RedStateEclectic

Senator Laura Ebke on Joining the Libertarian Party

Image credit.

Senator Laura Ebke's move to join the Libertarian Party after decades of dedicated political work as a member of the Republican party is eliciting media coverage, including this report at Reason.

As a subscriber to her regular newsletter, I have received the below statement, which I would like to share with the readers of RedStateEclectic:

June 1, 2016

Dear Georg,

Yesterday, Tuesday, May 31, I sent a letter, primarily to folks in the district, who had supported me financially in my campaign for the Legislature in 2014. The purpose of the letter was to give them the courtesy of a "heads up" before a more general announcement.  I am now providing you with most of that letter, because I want you to hear this from me before it hits the presses. Based on phone calls I'm getting, it would appear that rumors are out there, and before I talk to the press, I want you to know what's going on.

Late last week, I initiated a change of political party registration online. I have switched from Republican affiliation, to Libertarian. PLEASE take the time to read my reasons below.

My reasons for making this switch are many, and it was not made without many months of consideration.  Let me tell you a little bit about the thought process I’ve been through—and assure you that my basic view of the world has not changed.

First, I have always considered myself to be a conservative.  I was born into a conservative Republican family in 1962, heard talk of politics from an early age (I’m not sure I believe the family lore that my first word was “Goldwater”). I idolized Nebraska’s late Senator Carl Curtis while I was still in elementary school in Fairbury.  For most of my childhood, someone in my family—either my father, grandfather, or mother, was chair of the Republican Party in Jefferson County.

When I turned 13, I joined the then-active Teen Age Republicans (TARs).  In 1976, at the age of 14, I watched the Republican Convention in Kansas City on TV with my dad, cried because Ronald Reagan lost the nomination to President Ford, and then went out to the family cars the next morning, and changed the bumper stickers from Reagan to Ford.

By the time I was 16, I was the Nebraska TAR Chair.  I’d knocked on doors with Congressman Doug Bereuter in his first campaign.  I was a political activist, a proud constitutional conservative, and a proud Republican. I have, as I write this, a collection of about 40 Frankoma elephant mugs, in my home office, which were sold beginning in 1968 until the early 2000’s, primarily as fundraisers for local Republican Women’s clubs.  I’m only missing a few in the total collection.

I cast my first vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980, and my second one for him in 1984.  I voted for George Bush, senior (although I probably would have preferred Jack Kemp as a more visionary alternative); I voted for Bob Dole, even though his approach was not really what I yearned for; George W. Bush got my vote in 2000 and 2004, even though I became increasingly disillusioned with the “conservatism” of the Party and its leaders.

My view of conservatism has always been a Goldwater-Reagan based view: smaller government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, respect for constitutional rights—and on the national scene, a strong military, but not an overly aggressive one.  In other words, I believe in a constitutionalism which looks to the principles of our founders as a guide.

By 2008, I was feeling like “movement conservatism” that I’d grown up a part of, was becoming largely absent in the Republican Party.  I saw a glimmer of hope in the presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul. He was, perhaps, a little too eccentric and even too ideologically pure, for the Republican Party, but after attending one of his rallies in Kansas City in the summer of 2007, I saw hope for a party that could attract young people who actually had a philosophy of government that I could match up with.

A group of Ron Paul supporters (mostly) and I chartered the Republican Liberty Caucus here in Nebraska. The RLC is a national organization, founded in the early 90s, for the purpose of promoting the cause of liberty within the Republican Party.  Some welcomed the activism of the RLC in Nebraska—others didn’t.  But we persisted, and for anyone who saw the significant crowds of people who walked with me in most of the parades in 2014, most of those folks—in addition to family—were my RLC friends.

Although the Legislature is a constitutionally NON-PARTISAN body, and many would never know—based on election filings or ballots—that I had changed parties, I think it’s important for you to understand why I’ve made the decision to do so at this time.  Let me just give you the highlights:

1. As a partisan activist who was part of an insurgent group of volunteers (the RLC), it was easy to wear the occasional disdain of establishment partisans as a badge of honor; as a state legislator, the pressure to “vote the ‘party’ way”—even if that way is contrary to one’s firm beliefs—is immense. I am happy to discuss and take responsibility for the votes I cast with my constituents and those of you who are getting this letter.  We will not always agree, but you deserve to know why I voted the way that I did.  But the pressure—sometimes near bullying—by some of my colleagues, and outside forces—to vote a particular way because “that’s the Republican way” has disheartened me.  There is no discussion about ideas, and little negotiation—if a bill is controversial, the teams are supposed to split up, and everyone is expected to “fly right.” I believe that’s lazy policymaking.
2. As a Republican, the pressure to vote with the Republican governor is significant.  The truth be told, on the vast majority of issues I agree with Governor Ricketts, and will continue to agree with him.  But the notion that the Governor should be able to tell legislators how to vote because they are registered in the same party—or that “good Republicans” would work to keep something “off of the Governor’s desk”--does a disservice to the role of the legislature and to the intention of the founders when they created a republican form of government with separate branches--and guaranteed state governments would be the same. I have no objection to conversations between the branches of government—in fact, I suspect that better policy would be made if there was more conversation and fewer demands of partisan loyalty.
3. I consider myself a “movement constitutional conservative ”—and while not all libertarians are conservative constitutionalists, many are; and those who would be considered “movement conservatives” almost always have a strong stream of libertarianism running through their veins.  As President Ronald Reagan said, “the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”  As the Republican Party has seemed to ignore constitutional governance; as Republicans have failed to make good on their promise of smaller government, lower taxes, fiscal control…this decision to make a break from the party that I’ve been registered with for 36 years, and active in for most of the 18 years before that, began to weigh heavily on my mind.
4. My decision to change my registration has nothing to do with a changing philosophy on my part. It has little to do with any particular candidate or candidates. It has some to do with life in the State Capitol, but it has a lot to do with a growing sense that I’ve had that the Republican Party of 2016 is fundamentally different than the Republican Party that I grew up in. 

To review more succinctly:

• I am changing my voter registration, but not my view of the world. If you have mostly liked the way that I’ve voted in the past, you’ll probably continue to like it.
• To the extent that I’m welcome, I will continue to work with ALL of the constitutional conservatives in the Legislature; and I’ll certainly work with the Governor if he wants to work with me. I will always be open to conversations and negotiations, but I won’t be held hostage to partisan considerations. Those who want my vote on a controversial issue will have to make the case based on solid reasoning—not on manufactured partisan hyperbole.

Finally, while I hope this doesn’t change your view negatively of me, I realize that it could. I have reconciled to the idea that I might not receive the support for future campaigns that I did in the past. I’ve also reconciled to the notion that it’s possible that the Republican Party will seek to “take me out” if I run for re-election in 2018.  It’s also possible that I will be looked upon less kindly for potential leadership positions—even though we do not run as partisans, nor do we organize by party.

While serving the people of the 32^nd Legislative District has been one of the great honors of my life, the people of the district have every right to vote me out of office if they feel that I’m not representing them adequately—and that includes if they feel that as a Libertarian instead of a Republican, I’m not adequately reflecting their views. Time will tell whether that label will matter to the citizens of the district, or whether they’ll judge me by my actions.

I hope that in the next two years, I can prove to my constituents and other supporters that the Party label doesn’t mean anything other than wearing the label which more accurately reflects my political views. I hope that they can see that by taking the “road less traveled”, I may be able to better serve ALL of our citizens, and not just the Republicans. I remain steadfastly in support of constitutionally limited government, and doing everything I can to reduce the negative impact of government in all of our lives—especially in the taking of our income through taxation.

I am, of course, always willing to exchange email, or talk with you in person about this, or anything else. And, as always, my office staff and I look forward to serving the people of the 32nd Legislative district the best that we can over the next 2 years.

Kind Regards,

Senator Laura Ebke

 

See also here.

An Honest Politician

Image credit.

A surprise prima facie that will not surprise anyone for long who knows Laura Ebke, the Nebraska State Senator who keeps attracting many supporters thanks to her conscientious reasoning and her honest and upright political conduct.

 

Sen. Laura Ebke of Crete left the Republican Party and registered as a Libertarian Party member two weeks after Gov. Pete Ricketts called out state senators who are Republicans by name for not supporting him or the GOP on some contentious legislative issues.

"I'd been thinking about changing for several months," she said Wednesday, "but I suppose that was sort of the final push."

Ebke, who always had identified herself as a Republican whose political philosophy was Libertarian, changed her registration online last week.

"I'm not willing to bend my principles to go along or cast a vote just for the sake of party unity," she said during a telephone interview.

Ebke was sitting in the back of the room at the Republican state convention in Omaha last month when Ricketts criticized more than a dozen state senators who are Republicans for votes they cast, arguing for the need to elect "platform Republicans" to the nonpartisan Legislature.

"The governor is entitled to call people out," she said, "but that was an interesting time to do that."

Ebke has cast votes to override several of the governor's vetoes, including his rejection of bills to repeal the death penalty, authorize Nebraska driver's licenses for young undocumented immigrants who have lawful presence in the United States and grant the right for those young people to acquire professional and occupational licenses to work in the state.

"I agree with the Republican Party on many things and I have many friends in the party," she said.

"Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility, but they tend to place not such a high emphasis on civil liberties."

Ebke said the approaching nomination of Donald Trump as the Republican Party's presidential choice affected her decision "maybe a little (because) I can't imagine myself voting for him."

"But it's less about Trump per se than what that reflects about the Republican Party," she said.  

Now, she said, she has a presidential nominee she can support.

The Libertarian Party last weekend chose former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson as its nominee and paired him with former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld as the party's vice presidential nominee.

Ebke said she has "great respect" for Republican Sen. Ben Sasse because of his determination to "stand his ground" in refusing to support Trump despite growing pressure from his party.

"The negative ramifications for me may not be as great as they are for him," she said.

Ebke was elected to the Legislature in 2014 and is midway through her first term.

 

As reported by Don Walton of The Lincoln Journal Star

Related articles

In the Arena Now

Returning From the Depths of A Legislative Session--Checking In

Once again, I need to thank Georg for keeping the home fires burning here.

Now that the 104th Legislature has ended (elections this fall will mean at least 11 new senators--maybe more--will be elected for the 105th Legislature), I have many things to talk about.

My interim (between now and next January) will be spent working on a manuscript--sort of a political history of one policy within the Nebraska Legislature (more on that later); participating in interim studies for committees I sit on; planning legislation for next year; trying to reacquaint myself with my children (and get "senior pictures" set up for our daughter, who will graduate next year); taking a one-week family vacation with all of my siblings and most of their families; and possibly (still in discussions) teaching a couple of classes for local private college in the fall/winter terms that run from late August till right before Christmas.

I won't write a lot, and I will try to couch my comments about things locally in such a way as to not do irreparable damage to my political career, but there are some things which might be of some interest to those who read this blog.

I'll start writing in the next week or two, but at this point, really just wanted to check in, and reacquaint myself to the readers.

LE

 

Related articles

The Swearing-In of Senator Laura Ebke

Filibusters push some issues aside

Murante won't contest redistricting reform veto

Gladstone versus Disraeli

I often think of Laura Ebke, our wonderful hostess here at RedStateEclectic. Even more so now that she is especially active in the world of politics, where she belongs in her capacity as a talented, level-headed, yet passionate, and always honest representative of the ideals of freedom. 

It is a standard complaint of mine that many liberty-minded people tend to become so consumed with their criticism of politics and the state that they effectively turn into anarchists, refusing to defend and build freedom by participating in politics and thus helping to shape government and the state in a way inclined toward liberty.

Laura is pursuing the important task of fostering freedom in the political arena. A tough challenge as the below film on the rivalry between Gladstone and Disraeli vividly illustrates. I submit the video in honour of Laura Ebke:

 

Liberty and the GOP

An interesting analysis of the state of the GOP and the liberty movement to be found here:

The primary root of all the dysfunctional observations of the GOP is that most people today have no clue what conservatism is, and therefore, they have no idea how to diagnose problems in the Republican Party (an institution which is supposed to represent conservative values).  You don’t send a lawnmower repairman to examine a cancer ridden human being, you send a doctor who knows what a healthy body is supposed to look like.  You also don’t send a hardcore liberal or a Neo-Con flunky to comment on the failings of the GOP; you send a true conservative who knows how a healthy conservative organization is supposed to function.  And, the only people left in this country who actually understand what conservatism really is are Liberty Movement activists.

Ironically, those of us in the movement who have deeply considered the election aftermath have predominantly concluded that it is WE who have taken the mojo out of the GOP, and frankly, we’re happy to do so…

Your Votes Don’t Matter

What is important for party pols to realize is that they must do as they’re told rather than listen to their constituents:

Reps. David Schweikert of Arizona and Walter Jones of North Carolina were booted from the Financial Services Committee. Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas were removed from the Budget Committee.

According to a source, Schweikert was told that he was ousted in part because his “votes were not in lockstep with leadership.”

Full story.

Political parties… can’t live with them, can’t get elected without them.

You Go Your Way and I’ll Go Mine

A message sung to the GOP:

I’ll find somebody new,

and we’ll say we’re through. And you won’t matter anymore.

Fahrenheit 451: Play the Man, Master Ridley

A very good speech by Rand Paul. My only wonder is how he manages to speak it from within a party that no longer supports liberty.

Just outside my window sits a Mexican petunia. At times, a hummingbird zips in and drinks from the purple flowers. Those mornings when fortune provides this brief but wonderful immersion, it's gratifying beyond words.

And so it is that homilies of liberty, spoken longingly from any direction, left or right, are welcome respites from the reality which has befallen us by our own hand.

We are not the first to do this, as pointed out by Edward Gibbon, author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, who wrote,

“In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.”

Gibbon provides us a short list which marks a culture in the throws of decay:

• Concern with displaying affluence instead of building wealth
• Obsession with sex and perversions of sex
• Art becomes freakish and sensationalistic instead of creative and original
• Widening disparity between very rich and very poor
• Increased demand to live off the state.

A hollowed-out remnant of personal dignity and charity, it seems we have put ourselves on the short path to longsuffering.

***UPDATE 8/23***

By sheer coincidence, this morning’s Mises Daily article, Socialism and Decivilization, by Jesus Huerta de Soto, discusses the underlying economic cause for Rome’s civil decline:

The obvious course of action was to leave the Italian countryside and move to the city, to live off the Roman welfare state, the cost of which could not be borne by the public treasury, and could only be covered by reducing the precious-metal content in the currency (that is, inflation). The outcome was inescapable: an uncontrolled drop in the purchasing power of money, i.e., an upward revolution in prices, to which the authorities responded by decreeing that prices were to remain fixed at their prior levels and imposing extremely harsh sentences on offenders. The establishment of these price ceilings led to widespread shortages (since at the low prices set, it was no longer profitable to produce and seek creative solutions to the problem of scarcity, while at the same time consumption and waste were still being artificially encouraged). Cities gradually began to run out of provisions, and the population began to leave and return to the countryside, to live in much poorer conditions in an autarchy, at mere subsistence level, a regime that laid the foundation for what would later be feudalism.

He ends it on an optimistic note:

… in contrast with the culture of subsidies, irresponsibility, the lack of morals, and dependence on the state for everything, there is, surging from the ashes among many young people (and also among some of us who are no longer so young) the culture of entrepreneurial freedom, of creativity and risk taking, of behavior based on moral principles, and, in short, of maturity and responsibility (as opposed to the infantilism our authorities and politicians would restrict us to in order to make us increasingly servile and dependent). To me it is clear who has the best intellectual and moral weapons, and hence, who holds the future. That is why I am an optimist.

 

Physicians and the Nanny State

Now I would be the last to suggest that too much TV and junk food for kids isn’t a problem.   But ultimately, the question is whether it’s a problem that parents ought to be dealing with, or whether it’s one that the state ought to be dealing with.

Pediatricians apparently believe that it’s a “federal issue”:

"It's all just a smokescreen anyway -- the big fast food corporations are basically interested in making money, not making good nutritional products," said Strasburger. "With billions of dollars in profits every year should come a sense of public health responsibility. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to."

McDonald's, which targets kids in much of its advertising, declined to comment.

In the meantime, Strasburger urges families to follow a few simple steps.

"Parents need to listen to the AAP guidelines which say, 'Limit your child to less than two hours of media time per day, keep the TV set and Internet out of the bedroom and avoid screen time in kids under two.'"

But cutting screen time alone isn't enough, according to Strasburger.

"We have to give kids healthy alternatives to being couch potatoes," he said. "The question is, how fat do we want people to become? Congress needs to think about that."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/06/27/us-doctors-ban-fast-food-ads-on-tv/#ixzz1QTxyd6Gw

I guess I’m getting too close to the end of Atlas Shrugged and have started reading the mindlessness of the masses into everything, but the last line of that article REALLY jumped out at me:  “The question is, how fat do we want people to become? Congress needs to think about that.”  CONGRESS needs to think about it?  Our overlords will now protect us? 

And then that first paragraph quoted—gracious, we’re supposed to believe that fast food restaurants shouldn’t be interested n making money?  And if you make money, you’re obliged to have a sense of “public health responsibility”?  In other words (as in Atlas), I guess you’re supposed give up making money in order to advance the idealistic goals of the overlords.

C’mon folks.  I understand the lure of fast food for kids—I’ve got an 8 year old who would eat every meal at Burger King or McDonalds (if I would let him)—primarily because of the kids’ meals toys, and the advertising of them on some of the channels that I occasionally let him watch (although he’s a bright kid, and can see the pictures as we drive by the restaurants, too—even without TV ads).  But PARENTS need to learn to say “no”, and quit expecting “someone else” to protect their kids.

And then there’s this: I get frustrated with the physicians (like Dr. Strasburger, quoted above), who are so willing to turn their patients’ well-being over the government.  Like the formally esteemed scientists in Atlas, who have become sycophants for the Feds, it seems to me that many of these physicians, well-intentioned though they may be, have contributed to the awful state that we’re in with respect to health care—where the free market is non-existent (except in specialty areas where insurance and the government doesn’t pay anything).

LLE

An Embarrassment of Riches

Nick Gillespie and Judge Napolitano talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the two libertarians in the race: