A-List Pols

A few days ago I basically pledged to “throw my political advocacy and support behind Republican candidates whose limiting principles are consistent with the Constitution and freedom” in order to reform the Republican party’s limiting principles to being consistent with freedom. Enter Massachusetts congressional hopeful Sam Meas, an American of Cambodian ancestry. He doesn’t know how old he is, exactly, because after Pol Pot re-educated Meas’ father to death, he was separated from his mother during the mad scramble to get to refugee camps in Thailand, and never saw her again. Read the whole article for more info about his extraordinary personal story.

As far as Meas’ politics, he self-identifies as a Reagan Republican, because (in his words) “I owe my life to him; he allowed me to come here and he fought Communism.” Fair enough. He’s not a fan of government involvement in health care, appears to hate socialism only slightly less than communism, and thinks America is “heaven on Earth.” From his campaign page:

I am not a career politician or country club candidate. I believe that America is the greatest country on earth. I am Sam Meas and I am running for Congress. I ask for your vote on September 14th. I approve of this message and I approve of the American Dream.

Gosh, I like this guy (and typically I don’t care for Boston fans – I’m assuming he cheers for Red Sox / Patriots). Yet, the Reason article mentions – but doesn’t go into specifics about – Meas’ tendency towards standard Republican social conservatism (you know, legislating morals, mores, and traditions, that are inconsistent with individual liberty). Since Meas also self-describes as the new face of the GOP, I hope he realizes that social conservatism is inconsistent with the individual liberty we all cherish, himself perhaps most of all since he “lived under a totalitarian regime . . . [and] knows what it is like to have lost all of your freedom.” After looking Meas up on the Internet and reading his website, I don’t see any social issues discussed on his “home,” “values & pledge,” or “issue,” pages. In fact, he provides the motto “live and let live.” I’m down with that.

What I’m not down for is Newt Gingrich, whose definition of freedom of expression (particularly religious liberty) is inconsistent with individual liberty. Reason sums it up well:

Jews, Christians, or Hindus are free to build whatever they want at 51 Park Place. But not Muslims. Why? Because the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks were Muslims. Once you strip away the Orwellian rhetoric equating peaceful religious activity with violence, Gingrich’s position really is as simple, and appalling, as that.

But Gingrich doesn’t limit expression only for Muslims, Nazi’s too: “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.” Here’s the problem with Newt Gingrich and individual liberty: the very criticism I have for the Democrat Party is true about Gingrich. Consider what I wrote about Democrats:

“My issue with the Democratic Party is its lack of concrete limiting principles.  Democrat party values are issue and identity group specific, waxing or waning with the polls.  They are insufficiently rigid.  This is inconsistent with equal treatment and incapable of conserving individual freedom.

Rewritten for Gingrich:

“My issue with the Democratic Party Newt Gingrich is its his lack of concrete limiting principles.  Democrat party Gingrich’s values are issue and identity group specific, waxing or waning with the polls.  They His values are insufficiently rigid.  This is inconsistent with equal treatment and incapable of conserving individual freedom.

Basically, individual freedom serves as Newt Gingrich’s limiting principle only to the extent that he agrees with you. That’s not freedom, Newt, and I won’t vote for you.

By the way, I haven’t written about the NYC Mosque yet. I was busy studying for the bar, then taking it, then traveling, and I’ve been at the bar (Stout) basically ever since. Here’s my view. There is absolutely no room for the force of government to deprive any member of the American community of freedom of expression or religion, no matter how rude their expression may be. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether the Mosque is or isn’t rude, in light of the people building the mosque, the money behind it, the selection of the location, the name Cordoba center, etc.. Personally, I think it’s pretty damn rude. I have my doubts as to the sincerity of the people building it, the intentions of the sources of money for it, and the symbolism of the name Cordoba. And if the intent truly is to build bridges with the American people, they should consider relocating since nearly 70% of the country (including Harry Reid) thinks it’s rude (inappropriate is the term the poll used), and building it there will likely prove counterproductive to their professed intentions.

The bottom line, however, is that this is America and we shouldn’t even be discussing using the immutable force of government to suppress anyone’s religion no matter how rude or inappropriate we may individually perceive it. Shit, Newt, even Palin gets that. If you profess to believe in individual freedom – economic, civil, and political liberty – then you must accept the consequences of freedom, one of which is that we often may be offended by one another. There is no right not to be offended. Your recourse to being offended is not suppression of another’s expression but exercise of your right to expression. Wtf is so hard about this?

Candidates, Socio-Political