Despite our avowed respect for the works of our founders, we have failed to heed James Madison’s bleak warning in Federalist No. 10 against the factionalism to which our party has fallen critically ill. We have failed to find common ground on the issues that unite us, or the urgency of electing leaders from within our ranks. Instead, we have ushered in a dangerous new breed of identity politics, in which the interests that comprise our party have elected to prioritize a fight for control over efforts to ensure its continued success.
Were cooler heads to prevail, we might all agree that the infighting of our party has proven distracting and counterproductive. In spite of this, there are actors within our ranks that continue to place their own interests above those of the party. Most recently, our mercurial one-time gubernatorial candidate, Ken Cuccinelli, attempted in Cleveland to push through amendments to the RNC’s rules that would have stripped Reince Priebus and future chairmen of their ability to appoint committee leaders and crucial officers. These changes would have opened yet another battlefield in the war between our factions, ushering in an era of chaos and uncertainty like nothing we have seen before.
That is not to say that such a battle is never appropriate. The election of Dave Brat and the emergence of a resurgent grassroots were necessary steps in the right direction for our party. Yet, in place of magnanimity and outreach, our victors have erected a guillotine in the public square. And while there were heads that deserved to roll, the high of revolt must yield to the sobriety of progress.
Instead, however, we have seen several articles published on this and other blogs commending Cuccinelli’s reckless behavior – with the authors even going so far as to claim that the Trump campaign colluded with the party establishment to crush the grassroots. Let us not succumb to the obfuscation and gaslighting that would have us believe this nonsense. The relationship between the grassroots and the party is not one-sided. Just as the party could never exist without its grassroots, the grassroots could never exist without its party.
Our RNC is not just another committee. It serves as the glue which binds our state parties together – the pastor who, against his better judgment, continues to reaffirm the vows of our unholy matrimony. It would be a gross error in judgment to replace that structure with the chaos that we have faced time and time again here in Virginia. Let us instead unite behind a common cause, with the understanding that now is not the time to fight amongst ourselves. Our goal must be to elect Republicans at all levels of government, and pave the way for the continued viability of this party that we all hold so dear.
34 comments
I’m a novice when it comes to party machinations, so correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression RNC rules gave Mr. Cucinnelli & company no other opportunity to make these rule changes. Realizing the professional risk he was taking, Mr. Cucinnelli’s acts would better be described not as reckless, but courageous.
On a broader issue, I’ve been involved in enough efforts in my lifetime to know you can’t reach a goal by running from a non-goal. The GOP should be rallying around common conservative interests, not Republicans for Republicans’ sake.
Mr. Landrum, if you are part of Trump’s political organization, don’t write articles like this. Instead, get The Donald to stop insinuating rotten things about Gold Star Parents. The less often he says truly stupid, offensive things, the easier it will be for conservatives to join in common efforts.
You’re wrong, Ken had ample opportunity to promote rules but he failed to make the sale.
This is a Republican Party to propose, promote, and elect Republicans. I prefer conservatives, but not those promoting Beau Kardashian and Cucinnelli’s Last Stand.
You’ve already indicated you are not supporting our nominee, Donald J. Trump, so your campaign advice is being taken for what it is worth.
True. I don’t believe “Republican” means anything if the person we label Republican doesn’t support the platform(s) we have in common. I don’t support knee jerk liberals, I don’t support people who malign parents of our war dead, I don’t support any candidate who appears to lack the basics of constitutional principles.
For what it’s worth.
So you won’t be voting in November?
I’ll have to get back with you the day after the election.
He’s a Hillary troll, you can see the pattern; evasion, quest for identity for her database, focus group tested phrases to sow discord and dissension. Looks like they’re spending the entire foundation on this kinda crap and voter fraud.
Yes, that’s why I put my legal name behind what I write — to lend credence to the insular narrative, rampant paranoia and bloated sense of self-importance of this site’s most inconsequential and offensive participants.
It’s not working.
That’s swell, and the way it’s supposed to work.
Fortunately there are many more people who understand elections and consequences and they will carry your water so that you may continue to share your misguided opinions and political irrelevance.
Keep shaking that fist Mr. Wilson.
Keep trolling.
Regarding opportunities to have rule changes adopted — when were those opportunities? It was my understanding that only the rules committee could change the rules, and their identities were not revealed until the convention?
And it seems we will never know if Mr. Cucinnelli made the sale, since NlNr. Priebus closed the cash register first, figuratively speaking.
How long has Ken been working on rules?
And of course we know that Ken didn’t make the sale because it didn’t pass, the rules were not adopted.
The rules committee total was what? 96 to 12? That margin is similar to Cruz in Primary and Beau Correll in his loss to an independent in a Republican district.
The anti-rule-changers got more votes than the rule-changers.
That’s kind of an indication of the sentiment of the body.
Your understanding of how parties work is flawed, Philadelphia should have illuminated you further.
Until I reach your own state of perfect knowledge, the best I can do is to ask questions. Please can you turn the condescention up? I can’t quite hear the disdain.
Two questions:
1. When did RNC rules allow for voting on Mr. Cucinelli’s proposed changes other than at the convention?
2. If procedures exist for floor votes on minority reports, and sufficient votes existed (or was this before the whips went to work) what is wrong with exercising the procedure?
“Let us not succumb to the obfuscation and gaslighting that would have us believe this nonsense.” – back atcha, Landrum
He had me at “unholy matrimony.”
All conservatives, Trump supporters included, ought to be outraged at what was pulled at the rules committee and on the following Monday. I will wager that Trump supporters were outraged in 2012 when the Romney faction succeeded in making the rules distinctly advantageous to the establishment RINOs. Well, that is just what happened in this convention too, but this time the Trump camp assisted in making the rules even more RINO-friendly and detrimental to conservatives. And then strong-armed them through. Why didn’t they want a roll call vote on the rules? Did they think they would not win? That’s the only explanation. Reports from delegates were that the Nos were louder than the Ayes on the rules, but the chair rammed it through anyway. This is becoming a fascist party. The pressuring and threatening of delegates was unconscionable.
What is wrong with closed primaries, for example – with having only Republicans choose the Republican nominee? Conservatives used to be united for that. But now the GOPe has split off the Trump faction from the conservatives and used them to further RINO goals. Divide and conquer. Expect even more McConnell and Boehner types to be ruling us in the future.
We should go with a convention or caucus then, even with all the associated problems, instead of an open primary.
Wow, another voice in the political wilderness. Maybe if we could get a few hundred more with the same idea, we might stand a chance.
Unfortunately Corporate United has figured out that they don’t need the grassroots as long as they own the virtual reality green screen. Missing a few hundred delegates? No problem, just hire some gig workers to make up the difference, or simply add a few digital delegates to the transmitted video. See? Party Unity!
So what if everyone leaves the party. There’s plenty of local lackeys looking to slate themselves into the money. Isn’t that what the party is really for? So who needs you, me, or anyone else that might actually give a sh1+?
Stick around, let’s make it cost them!
Well, I’ve been beating the same drum for a decade or two. Gets kind of old for me and the few who bother to read. It would be nice if we could get a decent drum line going to spread the effort or at least pass it down.
Some day I will find the right pair of coconut trees for my hammock and that will be that.
I love Brian Landrum’s (Virginia Trump staff member) Monday morning quarterbacking. His statement, “with the authors even going so far as to claim that the Trump campaign colluded with the party establishment to crush the grassroots.” makes it seem it didn’t happen. Was he there? I WAS! They did collude in the Rules Committee and all over the floor of the convention center with RNC and Trump reps pressuring folks who signed the petitions to take their names off. I was one of those folks who at one point had 4 Trump staff trying to convince me to remove my name. During the Rules Committee the week before, the Trump campaign sent out texts and emails saying to vote NO for any amendments that came from Morton Blackwell, Curly Haugland, Samuel Yue and Bruce Ash. They even had signs that they raised up that said TRUMP – NO. So if that’s not colluding, then I don’t know what is. The RNC needs Trump and Trump needs the RNC – deals were struck. And this Bratpacker lived to tell the tale.
How many of those “Trump reps” weren’t really dedicated to Trump after the first ballot? you say they were Trump reps, well what were their names? This election cycle there are no trustworthy party players in the eye of potential voters.
Not just armchair quarterbacking, condescending armchair quarterbacking.
Just like Harrisonburg.
Hey Anita Hile, are you supporting our nominee, Donald J. Trump?
This is an interesting take on Federalist 10. My recollection is it is an argument about the danger of factions and how to limit their influence with a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. I am not sure this is directly analogous to the rules proposed within a party (or faction) or supports “Reince Priebus and future chairmen of their ability to appoint committee leaders and crucial officers”. Not arguing for or against the rules changes in this comment just not sure Federalist 10 is a perfect match.
Heads Must Roll
“Anybody But Hillary” is not a compelling rallying cry. As one directly engaged in the campaign to elect Republicans, I have to find ways to motivate myself and others to get out and work for the election of Donald Trump. But nearly every day, he reminds me of what a thoroughly unsatisfactory candidate he is. So much on the line, and so little support for that effort from the candidate himself!
“Anybody but Hillary” is swell if she’s running against anybody — but she’s not.
By definition, DJT is not a thoroughly unsatisfactory candidate, quite the opposite — he is a superior candidate of Comstockian proportion.
Here’s the deal: individually we might each be able to recite a litany of his political, personal, and professional flaws (like we could do for ourselves or anybody else for that matter,) but the others, and the party, have chosen him as the best nominee.
Wise Party Elders such as Ken, Beau, and Mick have choreographed party machinations and marshaled the sum total of all of their and our political gifts, talents, and expertise to make The Donald the nominee.
If we were capable and the voters thought somebody better, we would have somebody better.
The candidate has been doing fine, our handwringing, buts, and negativity are just showing that it is us, we, that don’t got game.
If Trump wins, it will be the.voice of the people, if Trump loses, it will be the fault of us dumbass Republicans.
You go to war with the army you have, you go to election with the candidate you have.
You can’t be serious! If Trump loses, it will be his fault and his fault alone. His proclivity to alienate almost every voting segment (including Republicans), his inability to control his emotions, and his inability to articulate coherent policies is nobody’s fault but his.
Ultimately yes, the cheese stands alone –But just as success has many fathers, failure has but one. But trust me, the GOP will get nicked for a failure and the Donald and voters get credit for the win.
However, his inabilities and his outrageousness are just part of his charm and appeal.
He’s the guy, the Steve Jobs of politics. We all should learn to smile while the wolf is gnawing our stomach.
I will definitely support the Trump candidacy – and encourage others to do the same – but forgive me if I do not find “inabilities and outrageousness” as qualities I seek in the leader of the free world.
It’s what we have now.
Put on the Emerald spectacles.
Getting Republicans elected may be quite a task, considering the crap the dems have been pulling.
What’s really ironic is that America has put sanctions on countries that played fast and loose with their election process. Are we now so third world that we have to station observers in every precinct in the nation on election day? Just to get a fair and honest balloting?
I bet Bernie’s followers are thinking the exact same thing.
..
…