PPC Homepage

Tom Tancredo – Not a Free Market Conservative Before He Was Not a Republican

by | 10:38 pm, July 24, 2010 | 11 Comments

Tom Tancredo is threatening to enter the governor’s race, ostensibly to ensure that a conservative will hold the seat instead of a liberal democrat.  The problem is that not only will Tancredo’s threatened actions, if he carries through with them, almost undoubtedly ensure that Hickenlooper will be our governor for the next 4 years, but even if Tom Tancredo somehow won the race, a free market conservative would still not be our governor.  That is because although Tom has stopped being a Republican this past week, he stopped being a defender of free market conservative principles long before.

The heart of being a conservative is to defend free market capitalism, but Tom is not a defender of it.  In January of 2010 he put forward an op-ed piece in World Net Daily that appeared to deal with the subject of immigration.  In it, Tom called for a three year moratorium on all legal (not illegal) immigration.  Although wise people may disagree over whether this is an intelligent position, it is not — by itself — outside the free market conservative movement.  The trouble was not the position itself – rather it was the justification – you see, Tom Tancredo justified this freeze in legal immigration as a necessary measure to protect American workers’ jobs.

Think about that.  Tom Tancredo, the alleged defender of free market conservatism, advocated a government economic intervention of business X (who would have fewer workers to choose from) for the express purpose of protecting person Y’s paycheck.  Regardless of your feelings of the topic of immigration and whether it should be restricted for culture, national security, political equilibrium, or rule of law reasons, how can one justify the restriction of immigration to protect the “right to a job” as possibly being compatible with being a free market conservative?  Simple – one cannot do so.

This was not an isolated instance.  On July 5, 2010, Tom Tancredo sat in for Peter Boyles on KHOW 630 AM Denver to substitute for Peter who was off motorcycling that day.  While hosting the show he spent the end of the 6:00 am hour talking to a representative from Numbers USA (a successful immigration restriction organization).  During the conversation, Tom Tancredo said we are only bringing in people who take jobs (49:50) and that he was against immigration because it suppresses wages (54:30).  These remarks were not limited to illegal immigrants – they appear to include legal immigration as well.

It gets worse – while on the same radio show, after lauding Numbers USA as the premier organization to deal with both legal and illegal immigration (37:40-38:10), he was rewarded with the following response from the Numbers USA representative: Numbers USA believes “legal immigration needs to be reduced for a variety of reasons including quality of life reasons because the more people you add to this country to the population the more infrastructure you need, the natural resources you need to use, the more farmland you need to pave over and all the things that come along with population growth …we also believe that American workers have the right to not to have to compete with third world workers and third world wages”  (39:57 – 41:00) The Numbers USA rep also said we are moving towards a have/have not society due to legal immigration during the same time frame in the audio.  Later, the Numbers USA rep blamed almost the entirety of our unemployment on our immigration policy – legal and illegal (44:00).

Did Tom Tancredo, our supposed defender of free market conservatism, tell the Numbers USA rep that “use of natural resources” was not an appropriate reason to restrict immigration?  Did Tancredo, our supposed defender of free market conservatism, tell the Numbers USA rep that “paving over farm land” was not a legitimate reason for restricting immigration?  Did Tancredo, our supposed defender of free market conservatism, tell the Numbers USA rep that it is preposterous to blame almost our entire unemployment on immigration or that there is no “right” to not to have to compete with third world workers and third world wages?  Well, if he were a true free market conservative he would have done so.

Tom Tancredo in fact did not tell his esteemed guest that she was wrong on  any of these accounts.  Instead, not only did he appear to agree with the Numbers USA rep throughout the interview, but he even said at its end how proud he was of the organization.  A true defender of free market conservativism would have done neither, regardless of their feelings on the topic of restricting immigration on other bases (again – national security, political equilibrium, culture, government expenditures, etc.)  So when you hear that Tancredo is the only free market conservative candidate running, or something to that effect, realize that can only be true if the word “free market conservative” is stripped of its core meaning.

Update – To be absolutely clear I am not saying that a free market conservative must support open borders.  Rather, I am saying that a free market conservative would not stand silent or egg a radio guest on while that guest supported the idea that workers are entitled to a job, a high wage, or the other stuff indicated above.  Or write an op-ed along the same lines.

About the author (updated in July 2012): Elliot Fladen is an attorney practicing law in Colorado Springs, Colorado

Category: Capitalism, Elections, Governor, Philosophy, Political Commentary, republicans, Small Government
Tags: >

Comments

  1.   Brian Wilson
      July 24th, 2010 @ 11:04 pm

    “Free market conservative” does not equal “open borders advocate”. But I agree with your larger point that Tancredo is not a free market conservative. Didn’t he support TARP or something?

  2.   Elliot
      July 24th, 2010 @ 11:12 pm

    I agree and have placed an update at the end of the post as a result.

  3.   Jen
      July 25th, 2010 @ 5:40 am

    @Elliot..I disagree with your assessment. Illegal immigration and Border Security are on the fore front of American politics across all political party lines. I encourage you and your readership to research the cost savings for implementing programs that encourage self-deportation. Tom is not only the best conservative hope to seat in the Governor’s mansion, but I propose that his unique approach to our budget shortfall could result in a possible surplus by the end of his first term, when he is elected…given the legislature will pass Colorado’s version of AZ1070. Colorado will be the first state to stand behind AZ in solidarity and thus, attract business back into the state. Sasha for first pup! Tanc Tough!

  4.   Elliot
      July 25th, 2010 @ 6:35 am

    Jen,
    Two points:
    First, if Tom Tancredo had based his argument “cost savings for implementing programs that encourage self-deportation” then my above piece would be baseless. However, he did not base his argument on cost savings. Rather, he based his argument on the notions that workers have a right to a job and high wages (while appearing to support Malthusian population control positions on natural resources and the environment). These arguments are incompatible with calling yourself a free market conservative. Either Tom repudiates his support for the arguments or he is not fit to call himself a free market conservative, let alone attack Obama for having us slouch towards Socialism.

    Second, and COMPLETELY ASIDE FROM THIS POINT, your contention that there is cost savings from encouraging self-deportation relies on flawed research as it is not “NET COST savings.” In fact, research out of the Cato Institute indicates that implementing policies that Tom would want to implement would actually cost this country up to $260 billion annually.
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10438
    Also, to the extent that you are relying on FAIR’s recent study, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers,” that study itself does not take account of a variety of factors as well that I am not going to get into here (that will be another post for a few weeks down the line – especially if Tom or other candidates are repeatedly relying on it).

    I understand you like Tom. Having personally met the guy its easy to see why. Tom is one of the most charismatic speakers in all of Colorado politics; his speeches are clinics on how to work a crowd and aspiring candidates should pay to study under him. On a variety of issues as well, such as education, the war on drugs, ending affirmative action, and direct taxes, I think I am very close to Tom’s view of things (without having read where Tom is on those issues). However, not only do we disagree on immigration, I cannot stand by why Tom uses arguments to justify his position that place him outside of what being a free market conservative is.

  5.   J. Anne Huss
      July 25th, 2010 @ 7:33 am

    This is really a bizarre little piece – maybe it was intended to be limited in scope but if that’s the case them I must presume that this issue with immigration is the most important reason why the writer feels Tancrado is not a free market conservative. Immigration, which is the hallmark of Tancredo’s political career, as the defining example just blows my mind. I’ve read some other artilces stating that this is Tancredo’s ONLY issue and that is a major fault – but in my opinion if we could get a good handle on the immigration issue and nothing else – Colorado would be 100% better off.

  6.   Elliot
      July 25th, 2010 @ 2:22 pm

    Ms. Huss,
    The issue is not immigration, rather it is the justifications that Tancredo uses to restrict it – justifications that are indicative of a lack of his loyalty to free market principles.

  7.   Donald E. L. Johnson
      July 25th, 2010 @ 5:07 pm

    Elliot,
    I know you don’t like Tom, and, I think, you support the disgraced Scott McInnis who never will be governor.

    As a a free market libertarian Republican who believes that some markets need to be regulated when consumers or competitors are abused by the illegal and irrational behavior of some participants, I agree with Tom.

    We have 9.5% unemployment. Employers are abusing illegals and out-of-work laborers by using the illegals to keep free markets from working. Thus, because of market manipulation by the government’s refusal to enforce border security or labor laws, we don’t have free labor markets.

    America no longer can afford to allow uneducated, often sick immigrants to come in and drain our educational and health care resources. We’re no longer a nation of immigrants. We no longer need workers. We no longer have frontiers to conquer or vast resources for newcomers to tap.

    Instead, we have highly educated people losing jobs to immigrants who will work for Microsoft for below market wages, and we have our less educated and educatables who are losing jobs to uneducated immigrants who can be treated as virtual slave labor.

    Meanwhile, illegal immigration has corrupted all levels of our society, from the Fortune 500 to truck farmers and from the White House to Sanctuary City mayors like Hickenlooper, lawyers, judges, journalists and cops on the street.

    If you want to turn the US into a Balkanized and tribal 3rd world country, we’re not on the same page.

  8.   Brian Wilson
      July 25th, 2010 @ 8:48 pm

    Elliot, don’t waste your time trying to convince Jen. She is a paid operative of Tancredo’s.

  9.   Elliot
      July 25th, 2010 @ 10:10 pm

    @Donald
    A few things,
    First off, thank you for writing a well thought out comment. However, I’m not a Scott McInnis supporter. I’m actually planning on voting third party in the governor race (as I’ve indicated in my previous posts) – so I don’t have an issue with Tancredo running third party per se, but rather have issues with his justification for doing so.

    As for your immigration arguments, please see my response to Jen Raiffie’s comment. This post is not criticizing Tancredo for being anti-immigration – rather it is criticizing him for the justifications he is using to be anti-immigration. If you want to restrict immigration for culture reasons, national security reasons, cost reasons, etc., then those viewpoints can be compatible with being a free market conservative.

    However, Tancredo bases his justification for restricting immigration on “right to a job” and a “right to high wage” type arguments in the pieces that I linked to. Those arguments are NOT COMPATIBLE with calling yourself a free market conservative.

    As for hating Tancredo, I actually don’t. Like I said in a different post – he is really charismatic. And despite my serious and substantial disagreements with him on free market philosophy, I actually really enjoy hearing him speak. But just because I enjoy listening to him does not mean I can give him a free pass when calls himself something that he is not – namely a free market conservative.

  10.   Peoples Press Collective | Colorado Politics | “Principle-Over-Party” Is Not a Talisman – There Are Requirements :
      July 28th, 2010 @ 6:37 am

    [...] voting for him, no matter what party Tom Tancredo may choose to belong to today.  Specifically, in a piece last week in People’s Press Collective, Tom Tancredo was revealed as supporting government intervention for the express purpose of [...]

  11.   Peoples Press Collective | Colorado Politics | Tancredo – Lying at the Liberty on The Rocks Denver? :
      August 5th, 2010 @ 6:58 am

    [...] (if you don’t want to listen to the whole audio, the relevant portions are all cited in this post) [...]

Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"

  • "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow

Featured Posts




  • When a young girl gets close to the truth about a long-forgotten mystery, a harmless adventure becomes a threat to the future of the independent commercial settlements on Mars.

  • Advertise Here!

    info-at-peoplespresscollective-dot-org

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta




  • Buy a Tea Party Poster!