Philanthropist and political activist Howard Ahmanson has often been portrayed in the media and by his critics as a one-dimensional right-wing religious figure, but I’ve found him to be an independent and unpredictable thinker. For instance, Ahmanson and I have gone round and round over the issue of New Urbanism — he is sypathetic to it, and I am hostile toward it. Although he helped fund the Prop. 8 campaign, he also has been involved in various property rights endeavors. Well, I just received a fascinating short column from him in which he declares that he registered as a Democrat. He makes a great point about the GOP and its only principle these days: opposing tax hikes. I always oppose tax hikes also, but there is something intellectually dishonest about a party that opposes tax hikes while voting for things that mandate higher debt or tax hikes down the road.
Maybe I’ll join him and we can start a liberty caucus within the Democratic Party. Nothing else has worked, so why not this?
Here is the column. (He describes it as a rant!):
WHY I REGISTERED DEMOCRAT
By Howard Ahmanson
About six weeks ago, I, a known leader of the Religious Right in California, decided to reregister in the Democratic Party. Why did I do this?
Well, I think I was reading about the budget struggles and threatened purges in the Legislature, and I was getting more and more tired and disgusted of it, and I realized that, had I been a Republican assemblyman, I could have hardly escaped being purged myself. The Republican Party of the State of California seems to have decided to narrow itself down to one article of faith, which may be described as NTESEBREE: No Tax Shall Ever Be Raised Ever Ever. Now, I’m concerned about this constant tax ratcheting, but I don’t think this is the answer. The Democratic Party in California, however, is now so big and diverse and all-inclusive that it has ABSOLUTELY NO PRINCIPLES WHATSOEVER. The Hollywood and San Francisco establishments within the Party may hold to some pretty detestable principles, but the party as a whole? I have not changed any of my opinions. There is not a single right-wing opinion I hold that some section of the Democratic Party doesn’t support it. Opposed to “marriage equality” and freewheeling abortion rights? A lot of Democrats of color will agree. And also many of them will agree on the importance and social justice of vouchers and tax credits for non-government schools. Opposed to fiscal irresponsibility? A lot of Silicon Valley Democrats will probably agree. Opposed to “urban redevelopment” schemes that run small business and residents out of the way for the benefit of the politically important? Got a high view of property rights? Lots of Democrats, including Robert Cruickshank and Senate President Darrell Steinberg, agree with me to a considerable degree.
I describe myself as a “social conservative, an economic moderate,” and to a considerable extent a property libertarian. By “economic moderate” I mean that the philosophy of “starve the beast” has failed. The beast will feed welfare and pork and starve infrastructure. If we want to confront irresponsible spending, we have to confront it directly. We have to confront directly the issue of the role of government and what we want it to do and not do. And when we do want government to do something, we want it to have enough money to be able to do what it does pretty well (at least considering it’s a government), but we have to fight the mentality of entitlement. The whole mentality entitlement is dangerous. The nearest thing we have to entitlements are property rights, and they are to defined things that actually exist. And all other rights, in the end, depend on property rights; freedom of speech, religion, and press is freedom in a place, or it is nothing. I am not one to radically abolish all welfare programs, as I was in my wild youth – and Social Security and Medicare are welfare, whether you like it or not – but the attitude of entitlement, especially to resources that may not even clearly exist, makes it impossible to pursue any kind of a rational fiscal policy.
I may have made a rash move, in that it will be hard for me to find Democrats that I can actually support – there probably are some, though; social conservatives in the inner city, Democrats with an open mind to vouchers and tax credits and in other ways willing to confront the public sector union beast (I don’t consider private-sector unions, for the most part, a serious enemy nowadays), Democrats open to fiscal sanity, Democrats open to property rights rather than “urban redevelopment” social engineering schemes out of City Hall. And by the grace of God, there probably are some!
Well he makes some very interesting and good points however I wonder how long this will last? Is he likely to make any impact within the Democratic party?
Sure there are Dems who hold to the positions he supports but what success are they having in getting their programs espoused by the party?
And he’s right that Republicans have been irresponsible. But there is some hope that with their irresponsibility change will come and the ones who voted for our irresponsible state budget will be voted out and hopefully many of the Dems who pushed it also.
At this point, I wouldn’t support either political party with donations since it turns out that Republican party money has gone to support these propositions the governor and Dems are pushing so I don’t think you can trust either party.
I am glad that he described his column as a rant. It’s hard to follow and it doesn’t read very easily. I hope he finds “Democrats open to fiscal sanity” as well. Wasn’t Lou Correa supposed to one of those kind of Dems?
No wonder that the GOP headquarters in Sacramento is squealing like stuck hogs. Their sugar daddies are leaving the party. Now, after giving upwards of a $million$ dollars to the Arnold Dream Fund to promote advertising in favor of Proposition 1a the GOP administrators suddenly have done a 180 degree turn and are against it! Another one of those ‘we were against it before we were for it” kind of things. When the big money starts leaving the GOP the squealing begins. Good for you, Mr. Ahmanson! Alot of peasants like myself followed in your footsteps.
I never even heard of Howard Ahmanson.
Mr. Ahmanson had the courage and HIS OWN well thougth out and expressed PERSONAL REASONS for doing this.
Notice he said his personal views are NOT changing.
He evidently got tired of the charade and the “me too!” socialism of the allegedly opposed to socialism and government Republican Party.
The free market, property rights, and individual freedom rhetoric that has been shilled to oblivious party members and voters for years did not play in Peoria OR IRVINE when ruling most of the last eight years by bankrupting our nation, erecting more looting laws, erecting an invading and occupying Empire abroad and a domestic surveillance state that owes royalties to the European governments.
Mr Ahmanson for many years walked the walk and talked the talk and did something(time, effort, and MONEY) to try to stop the slide into chaos and Babylon.
He got tired of the futulity………and he has in his own way shrugged..at least politically.
While not a John Galt, he has decided to join the strikers who have left the Party to its own reward.
It is quite evident that many more will join the strikers.
The perfect response for Republican telemarketers! Whereas, I still prefer supporting specific candidates whom I trust rather than to the party as a whole. I pray his courage moves more people toward clear thinking.
I remember Howard Ahmanson quite well, even talked with him (by phone, from VA) some years ago and met his wife at conference in VA. Mr. Ahmanson, it sounds like you would fit quite well into the truly non-partisan (or more accurately, “cross-partisan”) “Ron Paul movement”. These days I can hardly think of a better “nitch” to be in politically.