While the lack of Republican based unity is seen in nearly every election, in every district and in every state, it is quite ridiculous as applied by individual local campaigns who believe either their worth, alternatively, their future, somehow hinges on a decision whether to remain neutral or be loyal and principled.[read_more]
Political opportunism regarding unity is typically one of three ways.
First, a political style to increase a candidate’s political influence at nearly any price. The king of this was Ron Paul, a staunch libertarian who would infiltrate the Republican Party by going after the republican nomination, not to actually win it (his beliefs did not align in the least) but to position himself to access a larger platform. To a degree, abandoning or compromising his political principles in the process of increasing his influence.
Second, a political tendency to capitalize on any situation with the main goal to gain more support instead of truly winning people over to a common principled position or educating others for a common political understanding. Negative campaigns.
Third, taking the safe “neutral” stance to see what comes out in the wash; primaries, in-fighting, media exposure, and rumored controversies—a form of reverse opportunism which the candidate does not see as harmful but in reality, the harm is far reaching and long lasting. The harm is in not standing beside the person you support or supported previously and in doing so, effecting that race and ultimately your own. This is SOP in our local elections.
Most candidates and politicians are opportunists to some extent but the controversy of a non-unity or neutral-until-convenient practice pits seizure of a political opportunity against political principles being espoused or questioned.
Milton Friedman remarked that “One man’s opportunism is another man’s statesmanship”. A politician might for instance argue that, although his action seems unprincipled at first sight, when placed in a broader perspective it conforms exactly to what his constituency believes in.
However, when applied as we see in our local and state campaigns, the broader perspective is that a lack of unity can be just as much a negative factor. Constituents do see (and react to) the lack of unity. And, candidates who need, want or request unity, feel pushed away, unsupported and often, later, find reason to “get back” at another candidate’s lack of support.
I had one campaign for a state level incumbent recently say, while they would not openly support a candidate in a primary, not to worry, they would not support anyone in any primary. However, fact is, they will be a delegate at the local convention, apparently just keeping their support for a local primary candidate a secret. Childish games. They demand respect and beg for support when convenient for their office but the first sign of controversy without an immediate upside for them and “I am remaining neutral” is the go-to position of choice to hide behind.
In another instance, while writing an article here in TBE last month simply laying out who endorsed which candidate, for sourcing purposes, I went to each known public endorser to simply get an affirmative response. One state delegate, (who happened to have signed a no-tax pledge and later broke it in Richmond–so I had a heads up of what I was dealing with) refused, absolutely refused to confirm support for a particular candidate because they became challenged. Phone calls, text—excuse after excuse, even laying out a scenario where the candidate may have thought they had support but did not. The candidate, however, couldn’t believe it and eventually became the source for that endorsement in my article. Childish Games.
I say, grow a set and support who you believe should be in office—don’t be a passive neutral sissy when a little controversy comes your way then beat the drum of strength and unity when later convenient to your own little if-I-was-hit-by-a-bus-tomorrow-life-wouldn’t-miss-a-beat campaign.
UPDATE: I needed to add the word hypocrisy. Dealing with incumbents, here is the typical scenario which rises, IMHO, to a level of hypocrisy. Two candidates go through primaries and/or generals together in an immediate past election cycle. They unite, endorse each other, stand together, sing each others praises and defend the other if called for. The goal is to show unity, support and share each others supporters which hopefully will turn into collective votes. Enter the next election cycle. Instead of continuing to stand together, one or both have a challenger–typically someone who “thinks” they can do a better job, usually only knowing part of the stories leading to their challenge. At this point, the two original candidates no longer support each other–they go to a neutral place and wait to see who gets the crap beat out of them and comes out a winner. That game, to me, falls under hypocrisy.
Bright Side
A little over a year ago, in Loudoun County, the five distinguished Constitutional Officers actually demonstrated how unity is done. With powerful introductory speeches by EW Jackson and Kate Obenshain, the Constitutional Officers, Sheriff Mike Chapman, Commonwealth’s Attorney Jim Plowman, Clerk Gary Clemens, Commissioner Bob Wertz and Treasurer Roger Zurn had an awesome, high turnout, event. They didn’t need to have the event mid-term, it was simply their collective effort to start early and demonstrate what unity meant. Hat’s off gentlemen!
With the potential surge in Democratic candidates seeing opportunities to unseat many Republicans in areas where there are multiple seats on the ballet, it could easily be a party line sweep for those local areas. This in mind, those in the safe “neutral” position now, choosing not to support those they previously stood (and won) with, are actually losing the opportunity to gain momentum by not aligning and positioning themselves for the party’s best chance in the general. They will be playing catch up, running after those who win their primaries and will then ask, “Hey, sorry I didn’t support you earlier, do you you mind if we team up now?” Either that or they will have others ask for them.
The Republican Party, locally or otherwise, will need every vote, every opportunity, and every person with name recognition to pull voters off the couch. For those with a neutral stance, rolling the dice, that when convenient, unity will come—one of these times, perhaps this time, individual candidates taking these neutral stances are going to be left standing with a taste of their own medicine or simply told to pound sand. For some, that could mean loss of a title, ability to be involved and part-time income. For others, it could be a forced career change and loss of one hell of a paycheck.
Ironically, there is an article that just came out titled, “Gowdy Gives Huge Lesson on Principles Over Politics When He Backs Out of Event After Learning Theme.” It deals with Trey Gowdy pulling out of an RPV event based on its theme. The RPV, whomever made the decision for its direction, was thinking of the hear and now, what they thought was best, opposed to what was best for the party, the goal and not thinking of the potential impact of their action. Same with those who take these passive neutral stances–they play political games over principles and eventually the dice will not roll in their favor.
13 comments
While there may not be a code of ethics for blog commentators, Brian Reynolds has breached whatever there may be.
It is pretty disreputable in my opinion for a blog commentator to write things directly or indirectly supporting his on-retainer politician clients (or writing things negative about client’s opponents). Brian, borrow a play out of Greg Letique’s blog ethics playbook and do not use your blog commentator position to help your clients. It is pretty transparent what you are doing.
Remind me to steer clear of Design B Studios.
Im sorry but none of the constitutional officers have publicly endorsed any of the others in the upcoming primary race. Yes maybe in private but they have not publicly done it. The article makes it seem as if they have and that is highly unlikely. Seems as if this is a spin article to drum up more votes for the incumbents. (Specifically one that Mr. Reynolds can’t stop writing articles for)
Endorsements are a two edged sword.
If an elected official has history, a working relationship, or is a kinderered spirit with a candidate on a specific issue then endorsements make sense. You can look really good, or look really bad. Frankly , a number of endorsements by elected officials here in LOCO of late have been pretty stupid, the stuff of clueless rookies. Political unforced errors. Other electeds who operate and therfore endorse others for the right reasons have come out smelling like a rose. The smart ones always smell better.
Those who operate in the blind, don’t take advice from those who see the whole field often step in it, we all know what that smells like.
Politics is full of folks who don’t know what they don’t know but do know a bunch of stuff that really does not matter. LOCO politics has a very specific strain of an inability to connect events and the political ramifications of those events, how they connect, react, or will effect one another. We have dozens of electeds, activists, and arm chair Karl Roves, who can’t find their ass with both hands, a guidebook, and a team of sherpas.
I might add that failure to weed out the less than ethical and the liars in the herd has those with good intentions spinning in counter directions, making very bad decisions, and wasting time chasing political ghosts.
To use another Stoneism “Politics is not static”. In a dynamic environment people are forced to think, not follow like mindless drones.
I find it interesting that Mr. Reynolds blogs as one of those “I’m brighter than the rest of you Republicans so listen to my sermon now” guys without revealing that he is really just another consultant for candidates. I understand that he was working for Shawn Williams trying to undercut Charlie King’s endorsements and now he is working for Mike Chapman trying to guilt trip other Republicans into endorsing Chapman. As Ms. Martin aptly notes, a number of good and smart Republicans, such as Frank Wolf and Dick Black, always abstain from endorsing in contested (and often ugly) Republican nomination fights.
Look at Congresswoman Comstock. she probably got one of calls from you encouraging her to endorse Shawn Williams, did so at your urging, and now really regrets it after learning the rather signifcant problems that he had in his past. And, It think it was really dishonorable for you to solicit her endorsement of your client without coming clean and telling her about the skeletons in his closet.
Mr. Reynolds, sir, it is YOU who is being childish. Moreover, I question your integrity in writing on this blog as a commentator when you refuse yourself to confess who you are working for. I think your Bull Elephant credentials should be yanked until your work for your political clients is over.
Frank Wolf hardly abstained from throwing his complete and total support behind former Del. Joe May when he lost his primary in the 33rd district recently to Dave LaRock so I believe you have your facts wrong there. Otherwise I agree with your sentiments.
Frank Wolf rarely endorsed in primaries. Joe May was one of those exceptions. I believe almost every sitting R in Loudoun endorsed May. Dave LaRock won the primary and was a true gentleman after his win. THAT is how you handle endorsement battles, with grace. Frank Wolf supported LaRock in the general election and we held that seat.
That is fine but not sure it was the point he did endorse as he had every right to do so but contrary to Mr. Franklin’s claim otherwise I don’t believe the rest of your statements are actually germaine to my comment.
Jim, my profile is at the bottom of each article and respectfully, I did not work for Shawn Williams on this election cycle. Nor did I ever contact Barbara Comstock concerning Shawn. However, I appreciate your confidence in my ability to collect an endorsement for someone.
Charlie’s endorsements were posted by me, here on TBE, and I am glad to speak to you privately about any situation. I do support Charlie but because Charlie is a client and I had previously worked for Shawn, I chose to separate business and politics in that one case and informed both of them when they asked for my public support.
I am a strategic consultant or do/have done work on no less than 10 campaigns. To date, the campaigns I have worked on have never lost. And, I don’t plan on losing any this cycle either. There is a reason folks seek help on campaigns and typically, my input is properly weighed against other consultants.
For integrity, it is what it is–my articles get some of the largest views and numbers on TBE and social media. While not popular with you–you still read my article and count as one of those views and your engagement here, positive or negative, is exactly why my “credentials” would not be pulled.
Your opinion, however, is absolutely welcomed. People hear my opinion and certainly should hear yours and others. I hope you comment on other articles–show other view points, your opinion, etc.
The most recent Gallop poll results claim the Republican Party is now viewed favorably by 28% of Americans with 43% viewing the Democratic Party favorably, I believe pointing out the major flaw in your unity agrument. Voters today do not hold the affiliation for party voting patterns that were in place as recently as a generation ago. Fewer today vote solely by party association and therefore fellow member party endorsements are becoming more and more irrelevant in the primary process (if they ever were which I have some doubts). People increasling vote by “issue” or “stated position on a given topic” or in some cases AGAINST the issue or position topic of an opponent, with party conducted hand holding events supporting a given individual accounting for little. I have nothing against unity per se but the facts of today’s political environment don’t seem to bear out the proposition they account for much in any actual election event. Mass media, social media, almost instantaneous political communications have shoved these relics of a bygone age aside. The nature of the political party has changed in the eyes and habits of the voter its just a late dawning effect to be recognized by the Republican establishment and their consultants clinging to crumbling institutions and financial structures that provide little motivation to the modern voter.
I must disagree with you. I completely understand why an elected official would not want to endorse anyone in a primary. Just ask Barbara Comstock who made the mistake of endorsing the disgraced supervisor Shawn Williams and the unpopular Brian Schoeneman who is about to lose his second attempt at political office. In addition to that, an elected official who endorses in a primary automatically offends those who support the other candidate. The elected official may well need the votes of those offended in their own bid for re-election. If their endorsed candidate loses they look even worse. It’s a lose-lose-lose for elected officials. A wise leader stays out of the primary endorsement game.
Jeanine nails it…the nice way. You don’t want the hard way. And we’re bending over backwards to not go the hard way. Quit poking the nest, man.
I respect your position–just cannot stand this particular little game. Folks who win elections by uniting previously, in the immediate past election, don’t stand together again when that candidate they supported becomes challenged. They connect to win, disconnect… connect IF you win on your own game is ridiculous. And, its hypocritical. Unless they are simply running the position into the ground (not by rumor, but by fact, whether its their voting style or statistics), then support should not fade, waver or disappear just because someone else decides they want to challenge for the position. Hypocrisy if you previously stood together. I agree its par for the course but as it is, there are just as many people out there who see it as a negative. I am just giving that position and opinion.