As to why the House Republicans achieved such a dramatic change in the personal liberties component of the index, the answer is obvious: With the elections of November 2006, the Republicans are in the minority, and are opposing Democratic encroachments on personal liberty. Before those elections, the Republicans were in the majority, and were trying to use the coercive powers of the state to advance their agenda. This should remind us that the libertarian position is the true moderate position. Between those who would use the coercive powers of the state to prohibit a certain behavior, and those who would use the coercive powers of the state to mandate that behavior, stand the libertarians arguing that each person and each association of persons should be free to decide for him-, her- and themselves.

Libertarians are the natural ally of those in the minority. In contrast, when the social engineers of either the left or the right perceive that they have assembled a political majority, they tend to use the powers of the state to use criminal sanctions, to tax and subsidize behaviors, and to control information to force their values onto others. Accordingly, in the 1990s, when social conservatives revolted against the increasingly explicit attempts of the left to re-shape the country along secularist lines, affecting a pragmatic libertarian-conservative coalition made a lot of sense.

During the 1990s, many libertarians came to understand that family, church, business and other freely-chosen social institutions, including civil government, play vital roles in intermediating human relationships, and that mutual benefit and love could reinforce each other. Conversely, many conservatives came to understand that the spirit animating social institutions has to be consent, or else family, church, etc., devolve into authoritarian structures, and destructive of creativity and happiness. This agenda came to be understood to be the "neo-liberal" agenda, and manifested itself in the democratic nations of the world in a variety of ways.

In the United States, the neo-liberal agenda manifested itself partly in a centrist Democratic administration and partly in a Republican leadership team in the House of Representatives which included Speaker Newt Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey. Looking back, those were the "good old days," when selected members of the Republican Party in the House were effective, behind the scenes and - in some cases - publicly, in effecting real changes for personal liberty as well as for free-market economics. But, looking back, it was perhaps not realistic to think that Republicans would long continue the neo-liberal agenda upon consolidating power.

Looking back, we remember that, in 2000, candidate Bush talked about a non-interventionist foreign policy, expanding free trade, privatizing social security, promoting parental choice in education, reforming the tax code, comprehensive immigration reform, and respecting state laws regarding medical marijuana. And, perhaps things might have turned out differently if not for 9-11 and the Bush administration’s over-reaction. Yes, Osama bin Laden should rot in hell forever, but, by allowing bin Laden to goad us into fighting his minions at the times and in the places of his choosing, our leaders failed the cause of liberty.

So, today, the Republicans look better than the Democrats because they (the Republicans) oppose the efforts of the Democrats, now in the majority, to force their values upon the nation. This is not exactly encouraging, as we are merely engaged in a delaying effort. This delaying effort is not the same thing as a renewed commitment to a pragmatic libertarian-conservative agenda.

Constructing the Index
     This year, as in past years, I assembled four lists of twenty votes, one in each of two areas, economic and political liberty, for each of the two chambers of the U.S. Congress. Helping me were a couple trusted associates; although, in the end, the final decisions were mine. In economic matters, I identified a range of votes spanning libertarian concerns, from taxing and spending, to regulations, to labor, trade, environment and energy policy. As usual, this didn’t present much of a problem.

In matters concerning personal liberties, I encountered some problems, but fewer than most years. This was because of the vigorous agenda of the newly-empowered Democrats. In the House of Representatives, Democrats were busy seeking to extend legal status and other privileges to more groups of Americans, agitating for control of the media by a revival of the fairness doctrine, and taking away the right of workers to a secret ballot in union elections. As always I sought to keep the list of votes balanced as between personal liberties concerning which liberals are usually sensitive (such as access to medical marijuana and carving out a qualified privilege for journalists), and those concerning which conservatives are usually sensitive (such as the free exercise of religion and the right to keep and bear arms),

For the second year in a row, I noticed that more Democrats voted to free-up trade with a communist country (House #749) than with a democratic country (House #1060). This year, I have several delicious earmarks in the list of votes, including "The Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree" (House #593) and the Woodstock Cultural Museum (Senate #377). In both chambers, I have some votes to overturn vetoes (House #1122 and Senate #406), which, not being successful, lead to an agreement to conduct the business of the federal government through the next year via continuing resolutions.

Complicating the rating of certain members of Congress were their many absences due to running for President. This included, on the Senate side, Joe Biden, Sam Brownback, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, and especially John McCain and Barack Obama. This included, on the House side, Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. McCain missed 21 of the 40 votes included in this year’s index of the Senate, and Obama 16. On the House side, Paul missed 10 votes, and Tancredo 6. Fortunately, given the total number of votes in each year’s tally, the votes I have for these gentlemen and lady are still probably informative.

Chamber Leaders
     In the House, we have a new, surprise winner of the overall, or combined index, Tom Tancredo of Colorado. Finishing tied for second were Ron Paul of Texas and Dana Rohrabacher of California. Last year’s winner, Jeff Flake of Arizona fell to #7. One might wonder how things might have turned out if the House had attempted to do something with comprehensive immigration reform, or if Tancredo had not missed a couple particular votes. But, regardless of these speculations, he did very well, perhaps reflecting his visible evolution on the war during the series of Republican presidential debates. Plus, it’s good to see a new face in the mix of front-runners.

Number one in the personal liberties component in the House was Ron Paul. Number one in the economics component in the House was Jeff Flake, with our only score of 100 in that chamber. We had about three dozen Republicans with only one wrong vote, and about the same number of Democrats with only one right vote.