I have spent some time in the vineyards of California Republican politics.  I have had two main goals over time: (1) to promote solid conservative principles; and (2) to expand the conservative base, that is, to find ways to change how conservatives do what they do, in order to persuade people that conservative principles in politics are what is best for them.  When a majority of Californians believe that conservative principles are what is best for them in their life, Conservatives will win elections.  Until the majority of Californians believe that, conservatives should (and will) lose elections.  The job to persuade people is up to conservatives, and no other job is more important in politics than the work of persuading people of that fact.

I don’t believe we should change our principles to win, but we do need to work.  Changing our strategies and our tactics is critical, changing principles is nonnegotiable.  When conservatives win elections, we should have the power of majority opinion behind our victory.  That has been a major motivating factor behind all of my, sometimes lonely, fight in politics.  Some of my Republican friends think only victory counts.  I don’t agree with that.  Some of my Republican friends think it is important to purge the party of impure warriors for the cause.  I don’t agree with that either.  Some of my Republican friends think their most important fight is to be in charge, to be the big fish in a very small (and shrinking) pond.  I don’t agree with that, for sure.  Our ideas are right.  When we focus on ideas, we win.

I have worked on a variety of strategic and tactical ways, by changing incentives in elections, so that conservative candidates come to California, and promote conservative ideas in places where conservatives usually don’t go, so that more Californians hear the message of conservatism.  I spent years, all by myself, in South Central Los Angeles, in San Francisco, in Hispanic communities around the state, talking conservative values and promoting conservative candidates.  I did those things even though I received no personal benefit, but I soon learned that most politicians are not so altruistic.  Most politicians needed to see some benefit from their activity, before they would promote conservative ideas in places where most conservative fear to tread.  I changed our delegate selection process in the California Republican party to change the incentives for candidates.  I looked at ways to change the electoral college for the same reason.  I ultimately settled on National Popular Vote as the way to grow the conservative movement in California.  It took a lot of work, a lot of investigation, and a lot of thought before I came to this conclusion.  But I changed my mind on the issue, because I saw how it could help implement that vision, a vision of a stronger, ultimately victorious, conservative movement, by changing candidate incentives in elections to promote conservative ideas in California.  Ultimately, because of my change of view, the two people promoting NPV with their pocketbooks hired me (and pay me) to promote the idea.  I am thankful they pay me, but they did not change my view with their pocketbook (no one ever does, much to the chagrin of those who rely upon me for their food, shelter and clothing).  Conservative ideas are much too important to be sold out for money.

In a recent committee hearing on the National Popular Vote bill, Senator Doug La Malfa mused that former Republican legislators, that he respected, had changed their mind on the issue.  He posed the question to John Eastman as to why Mr. Eastman thought that was so.  Eastman said it was because those legislators were being paid.  Now, it has been my experience that those who think that someone would sell their principles for money are people who would indeed sell their principles for money.  I usually don’t think that about people, because I would not do that.  I know that Senator La Malfa, my good friend, would not think that of me, since he and I have had many discussions on just this point.  I have known John Eastman for a long time, but we are neither close, nor are we colleagues or friends.  He had to assume that since I had once been on his side of the fence on this issue, the only reason I would change my thoughts was for money.

However, John was not in South Central Los Angeles with me.  Nor was he in San Francisco, or East Los Angeles, or Carson, or Compton or Downtown San Diego, as I labored in the vineyards to promote the ideas that I thought were right, even though there was no personal benefit to me.  He was not there, when I fought the political battle to change the delegate selection rules for the party, to promote conservative values.  He wasn’t there, when I changed my mind on party leadership, seeing a failed party run by a small clique of activists who were more interested in promoting their “big fish in a shrinking pond” theory of running the party into an increasingly irrelevant factor in California politics,.  He was not there when I became increasingly, and publicly, more critical of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s betrayal of the principles he claimed to espouse when he ran for Governor, because I thought he was destroying conservatives.  All of these decisions had serious political and economic consequences.  I did them not because I saw benefit to me, or because I was being paid (in fact, I would have acted exactly the opposite if I actually cared about making money from politics), I did them because I care about the conservative movement, and its future in California.  Quite frankly, in the twenty years I have known John, I have never seen him in the vineyards, trying to expand the conservative movement.  I don’t blame him.  He was busy trying to earn a living.  That’s what we all try to do.  It is a great thing when we can earn a living, do what we believe in, and actually promote the conservative movement.  That is the best of all worlds.

NPV is a big change.  Conservatives should be skeptical of it.  I was.  I didn’t like the idea when I first heard it, and the proponents of it didn’t take the time to persuade me of its correctness.  That was their mistake.  I decided not to compound their mistake by remaining ignorant about the idea.  I educated myself.  I encourage others to do the same.  I understand Senator La Malfa’s reluctance on the issue.  He is where I was.  I am confident that he will change his mind at some point, and not because he is being paid off.  It would do him a disservice, when he does change his mind, to make that claim.  I think my friends that oppose NPV are doing so because they think it is right to oppose it.  I support NPV because I think it is right.  It wasn’t an easy decision, but it is the right one.  I only urge my conservative colleagues to do what I did, to stop, think, and analyze the idea objectively.  Once they do that, they will come to the same conclusion I did, and see the wisdom in the proposal.

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 9:47 am and is filed under Blog Posts.