The Conservative Hand - A Manifesto for Achieving Conservative Political Goals

Adam Smith’s described the phenomenon of people pursuing their own self interest resulting in the common good as the free market’s “invisible hand”. It seems counter intuitive to think that a diverse set of individuals, pursuing their goals and self interests (in other words: chaos), can achieve a broader common goal. Yet, that is exactly what happens.

In his essay The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric Raymond ponders the workings of the free/open software movement (which, among other things, produced the Linux computer operating system.) Why would thousands of people spend their time and effort to produce and support software for which they will receive no monetary reward? He correctly identifies their coinage as not material wealth, but ego gratification. When you understand the coinage, their activity is a perfect model of Smith’s invisible hand.

Politics is also easily explained by Smith’s invisible hand. Unfortunately, unlike economics, in the area of politics self interest doesn’t always produce a common good (because it concentrates power in a controlling authority: the government.) Yet, there is no doubt politics are driven by self interest, so it’s important to understand what those self interests are and how they affect the political process.

Liberals have been puzzled to the point of frustration as to why (in their opinion) middle-class and blue-collar voters “vote against their self interest” by voting Republican and holding conservative views. They don’t understand the coinage. Today’s liberal coinage is “what’s in it for me as an individual”. This micro-self-interest is the invisible liberal hand, and it explains the actions of modern liberals (from showing their support for income redistribution by chanting “pie, pie, pie”, to shouting down speakers that hold opposing points of view.)

The coinage of conservatives is macro-self-interest. Allowing someone to speak uninterrupted (no matter how much you disagree with it) supports the right of every individual (including myself) to state their opinion. Sacrificing part of my life by serving in the military produces a better America for everyone (including me) in the long run by keeping American secure. Raising taxes on businesses reduces their profitability, damaging the economy and putting my job at risk. Those middle-class and blue-collar voters are voting their self interest, they just frame it differently.

The political parties also have their self interest coinage. To quote one local Republican Party website: “The Republican Party’s purpose is to search and find Republican candidates for all partisan and local non-partisan offices. Its role is to also support the Republican candidates who volunteer to run for an elected office.” In other words, elect Republicans.

Conservatives in particular have confused their goals with the Republican Party’s, believing that if they work to elect Republicans it will achieve conservative goals. History has shown that assumption to be false. By identifying with a political party and acting in the party’s self interest instead of their own, they have stifled the invisible conservative hand. We must change the process so that the invisible conservative hand controls the party and the political process.

There are certain economic rules that must be respected for the free market system (and its invisible hand) to work effectively. This manifesto seeks to lay out a set of political rules that allow our invisible conservative hand to operate effectively.

How Did We Get Here?

I sit here mere days after the Republican catastrophe of 2008 and wonder what went wrong.

I have watched the Republican Party go through many changes since I first became interested in politics in the late ‘60s. The Republican and the Democratic parties were not that far apart. While most would have said the biggest difference between the parties was economics, Richard Nixon famously said “We are all Keynesians now." How different could the parties be if both were followers of big government economic theories?

The Democratic Party started moving left in 1968. Their leftward shift has been relentless. Today ideas such as the redistribution of wealth, nationalization of health care, and removal of all abortion restrictions are not only accepted, but considered establishment Democratic thought. While conservatives are appalled at what has happened to the Democratic Party, the base of the Democratic Party believes in these ideas. For better or worse, the Democratic Party represents its members’ ideology.

The same can not be said of today’s Republican Party.

A major shift in Republican thought took place with the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan. Reagan had different ideas about economics, foreign policy, defense, and social issues. It was dubbed Reaganism. For the first time in a generation, the Republican Party became the driving force in shaping government policy. In 1988 George H. W. Bush ran on a platform of continuing Reagan’s policies. Bush tied himself so closely to Reagan that many called the 1988 election Reagan’s third election.

After the election it became apparent that the man who was United Nations ambassador and Republican National Committee chairman under President Nixon, Envoy to China and CIA director under President Ford, and who had once called Reagan’s economic proposals “voodoo economics” was no Reaganite. Bush advocated a kindler and gentler conservatism (with its implied message that Reagan conservatism was somehow unkind and ungentle.) The result: a 1992 loss to Democrat Bill Clinton.

In 1994, a band of rouge Republican in the House of Representatives proposed The Contract with America, ten legislative proposals rooted in conservatism. Their leader, Newt Gingrich, was roundly criticized by the press as being a radical conservative (Newsweek’s cover headlined “How the Gingrinch Stole Christmas”.) The result: a major Republican victory. For the first time in 40 years, the Republicans took control of both houses of congress.

George W. Bush ran in 2000 as a “compassionate conservative” (another Republican running on an implied message that there is something wrong with conservatism.) Despite reassurances from people like Karl Rove that Bush “really got Reagan”, few Reaganites would recognize the economic policies Bush implemented. Watching the series of bailouts implemented by the Bush administration, I could hear Nixon’s words echoing in my head. “We are all Keynesians now."

In 2008 the Republicans nominated John McCain. The most far left Republican candidate since, well ever! There were rumors in 2004 that the Democratic nominee (John Kerry) was going to ask McCain to be the VP candidate on the Democratic ticket. Imagine if anyone had floated that idea about Newt Gingrich or Ronald Reagan. Who knows if the McCain VP rumor was true, but the fact that it was taken seriously shows how far to the left McCain had been in the past.

McCain lost to the most radically left presidential candidate in history. Other than McCain’s spirited defense of the war in Iraq, it was difficult to pinpoint the major differences between McCain and Obama.

We’re already hearing calls that the party needs to move leftward. A recurring theme after every election (regardless of outcome), calls to move to the left makes sense to establishment Republicans. Establishment Republicans make up the machinery of the Republican Party (staffers, elected officials, and consultants.) They identify with the Republican Party, and they view the expansion of the Republican Party as an end unto itself. Believing they have the right wing locked down (or in more cynical terms, “we have milked as many votes from the right as possible”), they ask themselves “where can we obtain more votes?” The answer invariably is “to the left.” Hence, the constant calls for the party to move to the left regardless of the lessons learned from the last election. To them it’s a marketing problem. “How do we get people to buy more of our product (Republican candidates)?”

Conservatives have to come to grips with a basic fact: merely electing Republicans is not sufficient to achieve conservative goals.

How Do We Achieve Our Goals?

Should we form a third party? Third parties are the classic “stick without the carrot” approach. Will establishment Republicans think they should move to the right to get those voters back? They never have in the past. The effort and cost to get anyone to cross party lines (whether Democrat to Republican or third party to Republican) is assumed to be high. Instead, they go after the non-committed, easier to acquire moderate/swing voter. That’s correct; the practical effect of conservative third parties has been to shift the Republican Party to the left. Remember, it’s just a marketing problem to establishment Republicans. If third parties are eating away at your right, you need to shift left to pick up more votes.

There are practical problems to third parties as well. Our “winner take all” political system forces us into a two party setup. The last time a party failed and was replaced by another was in the 1850’s (and it took the Civil War to actually end the Whig Party.) Supplanting either of the major political parties would be a daunting (as in impossible, not going to happen in our lifetime) task.

If we did replace the Republican Party with another party (lets call it the “True Party”) the political version of the Stockholm syndrome would kick in. People would start to identify strongly with the True Party (even start calling themselves “Truians”.) Eventually, their goal would become “electing Truians”, and we would find ourselves in the same situation we are in now with the Republican Party.

Like it or not, the Republican Party is only practical tool to achieve our goal of enacting conservative legislation. So the becomes: how do we control the party so it nominates (and elects) people that will enthusiastically pursue and enact conservative legislation?

Taking control of the party machinery and putting conservatives in key party positions so they can influence the party seems to make sense, but it is dependent on people and personalities. The quality (or lack thereof) of those people will determine our success. It also is afflicted by the political Stockholm syndrome. Over time, conservative Republicans come to identify with the Republican Party, and their goal shifts from enacting conservative legislation to electing Republicans. At that point they become establishment Republicans and part of the problem, not the solution.

Do we need to find a conservative messiah to lead us out of the wilderness? In Reagan we had the closest to that we’ll ever get, and we weren’t able to transform the Republican establishment. A single candidate might get us through a season, but we need a long term plan. Change the system, and the candidates will change.

We need to establish a system to achieve conservative goals, a system that functions apart from the Republican Party and without leaders or guidance. A system (like capitalism and the free market) that is based upon a set of underlying principles that when adhered to and allowed to operate without interference will produce positive results: free conservatism.

Everyone Works In Their Own Self Interest

Capitalism and the free market work because the players all work in their own self interest, and everyone knows it. Consequently, it is an open and above board playing field. Socialism and its big brother communism fail because they are based up the false idea that people will work against their own self interest. They don’t, instead they end up with people who publicly proclaim to be “working for the common good” and work behind the scenes for their own self interest (in other words, they game the system for their own benefit.)

You can’t change human nature, and it is human nature to put the needs of yourself (your family, your business, your current project, your etc…) first and the needs of others second. It may be cynical, but it’s realistic. Defining self interest in a free market is fairly easy to do, it boils down to money. Defining self interest in political terms can be a bit trickier.

People can take up an issue for any number of reasons (logical, emotional, altruistic, selfish, etc…). The reason doesn’t matter and isn’t important for us. What is important is that once a person becomes attached to a political issue, that issue becomes their political self interest. Moving that issue forward is the coinage the person is seeking.

Redefining Ourselves as Conservatives

Conservatives must define ourselves not as part of a political group, but a political force: free conservatism. We have a single goal: enacting conservative legislation. Everything we do must be measured against that goal. To achieve that goal, we must act in our (conservatism’s) self interest.

Redefining the Republican Party

What is the Republican Party? It is a tool for achieving conservative goals.

Does it sound like I want to take advantage of the Republican Party? Go back about 160 years and you’ll run into a group of people forming a new political party for the purpose of “abolishing slavery and restricting the role of government in economic and social life.” Notice anything? The Republican Party was formed as a tool to achieve specific goals.

The Republican Party’s founders’ goal: abolish slavery and restrict the role of government in economic and social life. Today’s establishment Republicans’ goal: elect Republicans. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. An institution that was established to help end the abomination of slavery has been reduced to a sports team. Winning for winning’s sake has become the goal.

No doubt establishment Republicans will accuse us of attempting to take over the Republican Party, not being team players, and putting our own interests ahead of the party’s. They’ll be right, but look at what they want us to do. Put the party’s interest ahead of our own. That’s fine if your only goal is to elect Republicans, but what’s the point of electing Republicans without a purpose or goal? It’s like starting a trip without a destination. Is it any wonder that in 2008 the party was described as “directionless”?

We have no reason to apologize. We are returning the Republican Party to its original purpose: a tool to achieve specific goals. We stand in spirit with the founders of the party. Establishment Republicans have a reason to apologize. They reduced the Republican Party to a tool with no purpose. “Electing Republicans” is the seeking of power for power’s sake. Kings and dictators seek power for power’s sake. Americans do not.

Redefining Republican Candidates/Office-Holders

Why do we elect candidates to office? To achieve conservative goals. So what is a Republican candidate/office-holder? The same as the party: a tool for achieving conservative goals.

Office holders (especially those that have held office for a while and gotten comfortable) disagree. “We are leaders. Our experience has made us wise.” Elected office more often produces hubris than wisdom. Politicians at every level are not that special, don’t know as much as they claim, and are far from indispensable. Take the 2008 bank bailout bill. It’s obvious (because so many said as much) that members of the House and Senate didn’t understand the problem, didn’t understand the bill, and voted for it out of fear because they were told there would be another great depression if they didn’t. Voting yes on a bill out of fear and ignorance is not a sign of leadership or wisdom.

We must never become enamored of a politician. Supporting a politician because they are a good person, smart, likable, a Republican, or any of a hundred other reasons defeats our goals. The only reason to support a politician is because they will be productive achieving conservative goals. There is no such thing as a politician that can’t be replaced.

Rating Candidates

The current systems for rating politicians are useless. Virtually every Republican has a 90%+ American Conservative Union rating. Is a Republican senator with a 94% conservative rating that publicly campaigned hard for the 2007 McCain-Kennedy illegal immigrant amnesty bill and voted for the 2008 bank bailout bill one conservatives should support (and no, I’m not talking about McCain)?

Composite ratings must be abandoned. We must rate on individual issues. It takes power out of the candidate’s hands, and puts it in our hands. Assigning a candidate an overall “conservative” grade based upon multiple issues lets the candidate pick and choose which issues he will support. As long as they reach the magical 80, 85, or 90% they can brag that they are conservative enough to get our support, but are they? How hard do they actually work on conservative issues? What about that 10%, the issues they aren’t conservative on. Are they just a little liberal, or way to the left? Did they give lukewarm support to those non-conservative issues, or did they work like the devil for them? Combined scores give candidates somewhere to hide. They are part of the problem, not the solution.

Productivity, not Promises

Conservatives need to become acutely sensitive to when they are being manipulated (and that’s what a promise made without the intent of keeping it is: manipulation.) A promise means nothing if it isn’t followed with action. Productivity is the only thing that matters. It must be measured in real accomplishments: passing actual legislation or measurable actions that move the issue towards legislative enactment.

Politicians have developed many ways to make it look like they are advancing an issue that are really designed to give them cover for doing nothing. An infamous example from the 2008 presidential campaign was Sen. Obama’s 2006 warning letter to the Secretary of the Treasury about Freddie and Fannie. He constantly brought it up during the campaign to show he was ahead of the curve on the economic meltdown. If you read the actual letter, it boils down to “Just in case there’s a problem sometime in the future, I’m writing you this letter to cover my ass.”

It’s easy for a Republican to attach their name to a bill as a cosigner, but does that mean they actively advance the issue. The vast majority of Republicans in the house cosigned the 2007 Fair Tax bill. I have seen hour upon hour of interviews with Republican house members discussing taxes. How many times during those tax discussions did they inject the Fair Tax? The passing mentions could be counted on your fingers (the times they vigorously advocated the Fair Tax can be counted by touching the tips of your thumb and first finger.)

The fair tax is an issue that “will never pass” according to pundits. Thirty years ago universal health care was a “will never pass” issue. Yet, here we sit in 2009 with an expectation that it will become a reality sometime during Obama’s presidency. What’s the difference? In any discussion of health care, Democrats will inject the point that “the solution to this problem is a universal health care system.” They have enthusiastically and without apology promoted their position.

How does the Republican’s “productivity” on the fair tax compare to the Democrat’s productivity on universal health care?

Preaching to the choir is not productivity. A Republican that only talks about a conservative issue to conservative audiences is not productive. Only when they take actions that expand the support of an issue beyond the conservative base are they productive.

Letter writing, cosigning, and preaching to the choir are examples of faux productivity.

Productivity is measurable. A productive Republican is one that advances a conservative issue in a measurable manner. We will require candidates to actually accomplish something to receive conservative support.

Anyone that has worked in the corporate world for any amount of time is familiar with SMART goals. They are used because they focus employees on specific goals and activities and ensure they are in line with the company’s goals (it also eliminates the wiggle room used by many employees who want to seem to be productive while not actually doing anything.) We should take the same approach towards politicians when we set goals for them that they will be measured against. Yes, we will set goals for politicians, and rate those politicians against how they have achieved our goals. We elect politicians to achieve conservative goals, not their own.

What is a SMART goal? There are several variations, but this one should suffice for us.

S Specific. Not “I’m for lower taxes”, but “I will cut income taxes 10%.”

M Measureable. You need some way to define if the action was completed or not. “Were income taxes cut 10% or not?”

A Action Oriented. “I’m for lower taxes” requires no action on the part of the politician. “I will cut income taxes by 10%” does.

R Realistic. Politicians make unrealistic promises (a chicken in every pot), because they know they will never be held to them. “I will cut income taxes 50%” is not a realistic promise.

T Time bound (the most important part of the formula.) Establishing a deadline allows us to hold politicians’ feet to the fire for not achieving conservative goals (and properly reward them for achieving conservative goals.) “I will cut taxes 10% by June of this year.”

Two Ratings: Productive and Non-Productive

Semi-productive Republicans are what we have now; doing just enough to attract conservative support, but not enough to turn away moderates. It is the classic “be all things to all people” strategy. Conservatives must break the back of that strategy, if we are going to reach our goal. Cleanly rating candidates as productive or non-productive will do that.

It will also force candidates (and ourselves, since we are creating the goals for candidates) to set smaller, realistic milestone goals as part of a larger goal so they can receive a productive rating on an issue. This system will fall apart if a middle ground rating (such as semi-productive) is used. Politicians will only do enough to get your vote. If you give them a reward for being semi-productive on an issue, that’s all they’ll be: semi-productive.

Productive and non-productive are the only two acceptable ratings. If you don’t feel the either describes the candidates work towards a goal, then the goal was incorrectly set. Change the goal, not the ratings system.

Who Will Do the Rating?

We know the chaos of the free market system is the best way to create a coherent economy. The “chaos” of multiple/unaligned groups rating candidates according to their own priorities will produce a coherent rating system. We’re conservatives. We’ll use a free market rating approach.

Issue specific groups can set goals and determine if a Republican has been productive or non-productive on a specific issue. There will be multiple groups that issue ratings on specific issues, based on how they prioritize different aspects of the issue, and what activities they consider productive. Individual conservatives are well able to pick and choose among different groups, and their position on the issue.

There is a secondary benefit to using specific goals and ratings. It will unmask “astroturf” advocacy groups (groups that pretend to be conservative on an issue, but are actually promoting the liberal agenda.) The pro-life movement for example, has been plagued by groups that on the surface present themselves as pro-life, yet are working to keep abortion legal. When a group sets specific, SMART goals (or refuses to set specific, SMART goals), its agenda becomes clear.

The Ballgame for Conservatives is the Primary

If we can’t get a conservative as the Republican nominee, the general election is meaningless for conservatives. We must control the nominating process. Conservatives must be active early with their support, and we must eliminate open primaries (the days when Democrats and liberals can cross over into the Republican primary and choose our nominee must end.)

Creating Holes

This involves withdrawing the conservative hand of help from a candidate. No grass roots support, no money, no yard signs, no vote, no anything. Nothing draws attention like a hole. That’s what we want to create in the campaign of non-productive Republican candidates, a huge hole.

Do not vote Democratic to punish a Republican candidate (or for any other reason) ever. Establishment Republicans misinterpret this every time as a reason to move to the left (they believe that only a moderate would vote Democrat, so when they see people voting democratic they assume the Republicans must move to the left to capture those voters.) Voting Democratic moves the Republican Party to the left every time.

Never vote for a non-productive Republican. Vote, but create voter holes. Let’s say a precinct has 2,000 voters. In the governor’s race 900 vote Democratic and 1,100 vote Republican. In the senate race 900 vote Democratic and 800 vote Republican. 2,000 votes were cast for governor, but only 1,700 for senator. Where are the other 300 votes? That’s the voter hole. And it sends a clear message to non-productive Republican candidates: this is what you could have had. You didn’t lose because the Democratic candidate attracted our votes; you lost because we didn’t support you.

If you are hesitant about leaving a race blank (our left-leaning “friends” have been known to go in after the fact and fill in races a voter “forgot” to mark), then cast a write in vote for “A. Conservative”. Heck, write in “A. Conservative” anyway. Some politicians are so dense they need to be hit over the head to get the message. When they see that they lost because a number of people wrote in “A. Conservative”, they (and other Republican candidates) will get the message.

Never vote for a non-productive Republican to prevent a Democrat from being elected. It sounds like almost too much to ask, but voting “against the Democrat” is what got us where we are today (conservative issues on the Republican back burner, establishment Republicans saying the party needs to move to the left to survive, and the mainstream media declaring conservatism dead.) “Vote against the Democrat” is a manipulation tactic used by establishment Republicans to secure the conservative vote and allow the Republican candidate to move to the left in search of swing votes. Remember, simply electing Republicans is not our goal. Enacting conservative legislation is our goal. That can only be done by electing productive Republicans.

From the standpoint of our goal, electing a non-productive Republican is the same as electing a Democrat. Neither achieves our goal.

Why is creating a political hole different than voting third party? As I said, voting third party is a “stick without the carrot” approach. Republicans are hurt by the loss of conservative support (the stick), but they don’t believe they can get those conservative voters back (the carrot.) Consequently they shift to the left in hopes of replacing the “lost” conservative votes with moderate voters.

Creating a political hole is a “stick and carrot” approach. We’re forcing Republican candidates to face the reality that they can’t win without conservatives (and removes excuses to rationalize moving to the left as a winning strategy to acquire more votes.) We’re standing there waving at them with a message of “you can easily have our votes and support, but you have to play by our rules.”

Summary

Will this help us win elections? When the Republican Party starts fielding real conservatives (who forcefully advocate conservative positions) we will start winning elections. I still believe that most Americans lean conservative. More importantly, I believe our positions are correct, and the best for our country. We talk about the president having a “bully pulpit”, but forget that candidates and elected officials at all levels also have a bully pulpit. Nominating conservatives who forcefully explain conservative principles will change minds and bring more conservatives into the fold.

The worse thing that has happened to the conservative movement has been the rise of Republican candidates that feel they must mute or soften their conservative ideals to get elected. When candidates don’t proudly (and loudly) stand for conservative principles it gives Americans the impression there is something wrong (or at least not quite right) with conservatism.

The left uses public protests and a willing mainstream media to get their message out. Conservatives depend heavily on our candidates and elected officials to carry our message. It is imperative we nominate and elect people that will do just that.

This is a long term strategy. We’re talking a decade, not just the next election to reform the Republican Party. Anyone that thinks we can turn around the Republican Party overnight is living a pipe dream. The establishment Republicans are too deeply entrenched. Every trip of 1,000 miles ends after it starts, so the sooner we get started the sooner we will reach our goal: enacting conservative legislation.

The Rules

1. Condemn attempts to create any “official” free conservative movement/party/anything.

We’re using a free market model. Is there an official entity that represents/controls the free market? No. The free market is by its very nature chaotic and uncontrolled. Any entity devised to represent/control the free market would by definition destroy it. The same is true for free conservatism. Any proposal to represent/control/standardize free conservatism will more than likely be a veiled attempt to destroy it. Condemn it as you would condemn socialism.

2. Our goal is to enact conservative legislation.

Our goal is not to win elections. There is no point in winning elections if the people we elect do not enact conservative legislation. Power without purpose is not only meaningless, it is dangerous.

3. Our actions must be measured against our goal.

Does this help us reach our goal, yes or no? That is the question to ask, and the only one that matters.

4. Identify everyone’s goals/coinage.

Candidates: getting themselves elected.

The Republican Party: electing Republicans.

Liberals: enacting liberal legislation (micro-self interest.)

Swing-Voters: avoiding life’s problems and annoyances like thinking.

Free Conservatives: enacting conservative legislation (macro-self interest.)

5. All players are motivated by their self-interest/coinage.

6. Define all of the players from a free-conservative perspective.

The Republican Party: a tool to enact conservative legislation.

A Candidates/office holder: a tool to enact conservative legislation.

Free Conservatives: members of a movement to enact conservative legislation.

7. The Republican Party is the only practical tool to achieve conservative goals.

8. Never engage in an action that drives the Republican Party to the left.

Never vote/form/support a third party.

Never vote Democratic.

Never vote “against the Democrat.”

Never vote for a non-productive Republican.

9. Be wary of the political Stockholm syndrome.

Never identify with the Republican Party to the point that you start seeing its goal (electing Republicans) as more important than enacting conservative legislation. Be a Republican, but never lose sight of our goal.

10. Do not look for a conservative messiah.

The system is the solution. Would you put your faith in the unguided free market to run the economy or a single person (say the president) to run the economy? When you put your faith in a person instead of the system, you break the system. True for the free market; true for free conservatism.

11. The ballgame for conservatives is the primary nomination.

You can’t elect a productive, conservative Republican unless you nominate a productive, conservative Republican.

We must be early and active in the nomination process. Doing so not only make us more effective, but makes us more valuable to candidates (who prize grass-roots support right up there with actual votes.)

Open nominating systems (such as open primaries) must be closed. Open nominating systems allow non-conservatives (Democrats who vote for the easiest Republican candidate to beat and swing-voters who vote for the candidate with the best haircut) to dilute our efforts. Democratic primaries should be for Democrats. Republican primaries should be for Republicans. Neither should be for unaffiliated/swing-voters that have not made a commitment to either party.

12. Composite rating systems must be abandoned.

Composite rating systems give candidates too much wiggle room and too many places to hide. A 90% conservative rating is meaningless if it means they gave passing support to 90% of conservative goals, and worked like hell for those 10% of liberal issues they support (which too often is exactly what it means.)

13. Candidates must be rated on individual issues.

14. The only issue ratings allowed are productive and non-productive.

This boxes politicians into a corner, requiring them to produce actual results to receive our support.

Faux productivity is just that, and should not count towards a productive grade.

15. We set the goals for politicians.

Do not sit back and passively wait for politicians to make promises. Pro-actively create goals, and then find politicians that will promise to achieve those goals. That is the political “promise” we are looking for.

The goals we create for politicians should be SMART goals.

16. Productivity matters, promises don’t.

A politician that promises to achieve our goals, but doesn’t is a non-productive candidate. Office holders that try hard, but fail are not productive (they should try another line of work where they can actually be productive.) We need office holders that try hard and get things done.

17. There is no such thing as a politician we can’t afford to lose.

I like him. He’s a nice guy. He’s too valuable to lose. We can’t lose his seniority. His experience is invaluable. We can’t let the Democrats get this seat. None of these are reasons to support a candidate. When people start touting these reasons to vote for a candidate, you can be assured of one thing: they are not achieving conservative goals.

If an office holder is not productive, we can not only afford to lose them, we would be better off if we did. A non-productive office holder is a road block, preventing a productive candidate from taking the seat.

As Charles De Gaulle said, "The graveyards are full of irreplaceable men."

18. Create political holes.

Conservatives must be conspicuous by our absence. We need politicians to understand we are here and they can easily have our support simply by being productive on conservative issues.

Never support a non-productive politician in any way. No votes, no yard signs, no grass roots support. Nothing. If volunteering at a Republican office or rally and are asked to do something that would support a non-productive Republican (making phone calls, opening mail, handing out bumper stickers, anything) don’t do it. Politely refuse and explain that you can’t do ANYTHING to support a non-productive candidate, but you would be happy to help the productive Republican candidates.

It is politically dangerous for a politician to stick their neck out and actually be productive on issues. When a politician realizes they can have your support without being productive, then will quit being productive. That is why it is vital that you never support a non-productive politician.

If there isn’t a productive Republican in a particular race, vote “A. Conservative”.

19. Reward productive politicians.

When non-productive Republicans see productive Republicans having success working with us, they will be encouraged to work with us also. Plus, the productive Republicans are the ones we need to keep around.

Even a productive Republican isn’t irreplaceable, but they are desirable.

January, 2009 Muny Dews

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.