A 2015 New Year’s Presidential Resolution: Hang together-or be hung out to dry, once again, in 2016

Congratulations to Texas Senator Ted Cruz for winning the Federalist Today Presidential Straw Poll with 26% of the nearly one thousand votes cast. Placing a respectable second and third, Senator Rand Paul (22%) and Governor Scott Walker (16%) showed that they also have considerable support among the “lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray” Federalist faithful.

The political insider would, undoubtedly, not be impressed. Good luck getting Senators Cruz or Paul elected President of the United States. Any such insurgent’s campaign will be undone by a press that favors Democrats, a bare-knuckles Republican establishment that favors milque-toast candidates, and a bewildered flyover electorate conditioned to favor one flavor-of-the-month insurgent presidential candidate after another, to the detriment of any effective insurgent candidacy.

These same insiders would have no problem envisioning a scenario in which insurgent Democrat Elizabeth Warren, establishment Democrat Hillary Clinton, or establishment Republicans Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, or Chris Christie win the presidency. Ruling-class smugness aside, these folks have a point: playing by the normal rules, the least likely outcome in 2016 is a victory by a Republican insurgent, even though 40% of Americans consistently identify themselves as conservatives (twice the typical number of progressives)

Suppose the former South Carolina senator and current president of the Heritage Foundation, Jim DeMint, once again able to meet freely with sitting members of Congress, requests and leads a meeting in the new year with Cruz, Paul, and other serious insurgent candidates–two years before the inauguration of the next president of the United States. At the meeting, DeMint lays out two possible pathways to winning the presidency:

Scenario One: An insurgent miraculously wins a three-front 2016 election battle by simultaneously (a) consolidating conservative-libertarian support in the midst of a heated primary; (b) defeating a well-funded, well-positioned, well-organized Republican establishment candidate, and (c) defending himself against the mainstream media charge that he’s too outside the mainstream to win a national election. Likelihood of pulling off this trifecta in a condensed election season: almost zero.

Scenario Two: The insurgents agree to compete with one another over the summer and fall months of 2015 in a well-organized series of regional debates, speeches, town hall meetings, and organized votes. These events would aid the largely conservative and libertarian Republican base in naturally and fairly reducing the field of insurgents to one consensus candidate by Thanksgiving. Likelihood of winning the Republican nomination and thereafter the presidency: perhaps one in four, or about the same as the other contestant wings of the two major parties.

Leading the candidates through the math, DeMint convinces each that the most likely insurgent path to victory in 2016 (and therefore his most likely path to victory) comes from embracing the second option. Since each thinks he has the right stuff to win a fair fight, all agree to work together to make the fight fair.

Led by DeMint, candidates, donors, activists, and organizations across the conservative-libertarian spectrum through the spring of 2015 agree to the terms of the competition and work together to galvanize limited government partisans to participate in the affair. After a spirited summer and fall campaign season, an insurgent emerges from the field battle-tested and well-positioned to move on to win the Republican nomination.

Why is it essential that such an effort begin soon? If nothing like this starts to happen in the next few months, it is all but certain we’ll be playing 2016 by the normal rules, in which the ruling class house wins every time–and for those committed to constitutional, republican government, this is a dangerous election to lose.

The expansive executive power wielded by President Obama may very easily become institutionalized, especially if a Republican successor applies it to his own (perhaps better) ends. The open question, in essence, is whether the hegemonic Obama presidency is the exception or the new (bipartisan) rule. Whether recognized or not, this is the defining question for the campaign–and only a top-tier, battle-ready insurgent will be positioned to make it the defining question of the campaign.

The Democratic nominee–whether establishment Progressive or insurgent Progressiver–will have every partisan and ideological reason to consolidate and extend, where possible, President Obama’s institutional gains. Progressivism began with a revolt against the Constitution’s separation of powers system and a longing to replace it–in fact, if not in law–with a responsible and responsive centralized, parliamentary system led by a charismatic president (or prime minister).

An establishment Republican will be almost equally unlikely to undo the damage of the Obama presidency, not so much out of fealty to a long-term Progressive dream (which most establishment Republicans only accidentally–which is to say, unconsciously–share), but out of the general don’t-rock-the-boat respectabilitarianism that is their identifying pseudo-ideology.

We know enough about the Bushes not to expect Jeb to repudiate his brother’s own aggressive use of signing statements and other extra-constitutional prerogatives–and therefore can expect him to be as effectively neutered on the central issue of the 2016 campaign as Mitt Romney was on the central issue of the 2012 campaign (Obamacare, thanks to Romneycare). Moreover, does anyone think that gusto and bluster Chris Christie has a credible critique of executive overreach in him? Or once (and future?) would-be Management Consultant-in-Chief Mitt Romney?

A serious conservative-libertarian insurgent candidate that emerged from a serious debate on the contemporary state of the American republic should have a very different profile–beginning, we hope, with a very different understanding of the role of the president (and the leaders of the coordinate branches of the federal government) under our constitutional system.

There is no more insightful and aphoristic summary of the Constitution’s separation of powers system than Alexander Hamilton’s near the beginning of Federalist 78, in the context of explaining why the judiciary ought to be the “least dangerous” branch of the federal government:

The Executive branch not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.

Force, will, and judgment–three distinct but complementary powers for three distinct but complementary branches. Combine any two and dangers to liberty abound. Most critically in our time, combining executive force with legislative will produces every opportunity for selective enforcement of oppressive rules–the exact opposite of what Hamilton suggests should be the aim of all government: “a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”

Getting the basics right is the first step toward constitutional recovery. We believe that there are a number of potential insurgent candidates who could champion this cause and encourage like-minded members of Congress to do the same–and that they are much more likely both to make the effort and succeed in it with a pre-primary process that sharpens the insurgent message and unifies insurgent voters, donors, activists, and institutions.

One scenario is clear: we’ll either hang together in 2015–or be hung out to dry, once again, in 2016.

You asked for a 'workable plan'. Well, it's not going to happen at the ballot box or from the Parties now ruling us.
I find no example in history that the kind of meddlesome tyranny and fundamental transformation agenda we are suffering can be overcome via civil means. Corruption and oligarchy at all levels makes that an impossibility.
If we would be free men, and we would want our inalienable rights restored to what they should be, then we are going to have to fight for them. A tyranny is never going to relent power to those they rule and seek to subjugate.
As Jefferson acknowledged Liberty is a gift from God, the fact of our current situation is because a people who are not governed by God, will be ruled by the tyranny of men.
A 'workable plan' must first begin by returning this people to a religious and moral people, for only such a people are fit for liberty, and our Constitution was made only for such people. Self governing under the Supreme Governor of the Universe.
That job has to happen in the church, and by a people who will not tire of saying to anyone and everyone "This is the way, walk in it". Thus far a majority of Churches are not interested in even considering doing what the churches did in the 1750s-60's during the First Great Awakening. A testament to the lukewarm condition Christianity finds itself in.
Even Franklin noted that when societies grow corrupt and vicious, they will have more masters and tyrants placed upon them.

Here we are.

Thank you for stating what I believe - concerted movements by the People, under a truly moral and God-oriented leadership, is probably the only path to returning to what we started with. I fear that it might not result in what we envision (Do the leaders of any revolution tend to trade the old despotic regime for a new version with them at the helm or do they actually turn it over to the People?) and each year that goes by, becomes less likely. In the meantime, I intend to just do what I can in order to slow the inexorable march towards full-blown Communism/Socialism/Tyranny with the tools available, even if they are broken. While there is breath, there is hope.

Here's my plan: 1. Stop voting for traitorous, back stabbing R's, simply because they have an "R" next to their name That's mine as well. Of course, I'm assuming mind-reading status if I observe that many simply refuse to see that as an alternative. They ONLY see the "alternative" of playing a losers' game with the Republican primary set-up and protocol that makes it virtually impossible to nominate a true representative in the vain hope that they'll overcome it this time. They present ZERO plan if their first plan, of "taking over the GOP," fails and the "plan" is then to vote for a leftist Republican because he's supposed to be better than the leftist Democrat and it's the only way to vote "against" the Democrat.

That makes two honest respondents - they do not believe that the voting box will result in the desired results. I can understand and respect that the plans have nothing to do with even a delaying/holding action at the ballot box, but will require the people reaching a tipping point to where they demand their Freedom and Representative Constitutional Republic back.

The People must take enough interest to DEMAND the government stay within its Constitutional bounds or be replaced - despite the ballot boxes, as an option the Founders considered valid and likely to be required.

The other side masses protesters and keeps up a constant assault on Freedom - what can we do to counter their organizations and start making progress for our side of the ideology? A few here have said they refuse to be "organized" (become a follower of any movement that subsumes their individuality for the cause) and become part of a bloc that might exert pressure. Does the Tea Party fill the bill or should there be other tentacles of movements? Does anyone have experience about organizing real movements? Our side seems to have more ideas than activism - how can we become a semi-unified activist series of organizations? We seem to have a bunch of folks who are loathe to be followers but also have no grass-roots leaders to get behind. What might it take?

I keep hearing how refusing to vote for a RINO is a winning game.

This is NOT a game, and there IS NO WINNING when a corrupt oligarchy is institutionalized. The entire problem with most Americans infected with Normalcy Bias is that we can vote out tyranny "with the right candidates".

Not one person has formulated why/how the not voting for RINOs is a winning plan and will result in enough conservatives in D.C. to turn the tide.

As if standing on principles is a losing plan to begin with. A 'winning plan' would have been to stand on them without compromise, even if we stood alone over the last 30 years. Compromising principles was nothing more than a devolution to where we are now. Voting the Lesser of evils, got us into this hard tyranny and we are past the point where civil means can arrest where we have arrived.

What am I missing? Is there a real plan or is the "won't vote for a RINO" the clarion call for what will serve as a plan?

You are missing reality because of an acute case of cognitive dissonance brought on by Normalcy Bias. Voting for the lesser RINO got us to where we are, and it is a self-aware oligarchy that is showing us that voting Conservatives in landslides no longer matters to the Ruling Class who will do as they please and hobble them into irrelevance before they are even seated.

What is in play to pressure the GOPe and other RINO entities to start supporting conservatives?

Clearly you are not paying attention. They will NEVER support Conservatives. They HAVE SHOWN US that they hate us more than the Democrats do and that destroying Conservatives is the ONLY thing they are motivated to act upon.

This last election gave me some hope and I still keep my fingers crossed that the transition to 2015 will provide some signal that folks get it

Proof of Normalcy Bias.

but we need to regain the WH to have a chance -

2002-2006 proves that wish irrelevant and ignorant.

If no other election merits voting a RINO vs. a hard Left commie like Obama and kin, it would seem that the WH seat would be that one - especially since the Constitution has been trampled so much that the Congress refuses to turn to it to set things right with that seat.

Why so willfully ignorant??? If the GOP Congress would not uphold the Constitution and STOP a lawless president and instead FUND his entire fundamental transformation dictatorship, WHY IN THE HELL WOULD YOU ASSUME A RINO IN THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT????????

I don't care, run me though it like I'm a 5-year-old kid with a learning disability -

Obviously.

what concessions, if any, can be made and for what elections.

We've already made them. Welcome to the consequences of conservatives making concessions and voting for the "lesser evil". Enjoy what you see, you've contributed to it.

How does that gain us long-term movement towards our goal of return to what the Founders put in place?

If your "goal" is to return to what the Founder's put in place - then you need to come to terms with the fact that it cannot be achieved by civil means, nor can it happen without a return of the culture to morality and the Christian Religion.

Period.

That's all I ask - lay it out so even an idiot can see where we make long-term and sustainable gains by just refusing to vote for Barney Fife when the opposition will organize behind Charlie Manson.

If you think you can vote out an entire government of Charles Mansons that have worked to ensure their power is permanent, by voting in Ted Bundys, you have nary a clue to what the reality is that you now exist in.

I guess that settles it - FR has no use because we must wait for others to start a revolution.

You think FR exists only for the purpose of galvanizing Conservatives to vote for Republicans in elections?????

If so, you have a very feeble and limited understanding of what this forum accomplishes for the principles we are beholden if that is the case.

FR won't serve as a central point because it puts everyone in the limelight and makes members the first to be picked up when things turn ugly.

The Signers put themselves in the limelight and it was indeed those like John Hancock that the Crown intended to pick up first when things turned ugly.

Why should we be any different than our forbears? Or have we all decided liberty is not worth the risk?

If we absolutely cannot make it happen at the ballot box, why even bother have a debate on what to do/not do?

Because surviving a tyranny is at stake.

How incredibly sad that someone like you has limited themselves to thinking that the only options for us to consider, lie at the ballot box.

You are already conquered by such limitation and surviving what is upon us is not a fate that bodes well for your future, given the lessons of history.

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.