Regarding non-constructive activism:

1/19/2010 - Blow Out Conservatism (dot com) by B.A. Lawson

Self defeatism and good intentions can sometimes be difficult to tell apart. In this time of so much grass roots activism there are a lot of well intended efforts under way. The call of patriotism has been heard by many and many are looking for ways to answer that call. While the patriotism of those that are striving to steer America back toward her foundational principles is unquestionable, it is inevitable that some of our activism will be constructive and some will not. Some well intentioned conservative efforts may in fact work against stated goals and ultimately steer America in the direction of more statism.

KLIF 570 is a local talk radio outlet in Dallas Texas that offers both local and national conservative talk personalities. Jeff Bolton is the local talent that hosts the morning drive for KLIF and the force behind a national movement called Blow Out Congress.  The concluding paragraph from the BOC website's "About Us" page provides the following;

"BlowOutCongress.com advocates the complete replacement of all 535 members of congress in the next election cycles.  This effort is not associated with or affiliated with any political party."

All 535? The target of BOC is pretty clear. Every member of the house and senate must go. BOC provides a pretty good illustration of a growing body of opinion of what Washington is doing for us. Dissatisfaction with Washington is at an all time high and so are emotions. In a Fox & Friends interview Bolton asserted that BOC began when he "created it on the air one day in a fit of rage". Tapping into the rage of an audience is a good way to harness their energy and support, but is it constructive?

Jeff's audience is mostly conservative. The anger currently being directed at elected officials is coming mostly from conservatives. The members of BOC are going to be mostly conservative. What is the likely contribution of a conservative BOC member in the upcoming elections? If the incumbent is a liberal, or a big government establishment politician, the BOC member will vote against them in favor of a more conservative candidate; just like they would if they were not a member of BOC. If the incumbent is a conservative steeped in the founding principles of the United States, the BOC member will vote against them to "Blow out Congress".  The majority of the instances where a BOC member changes his behavior will benefit statist candidates over conservative candidates.

BOC punishes every single candidate regardless of how principled they may be in executing the duties of their office. This is diametrically opposed to conservative philosophy. A representative that is doing his job and adhering to foundational principles should never be thrown overboard in favor of a statist candidate. The BOC website claims that the effort is not affiliated with any political party. That is a fantasy that relies on an equal political demographic distribution among the members of the campaign and the candidates affected by BOC. A suspension of disbelief is required for any critical thinker to not recognize that this campaign is tailored to harm conservatives and favor statists.

The power of incumbency is undeniably too great in our political process. An arbitrary carpet bombing campaign directed at mostly Republican candidates in a general election is an assault on logic. Increasing the election chances for statist candidates is a counter-intuitive response to our frustrations over the statist inclinations of our representatives in Washington. Applying this tactic in a general election simply amounts to conservative suicide.

It is vital that our activism be constructive and realistic. There is no glimmer of hope that everyone in congress will be removed by BOC. None. Nada. Zilch. There is every reason to expect that this activity will have a disproportionate impact on conservative candidates in favor of their statist opponents. Let's pursue efforts born of the sober and deliberate thought that is the hallmark of conservatism, and leave the "fit of rage" emotional response campaigns to the statists. 

On the confusion in the Texas gubernatorial race:

1/13/2010 - The RINO In The Room by B.A. Lawson

Will the real conservative please stand up? Welcome to the 2010 Texas gubernatorial race. Our game of political "To Tell The Truth" finds current Governor Rick Perry, US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and activist Debra Medina each stepping up to make the claim that they are the real conservative Republican in the race for Texas governor. Wouldn't it be nice if all we had to do was sit through a half hour game-show to get the two impostors to come clean and step aside for the authentic article? Unfortunately, in the political version of "To Tell The Truth" all the candidates stand up and claim to be the real deal at the end of the show, or maybe the show just never ends.

Fortunately, two of the candidates are pretty well known quantities in Texas politics. Perry and Hutchison have been around for quite a few years and these two are the main source of the surrealism in the current race. Texas conservatives simply watch agape at the spectacle of Rick and Kay trying to out-conservative each other as they scramble for voters. To the casual observer (especially those outside of Texas) it may appear that Texas has been blessed with two solid candidates. The reality is that Texas has been blessed with two establishment politicians that are very good at saying the right thing when the cameras are rolling and doing something else entirely when they think they can get away with it. One of the nice things about these two  unscrupulous politicians is that they recognize non-conservative political double dealing very well in each other.

Rick Perry's campaign has done a stellar job of compiling some of Kay Bailey Hutchison's inconsistencies, misrepresentations, broken promises and acts of political expediency at washingtonkay. Likewise, Kay has highlighted Perry's lack of principles and repeated assault on conservatism at slickrickperry. Ironically they have both done a reasonably honest job of compiling each others sins for us with surprisingly little exaggeration. One can only imagine how much Debra Medina appreciates the work that the campaigns have put into these websites.

The RINO in the room is the endorsements that have been thrown at Kay and Rick to bolster their claims to the title of the "real conservative". We've seen politicians like Dick Cheney endorse Kay and State Senator Dan Patrick  endorse Perry. Both of these men know what conservatism is, so it's pretty certain that they know they aren't endorsing a conservative. Dick and Dan aren't alone among conservative politicians - who should really know better - endorsing one or the other of these two. At least with the politicians we can chalk it up to party politics and trying to win an election. That doesn't excuse them. This is the type of political expediency that we've already seen too much of from politicians. The more mysterious aspect of the situation is the run-of-the-mill Texas Republicans that claim to support Kay or Rick on the basis of conservative bonafides. It seems reasonable by now to expect just about everyone to have stirred from the slumber of their complacency regarding politics. Folks that find themselves rooting for Rick or Kay under the expectation that the candidate shares some conservative principles with them really need to take a look at the websites listed in the previous paragraph. The public record is not a friend to either of these establishment politicians.

If Rick and Kay can each keep their seat when it's time for the real conservative to stand, then the title is Debra Medina's to lose. Medina is a newcomer to state politics. Her current political resume consists of being the chairman of the Wharton County GOP. She is free of the stigma of an establishment politician and is refreshingly non-politican-like. Medina was a homeschool mom, a nurse and an entrepreneur starting her own business. Her common sense view of limited government and maximized individual liberty is encouraging and laid out fairly well on her web-site. Is she an establishment politician in the making, or a grass roots constitutionalist working to get things back on the right track? Either way, her grass roots campaign has its work cut out to overcome the name recognition of her gargantuan opponents.

The race will begin in earnest with a televised debate on Thursday January 14th at 7pm. TV and radio stations across Texas will carry the debate; list of stations.  Hopefully Texan's will have a candidate that will be able to stand and say "I'm the real conservative".

On the benefits of synergy between conservative Republicans and Third Party activists:

12/17/2009 - A Primary Cause by B.A. Lawson

A lot of conservatives are frustrated with the Republican Party today. The frustration is understandable. The GOP leadership is doing a poor job of spreading the message of conservatism. The GOP leadership is doing a poor job of defending conservatism when it is attacked by detractors. The RNC is still making poor choices and endorsing non-conservative candidates when viable conservatives are trying to mount campaigns as Republicans. Unfortunately, there are a growing number of conservatives that see the Republican Party as 'bad guys' that need to be opposed, when they should look at them as more of a wayward member of the conservative family that needs an intervention.

Some emerging leaders in the conservative movement have started calling for people to throw off their Party affiliation. They say that registering as an independent will send a message to the Republican Party and encourage them to change their errant behavior. It is true that a drop in the number of registered Republicans might get the attention of the RNC. It does not necessarily follow that the RNC would gravitate toward conservatism as a result of conservatives abandoning the Republican Party. The case could easily be made that the Republican Party would try to broaden its appeal to the center to replace the exodus from the right. In fact, the case could easily be made that this has been taking place to some degree since Ross Perot siphoned a large number of conservatives away from the Party in 1992.

Regardless of the long term effects, the short term effect would almost certainly be a shift to the center by the GOP. Republican primary races are among the greatest opportunities for conservatives to have success moving the Party back towards conservatism. In some cases the RNC leadership backs the less conservative candidate in the primary and it is very difficult for the more conservative candidate to overcome the RNC support for the opposition without significant conservative grass-roots support. In 17 states the only people that can vote for that more conservative candidate are registered Republicans. Independents can vote for whoever they want in the general election, but they are leaving the choice of the Republican candidate up to somebody else.

The irony of this scenario should not be ignored. The newly registered independents that were frustrated over the lack of conservative offerings from the GOP influence the system to favor the less conservative GOP primary candidate. When the introduction of a conservative third party candidate in the general election is added to the situation, things only get worse. Dividing the vote between conservative third parties and Republicans provides a significant advantage to the liberal in almost every case. So what is the solution?

The grass roots activism that is currently sweeping the nation is incredible. Campaigns are energized and conservatives are more organized than they have ever been. Any conservative candidate capable of winning a general election should be capable of winning a Republican Primary. Any conservative candidate that is not capable of winning a Republican Primary is almost certainly not capable of winning a general election. The chance of conservative success goes up when the third party energy and organization is invested in a conservative Republican candidate. That is not to say pick a different candidate or get behind the 'establishment' candidate. Run the exact same candidate that would run as a conservative third party candidate, but run them as a Republican in the GOP primary. If they win the primary, they will have the weight of the RNC behind them in the general election.

It is important for conservatives to engage in constructive activities that maximize the chances for getting conservatives elected to office. Supporting conservative candidates in Republican Primaries is one of the most effective things that conservatives can do to help re-establish conservatism in America and in the GOP. Registering as an independent? Well that might just be a 'Primary' cause for the continued decline of conservatism in the GOP...

Regarding the realities of political moderates:

11/18/2009 -The Mythical Moderate  by B.A. Lawson

"Moderate" is not a new term in our political discourse, but what exactly does it mean?

The single thing that probably instigated this pondering session is the recent debacle in the special election for the the New York 23 district seat for US House of Representatives. Between the two major Party candidates in the race we had a liberal Republican (Scozzafava) set against a liberal Democrat. To the media this amounted to a race between a 'moderate' Republican and a Democrat. When the fervor over the "Republican" candidate's complete lack of conservative credentials ultimately forced her out of the race she endorsed her Democrat opponent over the third party conservative candidate. Did anyone notice that the moderate Republican was closer to a liberal than they were to a conservative? (insert cricket sounds here)

Arlen Specter, the liberal former-Republican senator from Pennsylvania was described as a moderate Republican by the media for years. When Specter announced his defection from the Republican Party to run in the future as a Democrat, it was treated as the most natural 'progression' by the media. Apparently, to the media, a fully evolved Republican is just a Democrat; they start as a tad-pole in the paleocon pool and ultimately achieve 'Obama'.

It isn't difficult to understand why the media likes this idea of calling the liberal fifth column in the Republican Party "moderates", but what is the deal with Michael Steele and the RNC? The conservative message of the Republican Party has been marginalized by infiltrators and the Party leadership keeps talking about big tents. Why does the GOP tent have to be large enough to hold all of the the ideological opponents of conservatism while the flaps are simultaneously held tightly closed against the admittance of a single one of the founding fathers of our great nation?

There are many that look back to the founding fathers and the founding principles of the United States and hold both in great esteem. How is it that we, as a society, can look back and revere a group of men that could never be described as moderates and still buy the lie that the moderate path is the path of reason? The men that founded our nation would find themselves on the fringe of our national political landscape today. It is hard to imagine that they would be able to recognize the nation they left us. How is it that a very large number of modern Americans swell with the pride of patriotism when confronted with the example of our founding heroes and yet strive constantly against those foundational ideals in the voting booth?

We are at a unique point in our history as Americans; a point at which we will decide who we are as a people. Will we embrace the foundational principles of the founding fathers, or will we betray those ideals? I honestly don't know when the last time would have been that deep introspection into our national psyche would have revealed that we were the nation envisioned at the founding; perhaps only in that instant after the founding itself as events were set adrift on the currents of time. Even so, most of us recognize that the seed of something amazing was planted in the foundational soils of America. The fruit of that seed is now ripe and this is the generation that will decide to harvest the potential of that fruit or turn away and let it rot on the vine.The founding fathers warned us repeatedly not to allow the federal government too free a reign over our lives. George Washington said it very well when he said;

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”