Republican Liberty Caucus, Round Two

^{See Also: Major-Party Libertarianism?}

I blogged yesterday about the Democratic and Republican libertarian caucuses, the Republican Liberty Caucus and Democratic Freedom Caucus, and expressed some concerns about both. To his credit, Bill Westmiller, national chair of the RLC, has responded to my critique of his platform. Out of respect for his position, I'm quoting his post verbatim before I respond to it:

I don’t see any significant distinction between the LP and RLC positions on civil liberties.

… In practice, this amounts to opposition to … the Civil Rights Act of 1964 …

Not to the civil rights portions of the Act, but to the coercive interventions that violate freedom of association. Since the Statement explicitly supports the equal protections of the 14th Amendment, the RLC opposes any state or local government restrictions based on race. But, we also oppose any legal penalty for private discrimination, no matter how perverse or unjust. That isn’t the government’s proper task.

… In practice, this means that the RLC does not recognize the legitimacy of international treaties …

You misread the clause. We don’t oppose treaties adopted by the Senate, only the transfer of legislative powers to international bodies. The Constitution assigns powers to Congress, but it does not grant them the right to transfer that legislative authority to anyone else. The Geneva Conventions are a set of four treaties adopted by the Senate. None of them grant any legislative powers and the RLC does not oppose the provisions.

Translation: The RLC … wants to increase regulation of unions.

You’ll notice that the provision cited says nothing about unions. It defends the right of individuals to control their own money when it is used for political purposes.

… “racial privacy” is a veiled reference to California Proposition 54 (2003) …

Or any other law that protects individual’s rights to not disclose anthing about their private characteristics or affairs. Yes, that does make it impossible to grant special privileges and entitlements on the basis of class or group characteristics, which is a very libertarian position.

… Translation: The RLC opposes drug legalization and decriminalization …

No, it doesn’t say that. It says the there should be no federal laws restricting any drugs, but favors local and state laws to combat harmful effects (ie: treatment programs or protection of minors).

… the RLC’s opposition to the past five decades of civil rights legislation

Only those provisions that violate free association or private information. We have no problem with any law protecting civil (proper government functions) rights to equal protection and due process under every law.

I do thank you for providing a link to the Statement, so that your visitors can read the full Statement in context.

Bill Westmiller
RLC National Chairman
www.RLC.org

Let's unpack this a bit. First:

I don’t see any significant distinction between the LP and RLC positions on civil liberties.

This is a fair point. The civil rights concerns raised by the RLC's platform have historically been part of the Libertarian Party tradition. As I noted several months ago (see "Is the Libertarian Party Libertarian Enough?"):

Take the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, which banned racial segregation and discrimination in public accommodations, and allows civil suits in cases of employment discrimination. My support for this bill--shared by all but two of the 19 major-party presidential candidates--generated heated emails from many, many Ron Paul supporters who felt that the legislation was an encroachment on the First Amendment's right to freedom of assembly. Opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is also common among members of the Libertarian Party, and on the same grounds.

Mr. Westmiller writes:

[The RLC does not object] to the civil rights portions of the Act, but to the coercive interventions that violate freedom of association. Since the Statement explicitly supports the equal protections of the 14th Amendment, the RLC opposes any state or local government restrictions based on race. But, we also oppose any legal penalty for private discrimination, no matter how perverse or unjust. That isn’t the government’s proper task.

The entire Civil Rights Act is concerned with civil rights, but only Title II and Title VII regulate private employers--the former by regulation of public accommodations, the latter by holding employers accountable for workplace discrimination. What Mr. Westmiller argues, and what Ron Paul has argued, is that these portions of the Act violate the First Amendment's language protecting "the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Whatever one's views on the applicability of the commerce clause defense may be, two facts seem undeniable:

• Someone who opposes Title II and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 effectively opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, since these are the two most potent and consequential aspects of the legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment alone, if applied by the Courts, would have been enough to strike down state-sponsored segregation.
• The civil rights of women and minorities are negatively impacted if they cannot access public accommodations or be protected from employment discrimination.

So the RLC's opposition to the two most critical sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does pose a civil liberties problem.

With respect to the Libertarian Party's own history of opposing the Civil Rights Act, I concur with Mr. Westmiller--but I would also add that even the Libertarian Party doesn't directly oppose these clauses in its official platform, and neither does the Republican Party. The RLC goes a step further than either party in opposing Title II and Title VII.

Mr. Westmiller also writes:

You misread the clause. We don’t oppose treaties adopted by the Senate, only the transfer of legislative powers to international bodies. The Constitution assigns powers to Congress, but it does not grant them the right to transfer that legislative authority to anyone else. The Geneva Conventions are a set of four treaties adopted by the Senate. None of them grant any legislative powers and the RLC does not oppose the provisions.

This is the relevant clause from the RLC platform:

We oppose any treaty or international agreement that puts American troops under the control or authority of any other executive or administrative power.

Note that legislative authority is not mentioned at all. The $64,000 question, though, is: What constitutes "control or authority," and what constitutes another "administrative power"? Certainly the International Criminal Court would qualify. The Geneva Conventions would also appear to qualify, to the extent that they are binding on the executive branch and the U.S. military without the introduction of additional legislation. So I would respectfully suggest to Mr. Westmiller that while the RLC may not in fact oppose the Geneva Conventions, the language of the platform itself is ambiguous at best.

Mr. Westmiller goes on to write:

You’ll notice that the provision cited [on the matter of union donations] says nothing about unions. It defends the right of individuals to control their own money when it is used for political purposes.

Here's the relevant clause (emphasis mine):

We oppose any public financing of campaigns or public political forums and any law that allows organizations to collect campaign donations against the wishes of their individual members.

If this doesn't refer to the common union practice of donating to political campaigns without polling membership first, what practice does it refer to? And note that the clause refers to all collection of political campaign donations, not merely to collection of donations from members. What this clause would appear to mandate is government micromanagement of unions and other nonprofits to prevent these organizations from raising or donating funds to political campaigns without a vetted, government-supervised membership approval process. My reading of this is that it is in fact an anti-union clause, not a libertarian clause--that it would actually increase the size of government in an effort to selectively reduce Democratic campaign donations from unions. If this isn't what the clause means, I would welcome a plausible alternative interpretation.

Mr. Westmiller also writes:

[The RLC platform] says the there should be no federal laws restricting any drugs, but favors local and state laws to combat harmful effects (ie: treatment programs or protection of minors).

This is the relevant clause:

We recognize the harm that drug abuse causes, but also that the ‘drug war’ has been ineffective and has led to terrible abuses of personal liberty. We favor flexible alternatives at the state and community level to combat the harmful aspects of drug use.

I can certainly read this clause in a manner that is consistent with Mr. Westmiller's interpretation, but at no point does it specifically call for the repeal of federal drug laws (though it is worth noting that such laws, like the Civil Rights Act, are justified on commerce clause grounds), nor does it specify that the aforementioned "flexible alternatives" consist of treatment programs or laws protecting minors. It would be nice if the RLC platform did in fact specify these points, but it does not. "Flexible alternatives" could mean drug treatment programs, or it could mean reduction in prison time, or it could mean increased prison time. The relevant clause certainly appears welcoming to any RLC members who might happen to support a criminal justice approach at the state and community level. Compare this inclusive language with the relevant clause in the Libertarian Party platform, which states quite clearly:

We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

So I would say that, with all respect to Mr. Westmiller, my original points stand: The RLC's stated opposition to Title II and Title VII make it appear conspicuously weak on civil rights issues, and clauses dealing with several other issues are, at best, excessively vague. If that's not an accurate assessment of where the RLC actually stands on these issues, then the platform clearly needs some work.

See also:

• What is a Libertarian?