MR: In your opinion, are libertarians real libertarians, not conservatives who occasionally try to pass themselves off as libertarians welcome in the Republican Party?
KAZA: I think that some Republican leaders are more savvy than others at recognizing the importance in having a "big tent" philosophy for the Party. It was the late Lee Atwater, then chair of the Republican National Committee, who made the case for allowing libertarians to be made welcome within the Party along with conservatives, moderates, and populists. I don't think, however, that there are very many people within the Republican Party hierarchy in the state of Michigan who are as sophisticated in their approach as Mr. Atwater was. If anything, the Republican Party in this state has a very shallow understanding of the importance of having a broad-based political coalition. State Republican leaders really lack a strategy building a broad-based coalition; their focus has been far too narrow, and if they would have been more broad-based in their approach, they would see that they would probably now have 60 or 62 State House seats, instead of 56. They would elect more candidates to public office and would truly be the majority party in this state if they would have used a adopted a more sophisticated plan toward building the party.
MR: Recently, a good deal of libertarians have come out in opposition to school voucher plans. They argue that once private schools accept state funds via vouchers, they will open themselves up to massive governmental regulation and will become no different qualitatively from traditional government schools; and that this is simply too much of a risk to take. What is your opinion?
KAZA: I think that there is great validity to that argument. Having worked at a think tank the Mackinac Center for Public Policy I am somewhat more suspicious of public policy ideas that have originated from New York foundations and Washington think tanks, and that have then been filtered down to the state level and promoted as true reform. In essence, many of these ideas, if implemented, would result in nothing more than the expansion of centralized government from Washington into our daily lives. I look at school vouchers in the same light that I look at Goals 2000. I am skeptical of any reform initiative pertaining to education that comes out of Washington, and I see the voucher issue in that light. It seems to me that the people pushing the voucher idea may have a hidden agenda.
MR: Do you think that the Michigan Jobs Commission has any legitimate place in state government, or are its programs just blatant examples of corporate welfare?
KAZA: The Michigan Jobs Commission is indeed a very good example of corporate welfare. I have consistently disagreed with plans to create and to enlarge Michigan Jobs Commission. It seems to me that, as Republicans, if we are consistent in opposing welfare, we don't limit that to just the so-called "welfare moms." We must also talk about the big corporations that are on welfare. A lot of what goes in Washington and Lansing involves big corporations coming to legislatures with their hands out asking for handouts, favors, and protection from competition. I have put many words on the record in opposition to corporate welfare in general and to the Michigan Jobs Commission in particular. The irony of this issue is that the former governor of this state Democrat James Blanchard had a fetish for using the Commerce Department to dole out corporate welfare, and here the current administration is doing the same thing but on an even larger scale.
MR: In your view, does the state have any legitimate role to play in the debate over assisted suicide?
KAZA: Yes. One of the reasons that many people in the Libertarian Party oppose Greg Kaza is because I believe that government does have a legitimate role to play on this issue as well as on the issue of abortion. I have always been explicit about my opinion on these issues. I have voted for laws that have banned assisted suicide in this state. In fact, I am only one of a handful legislators from Oakland County the place where Jack Kevorkian does his dirty work who have consistently voted against assisted suicide and abortion. I am very leery of applauding a guy who leaves a dead body in a van in a parking lot and then acts like a hero.
MR: Do you agree with John Engler that the Indian Tuition Waiver Program should be abolished?
KAZA: Yes, I support the governor on this issue. If anything, we need to go further and abolish other special programs for special interest groups. As a libertarian, I oppose quotas and group rights and privileges. The debate over the abolition of this program should be part of a much larger debate over the issue of how we are going to address affirmative action, which I certainly do not support. This is a classic and defining issue. Either you support individual rights or you support group rights. There is too much of a trend toward government-imposed and government- sanctioned group rights, and we must get away from this.
MR: In your opinion, have the state policy institutes throughout the country been successful in advancing pro-market policies at the state and local levels?
KAZA: I've acknowledged that there are limits to what a libertarian can accomplish in a state legislature, and, as a former think tank official, I will acknowledge that there are limits to what you can accomplish in that arena as well. We have to be realistic about that. Think tanks can raise issues and they can do research that government-funded scholars are ignoring or unwilling to do, but the reality of the situation is that it is up to a legislator or to an administration to take that research and those recommendations and to act on them. And that is a far more difficult task because that involves standing for public office, campaigning, and subjecting yourself to criticism and attack from your political opponents. I known of very few think tank officials who have in their lifetime stood successfully for public office.
MR: How would you respond to some libertarians' assertion that all political participation but particularly holding public office is immoral?
KAZA: I am never one to run from a debate and I welcome this debate. It seems to me that the government is here, it has been here a while, and it's likely to be here in the future; and while it's here if we care about liberty we better try to do something about influencing it in a positive direction. And we should do that however we can, including running for public office, supporting other candidates who have similar political philosophies, or working on a ballot initiative. I have never really understood the argument that we should avoid such activities. Like Rothbard, I have always identified that type of argument as either left-wing sectarianism or right-wing sectarianism, and I am not a sectarian. If I had been a sectarian, we would have a mandatory seat belt law in this state I would not have worked with the Democratic Black Caucus to defeat that bill. If I was a sectarian, we would have non-knock legislation I would not have worked with Democrats to defeat that. If I was sectarian, I would not be on the verge of expanding the state freedom of information act for the first time in nearly twenty years. In the real world you cannot be a sectarian and get anything accomplished. But I am not condemning anyone who holds a different opinion on this subject. I am always more than happy to debate it when it comes up, although it seems to me that it is taking us away from what we should really be focusing on.
MR: Do you believe that the recent move toward sending funds back to the states in the form of block grants is a real victory for decentralized federalism? Or, in your opinion, is it just a cosmetic change?
KAZA: In 1989, I wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal that analyzed HUD's community development block grant program, and what I reported in that piece was that federal block grant money was flowing to some of the richest communities in Oakland County the wealthiest county in the state of Michigan. I am not a big fan of block grants. It seems to me that the whole idea of block grants implies that you will have a strong central government, which is something that I do not philosophically support or believe in. The talk about block grants doesn't excite me nearly as much as it does other Republicans. When I teach, I always like to point out who originated the idea of block grants: Richard Nixon; the same guy who escalated the Vietnam War, violated Cambodia's neutrality, cut the dollar's last ties to gold, and instituted wage and price controls. I don't look at Richard Nixon as anything approaching a great president and I didn't even mention the whole Watergate affair.
MR: What do you plan to do after your time in the House is over?
KAZA: I am up for reelection this year and I intend to stand for one more term Ñ and then in 1998 I will be term-limited out. After that I intend to do more writing and more lecturing and talking more to the movement. I want to try to make the point to the movement that it is possible to have a pro-liberty agenda and to actually succeed in a legislative agenda. I intend to do that primarily through writing. The Real Change AgendaÊis a book that I wrote that is forthcoming. It outlines 21 different proposals that I think nearly all libertarians would embrace and that, at the same time, are politically possible. I am also writing a book on how to run for office, and a book of essays that talk about changing government. But to answer your question, in 1998 it is my intention to run for the U.S. Congress, assuming that there would still be a Democrat holding office in the metropolitan Detroit district that I live in.