There have recently been positive developments in the Republican Party’s fortunes. Polls show increased support for conservatism and the GOP, conservatives are actively protesting for their beliefs, and Congress is starting to take note. Republicans have a real chance in 2010 — if they can form a cohesive conservative coalition.
The Republican Party was once the party of limited government and personal responsibility. Unfortunately, the GOP has been pushing libertarian-minded conservatives from the party for some time. 2008 was the worst year ever for the traditional GOP coalition. The party establishment was openly hostile to Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) presidential run and the big government social conservative wing of the party even called for a plank in the party platform advocating federal internet censorship to stop adults from playing online poker. In essence, the party told poker players, internet freedom supporters, and limited government conservatives that they are no longer welcome in the GOP.
Poker players and freedom lovers submitted hundreds of comments to the GOP Platform Committee asking them to support internet freedom. As the Poker Players Alliance has over one million members, this was something to be taken seriously. The drafters of the platform got the message. They kept online poker prohibition language out of the platform, stating a desire not to lose these voters in what was shaping up to be a very difficult election year. Unfortunately, the full committee chose to restore it. Sadly, rather than making conciliatory comments to heal the rift, Family Research Council Vice President Tom McClusky instead further taunted America’s poker players with statements like, “the Pokers Players Alliance showed their hand well too early,” and “the Republican Platform Committee should be proud that they have stood up for the law and families.” Focus on the Family proudly highlights these statements on its site to this day.
Reaction to the poker plank was quick. Reason magazine took the party to task for advocating big government in their platform, and Sen. John McCain received tens of thousands of letters and phone calls in protest. Many protests were, as predicted, delivered via the voting booth on Election Day, and 2008 was a year where the GOP could not spare any votes.
One wonders why this rather small but loud minority of social conservatives has this knee-jerk reaction against poker in the first place. Maybe it’s an anachronistic holdover from the Temperance Movement of the early 1900s, when too many social conservatives unfortunately started using the power of the federal government to achieve conservative goals. This is a very dangerous thing, as a government powerful enough to give us everything we want is powerful enough to take everything we have.
Rather than wanting a government big and powerful enough to promote traditional values USING big government, perhaps conservatives ought to worry more about protecting traditional values FROM big government. Many conservatives agree. Former House Majority Leader Richard Armey, George Will, Grover Norquist, Walter Williams, and others strongly oppose what Will has termed “Prohibition II.” As President Reagan famously said, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
32 responses so far
1 sinz54 // Oct 29, 2009 at 12:24 pm
The Internet gambling issue is significant, because it illustrates that social conservatives really do not believe in limited government. They really favor “Big Christian Goverment.” I’ve had social conservatives tell me that to my face–that if Federal power can advance “traditional values,” then it should.
Unlike abortion which social conservatives regard as the taking of human life, there are no lives physically threatened by Internet gambling. Yet they oppose it anyway on moral grounds only.
And it also illustrates that social conservatives don’t believe in free markets, if those markets produce goods and services that they regard as immoral, like venues for gambling. They also oppose free trade (cf. Mike Huckabee’s speeches and Phyllis Schlafly’s many columns on NAFTA), which actually puts them on the same side as the anti-globalization Left.
This is another reason why the GOP’s brand is tarnished and the public no longer knows what it stands for. Because a major part of the conservative coalition is no longer on the same page as the rest of the coalition–and is pushing an agenda that doesn’t resonate with most other voters.
2 joemarier // Oct 29, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I knew two men, both of whom were in their twenties, one who quit their day job, the other of whom was delaying getting into the job market, because of Internet poker. This was in 2005-2006, and they were basically doing the same thing that house-flippers were doing; investing into a bull market without heed to Nemesis around the corner. I’m not opposed to lifting the ban on Internet poker, but it was and is a pretty obnoxious social trend in my view, so appeals to freedom and Reaganism and victory just around the corner don’t do it for me.
3 joemarier // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Oh, and this article is awesome. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/10/gambling-with-lives
4 Rich Muny // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Joemarier,
In a free society, people make choices on where to work. I’m sure you could have found friends who didn’t play online poker for a living, so it’s not like the federal government had to get involved to ensure you had non-obnoxious friends with whom to associate.
Also, it really is about Reaganism and freedom. After all, it’s really hard for someone to claim people need the federal government to protect them from online poker and then say they don’t need protection against “predatory” home loans or credit card issuers (one example of many). And, without a principled reason to oppose big government, the GOP loses every time.
5 Rich Muny // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:19 pm
“Oh, and this article is awesome. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/10/gambling-with-lives”
It looks like a lot of spin by people who oppose gaming on religious grounds.
These days, religious opponents won’t admit the real reasons for their opposition. Rather, they start with the conclusion, then start searching for “facts” to prove it. Most are highly exaggerated.
6 Rich Muny // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Sinz54,
Well said!
7 joemarier // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Did I not just say that appeals to freedom don’t work with me in this instance?
The state has a role in regulating gambling. The federal government has a role in regulating interstate commerce, and foreign commerce. Internet gambling is both. The existence of the Internet does not vitiate the Congress’s constitutional role in regulating interstate commerce. And also, the members of the Christian religion have every bit as much a right to petition their government on the matter as the members of the Libertarian religion.
Oh, and Rich, please point me to which facts she made up.
8 LFC // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Sinz54: FMI, what do you consider the differences are between your brand of conservatism and libertarianism? It seems that line between old fashioned conservatives and libertarians is a lot more blurry (that’s not a value judgment in any way) than some people project. Oh, and I’m not talking fringe libertarianism.
I’m interested because it seems that the type of conservative that comes to this site coupled with non- ideological libertarians could actual represent a pretty big chunk of the country’s center.
9 Rich Muny // Oct 29, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Joemarier,
If you don’t believe in freedom, that’s your right, but it doesn’t mean I won’t respond with a freedom-based answer. I do believe in liberty.
The bills in Congress do provide for regulation of online poker and gaming. The issue here is not regulation — it’s prohibition.
You are right. Evangelicals do have a right to petition for all the big government they want. This applies to areas not even in the Bible, like poker, of course. I think it’s a losing strategy. It knocks conservatives out of power every time, which is the point of my article, but it’s certainly your right.
I’d personally recommend that big government conservatives spend more time protecting traditional values from big government, rather than seeking to force these values on society via the federal government.
Here’s one example of exaggerated data: http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/congressman-spencer-bachus-lies-about-suicide-connection-to-gambling-184
10 Rich Muny // Oct 29, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Big government conservatives always push the GOP to embrace big government whenever we take power. Here’s how it works:
1. Republicans gain control based on promises of limited government.
2. We get a few years of somewhat limited government, especially if the president is a Democrat.
3. We then watch the biggest statists in America — social conservatives — demand that the federal government “do something” about every perceived social ill in America.
4. We then watch the GOP respond to social con threats by becoming 100% statist. Every time the GOP gains ascendancy, it eventually decides it ought to use the power of the federal government to force “conservative” (in quotes because big government is never conservative) goals.
5. We then kick the statists out of power.
6. We then watch the GOP at least pretend to believe in small government (many in the coalition will simply wish to limit power of Dems, thus forming an accidental coalition).
7. Repeat.
11 joemarier // Oct 29, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Really? Social conservatives are the biggest statists in America? If I recall, social conservatives, specifically pro-life Democrats, may be the ones that kill the Pelosi health care bill. No guarantees on that front, but there you go.
For libertarians, is the inability to gamble on the Internet a bigger infringement on freedom than the decades-long slide into government-run health care? Which side are you on?
12 sinz54 // Oct 29, 2009 at 2:37 pm
joemarier:
If the Pelosi bill contained no funding or provisions for abortion whatsoever, would pro-life Democrats be working so hard to kill the bill? I doubt it.
These pro-life Democrats are certainly against Federal funding for abortion. But are they against the public option per se as ultimately leading to a single-payer system? Well, are they?
13 joemarier // Oct 29, 2009 at 2:51 pm
If they are, sinz, then perhaps socially conservative Democrats are the biggest statists in the world. But not socially conservative Republicans, which is the focus of this little discussion.
14 joemarier // Oct 29, 2009 at 3:01 pm
And saying that I “don’t believe in freedom” is silly. All I’ve said is that I don’t believe in APPEALS to freedom in the case of Internet gambling. I think they’re dubious, when poker itself is legal in more states and more places than it has ever been in US history.
15 joemarier // Oct 29, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Okay, except when it was legal over the Internet. So, make that “when the live game of poker itself is legal…”
16 DFL // Oct 29, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I am a social conservative and I have no problem whatsoever with gambling. I can remember many a long night playing cards with the boys. Such, such were the joys!
17 Rich Muny // Oct 29, 2009 at 3:16 pm
“I am a social conservative and I have no problem whatsoever with gambling. I can remember many a long night playing cards with the boys. Such, such were the joys!”
Yes, that’s common for real social conservatives. I believe in traditional values and limited government, so I imagine there was a time when I’d have been considered one as well. Too bad so many have decided that the only way (or the easiest way) to influence the culture is to use the power of the federal government. In fact, that’s why I was careful to address them as “big government social conservatives” in the article.
18 Rich Muny // Oct 29, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Joemarier,
“For libertarians, is the inability to gamble on the Internet a bigger infringement on freedom than the decades-long slide into government-run health care? Which side are you on?”
I support the right of adults to play online poker, and I oppose government-run health care. That’s a consistent, principled limited-government position that is easy to sustain. Where it gets hard is when one wants to ban poker and wants to use as much government as can be mustered to make it happen, but then opposes big government from the left on “limited government” grounds.
19 Rich Muny // Oct 29, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Joemarier,
“Okay, except when it was legal over the Internet. So, make that “when the live game of poker itself is legal…””
Why do you think online poker is unlawful? The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) banned U.S. financial institutions from processing transactions with sites hosting Internet gaming unlawful under other laws. Fortunately, despite the best efforts of some anti-poker politicians, no federal law makes Internet poker unlawful, so poker is still not a crime. Some have suggested that the Wire Act includes poker, but the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2001 that the Wire Act is limited to sports betting (http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/wire-act.htm). Unfortunately, the Justice Department does not accept that ruling and UIGEA does not define what is legal and what is not, so we’re in a legal limbo.
20 Rich Muny // Oct 29, 2009 at 3:25 pm
“And saying that I “don’t believe in freedom” is silly. All I’ve said is that I don’t believe in APPEALS to freedom in the case of Internet gambling. I think they’re dubious, when poker itself is legal in more states and more places than it has ever been in US history.”
Many believe in Internet freedom. Licensing and regulation are generally accepted by the population, but prohibition of the sort advocated by the GOP Party Platform does not enjoy much popular support, especially among young people and swing voters.
21 joemarier // Oct 29, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Ah, but I don’t want to use “as much government as can be mustered” to ban poker. I’m not for calling in the SWAT team to bust up Uncle Mel’s Friday night.
I am, I suppose, not convinced that “the right of adults to play online poker [with funds on deposit at a US bank account]” is any more a “right” than, say, “the right of adults to buy options on the Chicago exchange with a credit card number.”
But, hey, I’m obviously not the person you’re trying to convince!
22 joemarier // Oct 29, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Oh, thanks for the corrections.
23 Rich Muny // Oct 29, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Joemarier,
“But, hey, I’m obviously not the person you’re trying to convince!”
I do encourage you not to think of this in a vacuum. Opposition to this does harm other conservative goals, as I mentioned in the article.
Anti-poker former Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) liked to say, “click your mouse, lose your house!” (not a true statement, as sites don’t extend credit). Well, poker players have a saying, too – “Don’t let me click my mouse…lose your seat in the House!” Leach found that to be true. Check out http://theppa.org/headlines/2006/11/17/poker-players-we-helped-beat-leach . Leach later conceded that poker players were, in fact, responsible for his defeat. Check out http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireStory?id=7377226&page=3 . Poker players similarly defeated former Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA).
So, opposing online poker actually helps government-run health care!
24 Arch // Oct 29, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I’m a member of the Poker Players Alliance (well… probably lapsed, but definitely have contributed) and I used to play online aware it was legally gray if not definitely black and white. I live in Washington State however where the governor is in thrall to some local native american tribes who own most of the local casinos, and so Washington state passed a clear bill outlawing playing poker online. Which sucks.
Poker isn’t completely a game of chance, there is demonstrably skill involved. Meanwhile, other games of complete chance, the State lottery leaps to mind) are legal. It seems like a small issue to care about, or course there are much bigger issues facing our country, but I have to say, I will go out of my way to support politicians who will legalize internet poker.
25 Rich Muny // Oct 29, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Here’s a good David Broder column on Leach’s loss: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901268.html
26 joemarier // Oct 29, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Jim Leach wouldn’t have been a reliable vote against health care; he, of course, switched to the Democratic party after his loss, and is currently Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Virgil Goode made a series of racially inflammatory statements, and I’d chalk up his loss to that.
27 Rich Muny // Oct 29, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Joe,
True, pro-Obama turncoat Jim Leach is no one’s idea of a conservative, but conservatives would be better off with him voting for GOP House Leadership than with David Loebsack.
The funniest part is that GOP leadership was so out of touch that they thought pushing UIGEA would HELP Leach retain his seat. LOOOOOOL! They needed to get beyond the beltway, rather than assuming FoF lobbyists (yes, they have lobbyists) represent conservatives.
28 joemarier // Oct 29, 2009 at 7:02 pm
With Leach, I’m not so sure. Considering the weird effects of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, I’m kinda glad he’s not part of the health care debate on the floor.
I’ll concur that anti-gambling lobbyists don’t represent conservatives (always). But neither do pro-gambling lobbyists! Or the internet freedom lobbyists! Or the bank lobbyists! It hinges on the circumstances, alas.
And I’m happy to leave it at that. Unless I want to get an article out of this.
29 Rich Muny // Oct 29, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Ireign,
Big government social conservatives certainly did push the legislation. They weren’t the ONLY ones pushing it (see Jim Leach and Dianne Feinstein), but they were the ones who pushed the GOP to support this legislation.
Check out:
- FoF’s Anti-Poker Action Site: http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/A000004244.cfm
- Letter from a coalition of big government social conservative groups including Focus on the Family to Congress supporting prohibiting online poker: http://fota.cdnetworks.net/pdfs/2009-06-04-gambling-letter2.pdf
- Family Research Council’s Tom McClusky at Congress arguing against this freedom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jw-eScfbgM
- Expired Focus on the Family alert to tell Congress to prohibit online poker: http://capwiz.com/fof/callalert/index.tt?alertid=11928116
- FoF gleefully proclaiming the passage of UIGEA: http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/A000001162.cfm
30 Rich Muny // Oct 29, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Ireign,
Big government social conservatives certainly did push the legislation. They weren’t the ONLY ones pushing it (see Jim Leach and Sen. Dianne Feinstein), but they were the ones who pushed the GOP to support this legislation.
Check out:
- FoF’s Anti-Poker Action Site: http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/A000004244.cfm
- Letter from a coalition of big government social conservative groups including Focus on the Family to Congress supporting prohibiting online poker: http://fota.cdnetworks.net/pdfs/2009-06-04-gambling-letter2.pdf
- Family Research Council’s Tom McClusky at Congress arguing against this freedom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jw-eScfbgM
- Expired Focus on the Family alert to tell Congress to prohibit online poker: http://capwiz.com/fof/callalert/index.tt?alertid=11928116
- FoF gleefully proclaiming the passage of UIGEA: http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/A000001162.cfm
31 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 9:10 am
The GOP has to decide once and for all if it’s going to support truly limited government–or a Big Government which uses its power to support “traditional values.”
If it’s the latter, it loses center-rightists like me. It will also lose suburbanites, single women, and minorities–the fastest-growing voting blocs in America.
Christian evangelicals don’t realize how much they scare many Americans. Those Americans know from history that when the zealotry of religion gets married to the power of government to use force, the result is disaster.
32 Starks // Oct 30, 2009 at 9:10 am
This is why I left the Republican Party or as I know call it The Christian Conservative Party. My father was a Republican Legislature for 20 years. Our family has been Republicans for a lifetime. My wife also a Republican for a liftime. We have all switched and left the Republican Party. Yes I voted for Obama and will continue to vote away from the GOP. Horsecrap about the GOP making ground. They will lose it again the blind idiots. The southern states and midwest states may support the GOP but that wont be enough. I have joined the No New Tax Party in my community which is for business, less government and of course less taxes. Regulate and tax the internet gambling and let Americans gamble on the net if they want. Support the American gambling establishments and become pro-business. The GOP has made me sick. They continue to pursue their run to the cliff.
You must log in to post a comment.