Establishment and Grassroots

Sometimes there are words we assume we understand, but that aren’t clearly or easily defined. Establishment and grassroots are two of these. They are supposedly opposite, but lately establishment has been used as an epithet to silence disagreement from elsewhere in the grassroots, which is the exact opposite of what grassroots is about. So, let’s define and examine for clarity.

The term Establishment identifies an amorphous controlling elite. Lately this refers to those in the Republican Party, particularly in Washington, DC, who have a different agenda than the rank-and-file Republican citizen. Assumed to belong are the party leadership and leadership in the US Congress and Senate. Sometimes Paul Ryan, recently chosen to replace John Boehner as House Majority Leader, is included, and sometimes he’s exempted. He was chosen because he was acceptable to both the establishment and the non-establishment.

But it can’t be that being in a particular position automatically makes someone establishment. That would require, instead, some beliefs and attitudes in addition to position. Otherwise it would be pointless to try to elect people who share grassroots ideas into positions of leadership.

So, for our purposes, maybe we need to identify the beliefs and attitudes. There’s not an overriding authority, so this is from my observations.

The GOP Establishment consists of House and Senate members, sometimes including leadership, who focus on party power more than on party purpose—plus some lobbyists, crony capitalists, and various opinion makers who share an agenda with the rest of the establishment. Sometimes the difference in beliefs is as slight as wanting to go the right direction, but wanting to do it slowly and incrementally rather than suddenly. In other words, change slowly rather than radically.

But sometimes it’s more a matter of wanting to keep the status quo—quite a lot of power in Washington, DC, regardless of authority from the Constitution. And sometimes it’s a matter of going along with Democrat ideas because the media makes it seem that is what the public wants, so, to maintain power, going that direction but slower than the Democrats go there.

Staying where we are or going further the wrong direction are not acceptable to the grassroots.

Came across this on Facebook;
can't locate origin, but found here

Grassroots ideas, or political movements or campaigns, start and grow from the local community. This includes the grassroots of a party. I need to repeat that: the grassroots include ideas, movements, and campaigns within a party. The definition includes where the movement comes from: from local people in communities. They share the idea—or word about a candidate—with friends. This could look like local clubs and meetings, like my local Tea Party, where we hear from candidates and speakers, plus share ideas with each other. Or it could be what we do at precinct meetings, when we elect delegates for the next level up and propose ideas that we’d like to have included in the party platform. It might also include sharing our opinions on social media, or going around to people in our precinct to get them educated and registered to vote.

Grassroots ideas tend to come from people dissatisfied with the status quo. So they’re likely to disagree with any establishment in the “maintain our own power” camp of keeping the status quo.

Grassroots in the Republican Party is conservative in ways outside the status quo box. The Grassroots want smaller government—like you’d get if you actually followed the Constitution. Grassroots want lower taxes and less government spending. And less regulation interfering with innovation and entrepreneurship. Or interference with personal beliefs and opinions—like those listed in the First Amendment and the other Bill of Rights amendments.

It’s possible for grassroots movements to be extreme. Most associated with Democrats are. But it is not extreme to value the basic law of our country—the Constitution.

Grassroots tend to be made up of people committed to their communities, and to taking action to make things better. So, at the local level—precinct chairs, for example—you’re likely to find conservative grassroots ideas being shared around.

At least that has been my experience everywhere I’ve been involved. I started going to precinct conventions (by another name in a different state) as soon as I was old enough to vote. I first became a delegate to a county convention in 1984. Then we lived briefly in a couple of states where I never figured out how to get involved. Then, in yet another state, Mr. Spherical Model became a precinct chair. Both of us were delegates at the county convention. He went to the state convention several times. In Texas I started attending precinct conventions—and district and state conventions—as soon as I figured out how. And now I’m a precinct chair.

So I’m involved in my party. And I have been for decades. When the Tea Party showed up in 2010, I started attending, to make connections and to educate myself as a voter. But it has turned out that I also get to express my opinions quite a lot. During the past three legislative sessions I’ve led a group of us in following legislation and expressing our opinions to Texas lawmakers as citizen lobbyists.

Not all Tea Party people have been involved as long as I have. Some just woke up after Obama’s election and imposition of atrocities like Obamacare. And we have a range of opinions, although I’d say they’re nearly all in the Republican-to-Libertarian range, with not much (if any) overlap with the Democrat-to-Socialist range.

But the reason for my post today comes from a misunderstanding—or misrepresentation being exploited—by some newer to politics who think anyone involved with parties is corrupt establishment.

Some of this misrepresentation comes directly from the Trump campaign, which might indicate whether it’s actually grassroots or not. But they’re trying to convince the relatively new “activist” followers of Trump that no one who disagrees can be trusted.

About a contested convention, which happens if no candidate gets over 50% of the total delegates before the convention, there are no “brokers,” or establishment powers who get to override all those delegates and the voters who sent them to the convention.

On the first ballot, the delegates from most states are required to vote for the candidate they’re assigned to as a result of primary voting. Some states require the delegate to remain with that candidate for more than one ballot.

But when no candidate wins a majority of delegates on the first ballot, many—probably most—are free to vote their personal choice on the next ballot. And the next. Until a candidate wins a majority. There’s no stealing involved. The delegate was elected because of his/her leanings. Elected by delegates at lower levels, reaching to the most local grassroots.

Of the remaining candidates, longtime grassroots Republicans are much more likely to choose Ted Cruz, because he is a Constitutional conservative. He has reached out to those delegates and their grassroots support—in every state—and has given them his message and asked for their vote. And he has worked to find like-minded grassroots workers to run to become delegates.

It’s not a game. But it is a process. And he has shown respect for the grassroots through this process. Whereas Donald Trump has carried out a mostly-free-media top-down campaign with little attention offered to grassroots politics.

It wouldn’t matter whether Washington insiders actually wanted Trump to be their candidate; if a majority of the delegates do not want him (and he hasn’t won a majority coming in to the convention), he doesn’t get to be the nominee.

It is a grassroots decision.

It’s informative that some of those who are just recently awake to the dire condition of the country, who haven’t been participating in the grassroots for very long, might be skeptical and cynical about everyone and everything that disagrees with them.

But people involved for quite a while—people who are familiar with the Constitution, and are fully engaged in searching for leaders committed to lower taxes, less government interference in our lives, and protection of our God-given rights—are not inclined to support a candidate who blusters about some of those things but has no coherent plan to get us there. And no record of believing in the things that will get us there. And lacking the character that would show any actual change of heart.

In summary, I’ve been involved a long time—at the grassroots level only. I do not support Trump, specifically because I am a grassroots conservative who loves the Constitution. Calling people like me establishment because I have participated with the party and do not support Trump is ignorant both of the process of growing ideas, and of the strength of the grassroots desire to return to the Constitution.

And I support Ted Cruz because I am a grassroots conservative who loves the Constitution. We grassroots have been praying and watching for such a consistent Constitutional conservative for lifetimes.

I know and trust the grassroots around me here in Texas. We’re somewhat dependent on the grassroots elsewhere. But I have watched Ted Cruz reach out to others like me, and others respond to him as I have. So now it’s time to spread that word in our own grassroots communities. And then trust that what needs to happen for the sake of our beloved country will happen.

The Choice Between Two Evils Dilemma

A hypothetical situation has been coming up in conversations lately—a hypothetical I hope never happens, but that media keeps telling us is inevitable. That is, a boorish egomaniac with lots of money is lying, deceiving, and bovine-excrementing his way to the nomination of a party that used to stand for freedom through small government and strong defense, prosperity through free markets, and civilization through decent people living good lives. So the hypothetical situation is, “If the election comes down to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, who will you vote for?”

The answer is neither. I’ve said this before. I’ve had conversations with people who, while they support Ted Cruz and hope for a miracle, are aware Trump might be shoved down our throats. But they would vote for him to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president. And they are shocked that I would not. I do not think Trump is the lesser of two evils in that case; I can’t be sure he is not a worse evil. Either one would mean ignoring our Constitution and our rights, and damage our great nation for at least a generation and possibly beyond repair. I will not vote to condone either choice that leads to that same end.

I was encouraged when I had this conversation with son Political Sphere, who agrees with me, and has a good way of putting it:

Say someone’s pointing a gun at my head, and they say, “You have to choose, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, or I’ll shoot you.” I’d say, “Then shoot me now.”

Yeah. That’s how I feel.

Over the weekend, I was surprised to learn we are far from alone. Apparently there were protesters at the Houston debate last Thursday, with signs representing their campaign: “I don’t know, not Trump, though.” (You can buy yard signs and T=shirts.) And over the weekend, a top trending hashtag on Twitter was #NeverTrump. It means people are refusing to vote for this man, no matter what.

Product image, from here

I’ve read a couple of good explanations of this viewpoint. One is from a blog called RhymesWithRight, which appears to be written by a social studies teacher in Seabrook (between Houston and Galveston). He titles his piece “Why #NeverTrump Is the Only Moral Position.” He starts out acknowledging that Republicans are having this conversation: “What do we do if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee in November?”

This question probably comes up in some form every election cycle, but the overwhelming answer in the past has always been to go ahead and support the nominee, however imperfect. That even included John McCain in 2008, and Bob Dole back in the 90s. But this time it is coming at us as a moral dilemma.

RhymesWithRight says,

It is a fundamental tenet of traditional Christian moral teaching that one may not choose to commit an objectively immoral (malum in se) act. If an act is gravely and objectively morally evil, one cannot do it, even if the result of doing it might be good or better than the alternative.

He gives an example of what that means. Then he applies it to the election:

When approaching the ballot box, one has the obligation to vote in a manner that is objectively moral. In most elections, this is an easy task, for there is usually at least one non-corrupt candidate whose positions and promises are, if not perfect, within the realm of moral acceptability. If there is more than one acceptable candidate, it is acceptable to vote for any one of them—though the more virtuous act is to vote for the greater good. If there is not such a candidate, it is the obligation of a moral person to abstain from voting for any candidate—a vote for the lesser evil is still a choice to do evil, and the choice to do evil is always objectively wrong. The utilitarian argument that one should choose the lesser evil must be rejected.

And he explains why Trump is an unacceptable evil:

Why can't a Christian—or any individual with a functioning moral compass—vote for Donald Trump? That's easy—Trump combines the hostility to freedom displayed by both Democrats with Hillary's personal corruption and Bernie's totalitarian tendencies. Add to that a thin-skin and personal vindictiveness that rivals the character flaws of Barack Obama and you have a perfect storm of political evil. Many commentators—not just on the Left, but also on the Right—have called Trump a fascist…. At a bare minimum, it is fair to label Trump a proto-fascist. On that basis alone, it is morally unacceptable to vote for him, because the racism, support for violence against opponents, and efforts to intimidate and control the press are objective evils which we cannot legitimately support.

What is the voter to do? The options are, leave that race blank on the ballot, or vote third-party or write-in. Hopefully, good options will occur before we’re faced with such an eventuality.

If you want someone more well-known, let’s turn to Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska. I’m really beginning to like this guy. He was having this very discussion on Facebook and Twitter over the weekend. Yesterday he did a long Facebook post explaining his position. He acknowledges the frustration of the voters. He then makes sure they know how he got to the Senate, and why no one should say he is “establishment.” Then he says,

My current answer for who I would support in a hypothetical matchup between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton is: Neither of them. I sincerely hope we select one of the other GOP candidates, but if Donald Trump ends up as the GOP nominee, conservatives will need to find a third option.

And he explains why. Here’s the introductory essence:

Mr. Trump’s relentless focus is on dividing Americans, and on tearing down rather than building back up this glorious nation. Much like President Obama, he displays essentially no understanding of the fact that, in the American system, we have a constitutional system of checks and balances, with three separate but co-equal branches of government. And the task of public officials is to be public “servants.” The law is king, and the people are boss. But have you noticed how Mr. Trump uses the word “Reign”—like he thinks he’s running for King? It’s creepy, actually. Nebraskans are not looking for a king. We yearn instead for the recovery of a Constitutional Republic.

He gives some good teaching about parties, about the Constitution, and about the president’s job to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution.” About the meaning of America, in words Christians and other religious people understand, he says,

Government exists only because the world is fallen, and some people want to take your property, your liberty, and your life. Government is tasked with securing a framework for ordered liberty where “we the people” can in our communities voluntarily build something great together for our kids and grandkids. That’s America. Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of speech—the First Amendment is the heartbeat of the American Constitution, of the American idea itself.

Then he asks, “Do you believe the beating heart of Mr. Trump’s candidacy has been a defense of the Constitution? Do you believe it’s been an impassioned defense of the First Amendment—or an attack on it?” which he follows with numerous examples of Donald Trump’s public statements that show he’s in attack mode on our rights.

What will Senator Sasse do in this hypothetical? “If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, my expectation is that I will look for some third candidate—a conservative option, a Constitutionalist.”

I’m with him on that.

There are more #NeverTrumpers. Hobby Lobby founder David Green, whose company is under duress by the Obama administration to go against religious beliefs, says he will never vote for Trump. And Senator Marco Rubio began using the hashtag. Poor Donald had to face this while the news that he wouldn’t denounce David Duke and the KKK went viral, and suspicions about his fraud case, his refusal to reveal his taxes, and some unsavory, possibly mafia business connections have been bubbling up. Not a good weekend for him.

There are also comic sources of #NeverTrump. One is comedian John Oliver, on Last Week Tonight. In his 21-minute monologue, Oliver expresses what many of us feel:

At this point, Donald Trump is America’s back mole. It may have seemed harmless a year ago, but now that it’s gotten frighteningly bigger, it is no longer wise to ignore it.

Yes. Why didn’t we do something long before the weekend before Super Tuesday? (Oliver adds information about the Trump name, being changed at some point from Drumpf--which he thinks we should return to, just for the sound and look of it, in case you're interested.)

Most of us (the roughly 70-75% of Republican voters who vote against Trump in primaries) are stunned that there is support—in the party supposedly of good guys who love freedom, prosperity, and civilization—for this corrupt crony capitalist with a potty mouth and nonexistent moral compass. We’re in shock that he’s not just laughed off the political stage. Especially when we have had an array of not only acceptable but even exemplary candidates. Especially Ted Cruz, who was born and raised for such a time as this.

How can we even be in a position where we have to worry about this dilemma?

Angry, unthinking, uneducated voters who watch too much reality TV, is the answer.

But since it’s close enough to cause grave concern, it’s a good time to go through the thinking—before we feel like a gun is pointed at our heads. What will we do? What line will we not cross? How firm are we in our principles?

I pray this hypothetical never materializes. But it’s good, right now, to think things through. Party loyalty is only valuable if it gets us to our goal—back to the Constitution. But we will not sacrifice our beloved, inspired Constitution for someone who recently, temporarily, claimed to belong to our party while mocking who we are and what we stand for. I won't be "guilted" into party loyalty under these circumstances.

So, in short, #NeverTrump!