Having moved into the life as a former candidate (WA-01), a citizen running for the first time, I can tell you that I’m pretty sick of the following phrases, “Well, that’s politics”, “It’s all about the money”, “We have to unite”, “Politics is dirty”, and “You can’t say that. You have to get the independent vote”.
Do you think the Founding Fathers thought that way, or would accept working in such a political system? Did they, upon pondering how to communicate their position on an issue, verbalize their statement based on focus groups, political positioning or pandering? When Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, or in modern times, Ronald Reagan, ran for president, did they say, “I have to move to the middle to get the moderate vote”? Did they “tone down their rhetoric”, to either increase support of or to avoid offending a particular constituency? Did then candidate, Ronald Reagan, adjust the conviction of his principles and message to please the Republican Party establishment in 1976, when he was running in the primary against then “moderate” incumbent President Gerald Ford (who the party supported over Reagan, by the way)? Did he “soften his stance” on abortion or abolishing the failed bureaucratic (and unconstitutional, I might add) boondoggle known as the federal Department of Education? Emphatically, “NO! on all accounts. Most of us couldn’t even fathom President Reagan or the Founding Fathers checking their principles at the door for political gain. Yet, we honor them, and rightfully so.
Then why do we either at worst, expect, or at best, tolerate, today’s candidates running their campaigns in such, if we’re honest with ourselves, unprincipled ways? Is it so that they can get elected, winning at all costs? If we continue to elect candidates who run campaigns this way, how in the world can we expect them to be principled once elected? Do we think that they’ll be, fresh from disregarding their principles to get elected, magically reversing course and be able to be principled and incorruptible once elected? Do we think they’ll be able to then stand strong on tough issues against all of the pressures they’ll face after they take office? The history of politics and study of human nature teaches us that when a politician loses his or her principles, as is too often the case, they usually never get them back. I could give examples, but there isn’t enough paper in the world to list all of them.
I’m also getting somewhat tired of a phrase I’ve been guilty of using out of context myself, “We must unite!” Let me be clear. I want the right to unite! I want all of the Conservative candidates, who didn’t make it past the recent primaries, to endorse the candidates who are going to the general election. I really do. I think it’s great when, “we all get along”. Nevertheless, I do not think that candidates, incumbent politicians, or anyone else for that matter, should be endorsing people running for office who have drastically different core principles.
I don’t think a true, Constitutional conservative is obligated, nor should they be ostracized, because they don’t endorse someone who they believe is wishy-washy, flexible, or vague in upholding the U.S. Constitution just because “it’s best for the party”. I also don’t think a real fiscal conservative should be demonized for not endorsing or supporting someone who talks in vague generalities about decreasing the size and cost of government, but who doesn’t have the courage to articulate exactly what they would be in favor of cutting. Rather than choosing the candidate who stood strong for, and could articulate the time-honored conservative ideals of the Republican Party, squishy, party-endorsed faux fiscal conservatives who “deserve to win”, or “have earned the right”, like Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, or George W. Bush, ushered in the presidencies of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and not only a radical far-left Congress, but the most radically, far-left, president in history, Barack Obama.
But, Matthew, you say, we’ll never get our (Republican) majority back if we don’t win. We will never change “politics as usual” if we continue to accept or naively promote, “politics as usual”. I understand there are painful political costs to hold such views, but sometimes in life you have to give up something to get something. In the past, we’ve cashed in our principles for short-term political gains and victories. Where has that gotten us (see: Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, a $13 trillion national debt, and ObamaCare)?
Look, I understand political realities. One of my favorite sayings is, “It is what it is”. However, that doesn’t mean we have to accept it. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do everything in our power to fight against it. Looking in the mirror, the reality is that I put on around twenty pounds (okay, give or take) during my recent run for office. (Maybe it’s a good thing I didn’t get elected!) I’m starting to look like Chris Christie, a person whom I mightily respect and who’s a perfect example of a politician who is, so far, sticking to his convictions. I don’t accept that reality, so I’m going to get off of my rear and change it.
It’s principles versus politics, so what’s it going to be? Choose one. I say we stick to our principles. I say we vote our principles. I say that we must focus our time, energy, financial support, and yes, unify around those candidates who are fiercely dedicated to restoring the Constitutional principles that quickly made us the most prosperous, freest country in the world. Otherwise, we’ll keep getting what we’ve been getting, and that is what’s really unacceptable.
Comments
It's not that simple
Mathew, you set up a choice that doesn't need to be made:
"It’s principles versus politics, so what’s it going to be?"
You can be principled and understand how politics works and work within the system. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Principles without understanding politics is naive.
Politics without principles becomes corruption.
Practicing politics founded on and shaped by principles is the shrewd way to get your principles on the table and to have an effect on society.
Principles vs. Politics? Not always, but when it is...
Chris, you said, "You can be principled and understand how politics work?" Agreed. Wouldn't you agree that the Founding Fathers and Ronald Reagan understood how politics work, yet kept their principles at the same time? I can be principled and understand how murder works too, but that doesn't mean I agree with it, accept it, or endorse someone who participates in it. It violates my principles. I'm not saying that politics is like murder, but am using an absurd analogy to make the point that we should put our principles before politics, in spite of "how it works".
You're right, the two aren't always mutually exclusive, but when it does come down to principles versus politics (and as a fellow former federal candidate, I know you'll agree that you are faced with situations when that's the case), principles must win out. Always. We should accept nothing less, period. Otherwise, it will always work that way and our republic will remain on the same track it's been on. Politics (at least on our side) should be, and needs to be principled. Unfortunately, that isn't often the case.
Example: George W. Bush said that he "abandoned free market principles to save the free market system", hence justifying the ill-conceived TARP bailouts (free markets don't need to be saved and we didn't have a free market system in the first place, but I digress), it told me they weren't really principles at all.
The Myth of the Perfect Men
The Founding Fathers were great men. But they were not perfect men. We hurt ourselves by making a myth of them. Same with Ronald Reagan. Life is a series of compromises. We compromise with our spouses, co-workers etc. It is no different in politics. I think we promote the idea that all these great leaders never compromised. They didn't compromise their principles but the compromised. It is tiresome to have to listen to people beat on others because they don't agree with them and then accuse them of being unprincipled.
Checking Principles at the Door
Chris,
Matthew said, and I quote, "They didn't check their principles at the door." He also did not name anyone specific that is a Republican in any fashion that is currently holding or seeking office. So, I'm not quite sure he is supposedly "beating up on" and "accusing of being unprincipled". That makes me quite surprised at the defensiveness that I've seen both here and on Facebook by some and the insinuations being made by individuals.
Fact is, there are people out there throughout the country who do not do a good job of letting their stance on issues and their principles be known. You cannot deny that they are out there with the many thousands of people that are running for various offices.
As much as I give W credit for keeping us safe since 9/11, I don't see how anyone can deny that his "abandoning his principles", his words not mine, opened a Pandora's box named Barack Obama and his disastrous policies.
It is that simple....
It is that simple, just not always very easy.
Well Said
Not going to get in into long debates, I just don't have the time. But it is clear, the time to stand is NOW, not when you think you have advantage. You have been telling us this is not the time for over 2 decades now. So let me leave you with this speech my friends, it says it all. Anything you counter this with, is nothing more than you accepting the chains forged for you. For it is as true right here right now as it was then. I know not what others may do, but as for me, I shall not be shackled.
"No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! "
And if you want to hear it spoken, go to the bottom of the page on this link:
http://history.org/almanack/people/bios/biohen.cfm
It's Not That Simple
Matthew,
Chris is making some good points. Be careful about putting the founding fathers on too high of a pedestal. They believed in the principle of freedom, but compromised on the issue of slavery in order to get the Constitution ratified. This is just one example.
The founders were not perfect, but gave us the best system that had been devised up to that time.
Sometimes advances are made inch by inch, or yard by yard. It is rare for someone in politics, or football, to make a 99 yard touchdown run.
As long as we are making advances in individual liberty, we should rejoice that our country is moving in the right direction.
Founders & Football
I'm going to spend way too much time answering your comment, because I'm not willing to let you revise history.
First of all, I didn't say the Framers were perfect, or anyone else for that matter.
Secondly, I take great exception to your claim that they "gave us the best system that had been devised up to that time. It was the best system of all-time. In fact, the U.S. Constitution is the longest-lasting constitution in the world, since it went into effect 221 years ago. France, for example, has rewritten their constitution, on average, about every 20 years since 1789.
The Founding Fathers didn't invent slavery. While never justifying it, slavery had existed for thousands of years before it unfortunately came to America.
Although tragic, slavery had become extremely ingrained in the U.S: "In the 1790 Census, after the South Carolina, 43 percent of the population was slave. In Maryland 32 percent, and in North Carolina 26 percent. Virginia, with the largest slave population of almost 300,000, had 39 percent of its population made up of slaves." Society may not have being willing or ready to abolish slavery yet, but even though it was so thoroughly part of the way of living in those times, they very clearly did not compromise their principles on slavery. Here's what some of the Founders said about slavery, limited in number only for brevity sake:
George Washington: "I wish from my soul that the legislature of this State could see the policy of a gradual Abolition of Slavery."
John Adams: "Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in abhorrence."
John Jay: "It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished."
Required Support?
I seem to remember that there was no issue whatsoever when Chris Williams dropped out of the Senate race and didn't endorse anyone. Though Widener is right that the Founding Fathers and Reagan were not perfect, I find it reasonable to argue that standing on principles and choosing whether to endorse a candidate or not shows a lot about one's character and their willingness to give up their principles just to "win".
But, you have to ask yourself, what is a "win" just electing more R's than D's? If its just about getting more R's elected than D's into office, then who cares about sacrificing principles?
The outcry of "Required Endorsement" after a primary is a waste of time...for instance, Didier and Rossi... Rossi is fully capable of getting Didier's supporters votes IF he truely wanted it. Rossi doesn't want to have to be forced to be a real conservative, he just wants Didier to tell people he is. If Rossi wants Didier's supporters votes, he needs to earn them, on principles, with or without Didier's endorsement.
Post new comment