal government that would not harm traditional values, their national leadership instead believed the GOP-controlled federal government could and should actively bring about the changes they sought.

Moving these social conservative activist bills through Congress required compromises within the movement and with the opposition.  Under these conditions, fiscal discipline was another early casualty.  After all, an active government costs money.  Additionally, passing bills desired by social conservatives often required some Democratic votes, and that often meant funding programs those Democrats wanted in exchange.

To keep the conservative coalition together, most Republican politicians simply kowtowed to the demands of the James Dobsons and the Pat Robertsons of the movement on the assumption that other conservatives had nowhere else to go.  These politicians liked being in power, so they naturally publicly supported the entire social conservative agenda, as defined by the movement’s national leadership.

This was evident in the online poker issue.  Focus on the Family’s founder and former leader Dr. James Dobson felt so strongly about stopping adults from playing poker in their own homes, on their own computers, that he insisted on having the GOP push anti-gaming legislation through Congress.  He also insisted on a plank in the GOP party platform advocating a national prohibition of online poker.

The legislation Dobson advocated forced America’s banks to act as an unpaid arm of the Department of Justice.  It required banks to screen transactions and to block those related to “unlawful Internet gambling,” a term the Department of Justice was not even able to define for the banks ordered to enforce the act. Needless to say, this legislation is 180 degrees from limited government conservatism.

In a classic “be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it” scenario, many Americans, particularly younger swing voters, adamantly opposed the big government, big spending programs of social conservatives.  In fact, many developed a strongly negative view of the big government nanny-state instincts of the “new” GOP, as was evidenced by the results of the 2006 and 2008 elections.

In early 2008, poker players and Internet freedom supporters wrote to the GOP platform committee to oppose inclusion of the Dobson-backed plank advocating a national online poker prohibition.  This should not have been a surprise, as the one million member Poker Players Alliance was loudly demanding poker rights.  The draft platform committee heard the public loud and clear and removed the plank, citing the need for those votes on Election Day. The full committee, ignoring any pretense of limited government principles, responded by restoring the anti-poker plank.  Then, despite the fact that 2008 was already shaping up to be a tough election year for conservatives, the Family Research Council nevertheless released a press release praising the addition of this plank that unnecessarily and gleefully taunted the plank’s many opponents.

What did national leaders of social conservatives get for their efforts?  America now has a Congress more likely to pass legislation that licenses and regulates online poker, which I see as one of the few positive outcomes of the 2008 election, but we also have a Congress that is working against the interests of all conservatives.  Dobson and McClusky fought for things they saw as “nice to have” rather than the “must-haves,” and they lost both.  Not a well-played hand on the part of Dobson and McClusky.

Social conservatism under some of its recent leaders, often morphs into active, big government conservatism.  It seeks power to change society.  In its current form, it will seek to drive the conservatism movement toward big government conservatism whenever the conservative movement gains power.  And, every time the conservative movement embraces big government, voters will reject it.

There is a way to break this cycle.  The conservative movement must embrace a consistent set of principles.  We either believe in limited government or we do not.  We either believe in low taxes – and low spending – or we do not.  If we stick to this, we can win elections and stay in power.  Leaders of social conservatives would be wise to embrace this as well.  Rather than seeking to force changes via big government, then having to fight the big government they helped to create when out of power, social conservatives would be better served with leadership that supported a smaller federal government that kept its nose far from our religious and personal liberties.  After all, our values don’t come from Washington, nor do they come from our laws.  It’s time to loosen the shackles on the American people and trust them to do what is right.

Poker is not a crime, nor should it be.  Millions of Americans – including the president and many in Congress – play the game at their kitchen tables, on the Internet, and at their local card rooms.  It is a great American pastime.  During that failed era of big government “conservatism”, however, some big government social conservative groups like Focus on the Family wished to use the power of the federal government to stop Americans from playing online poker in their own homes.

To bolster their position, some of these big government social conservative groups falsely reported the results of gaming studies, leading to Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) erroneously claiming on the floor of the House that one-third of college students who tried online gaming had attempted suicide.  These groups also took studies on video slot machines that display jackpot near-misses in excess of the actual frequency of near-misses (the “crack cocaine of gambling,” according to Focus on the Family), falsely stated that the study results are applicable to all games on a video screen, then egregiously stated that even online peer-to-peer games of skill like poker are somehow included in the mix.

In a classic “be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it” scenario, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was passed into law in 2006 after being sneaked into the unrelated Safe Ports Act in the middle of the night by GOP leadership.   The new law banned U.S. financial institutions from processing transactions with sites hosting Internet gaming unlawful under other laws.  Fortunately, despite the best efforts of some anti-poker politicians, no federal law makes Internet poker unlawful, so poker is still not a crime.  Some have suggested that the Wire Act includes poker, but the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2001 that the Wire Act is limited to sports betting.  Unfortunately, the Justice Department does not accept that ruling and UIGEA does not define what is legal and what is not.  This legal limbo comes into full effect in December of this year when enforcement is set to go into effect, and poker players have already been affected.

In June, right before the World Series of Poker and in the midst of a recession with bailout dollars pumping through the economy, the Southern District of New York authorized the seizure of more than $30 million that rightfully belonged to poker players.  These were not just winnings, either.  These were players’ own personal funds placed in U.S. accounts.  The government simply seized it and refused to explain the reasons behind the seizure.

UIGEA opened a can of worms for the Republican Party.  Many Americans, particularly younger swing voters, adamantly oppose Internet censorship.  They developed a strongly negative view of the big government nanny-state instincts of the “new” GOP.  Banks and other financial institutions were equally outraged at being deputized as the unpaid Internet poker police.  Former Republican Congressman (and current pro-Obama turncoat) Jim Leach of Iowa, the sponsor of the legislation, was also its first casualty, losing his reelection bid to Democrat Dave Loebsack that same year.

Poker players responded to attacks on their liberty by forming the Poker Players Alliance, a one-million member strong grassroots organization that fights to protect the rights of poker players.  The drafters of the 2008 Republican Party Platform got the message.  After receiving many letters and online comments from poker enthusiasts, the draft committee kept online poker prohibition language out of the platform, stating a desire not to lose these voters in what was shaping up to be a difficult election year.  Unfortunately, the full committee chose to restore it.  Reaction was swift.  Reason magazine ridiculed the party for inserting this advocacy of big government into their platform, and GOP presidential nominee John McCain received tens of thousands of letters and phone calls in protest of this platform plank.  Many more protests were, as predicted, delivered via the voting booth on Election Day.

One wonders why a rather small but loud minority of the social conservative movement has this knee-jerk reaction against poker.  It seems they see this as a special area that requires big government limitations of our liberties for our own good.  Surely this is the type of area where truly principled conservatives would be expected simply to decline to participate in poker if they did not like the activity, much as we do with smoking and other activities of personal choice.  And, in fact, many do oppose this.  Former House Majority Leader D.  Armey, George Will, Grover Norquist, Walter Williams, and other leading conservatives have come out in strong opposition to what Will calls “Prohibition II.”

Perhaps the inclusion of poker prohibition advocacy into some descriptions of conservatism is an anachronistic holdover from the beliefs of the Temperance Movement of the early 1900s, when too many social conservatives (unfortunately) started seeing value in using the power of the federal government.  It is definitely an idea whose time has passed.  Opponents of online poker should reconsider their desire to restrict liberty out of unfounded fear.  We need less government in our lives, not more.

Attacks on online poker represent unnecessarily heavy-handed attempts to control legal activities, and go further than any other government action to censor the Internet.  Fortunately, there are encouraging signs.  The PPA participated at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this year, and the Washington Times reported that reception was very positive.  Far from believing Americans need the big federal government to protect them from themselves, the CPAC attendees overwhelmingly supported keeping the federal government out of our lives to the maximum degree possible.  They were also very opposed to government censorship of the Internet.  Additionally, many CPAC speakers loudly advocated small government principles.

Thankfully, a bipartisan group of freedom loving politicians in both the House and the Senate are fighting for legislation that will protect consumers and Internet freedom.  Licensing and regulation will also bring poker sites to the U.S., bringing tax revenue and jobs with them.

The nation simply does not want a federal censorship board monitoring the Internet, and the GOP cannot afford to give away votes.  It is time for conservatives to take over the party, adopt limited government values, and win some elections.