After Netroots Nation wrapped up on Sunday and all of the attendees scattered back to their homes (hope all of you had a safe trip), I stayed in Austin to visit with my old college buddy Joe. Ever since we both got out of school in the mid-eighties, our lives have taken different paths -- I came to the east coast, where I have remained ever since; he's bounced around various locations. I pursued a fairly linear, traditional career, and have done well; he's also done very well, but he's taken a much more unorthodox path to success. We've always kept in touch -- not particularly regularly, but with every occasional phone call and even more occasional visit, it always felt like we'd just spoken the day before. Joe makes me laugh, and he makes me think, and he's always a pleasure.
Joe has been a libertarian for years. He first showed such tendencies when we were in college; one evening three candidates for Congress came for an on-campus forum, and Joe came away so impressed with the Libertarian candidate that he voted straight-ticket L that November. At first it seemed like a protest vote or a lark of sorts, but over the years he internalized the libertarian philosophy and became deeply involved in the movement. His home is heavily littered with libertarian literature, in all forms.
So it should come as no surprise that Joe is a hardcore Ron Paul supporter. His garage is stuffed to the brim with Ron Paul signs, banners, buttons, and other electoral paraphernalia. His car -- SUV, actually -- is tattooed with Ron Paul stickers. He's constantly monitoring his Blackberry for messages from fellow local Paulistas, and attending local meetups. And he's planning to attend the "shadow" convention in Minneapolis for Ron Paul in September.
Despite coming from completely different places, Joe and I can always talk civilly and intelligently about politics. Much of it comes from our long-standing mutual respect, but a lot of it also comes from a greater-than-expected commonality of cause. Joe was describing to me his attitude towards the Republican establishment, and all I could do was nod my head in empathy; Joe raged against how the GOP power structure was more interesting in keeping control of the party than in living up to the party's stated ideals, and how their freezing out of Ron Paul was symptomatic of this situation -- how many of us can simply swap in the name "Howard Dean" for "Ron Paul" and make the exact same evaluation of the Democrats?
We discussed the Constitution. I proudly showed him my little pocket blue copy of the Constitution which came in my Netroots Nation packet. He trumped me with his copy, which also included the Declaration of Independence. We both joked that we needed to obtain the fundie edition, which probably had red marks all over it. We discussed the war, which we both oppose strongly. He railed against the "fascists" who had taken control of the GOP; it was quite stunning to hear that word from someone who's very much a conservative on many issues. I told him I agreed with the SCOTUS' decision on the DC gun control laws; he sighed and offered that he was disappointed it was only a 5-4 decision. And we went on in that way for awhile as we munched on a scrumptious Mexican dinner.
We hopped elsewhere for some post-dinner margaritas. Maybe it was the tequila, but this is where our fundamental disagreements came out in bold relief. His Paulista interpretation of the Constitution is predictably conservative; he doesn't see a federal government role in things like education or health care -- to him it's national-defense only. I reminded him that "promote the general welfare" and "regulate commerce" are very much defined as federal duties in the Constitution; his answer was that "it's too easy to just dump everything you want into those two clauses". Given that I don't want to see America become another Brazil, we just agreed to disagree on that. That didn't sway him much; to libertarians, "market freedom" trumps all.
He inquired about Netroots Nation -- in a curious way, not a derisive one. He was especially interested in the Nancy Pelosi reception, given his displeasure with the FISA law. I told him about it; we progressives didn't like it either, and we grilled her on it, but Pelosi is family and we weren't out for her execution. He accepted that, and added that he's very, very disappointed in the Democratic Congress for not standing up to Bush -- not just on domestic warrantless spying, but on anything. I told him he sounded just like a liberal blogger; he just chuckled.
Joe expressed his disgust at the lawbreaking of the Bush administration, and criticized the Democrats for their timidity in exposing it. All I could do was quietly agree. I'll defend my party against unwarranted attacks, but this one was 100% appropriate.
Then came this exchange:
Joe: "You tell me. What should I do?"
Me: "Get involved in your party apparatus. Take the Republican Party back. Take it away from the fundies and the neocons. Become the change you want to see."
Joe: "But then what? Okay, we take the party back. Now we have to tussle with the Democrats. What happens then?"
Me: "Well, we'll be fighting then. But it will be a fair, honest fight. May the best ideas win."
Joe: "But is that possible? You and I both interpret key portions of the Constitution far differently. If your people and my people take control of our parties, are these differences reconcilable? Should the US just split up?"
Like I said, he makes me laugh, and he makes me think. I didn't have a good answer for that, and I still don't.
I don't have a big finish here. I just wanted to share this with the community. Intellectual honesty from Republicans is so rare these days that I wanted to pass this instance along. And while I seriously doubt I convinced Joe of anything, I always welcome thoughtful discussion with reasonable conservatives. So do with this diary what you will...