Politics of People, Ideas, and Minority Reports

I mentioned the other day that I prefer talking about ideas, and persuading people toward ideas, much more than persuading people toward people or groups of people—which is what people usually think of as politics.

There were some examples from last week’s Republican Party of Texas Convention in San Antonio.

There was a vote for the state party chair. A year ago James Dickey was appointed to replace the previous chair midterm, voted in by the SREC Committee (two representatives from each of the 31 state senatorial districts). He’s been big on transparency, to involve the grassroots. And his fundraising has gone fairly well too.

It’s an important year. After the US president is elected, the midterm election tends to lose seats in that party. We don’t want that to happen. Here in Harris County, despite the Republican win for president and every statewide race, the Democrats swept Harris County. That means every judge position that was on the ballot, the county tax assessor, the DA—all went Democrat. This election, all those positions that weren’t on the ballot in 2016 are on the ballot this time. With very few exceptions, that would mean judges who make law from the bench, build up a tremendous backlog of cases, and more voter fraud. Not good.

We’re doing what we can here in Harris County. But having a statewide party that runs well is important. We really would prefer to reclaim some of those losses, rather than have more. Life is just better that way—economically and socially.

The campaign literature was piling up.

So the question was, is James Dickey doing well enough? I thought so, but I was willing to hear from the challenger, Cindy Asche. I was unable to attend a forum where they both presented their views and took questions. But I watched two of those forums online. Asche seemed to be saying, “Sure, the numbers look like we’re breaking records, but they should be better.” That’s not a great argument for change. And then, when that didn’t work, “He’s the most corrupt we’ve ever seen,” without any evidence that I could take seriously. He quoted a data point wrong at one point, and then corrected it publicly as soon as he became aware of it.

So I had decided on Dickey before the convention. It helped that he and Alma Jackson, candidate for Vice-Chair, came and met us personally at our Tea Party meeting the Saturday before the convention. But, with as much advertising as there was, especially on Asche’s part, I couldn’t tell how close the race was going to be.

The caucus vote took place Friday morning. Each senatorial district held a vote, and then the Committee representative took that weighted result (based on size of the delegation, rather than single votes—SD 7, where I live, is I believe the biggest delegation in the state) to a committee meeting, where they tallied everything and presented a report to the body later that day.

This is a somewhat indirect process. The Nominations Committee Report tells what the caucuses voted, which is a recommendation. That means their recommended person’s name is automatically nominated on the floor for the whole body of delegates to approve. And the floor is open to any other nomination (depending on who met certain paperwork criteria by a set time). Because Cindy Asche was already running, she was eligible to be nominated from the floor.

That happened—but not until after a minority report form the Nominations Committee. A minimum of 9 of the 31 senatorial districts’ representatives is required to sign a minority report, which signifies that a significant minority felt different from the majority.

The weighted vote was shown on the big screen.

But, remember, the report was just what was recommended. It’s just a tally—which was, by the way, around 66% for Dickey and 34% for Asche, so not a close race. Anyway, to sign a minority report to the Nominations Committee Report means, essentially, that this minority feels strongly that the report is wrong—as in counted in error, or fraudulent. Of course they didn’t make that claim; they just wanted to say a significant minority had a different preference. So they really had no business making a minority report.

So there were objections on the floor. And then there was vote after vote on procedural issues. The acting chair for this set of procedures was Amy Clark, State Party Vice-Chair (up until the convention—she wasn’t running for reelection). There was a voice vote that appeared pretty clearly to me to go to the nays. But, if it isn’t clear on a voice vote, the Vice-chair has the prerogative of requesting an actual count—a paper vote handed in and counted.

She did this to avoid any appearance of preferential treatment for Chairman Dickey. But this was objected to, with a series of procedural things that failed. The objections took more time than simply taking the yea/nay vote by silent ballot would have taken.

During the shenanigans, someone yielded her time to another older woman who announced she was stepping down from her position as an accountant, which was clearly out of order and was halted immediately. But that was weird.

Then one signer of the minority report offered to remove his signature from the report, if it could be guaranteed that Asche’s name could be put into nomination from the floor—without his signature, there would be too few signatures, so it was a withdrawal of the minority report. That wasn’t actually a deal; her name could always have been placed into nomination from the floor. But people were glad to have the minority report taken off the table.

Eventually the two candidates got, I think it was 5 minutes each, to talk. When James Dickey came on stage, a large number of state representatives stood on stage behind him, backing him up. And his speech was upbeat and called attention to the good things underway.

Asche came up alone, and angry, and said, even though she’d been accused of mudslinging, etc., this was really about… after which came more mudslinging. She brought up the accountant who stepped down. She claimed that this woman thought Chairman Dickey was the most corrupt she’d ever worked with. The proof? He wanted the data in Excel, a spreadsheet, rather than a PDF format. She claimed this meant he could change the data at will.

But it would not change the report as sent in. That would be time stamped. There would be the original report, and copes would be made for working with. Chairman Dickey actually uses Google Docs, Google Sheets, etc., which automatically back up—and you can go back to each and every version. So, really all he was asking for was a format that would make the data more usable than in a PDF. He wouldn’t have to have staff retype the data into a spreadsheet, possibly incorporating typos. And that was the essence of Asche’s accusation. In other words, the older accountant woman had issues with modern technology, and I suspect she was taken advantage of.

Chairman Dickey handling convention
business the day after his reelection

So Asche used a full four hours of 8000+ people—time that had been intended for the Rules Committee Report and the beginning of platform debate. She thought her five minutes of accusation—following many weeks of campaigning and after all those hours of parliamentary procedure pain—would be enough to sway more than 16% of the voters to change their caucus-cast vote from Dickey to Asche.

It turned out she lost votes, even in districts she had carried. As a certain spouse of mine quipped, the delegates “kicked her in the Asche.”

The more we saw of her. The less we liked her. If there’s one thing for certain, it’s that we don’t want someone like her leading the party.

So what was that all about? Just extreme narcissism on her part? Probably partly that. But it was also a fight between the grassroots, transparent approach that Dickey has been championing and the older party boss type of GOP, as it was when Asche’s father, Bill Crocker, had been our national committeeman, in the early 2000s. There are some people who would rather have a party elite lead the party, rather than go the way of the grassroots. They didn’t say that outright in their campaigning, because of course that would fail. So they had to make other claims. But they just didn’t have much going for them.

So Friday afternoon at the convention was pretty much wasted on some unnecessary people politics.

I’d like to contrast that with the debates we had on the platform, which were about ideas rather than people. Some of the more heated topics were medical marijuana, school choice, and homosexuality along with what have become related First Amendment freedoms. And another minority report.

As with that Asche floor debate, this has already taken too long. So we’ll do the platform discussion as a part II another day.

Ideology vs. Politics

I am more ideological than political. I recognize that participation in the political world is necessary in order to prevent those with opposing ideologies from imposing them on me. But I do not enjoy the political game. I am much more content to talk about ideas, and I would like to trust that wording things well so that everyone can make informed decisions will lead to the right outcome. That is, in large part, my mission here at the Spherical Model.

Meanwhile, what politically minded people know is that ideology only wins if the politics win—if the movement of public opinion is handled like a well-advertised business. Not enough people are thinkers. Not enough people pay attention. Yes, it’s important that I explore the ideas and think clearly, for my own sake and for sharing with others. But that is not enough.

This is an off-election year, so I don’t feel as pressed to engage politically. But maybe that makes it a good time to explore a discomfort zone without undue pressure.

I came across a discussion of this dichotomy over the weekend. The spelling (and bio of the author, Stephen Masty) show a British or beyond-American perspective, but the conversation applies to America nevertheless. The overall piece makes a few main points:

·        Progressives don’t engage in truthful ideological discussion; instead, they claim a desire to serve mankind and other untruths that sell.

·        Politicians, whether they claim progressive or conservative ideologies, are about building power; that is the profit they seek in their peculiar market-view.

·        Because growth of their circle of power is the goal, cutting back big government isn’t going to get done by politicians.

But the piece ended with the challenge I find I face:

Real conservatives, noble and reflective for the most part, usually debate an idea on its merits and avoid stooping to conquer. They ought to reconsider. It is not to say that conservatives should stop dissecting the misdirections and false hopes of the Progressives, but they must also engage in real-politik and expose the political agendas behind the platitudes; some groups do this already. How the bureaucracy and politicians benefit by department and function and overall, will reveal their greed for their own kinds of profit.

But exposure requires research, which is harder work than sitting in the study with Aristotle, Jefferson and even Russell Kirk. Both tasks are essential; one to provide cultural bearings and civilisational direction, the other to sell the product to a cynical multitude that is already suspicious of politicians.

It might be true, then, that we need to learn or discover ways to “sell” the truths of freedom, free enterprise, and civilization, rather than just “convey” them.

If we were to look at the last presidential election, we’d find this challenge laid out. Romney conveyed conservative ideology—always. He had done so consistently for many years before even his first run. You can’t find non-conservative ideas, unless you parse a phrase here and there during his challenging effort to convey the ideas to people who don’t understand conservative principles. The enemy portrayed him, successfully and completely untruthfully, as privileged and out of touch with real people, to build class envy against someone who knew, through experience, how to fix complicated problems—in business, in government, in volunteer organizations; combining brilliant business sense, strong use of data, and unerring integrity. Everything I knew about Romney before the election, and what I have continued to see since, is that no candidate has ever been better qualified, while also being a completely honorable individual, to be our president in our times. The difference between him and our current president is stunningly stark. [I wrote about Romney here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.]

But on the conservative side, he is still spoken of as the wrong candidate, because he wasn’t conservative enough—according to the arguments of only his enemies (primary opponents, followed by final election opponents) instead of actual known facts about the man.

I don’t think he ran a bad campaign. But I think there may be some truth in the assessment that honorable conservatives go into the debate assuming it’s about ideas. The enemy goes in assuming it’s about grabbing power, any and every way possible, and any means to that end are justified in their minds.

I don’t know the answer to how truth tellers can move the masses. When we look at Reagan, that is what he seemed to

President Ronald Reagan 1981
official portrait

have—an ability to cut through the ideologically leftist-controlled media and speak directly to people in a way that resonated. He was clear. He was direct. He rendered complicated matters uncomplicated: “Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win; they lose.” Diplomats cringed. But the boldness and directness translated into the principle of “peace through strength.” Using bold words was leadership.

I don’t think you’ll find significant ideological differences between Reagan and Romney. I think in Romney you would see peace through strength as a guiding principle, and limited government as designed by the Constitution a guide for economic recovery. Both men can be described as resolute and consistent in their conservatism. But Reagan had power over the message in ways we haven’t seen since.

I don’t know why Reagan had power over the message. I believe there are many today who articulate the message well, and often with similar plainness and boldness. It is the selling of the ideas to the masses that I fail to understand.

I don’t think we’ll find a candidate more perfect than Romney was. A more experienced and better human being is unlikely to appear again in a generation. So what we will need is someone conservative enough, resolute enough, articulate enough—surrounding by an army of people who not only understand and believe in ideological truth, but also know how to connect that truth to an attention deficit public. We need honorable idea salesmen.