2002 Liberty
Index |
| Executive
Overview |
Top 10
Ratings
Rep. Jeff
Flake, AZ01: 90.0%
Sen. Phil
Gramm, TX: 88.5%
Sen. Don
Nickles, OK: 88.5%
Rep. Ron
Paul, TX14: 87.5%
Sen. Mitch
McConnell, KY: 86.5%
Sen. Ted
Stephens, AK: 86.5%
Sen. Craig
Thomas, WY: 86.5%
Sen. Jim
Bunning, KY: 86.0%
Sen. Samuel
Brownback, KS: 85.5%
Sen. John
Ensign, NV: 85.0%
|
 |
 |
|
Jeff
Flake |
Good News: A New
Generation
Bad News: Republicans Go Global
The
eleventh annual Index has some good news and
some bad. The bad news is that the Republicans,
by and large, have bought into the risky foreign
policy advocated by the so-called
"neoconservatives" within the
Administration. The good news is that a new
generation of libertarian Republicans appears to
be emerging. Indeed, this year's top scorer in
the U.S. House of Representatives, unseating
five-time defending champion Ron Paul of Texas,
was a freshman U.S. Congressman, Jeff Flake of
Arizona. Mr. Flake achieved a combined average
score of 90, while Dr. Paul finished second with
a combined average score of 87.
Highest House
Scores
Other high
scorers in the House include Congressmen Rehberg
of Montana, Otter of Idaho, and Kolbe of
Arizona, each with an average score of 85. Mr.
Flake got the high score in the Economic
Liberties component of the index, with a perfect
100, and, Dr. Paul got the high score in the
Personal Liberties component, with an 85.
Highest Senate
Scores
Over
in the U.S. Senate, Don Nickles of Oklahoma and
Phil Gramm of Texas, who has retired from the
Senate, were tied for first place, with combined
average scores of 88. Senator Nickles' perfect
100 was the top mark in the Economic Liberties
component of the index. Five Senators - Helms of
North Carolina, Hutchinson of Arkansas, Stevens
of Alaska, Thomas of Wyoming, and Craig of Idaho
- finished with high scores of 88 in the
Personal Liberties component.
Index Compilation
This
year's Index, as past years', is based on eighty
roll call votes, twenty in each of two areas
(economic and personal liberties), in each
chamber of Congress. In the area of Economic
Liberties, roll call votes covered taxes,
spending, energy policy, free trade and
privatization. In the area of Personal
Liberties, roll call votes covered gun control,
campaign finance reform, drugs, and national
sovereignty. See the Rollcall List
or use the button at the left of each year's
Overview screen.
Selection of
these votes involved input from several
long-time, well- respected members of the RLC,
familiar with the construction of the Liberty
Index. As always, identification of a set of
votes broadly representative of economic freedom
was not much of a problem. And, as always,
identification of a parallel set of votes
concerning personal liberties posed some
challenges.
Use of Force
Probably
the most controversial vote I included was the
vote to authorize of the use of force against
Iraq (number 455 in the House, and number 237 in
the Senate). In past "use of force"
resolutions, e.g., Kosovo, initiation of the use
of force was not justified by the national
interests of the United States, and these
"use of force" resolutions were
clearly not libertarian. In this year's case,
the argument was made by the Administration that
Iraq posed an immediate threat to the United
States because of its possession of weapons of
mass destruction and its connections with
terrorists willing to use them against us.
Therefore, possibly, the use of force could be
justified from a libertarian perspective. As the
Republican Liberty Caucus has put it, we support
the use of force where "there is a clear
threat to vital U.S. interests."
Well, it turns
out that the Administration's argument was based
on faulty intelligence. As I discussed this vote
with others (after the vote had been taken, but
before the war got underway), it became
increasingly clear to me that the case for war
was deficient from a libertarian standpoint. I
must point out that I, and not the Republican
Liberty Caucus, called the shot on this
"use of force" resolution. The RLC
position concerns only the principle that would
be involved, and the organization was officially
neutral on the war. My judgment concerned the
facts of the case.
Let me say that
I reject the argument that the Administration
deliberately attempted to mislead the U.S.
Congress or the American public. Simply stated,
if the Administration was involved in such an
attempt, it would have made sure that weapons of
mass destruction were "found" in Iraq.
The fact is, this attack on the President by
certain Democrats running for President is, at
its base, anti-American. No wonder they are
ambivalent about freedom and democracy for the
Iraqi people, since they don't see the
difference between a democratic government
trying, in an uncertain world, to protect its
people from additional attacks, and totalitarian
governments.
But, let me also
say that it is the Constitutional duty of the
Congress to reign-in the Executive Branch,
requiring real proof that the national interests
of the United States are involved before
authorizing the use of force. When Pearl Harbor
was attacked, and when the Twin Towers were
attacked, it was obvious. The link from Pearl
Harbor to Nazi Germany was also obvious. And,
so, we took the initiative to declare war on
Nazi Germany even though it had not attacked us.
But, the link from the Twin Towers to Ba'ath
Iraq was, we now know, tenuous.
We do not have
to undertake risky ventures in order to protect,
or even to advance freedom. All we have to do is
contain the bad guys, to prevent the parasites
from locating new hosts. Eventually, all forms
of totalitarian-
ism, from slave systems to communism, will
collapse after they have exhausted their hosts.
I know that, in the meanwhile, innocent people
will suffer, even be subject to mass torture,
rape and murder. But, our "reasonable
service" to the cause of liberty is not to
risk our own liberty, but to, first, preserve
ourselves as an unassailable bastion of liberty,
second, to be a refuge for freedom-loving people
escaping tyranny, and, third, to advance the
borders of liberty when and only when that is
prudent. However justified was toppling Saddam
Hussein because he was evil, it was not our
responsibility.
At least this
time, when we got involved, it was based on our
national sovereignty and not on a U.N. Security
Council resolution. In the 1991 Persian Gulf
War, because our "use of force"
resolution was merely the U.N. Security Council
resolution, we did not have the authority to
pursue that conflict to victory. In that war, we
could only expel Iraq from Kuwait. We, thus, put
the members of our armed forces at risk, and put
our national security at risk, for no purpose
other than rescuing the people of Kuwait from
subjugation. We did not have the authority to
pursue the bad guys back in Baghdad. As a
result, the oppression, torture, raping and mass
murder continued, along with the possibility
that Hussein would be able to revitalize his
weapons of mass destruction program.
This time,
because we relied on the U.S. Constitution,
instead of on the U.N. Charter, when the
Congress acquiesced to the President's request a
great good became possible, altruistic though it
was. Once this war got underway, we could pursue
it to victory. All Americans can be proud of the
great victory achieved by the members of our
armed forces, volunteers all, and can look
forward in confidence to the eventual triumph of
liberty throughout the world.
Rating Factors
I would like to conclude with
a technical comment on this year's Liberty
Index. The scores in the House of
Representatives, showing a very large difference
between Republicans and Democrats on matters of
Economic Liberties and only a relatively small
difference on matters of Personal Liberties
confirms prior findings. The scores in the
Senate, showing an almost equally large
difference in both scales must be considered
suspect.
The scores, in
the Senate, on Personal Liberties are probably
unduly affected by the focus of the Senate -
while the Democrats were in charge - on election
reform. Before concluding that Republicans are
clearly superior to Democrats on both Economic
and Personal Liberties, I'd prefer to wait to
see if this year's result is obtained in future
indexes.
Clifford
F. Thies e-mail
Past Chairman, Republican Liberty Caucus
Professor of Economics and Finance
at Shenandoah University
|
|
