Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Amash Should Be Primaried - Part I

    By JGillman, Section News
    Posted on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 10:42:44 PM EST
    Tags: GOP, Primaries, Elite, Establishment, Ideas, Conservatives, Republicans, Strength, Weakness, Electability (all tags)

    Seriously, I think Justin Amash should be primaried.

    And as well, any of the other elected Republicans.

    Crazy thought for a staunch conservative, right? Perhaps. But not if one has had the philosophical disagreements still within the framework of that conservatism. Not if those disagreements extend into Republican governance. Not if any particular conservative part of the constituency still feels his or her best representation is not being made.

    We'll get back to representative Amash, et al, in a little bit.  In the meantime, consider the way we now select our candidates.

    We'll start and end with candidate "A".

    Candidate "A" is recognized as most popular, recognizable, and is considered as such to be the most likely candidate to carry an election when facing the opposing team. Candidate "A" might be incumbent. Candidate "A" has a history of disagreeable positions, and in fact has historically held positions contrary to those stated in his or her party's platform. A voting record backs up the positions taken in the past, but Candidate "A" is (or claims to be ) contrite, has found error in the votes made, positions previously held, and now expects to be taken at word to represent the platform philosophy.

    Candidate "A"'s predetermined ascendency creates friction in the party. Goals of principled activists are put at odds with those who simply want the win, have no philosophic grounding, or are willing to accept the lesser of evils in order to achieve party dominance. Presumably, that dominance enables the platform advancement.  Newer members see a sort of nepotism, and become turned off to party affairs, lose trust in leaders already in place, and are less likely to work toward overall party goals.

    Fewer participate in the process of selection.  Fewer work towards the advancement of Republican platform ideals.

    Continued Below ~

    The loss of those 'idealists' can be costly.

    For those who remain to work the campaigns, the satisfaction of having more influence as the party shrinks, is minimized, as they may or may not realize the need for help.  A win with an incumbent, or presumed 'electable' candidate might happen, but the cost in support is likely greater than admitted.

    What happens when candidate "A" crosses the ideological line expressed by his party? When principals are set aside for compromise or for quid pro quo deals?

    For Republicans, it often means a shift to the left for those who value the party strength over principles. As it MUST, or they would fall away.  Those who place value on conservative Republican principles have already suspended their support.  The lesser of evils argument, along along with the as commonly mentioned here 'clothespin' for the nose might still get the votes of disgusted traditionalists.  For some, another day with a strong party is enough to pull the lever.  They will see another tomorrow where conservatism might have another chance.  Strength, and a goal of conservatism. Yet in the end, neither goal is truly met.

    And it causes the weakness we see in the candidates turned elected official, when they capitulate to political correctness, or presumed popular opinion as presented by a biased media. Their support base isn't willing to show the hard love needed to counter the bad influences that are so pervasive in office.

    And remember, the Republican party has had its ebbs and tides over the years.

    WHY would there be significant changes in the political make up of the country? What is is that drives folks to be so radically different cycle to cycle when selecting their representatives? Constituent principles are hardly different enough to provide a reason to jump parties. Current events don't change the type of person a voter wants so drastically, so there is essentially only one explanation left.

    The Republican elected representative did not stay the same as the Conservative Republican candidate.

    Not the same. Either did not keep promises, lied, changed course, had implied conservative, yet went left. Many representatives might argue that circumstance put them in such difficult positions, placed them at odds with their declared meme prior to elected office, but for the good of the nation, country, or local interest "did what was needed." They violated natural expectations, lost moral authority, gave up the message of conservatism for expediency and perceived easy answers.

    But as we have seen with our own Michigan races, the thought of challenging those who deviate from the party platform is met with scorn, disbelief, and disgust. Not only challenging our party incumbents, but attempts to face off for new gains, the newcomers and their supporters are often chided for having the nerve to play the game against experienced politicos who have paid their dues. Losing those precious seats, that power, the strength of a Republican majority, bristles the hair of party stalwarts, and elites.

    And by golly there are people who wonder why few trust the MI GOP or the national Republican 'establishment.'

    We need to change the mindset permanently. For the good of our challenging conservatives, the party, the nation, and yes, even those who the party already favors as elite.

    As for Justin and friends, come back for part II tomorrow or Wednesday and we'll follow up on the fear of change, and underlying problems in the way we select our flag bearers today.

    This post is far from complete.  The same goes for the Michigan primaries.

    < It is time to return what is rightfully ours. | Amash Should Be Primaried - Part II >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    Great post and (none / 0) (#1)
    by maidintheus on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 09:46:32 AM EST
    I'm relieved to see some of this addressed. I've been struggling for some answers.

    I just love Justin Amash. He takes the time to explain so much. Yet, I wonder why he doesn't have a major huge problem with all that busy work on our behalf which micro manages our lives. As he has taken an oath to obey and uphold our Constitution, I can't understand why he doesn't, in his position, draw a hard line on the handful of things demanded by the law. One of which is to protect our borders, the southern borders that Ron Paul believes would "keep us in" rather then meaning to 'keep them out'. Yet, not even because he's the last man standing, Amash has come out in support of Ron Paul.

    I don't dislike Ron Paul as a person but he hasn't read all of the Constitution. He's skipped over the very important part of what is demanded from the feds: protect our borders.

    Thx for an awesome post, Jason! I'm anxious for the updates!

    Congress should not meet in Washington (none / 0) (#2)
    by Bruce on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 10:23:23 AM EST
    200 years ago, it made sense for Congress to have a single, central place to meet and vote.  Now Washington has become a fortress where under-the-table deals are made in secrecy and for dubious reasons.

    Congress should reflect the changing reality that we are not 13 states with a small population.  Congressmen should stay in their home areas and conduct business via electronic videoconferencing which is open to public scrutiny.  Voting should be done from local town hall conference centers where the public can be present to see their congressman in action and to voice their opinions in pre-voting sessions.

    Is it more important for congressmen to "press the flesh" with each other or with their represented?  Sure, allow a bi-monthly D.C. session and have provisions for secret voting when appropriate for national defense.  But C-span just doesn't do it for a representative-voter dynamic.

    This would go a long way in cleaning up the legislative mess in the House and Senate.

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!

    Related Links

    + Also by JGillman
    create account | faq | search