Excerpt
andlt;aandgt;andlt;/aandgt;andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;and#8220; I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, and#8216;We must broaden the base of our partyand#8217;and#8212;when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.and#8221;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;and#8212;Ronald Reagan, 1975andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Iand#8217;M SURE youand#8217;ve noticed how little choice there seems to be in politics. I hear it over and over again from people who call in to my radio show and tell me that they donand#8217;t see any point in voting since both candidates are equally terrible.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Theyand#8217;re often right. In 2008, our choice for president was between a Republican who wanted to spend billions to and#8220;combatand#8221; global warming and a Democrat who wanted to spend hundreds of billions to do the same thing. In 2004, it was between the incumbent George W. Bush, whose embarrassing conservative record weand#8217;ll cover later, and John Kerryand#8212;a man who, by some accounts, had been the most liberal andlt;aandgt;member of the Senate for multiple yearsandlt;/aandgt;.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;If it seems like no and#8220;realand#8221; conservative or libertarian candidate for president ever makes it very far itand#8217;s because they donand#8217;t. They are derided and marginalized by the establishment and mainstream media until their names become toxic. By the time the power base is done with a candidate who might pose a threat, heand#8217;s become the punch line to a joke, the plot of a andlt;iandgt;Saturday Night Liveandlt;/iandgt; skit, or the first thing that pops up on Google when you search for and#8220;homophobiaand#8221; or and#8220;racistand#8221; or and#8220;idiot.and#8221;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;None of this is happening by chance. Itand#8217;s a shell game, and the progressives who run our political parties, our universities, and our media treat the rest of us like tourists in Times Square. It may occasionally look as if libertarians and small-government candidates have a chance to win the prizeand#8212;but thatand#8217;s just the way they set up the con. The illusion of victory is omnipresent, but itand#8217;s just thatand#8212;an illusion. A con canand#8217;t ever really be beaten.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;andlt;bandgt;THE SHELL GAME TURNS 100andlt;/bandgt;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;The Big Con started right around 1912. America was given a and#8220;choiceand#8221;: Woodrow Wilson or Theodore Roosevelt. The New Freedom or the New Nationalism. Progressive or Progressive.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;That was the year that Republican became Democrat and Democrat became progressive. Later, after progressives finally had their hands on our wallets, they stopped calling themselves progressives and took the name and#8220;liberaland#8221; instead. When people caught on to that, the left changed the names to protect the guilty once again.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;The Con, Revealedandlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Hillary Clinton actually described these bait-and-switch word games pretty well during a 2007 debate after she was asked if she would define herself as and#8220;liberal.and#8221;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;andlt;iandgt;You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individualandlt;/iandgt;.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;andlt;iandgt;Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and itand#8217;s been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th centuryandlt;/iandgt;.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;andlt;iandgt;I prefer the word and#8220;progressive,and#8221; which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive andlt;aandgt;era at the beginning of the 20th centuryandlt;/aandgt;andlt;/iandgt;.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Progressives realized long ago that if you rig the game of politics against the small-government option, then you end up with a series of candidates who increasingly blur the line between the parties. Eventually the parties themselves become meaninglessand#8212;empty vessels that simply serve to funnel money and power through the system. With very few exceptions, our elections are really no longer about whether to grow or cut governmentand#8217;s size and power, but rather andlt;iandgt;by how muchandlt;/iandgt; they should grow. We debate double-digit increases in social program spending versus single-digit increases. We debate how many new billion-dollar entitlements we should add instead of whether these programs should even exist in the first place. We debate whether teachers unions and the U.S. Department of Education should have more or less power, rather than whether the federal government should have any role in local education at all. All of this is part of the con, and itand#8217;s worked to absolute perfection. With very few exceptions even the and#8220;boldestand#8221; of conservative politicians submit budgets and bills that, a hundred years ago, wouldand#8217;ve been too far left for even a Democrat to propose.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Whenever candidates or groups raise their hand and question these debates, invoke the Constitution, or propose and#8220;radicaland#8221; ideas like a balanced budget amendment, shutting down overreaching and ineffective federal agencies, or adhering to the Tenth Amendment, they are ostracized. Why do you think the Tea Party was immediately branded as a bunch of racists and birthers? Itand#8217;s because they posed a real threat of waking voters up to the fact that Americans are being presented with a never-ending series of false choices. The progressive establishment canand#8217;t allow real diversity to stand.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;The only hope we have of changing this is by first educating people as to how this happened and whoand#8217;s behind itand#8212;and then by presenting a better way forward. Thatand#8217;s what the first two chapters of this book are all about: the virusand#8212;progressivism; and the antibioticand#8212;commonsense libertarianism. Yes, we have plenty of other issues to solve, and many of them are covered in this book, but if we donand#8217;t start by treating the underlying disease then none of that will matter.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;So, letand#8217;s take a giant step back, get out of the weeds of the twenty-four-hour news cycle and cable channels and Twitter attacks, and ask ourselves this simple but important question: How did we ever get to the point where the conservative/libertarian point of view does not even get a seat at the table?andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;andlt;bandgt;THE RINOand#8211;AN ANCIENT SPECIESandlt;/bandgt;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Itand#8217;s pretty easy to spot the people who donand#8217;t really fit into the Republican Party. A lot of times these are the same people who frequent the Sunday morning talk shows or are media darlings. Iand#8217;m talking about people like Arlen Specter, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham. But these types of Republicans are nothing new.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Theodore Roosevelt was one of the first RINOs (Republican in Name Only) in American history. Yes, I know, Roosevelt was brave and strong. He explored the world. He strung up rustlers in the Wild West. He wrote more history books than most people ever read. He edited a magazine. (Even if Newt Gingrich were around back then, Teddy Roosevelt would still have been the smartest guy in the room.)andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;All of this made Roosevelt incredibly dangerous when he decided to get on board the Progressive train. And the longer he rode those rails, the more radical he got. His and#8220;Square Dealand#8221; was one thing. It started the ball rolling. It got the nose of big government under the Constitutionand#8217;s tent by regulating business and the banks. But then Rooseveltand#8217;s progressivism got increasingly more toxic. After he left the White House, he unveiled something he called the and#8220;New Nationalism.and#8221;andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;They Really Said Itandlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;You know, my andlt;aandgt;hero is a guy named Teddy Rooseveltandlt;/aandgt;.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;and#8212;JOHN MCCAIN AT A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE IN OCTOBER 2008andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;And for government to not leave guarantees that you donand#8217;t have the ability to change, no private corporation has the purchasing power or the ability to reshape the health system, and in this sense I guess Iand#8217;m a Theodore Roosevelt Republican. In fact, if I [was] going to characterize myand#8212;on health where I come from, Iand#8217;m a Theodore Roosevelt Republican and I believe government can andlt;aandgt;lean in the regulatory leaning is okay.andlt;/aandgt;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;and#8212;NEWT GINGRICHandlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Thereand#8217;s a reason Barack Obama took time out in December 2011 from pretending he was FDR or JFK or Harry Truman or Lincoln (and from golf, too, come to think of it) to channel Roosevelt at Osawatomie, Kansas. Osawatomie is where, in 1910, Roosevelt gave a speech that would sound right at home in todayand#8217;s Democratic Party. and#8220;We should permit [wealth] to be gained only so long as the andlt;aandgt;gaining represents benefit to the communityandlt;/aandgt;,and#8221; Roosevelt told a crowd of thirty thousand listeners. and#8220;This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase andlt;aandgt;in governmental control is now necessaryandlt;/aandgt;. . . .and#8221;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Two years later, Roosevelt doubled down, turning from rogue elephant to Bull Moose and running for president on his own Progressive Party ticket. The andlt;iandgt;New York Timesandlt;/iandgt; explained that Rooseveltand#8217;s 1912 Progressive Party convention was at best a gathering of and#8220;a convention of fanatics.and#8221; How bad was Rooseveltand#8217;s 1912 campaign? It made people think that Woodrow Wilson was conservative. Thatand#8217;s bad, but whatand#8217;s far worse is that Roosevelt is the president who some prominent modern-day Republicans, like John McCain and Newt Gingrich, still look up to.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Roosevelt certainly wasnand#8217;t alone in being a progressive Republican; the GOP was infested with these guys. In 1912, Rooseveltand#8217;s Progressive running mate was California governor Hiram Johnson, a big-time andlt;aandgt;Progressive who hated Japanese immigrantsandlt;/aandgt;. You know who worshipped Johnson? Earl Warrenand#8212;the same guy who, as the Republican governor of California during World War II, helped FDR ship the Japanese andlt;aandgt;in his state to internment campsandlt;/aandgt;.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Sometimes the Truth Slips Outandlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;I am keenly aware that there are not a few men who claim to be leaders in the progressive movement who bear unpleasant resemblances to the lamented Robespierre and his andlt;aandgt;fellow progressives of 1791 and and#8217;92andlt;/aandgt;.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;and#8212;THEODORE ROOSEVELTandlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Then there was Nebraskaand#8217;s progressive senator George W. Norris, who served nine congressional terms (five in the House and four in the Senate) as a and#8220;Republican.and#8221; Norris was the very model of a RINO. Not only did he endorse FDR in 1932; in 1928 he had also endorsed Democrat Al Smith. Norris also sponsored FDRand#8217;s Tennessee Valley Authority and Rural Electrification Act (both alongside segregationist Mississippi andlt;aandgt;anti-Semitic congressman John Rankinandlt;/aandgt;) and was very pro-Soviet (and#8220;Russia is more in accord with the United States . . . andlt;aandgt;than most any other foreign nationandlt;/aandgt;and#8221;).andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Bipartisan Progressivesandlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;I guess itand#8217;s not really surprising that when Henry A. Wallace (another former progressive Republican) and his communist-controlled Progressive Party staged their national convention in 1948, they hung a huge portrait of the late former supposed andlt;aandgt;Republican George Norris from the raftersandlt;/aandgt;.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Another big-time Republican progressive was Wisconsinand#8217;s Senator Robert La Follette Sr. and#8220;Fighting Boband#8221; La Follette actually wanted to be the national Progressive standard-bearer in 1912, but two things stood in his way: Teddy Roosevelt, and a nervous breakdown he suffered while andlt;aandgt;delivering a speech in Philadelphia that yearandlt;/aandgt;. (It must have been really stressful keeping up the small government charade.) In 1924, La Follette finally embraced who he really was, leaving the GOP and running for president as a Progressive against Calvin Coolidge. His platform included nationalizing the countryand#8217;s big industries, an idea that was so good it resulted in an endorsement andlt;aandgt;from the Socialist Party of Americaandlt;/aandgt;.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;andlt;bandgt;AN UGLY HISTORYandlt;/bandgt;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington put on his spectacles and looked right into the future when he warned us about the dangers of political parties, or factions:andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;andlt;iandgt;The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, andlt;aandgt;on the ruins of public libertyandlt;/aandgt;andlt;/iandgt;.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Itand#8217;s hard to find a better example of the and#8220;absolute power of the individualand#8221; or the and#8220;ruins of public libertyand#8221; than the way early progressives looked at the weakest members of our society. These people, many of whom are emulated and respected by modern-day politicians, werenand#8217;t just busy trying to control big business or monetary policy; they also wanted to control societyand#8212;from cradle to grave. In some ways thatand#8217;s just the natural evolution of their ideology; once somebody thinks they know best about a bunch of things like regulating the snot out of the economy, they think they know best about andlt;iandgt;everythingandlt;/iandgt;.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;and#8220;Everything,and#8221; in this case, included determining who was good enough to live, die, and breed.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;That was what the Progressive Era eugenics movement was all about. Crippled? No children for you. The wrong race? Ditto. Have special needs? Youand#8217;re an embarrassment to society and youand#8217;ll get none of our attention or care. Thatand#8217;s rightand#8212;the people who advertise themselves as the ones who care most about the and#8220;least of usand#8221; are actually the people who preferred that the least of us didnand#8217;t exist.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;One of the big players in the eugenics movement was a guy named Madison Grant. Since Grant was named after two presidents, he thought he was really greatand#8212;and, more than that, he thought that andlt;iandgt;youandlt;/iandgt; werenand#8217;t really great at all. In 1916 Grant wrote a huge bestseller titled andlt;iandgt;The Passing of the Great Raceandlt;/iandgt;. It contained gems like this:andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;andlt;iandgt;Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and a sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilization of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community. The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit and human life is valuable only when it is andlt;aandgt;of use to the community or race.andlt;/aandgt;andlt;/iandgt;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;andlt;iandgt;As the percentage of incompetents increases, the burden of their support will become ever more onerous until, at no distant date, society will in self-defense put a stop to the supply of andlt;aandgt;feebleminded and criminal children of weaklingsandlt;/aandgt;andlt;/iandgt;.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;andlt;iandgt;The Passing of the Great Raceandlt;/iandgt; was translated into German in 1925, and guess who was a big fan? Yep, thatand#8217;s right. and#8220;andlt;aandgt;The book is my Bibleandlt;/aandgt;,and#8221; Adolf Hitler wrote to Madison Grant.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;So, whatand#8217;s this got to do with this chapter? Just this: Madison Grant and Theodore Roosevelt were great friends. And when andlt;iandgt;The Passing of the Great Raceandlt;/iandgt; came out, this is what Roosevelt wrote to Grant: and#8220;The book is a capital book: in purpose, in vision, in grasp of the facts that our people must need to realize. . . . It is the work of an American scholar and gentleman, and all Americans andlt;aandgt;should be grateful to you for writing itandlt;/aandgt;.and#8221;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Senator McCain, is your hero really and#8220;a guy named Teddy Rooseveltand#8221;?andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;and#8220;The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit, and human life is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race.and#8221;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;and#8212;Madison Grant, writing in a book endorsed as and#8220;fearlessand#8221; by Theodore Rooseveltandlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;andlt;bandgt;DAMN HOOVERandlt;/bandgt;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Back to the national picture. There were three Republican presidents of the 1920s: Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover. Harding and Silent Cal were true conservatives: they cut spending and taxes; they reduced the national debt; they vetoed bad legislation; their policies fostered growth and prosperity. They got it right.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Herbert Hoover was something else entirely. In 1912, Hoover bolted the Republican Party to support Theodore andlt;aandgt;Rooseveltand#8217;s Progressive Party ticketandlt;/aandgt;. He served in Woodrow Wilsonand#8217;s wartime administration and oversaw the nationand#8217;s food supply. In 1918, he joined in Wilsonand#8217;s call andlt;aandgt;to elect a Democratic Congressandlt;/aandgt;. In 1920, Franklin Roosevelt (another Wilson appointee) even supported Hoover as the andlt;iandgt;Democraticandlt;/iandgt; candidate for presidentand#8212;and andlt;aandgt;angled to be his running mateandlt;/aandgt;.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Because Hoover was a progressive, he reacted exactly how youand#8217;d expect when the stock market crashed in October 1929. Like most elected officials today, Hoover simply didnand#8217;t trust the free market to correct the situation. Instead, he waded into the Great Depression with his own version of TARP and stimulus plans.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Cal vs. Herbandlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Itand#8217;s not all that surprising that Hoover looked to the government after the and#8217;29 crash. After all, this is the guy about whom Calvin Coolidge said and#8220;for six years that man has given me andlt;aandgt;unsolicited adviceand#8212;all of it badandlt;/aandgt;.and#8221;andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;It was Hooverand#8217;s Republican big government response that set the stage for FDRand#8217;s even-bigger-government New Deal. Hooverand#8217;s programs cost so much that, in 1932, presidential hopeful FDR blasted Hoover for and#8220;presiding over the greatest spending administration andlt;aandgt;in peacetime in all of historyandlt;/aandgt;.and#8221; He charged the Hoover administration with and#8220;fostering andlt;aandgt;regimentation without stint or limitandlt;/aandgt;.and#8221; Speaker of the House John Nance Garner, FDRand#8217;s running mate that year, charged that Hoover was and#8220;leading the andlt;aandgt;country down the path of socialism.andlt;/aandgt;and#8221;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;and#8220;We might have done nothing,and#8221; Hoover said, defending his big-government, big-spending, little-results efforts. and#8220;That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. . . . No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility andlt;aandgt;for leadership in such times.andlt;/aandgt;and#8221;andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Regulation! Taxes! Stimulus! Infrastructure! Vote Hoover!andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;[B]efore a year [of the Depression] would pass, Hoover had done damage . . . on three fronts: by intervening in business, by signing a destruction tariff, and by assailing the stock markets. . . . Hoover proceeded undaunted. He ordered governors to increase their public spending when possible. He also pushed for, and got, Congress to endorse large public spending projects: hospitals, bridges. . . . By April 1930 the secretary of commerce would be able to announce that public works spending was andlt;aandgt;at its highest level in five yearsandlt;/aandgt;.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;and#8212;AMITY SHLAES IN andlt;iandgt;THE FORGOTTEN MAN: A NEW HISTORY OF THE GREAT DEPRESSIONandlt;/iandgt;andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Sound familiar? Many years later, after another economic panic, George W. Bush, another Republican president, would claim that he and#8220;abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system . . . to make andlt;aandgt;sure the economy doesnand#8217;t collapse.andlt;/aandgt;and#8221;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;The GOP went into the fetal position after the Great Depression left Republican officeholders in the breadlines. Alf and#8220;the Kansas Sunflowerand#8221; Landon, the GOPand#8217;s hapless 1936 nominee, set the standard for all the and#8220;me tooand#8221; Republican nominees who have followed him. andlt;iandgt;Just elect usandlt;/iandgt;, these guys have said for years. andlt;iandgt;We wonand#8217;t repeal anything the Democrats have done. Elect us, and weand#8217;ll run progressive programs better than the Democrats ever couldandlt;/iandgt;.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;In 1940, Wall Street utilities attorney Wendell Willkie followed Landon. Willkie may have been the RINO-est Republican presidential candidate of all time considering that heand#8217;d been a registered Democrat until just before emerging as the 1940 long-shot GOP nominee. After his 1940 loss to FDR, Willkie pursued an obnoxious career of lecturing Republicans to be even andlt;aandgt;less conservative than they already wereandlt;/aandgt;.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Even Taft?andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Just how dismal were the 1940s and and#8217;50s for conservatives in the GOP? To a lot of people, the conservative alternative to duds like Wendell Willkie, Tom Dewey, Harold Stassen, and Earl Warren was Ohio senator Robert A. Taft, a guy they called and#8220;Mr. Republican.and#8221; But even Taft was, on occasion, a little squishy. Listen to these words from his colleague Richard Nixon: and#8220;As a matter of fact, Taft was a progressive. . . . [H]e had very progressive, advanced views on aid to education, andlt;aandgt;on health care, and on housing.andlt;/aandgt;and#8221;andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;In 1944 rumors began to fly that Willkie might turn his coat again and endorse FDR for a fourth term. Unfortunately, Willkie died before that might have happened, but we do know this: Willkie had a secret meeting that July with a Roosevelt emissary about realigning all the progressive/liberal andlt;aandgt;elements into a single party in 1948andlt;/aandgt;.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;andlt;bandgt;IKE, BARRY, AND TRICKY DICKandlt;/bandgt;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Some might say that everything changed for the better after Tom Deweyand#8217;s embarrassing 1948 defeat; that the GOP turned away from progressivism. But thatand#8217;s simply not true.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Dwight Eisenhower captured the GOP nomination in 1952 by defeating the more conservative (caveats apply) Senator Robert Taft of Ohio. Compared to what would follow Ike, his administration looks pretty darn good, but compared to what it might have accomplished, it left a lot to be desired.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;The truth is that Ikeand#8217;s eight years looked very much like what Tom Deweyand#8217;s and#8220;unityand#8221; administration might have looked like had he won. Think about it: Deweyand#8217;s campaign manager became Ikeand#8217;s attorney general; Deweyand#8217;s foreign policy adviser became Ikeand#8217;s secretary of state; Deweyand#8217;s running mate Earl Warren became chief justice of the Supreme Court. Itand#8217;s no wonder that Arizonaand#8217;s Barry Goldwater blasted Ike for running a and#8220;andlt;aandgt;dime store New Deal.andlt;/aandgt;and#8221;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Barry Goldwater.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;and#8220;Mr. Conservativeand#8221; captured the GOP nomination in 1964, but, letand#8217;s face it, he was the only bright light around at that point for conservative Republicans. There was, however, an avalanche of liberal, progressive RINOs: New York governor Nelson A. Rockefeller, Pennsylvania governor William W. Scranton, Michigan governor George W. Romney, and senators like Jacob Javits, Tom Kuchel, Kenneth Keating, John Sherman Cooper, Margaret Chase Smith, Leverett Saltonstall, Clifford Case, and George Aiken.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;And thatand#8217;s not counting Prescott Bush, Chuck Percy, Mark Hatfield, Edward Brooke, or even John Lindsay, who soon became mayor of New York City and drove and#8220;Fun Cityand#8221; into the ground. In other words, it was a liberal Republican field day. Goldwater was the exception, not the rule. And with the rest of the RINO bunch manning the ship, we didnand#8217;t stand a chance of stopping LBJand#8217;s and#8220;Great Society.and#8221;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;After Goldwater was betrayed by party progressives in 1964, Republicans lost their nerve. The conservative recapture of the GOP fell apart. The Washington establishment decided to play it safe. Read our lips: No new Goldwaters! And certainly, they werenand#8217;t interested in that actor-governor out in Californiaand#8212;Ronald Reagan. Nope, the GOP wasnand#8217;t going to buy into any of that c-r-a-z-y free enterprise, small government stuff anymore. It was going to play it safeand#8212;that was how you won elections. Or so we were told.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;In 1968, the GOP decided to nominate Richard Nixon again. Now, Dick Nixon wasnand#8217;t only a retread (think Bob Dole, John McCain, or Mitt Romney); he was one seriously bad presidentand#8212;and one really bad example of a progressive republican.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;No Explanation Necessaryandlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;I will be prepared to put on an aggressive and vigorous campaign on a platform of progressive liberalism designed to return andlt;aandgt;our district to the Republican Party.andlt;/aandgt;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;and#8212;RICHARD M. NIXON, RUNNING FOR CONGRESS IN 1946andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Liberals hated Richard Nixon. They didnand#8217;t go for his style. They resented the way he helped expose Stalinist agent Alger Hiss in the late 1940s. But, if they were smart, they shouldand#8217;ve embraced him: down deep he was their compatriot on some very important issues.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Conservatives, on the other hand, cut Nixon a lot of slack for a very long time. They shouldnand#8217;t have. They fell for the argument that and#8220;the enemy of my enemy is my friend.and#8221; But Richard Nixon was never a friend of conservatism; he just used the rhetoric and the movement to his own advantage. He played conservativesand#8212;and Republicansand#8212;for suckers. And Barry Goldwater was one of the biggest suckers of all.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Yes, Richard Milhaus Nixon really was Tricky Dick.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Nixon not only andlt;iandgt;didnand#8217;tandlt;/iandgt; repeal Lyndon Johnsonand#8217;s Great Society, he went out of his way to put the entire program on steroids. Nixon never balanced a budget (andlt;aandgt;even LBJ did it in 1968and#8211;69andlt;/aandgt;), but he did create the Environmental Protection Agency and proclaimed Earth Day. He signed OSHA and an Emergency Unemployment Act into law. He recognized Communist China (a policy that I would venture to say has now had a few unintended consequences) and he spent more on social programs than on defense. In fact, Nixon wanted to spend more with his and#8220;Family Assistance Program,and#8221; which would have provided a and#8220;guaranteed incomeand#8221; andlt;aandgt;to tens of millions of Americansandlt;/aandgt;.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Under Nixon, Medicaidand#8217;s andlt;aandgt;spending skyrocketing 120 percentandlt;/aandgt;. He also wrecked what was left of the andlt;aandgt;gold standard and devalued the dollarandlt;/aandgt;. And, when inflation ran riot, he andlt;aandgt;instituted wage-and-price controlsandlt;/aandgt;.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Spiro Agnew, Nixonand#8217;s vice president, was actually an eastern establishment Rockefeller-type Republican who only mouthed conservative words to keep Nixonand#8217;s Republican base at ease. Liberal Senate minority leader Hugh Scott got it right when he boasted: andlt;iandgt;and#8220;The conservatives get the rhetoric; andlt;aandgt;we [the liberals] get the actionandlt;/aandgt;.and#8221;andlt;/iandgt;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;andlt;iandgt;New York Timesandlt;/iandgt; columnist James Reston said of Nixon in 1970: and#8220;He is at a critical point in his career. He has been trying to liberate himself from his conservative and anti-Communist past, and work toward a progressive policy at home and a policy of andlt;aandgt;reconciliation with the Communists abroad.andlt;/aandgt; . . .and#8221;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Reston got it only half right. Nixon never really was a conservative; he was alwaysand#8212;you guessed itand#8212;a progressive. And his favorite president wasand#8212;you guessed right againand#8212;Woodrow Wilson. In fact, while Ronald Reagan placed a portrait of Calvin Coolidge in the Cabinet Room, Nixon hung portraits of Wilsonand#8212;and Theodore Rooseveltand#8212;andlt;aandgt;in his own private officeandlt;/aandgt;.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;andlt;bandgt;INTO THE BUSHESandlt;/bandgt;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Iand#8217;ve met George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. They are both decent, kind, courteous people. But neither of them did a very good job with bringing a true conservative philosophy to the Oval Office.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;The GOP had come a long way under Ronald Reagan. This new and improved party might not have accomplished everything that conservatives wanted (it never could, for example, figure out how to balance a budget or abolish Jimmy Carterand#8217;s Department of Education), but it seemed to be finally taking us away from the progressive track that Teddy Roosevelt had laid for the country all those years ago.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Reaganand#8217;s conservatism, however, never seemed to be good enough for the first president Bush. He was too busy ridiculing and#8220;voodoo economicsand#8221; or introducing his own brand of watered-down, progressive and#8220;kinder, gentler conservatism.and#8221; Before you could say and#8220;andlt;aandgt;Read my lips, no new taxesandlt;/aandgt;,and#8221; Bush Sr. had blown andlt;aandgt;an 89 percent approval ratingandlt;/aandgt; and received a pathetic andlt;aandgt;37.5 percent in the 1992 electionandlt;/aandgt;.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;It was pretty much the same with George H. W. Bushand#8217;s son when he took over eight years later. George W. had marketed his own brand of politics as and#8220;compassionate conservatism.and#8221; He campaigned for the White House without promising to abolish andlt;iandgt;anyandlt;/iandgt; federal agenciesand#8212;something that was odd for a true small government politician. Conservatives should have seen through this act (weand#8217;ve seen it enough times to know how it ends), but we didnand#8217;t. There was so much concern about beating Al Gore (for good reason, I should add) that no one really stopped to think about Bush himself.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Vladimir Milhaus Lenin?andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;There are many strange things about Richard Nixon, but this is among the strangest: When Nixon rolled out his abandonment of the gold standard, a rise in the tariff, and wage-and-price controls, he could have named his program anything. He could have called it and#8220;the New Progressivism.and#8221; He could have called it and#8220;the Great, New, Fair, Square Deal-Frontier-Society.and#8221; Instead he called it and#8220;the New Economic Policyand#8221;and#8212;the name Soviet dictator Vladimir Ilyich Lenin gave to the andlt;aandgt;economic policy he instituted in 1922andlt;/aandgt;.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;George W. not only abandoned the traditional GOP promise to eliminate the federal Department of Education, he imposed a whole andlt;iandgt;newandlt;/iandgt; level of Washington bureaucratic control on local schools with his and#8220;No Child Left Behindand#8221; act. He also doubled federal education spending (amazing fact: Bush andlt;aandgt;spent more on education than on Iraqandlt;/aandgt;) and grew federal spending 68 percent overall.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Voodoo Election Returnsandlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;How bad did George H. W. Bushand#8217;s and#8220;kinder, gentler conservatismand#8221; stink up the lot in his 1992 reelection campaign? This bad: Bush ended up with 37.5 percent of the vote. In 1932, colorless old Herbert Hoover, running at the depth of the Great Depression, got 39.7 percent! Bush got exactly 1.0 percent more than hapless Alf Landon did in 1936 when Landon won a whopping 8(!) electoral votes.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;For years on end, a Republican Congress spent like Charlie Sheen in a Vegas nightclub, and Bush generally stood by and accepted it. He andlt;aandgt;issued just twelve vetoesandlt;/aandgt; over his two terms, the lowest total since Warren Hardingand#8212;which isnand#8217;t even a fair comparison considering that Harding died in office during his only term.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;George W. nearly doubled our national debt, taking it from andlt;aandgt;$5.768 trillion to $10.626 trillionandlt;/aandgt;. He oversaw creation of the $700 billion blank-check TARP program, the first stimulus, and a $180 billion Medicare drug benefit program.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;In 2009, the Mercatus Institute ran the numbers on George W. They arenand#8217;t pretty:andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt; Bush increased spending more than any of his seven predecessors (LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHWB, Clinton).andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt; In Bushand#8217;s last term discretionary spending skyrocketed 48.6 percent.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt; Adjusted for inflation, Bill Clintonand#8217;s budget rose by just 11 percent. Bushand#8217;s budgets soared by 104 percent.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt; The number of federal subsidy programs expanded by 30 percent. When Bush left office the andlt;aandgt;number of programs had grown to 1,816andlt;/aandgt;.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;My point with all of this is not to add to the George W. Bush bashingand#8212;he obviously did plenty of very good thingsand#8212;but simply to underscore that he was not even close to being a conservative president. A Republican? Sure. A guy who kept us safe during one of the most dangerous times in American history? Absolutely. But a real, small government, constitutional conservative? No way.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;andlt;bandgt;FOOL ME ONCE. . .andlt;/bandgt;andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;At this point some people may be thinking that I believe thereand#8217;s absolutely no difference between Republicans and Democrats.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;No, not at all. There is absolutely a difference between the way Michele Bachmann, Jim DeMint, and Mike Lee view the world as opposed to the way Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Barbara Boxer view it. What I andlt;iandgt;amandlt;/iandgt; saying, however, is that those on the right who stand for real conservatism are relentlessly attacked and marginalized and, therefore, never really even make it into the running for the West Wing. You only have to look back to how Sarah Palin was treated once she had a chance at making it to Washington to see how this works in practice.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;I am also saying that even those who claim to carry the conservative torch can backfire once they are exposed to the glitter and glamour found along the Potomac. No candidate is a sure thing to be conservative or moral or honest or constitutionally focused just because they wear the label and#8220;Republican.and#8221; Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew werenand#8217;t any of those things. Teddy Roosevelt was no small government conservative. George III interfered less in our educational system than George W did.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Courting Disasterandlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;The rationale of those who tell us to ignore our gut and vote Republican usually boils down to something like this: andlt;iandgt;No matter how bad Republicans really are, conservatives have to vote Republican so that we can place conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Courtandlt;/iandgt;. But guess what? Democrats are told the same thing! Iand#8217;m not sure that either side is really all that happy with the results.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;There have been plenty of Republican SCOTUS nominees who were so atrocious they didnand#8217;t even get confirmed: Clement Haynsworth, G. Harold Carswell, Douglas H. Ginsburg, and Harriet Miers. And then thereand#8217;s the nightmare of GOP nominees who actually do get confirmed: Ikeand#8217;s disastrous choices of Earl Warren (a payback for help at the 1952 convention) and William J. Brennan (chosen solely to woo northeastern votes in Ikeand#8217;s 1956 reelection bid), Nixonand#8217;s catastrophe of the cranky and unprofessional Harry Blackmun (he gave us andlt;iandgt;Roe v. Wadeandlt;/iandgt;), Gerald Fordand#8217;s pick of John Paul Stevens, and George H. W. Bushand#8217;s stupefying selection of the liberal nonentity David Souter.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;With selections like that, who needs Democrats?andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Weand#8217;re told that we have to forgive the GOP for the Nixons and McCains that it hands us from time to time; that we have to turn a blind eye to whatand#8217;s wrong with the Republican Party. The and#8220;smart peopleand#8221; in charge tell us that we just have to keep our mouths shut, turn off our brains, and rally around the elephant. Sorry if Iand#8217;m not thrilled by the idea of standing in line to pull the lever for a party that couldnand#8217;t seemingly care less about governing by the values it pretends to stand for.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;There are also those who make a more fundamental argument about why none of this matters: old-fashioned conservatismand#8217;s time has passed. I hear it all the time; people say that the modern GOP has to move on and adapt. They say it has to expand beyond its traditional base, be a big tent, be progressiveand#8212;maybe not as progressive as Barack Obama, but smart and tough when it comes to using government as a tool to help people. If you want to win, they say, then you have to move toward the middleand#8212;offer a little something to everyone. Be more like McCain and Romney and less like Palin and Santorum.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;RINO Fun Factandlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;John McCain voted to confirm ACLU general counsel Ruth Bader Ginsburg (and#8220;I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were andlt;aandgt;drafting a Constitution in the year 2012andlt;/aandgt;and#8221;) to the Supreme Court in 1993. And andlt;aandgt;he wasnand#8217;t alone: the vote was 96and#8211;3andlt;/aandgt;.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Nope, sorry, not buying it. Decades of evidence are in to show us exactly what we get when we compromise our values to win elections: more government, more spending, more taxes, more regulations, more bureaucracy, more interference by Washington in our daily lives. If thatand#8217;s what winning means then youand#8217;ll excuse me if Iand#8217;m not excited about continuing that trend. If turning my back on my principles is a prerequisite to winning elections, then, I hate to say it, but Iand#8217;d rather lose. Iand#8217;d rather not be in power than have to justify using that power to do things that Iand#8217;m fundamentally opposed to.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;But perhaps the biggest problem for those of us who care about the future of liberty is that most people donand#8217;t understand that we are being offered false choices; that John McCain as the standard-bearer of the Republican Party in a presidential election is indicative of how the conservative/libertarian chair has been taken from the table.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;The truth is that we are the markand#8212;the suckerand#8212;in a national shell game. The balland#8212;which represents real small government, constitutional candidatesand#8212;seems like itand#8217;s always there, ready to be discovered, when, in reality, the operator is palming it. It doesnand#8217;t matter which shell you choose or how many times you play or how closely you pay attentionand#8212;the ball will never be where you think it is.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;You will lose every time.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;That is why understanding history is so vital to understanding the current political playing field. What the establishment is doing today is what progressives originally did when they took the chair away from constitutionalists and said: Hereand#8217;s your choice: Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson; John McCain or Barack Obama. Which is it going to be?andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Beck Quotes a Socialist!andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;Iand#8217;d rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I donand#8217;t want and get it.andlt;BRandgt; andlt;BRandgt;and#8212;EUGENE V. DEBS, SOCIALIST CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT IN 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, AND 1920.andlt;BRandgt;andlt;BRandgt;Sorry, thatand#8217;s not a fair choiceand#8212;and so itand#8217;s time that we call the shell game what it really is: a scam. I donand#8217;t know about you, but I donand#8217;t participate in scams, I expose them. And thatand#8217;s what we need to do now: expose the system as not just flawed, but rigged; expose the and#8220;two-partyand#8221; system as a one-party monopoly; and, most important, show America that there is another choice. We just have to pull our chair back up to the table.