Presidential Primaries and the Case for Calm

While the national executive branch remains in the clutches of a radical administration that daily flaunts the Constitution, producing an equal and opposite reaction in an electorate that practically salivates at the opportunity to throw them out, the Republican Party’s primary process seems bound and determined to produce a challenger far less aggressive then the people desire.

Conservatives have therefore spent months agonizing, as they search for – pray for – some way to nominate a candidate who is up to the needs of the time, and worthy of the public mood. Conservatives are concerned that we may indeed allow the greatest opportunity for a prompt return to Constitutional government to slip through our fingers, in the selection of a typical Republican nominee, rather than the mighty leviathan-tamer that the times require.

And it is true that in a year like 2012 is expected to be, to nominate anyone less than a candidate sharing the philosophy and temperament of the Framers will be a severe mistake.

But suppose that it happens. Suppose, just suppose, that when the dust clears from the suicidally-designed Republican presidential primary calendar, rather than a Constitutionalist like Sen. Rick Santorum or Rep. Michelle Bachmann, the nominee is someone decidedly more liberal – for a Republican – such as Gov. Mitt Romney or Speaker Newt Gingrich. Would that really be so bad?

What does a president do? Well, he appoints people, and they appoint people, and they appoint people. The selection of the political appointees in the executive branch is arguably the most important aspect of the presidency. As movement conservatives used to say back in the Reagan era, “personnel IS policy”… and no era has ever proved the truth of that better than this era of Eric Holder at Justice, Steven Chu at Energy, and Lisa Jackson at the EPA.

A president signs or vetoes legislation. The veto, however, has always been rather inexplicably unpopular. Other than the rare executive like Governor Gary Johnson, who relished in the use of this critical tool, most presidents use their veto power rarely; most recently, President George W. Bush waited some six years to use it. For the most part, legislation is signed if it passes Congress, so legislation is in the hands of the two houses of Congress. Presidents can’t introduce legislation in the U.S. system; they can announce bills, and use their bully pulpit to champion them, but they don’t play a huge role in the legislative process, however much they may want to.

A president can do an end-run around the legislative process, through executive orders and the introduction of regulations by his appointees. Some presidents do relatively little of this, and focus more on directing their appointees to resist overregulation, while others appear to delight in the opportunity, and push the envelope from all directions as they write regulations that expand well beyond their agencies’ mandates, effectively appropriating the powers of the Congress in the process. But as long as Congress doesn’t object – and it usually hasn’t – an unrestricted executive can indeed do a great deal of lawmaking on his own.

A president sets policy. Usually, the president is restricted in the options he has at his disposal… but with the bully pulpit, and some power of the purse – theoretically within limits – the president cannot set policy alone. He can propose to spend our way out of a problem, or tax our way out of a problem, or regulate our way out of a problem, but without Congressional approval for such tactics, his speeches are just speeches. Only in foreign policy can a president act alone with relatively few brakes from the other branches.

In short, a president can do a great deal of damage, but not a great deal of good, unless he has Congress on his side.

When the Framers designed the Constitution, they gave the office of the Presidency relatively little guidance, figuring that General Washington would be the first President, and he would set the tone.

Sure enough, as President, George Washington acted each day as if his every move would be precedent for future holders of the office. He restrained his actions to be in keeping with the general theme of small government, resisting every temptation to grow the size of government. When there was debate on the Constitutionality of a proposal, such as the battle of the national bank, he required the proposal’s advocate to convince him, personally, of its Constitutionality, before he would consider giving the proposal his support. Washington’s loyalty was, first and foremost, to the oath he swore to uphold to the Constitution of the United States, before even the bonds of friendship and the tug of his hometown.

In appointments, Washington selected for high office only others who shared the same vision of penultimate respect for the Constitution: Thomas Jefferson at State, Alexander Hamilton at Treasury, John Jay at the Supreme Court. As historian Richard Brookhiser once put it, “Scrape the bottom of the barrel of the Washington administration, and you get Henry Knox. Some barrel!”

Unfortunately, we have no one of such stature as Washington on the horizon at the moment. No great commanding general, no organizer of trade wars, no conqueror of invaders. We don’t have a brilliant politician to select who himself organized the states and first got them to cooperate in the face of tyranny. But then, we never have had such a one, not since Washington himself.

Every four years, we bemoan the fact that there is no Washington to choose. But only one man could be a Washington. It’s all right that they don’t rise to his level. Neither did the other 41 men between Washington and Obama, and we have survived so far.

What we need is just a return to the right direction, a return to presidents who respect the Framers and will work to retard the drift of these past few decades. And on that note, our options look positive.

From those we call conservative to those we call moderate, there is an unusually high level of unity on the Republican side for 2012. On issue after issue, the candidates make it clear that they are opposed to the recent drift, that they are committed to supporting the reduction of the tax burden that starves us, the bureaucracy that crushes us, the regulatory claws that choke our economy. Whichever candidate wins the nomination, and presumably the White House, we can expect this from the next administration:

•Any of the Republican options will fire the czars of the Obama administration, as well as the rest of the top tiers of Obama appointees.

•All the candidates for the GOP nomination are committed to signing legislation to repeal Obamacare, and all favor market-based reforms in its place.

•All the Republican candidates are committed to some form of tax reform, especially to reduce the crushing tax burden on the business community, the highest effective corporate tax rate in the developed world.

•Each of them has promised to use a mix of legislation and executive orders to undo the regulatory damage of the Obama administration, and more, each of them appears to understand that these past decades of government growth must be reversed.

Granted, each of these candidates will take on these challenges with different levels of ferver, different orders of prioritization, different skills. There are indeed very different pools of talent available in the 2012 primary field, and we will see very different administrations, depending on which of these candidates wins the nomination. No one in his right mind would claim that they are all identical.

But the similarities are there, nevertheless. America will have a Republican House of Representatives in 2013, and very likely a Republican Senate as well; both will be more conservative than any House or Senate in a century. This changes the dynamic considerably. As long as the White House is held by a Republican, just which Republican it is will be much less critical this year than it is in most.

Not to say that it doesn’t matter – of course it matters – just that the election of a Republican, to stop appointing villains and to start signing good legislation, will itself be a major step forward, whichever of the Republican options it may be.

The American people should, as always, continue to hope for the best to be nominated for the presidency. Never give up, keep hoping and praying for the victory of the most Constitutionally-minded originalist who can win in November.

But besides that – and particularly, in case we aren’t blessed with a White House that gifted – there are several other steps that committed patriots must take.

1) Nominating and electing the right people to the House and Senate. In presidential years, too many of us tend to focus entirely on the “top of the ticket,” forgetting that down-ballot positions are also being decided, positions that will remain occupied for years, even decades, by the people we nominate this year. Both the federal Congress and our state legislatures are of critical importance. This leviathan cannot be stabbed to death by a single mighty hero; it must be starved back down to size by committed legislators from coast to coast. Every primary and caucus selection will either contribute to that battle or make it more difficult to win.

2) Ending vote fraud. There have been important prosecutions and famous exposes in recent years, and several states have taken positive steps such as demanding Real ID for voting. Ohio, Wisconsin, Kansas, and several others have passed good legislation, but there is now a risk that people will declare victory when only a few battles have been won. In fact, ACORN is diminished, but not dead. Genuine identification is required in some states, but not all. Many problems, such as noncitizen voting, snowbird double-voting, and absentee ballot manipulation haven’t even been touched. Vote fraud remains a severe danger nationwide, and the Democrats continue to flaunt the MOVE Act, ensuring that tens of thousands of military personnel abroad are denied their right to vote by scheduling primaries too late to enable the overseas vote to come back in time.

3) Education reform. While our nation’s schools continue to have many excellent teachers, the socialist activists of the teachers’ unions also continue their activism undeterred by recent events. Ever since the creation of the “education degree” a century ago, our schoolchildren have been worse prepared for the vote with every succeeding generation. We raise children who don’t study the Founding Fathers outside of a few weeks in Junior High, who haven’t been exposed to either the glorious accomplishments of capitalism or the bloody failures of socialism. If they haven’t learned the truth from parents or friends, there is precious little chance of discovering it on their own, with a popular culture hostile to the America envisioned by our Founders. America needs activism to demand more pro-American and pro-capitalist textbooks, and more positive coverage of the American way and the American experience at every level. Parents shouldn’t have to choose homeschooling as the only way to ensure the propriety of their children’s textbooks.

4) Party activism. The failure of the GOP to live up to its platform in recent decades has turned many volunteers away, causing people to volunteer for the candidate rather than the party, or to throw in their lot with third parties instead. But this is a two-party system, with the deck stacked against third parties to a degree unimagined by the multiparty parliamentary systems of our neighbors and friends. It is tempting to join a Constitution party or Libertarian party, in which our disagreements on policy will be minor, where nobody calls you an extremist for wanting to shut down agencies that should never have been established in the first place. The lure is understandable. But with our country as divided as it is, even splitting the conservative vote a little, even just taking two or three percent out of the Republican fold, can cause a Democrat to win a race. Third parties today are spoilers, and worse, they take people out of the GOP whom the GOP desperately needs to keep its focus on principle.

5) Fixing the primary calendar. Despite efforts by the RNC to improve the process this year, all they did was to further cement the primacy of a few early states, giving Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, each in its turn, an effective veto on presidential candidacies. A nation of 300 million should not have its party nominees selected by so restrictive a manner. No single election day should ever have less than five states voting. If we are to fix the problem of flawed nominees, we must fix the process by which our nominees are selected. The problem of a financial barrier to entry for candidates, which the Iowa and New Hampshire dates were intended to address, pales in comparison to the greater problem of self-selection: if a candidate fears that he or she would do poorly in either New Hampshire or Iowa, he cannot run, no matter how well he or she would do in the other 48 states. This insanity must end.

Oh yes, there is much to be done… all this and much, much more. Our country has fallen far indeed from the vision of our Framers. We have a population that has forgotten its roots, generations ignorant of the blessings of liberty and the devastation of communism. We have a system skewed in favor of ever-growing government, a system that is cannibalizing itself by creating an ever-expanding debt and an ever-shrinking private economy to fund it.

All this can be cured. The right people, in the right numbers, can solve these problems. We have a brilliant Constitution from a hot summer in Philadelphia, long ago, to guide us. We have a century of wise advice from luminaries like Mises and Hazlitt, Buckley and Rusher, Goldwater and Reagan. And we have the new media of computers, cable news and talk radio to publicize the common-sense solutions of the Right.

So as we watch these endless presidential debates, in which conservative candidates allow themselves to seriously field questions from hostile reporters on poisonous networks, we shouldn’t let it get to us. We need to win in 2012, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel, a light lit in Philadelphia over two centuries ago. With the commitment of patriots, and the blessing of Divine Providence, that light will never be extinguished.

John F. Di Leo is a Chicago-based Customs broker and international trade lecturer. In his five decades on this earth, he has supported for the presidency an Illinois lifeguard, a Virginia preacher, a California talk show host, even a New Jersey publisher. Whether the 2012 nominee is a Georgia professor, a Massachusetts venture capitalist, or a Texas eagle scout, we have our work cut out for us in many ways besides this presidential election, so John views his job as reminding us of such dull but pressing problems as vote fraud, ignorance of our historical roots, and the self-defeating Republican presidential primary calendar.

Permission is hereby granted to forward freely, provided it is uncut and the IR URL and byline are included. Follow me on LinkedIn and Facebook!

“What does a president do? Well, he appoints people, and they appoint people...”

And that’s where people like Jamie Gorelick stovepipe government agencies and bring down the WTC, killing thousands.

Exactly right, Jessduntno.

And that’s why - while there are indeed major differences between the GOP candidates for the nomination - the main thing is just getting the Democrat out of the Oval Office.

Republicans may not all appoint Reaganites, but at least Republicans don’t appoint Goreliks.

JFD

I agree with all of you. Anyone will be an improvement over what we have now.

The President is defined by who he or she surrounds themselves with, as much as their own qualifications. See the real decision maker in the WH: Valerie Jarrett.

Other factors:
Appointments, Supreme Court judges included.

Taking back the Senate.

Putting Conservatives into office around the country in local and state races.

Raising money for the GOP: ex: Sarah Palin, Newt(better candidate for Sec. of State than POTUS), Jim DeMint.

Rush’s talent for influencing elections:
Operation Chaos II? :-)

Exactly right, Marty60...

Infiltration is the word.

Many people assume that the problem of big government is just what’s on the surface: it’s huge, and costly, and painful. And that’s bad enough...

But the presence of a bureaucratic position is doubly dangerous, because when leftists occupy those roles, they do quite conscious damage to our society - absolutely on purpose.

We need a Republican because at least a Republican - practically any Republican - will at least have the sense to not appoint such people - and hopefully will cooperate with wise congressional committees and justices.

Makes sense! The Freepers who are arguing day and night whom you won’t vote for and who you think must be the nominee, take heed.
No matter what, vote out obama, vote out the democRATS/socilaists/masxists from the House/senate, one year at a time!

To all above negative posters:

Your obvious propaganda should be taken for what it is. ‘Take the conseervatism out of the race so we can win in 2012’.

You all insist on doing the same thing election after election, which has brought us to where we find ourselves today,. on the n ri9nk of disaster.

So why don’t you just admit who you are and what you want? Liberals (Trolls) who want more of the same? Wimps who want a handout at another’s expense?

You are not not honorable patriots who love their country and cherish our freedoms!

Oh, good heavens, paperdoll.... read the article before you jump to such conclusions.

I repeatedly say that we SHOULD nominate the most conservative, most Constitutional, most originalist, possible nominee.

But my point in writing it was to reassure my fellow supporters of absolute conservatism - supporters of folks like Bachmann and Santorum, who see ourselves likely on the verge of primary defeat once again, and getting pretty darned depressed about it - and to say, “look the world won’t end if the party blows it once again”.

The article talks about other things we need to do, such as fixing the primary calendar, ending vote fraud, educating our children, focusing on nominating solid conservatives for all the other offices.

We’re not trolls for not wanting to jump off a bridge. If anything, it’s trolls who would encourage that kind of division in our ranks, so that Obama would be more likely to win a second term!

JFD

Sorry if I misunderstood, Paperdoll!

But I didn’t see anybody unreasonable posting on this piece. Everybody seems to agree: be as conservative as possible, nominate the most conservative possible, but keep our eye on the prize: getting the leftists OUT!!!

Or were you referring to other posters on other threads?

If so, that makes perfect sense, and I apologize.

I’ve been getting accused of mushiness so much lately by Paulbots, perhaps I have a hair trigger on the issue and I’m imagining disagreement where there is none. Sorry!!!

Yes, there are are posters on this thread who have been very negative about Herman Cain on other threads.

Do you mind very much if I use you again to post a very a recent speech by Herman Cain that everyone may like to read? Thank you

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/22/herman-cain-speaks-at-restoration-weekend/

“You are not not honorable patriots who love their country and cherish our freedoms!”

“Projection: Psychological projection is a defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people.”

When I point a finger at someone else, there are three pointing back at me.

Keep your outrageous comments to yourself, Paperdoll.
You have no business accusing me or any other Freeper of not being a patriot or loving our great country.
Your anger and vitriol are very unbecoming...but then, it’s easy to make cowardly statements anonymously, isn’t it?

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.