When, in the History of governments has Bigger been better?

Senator John McCain suggested in a recent interview that Republicans need to show their leadership by presenting the nation with “Their” version of a jobs bill. 

Do Republicans really believe that economic salvation lies in another piece of legislation?

I don't think John needs a better jobs plan, I think they need a better idea.

I recently watched an in depth interview with Sal Giunta, the Army SSgt who was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions in an ambush in the Korengal Valley Afghanistan.  He stated that he didn't advance to save his buddy from being hauled off by three bad guys.  He advanced because "that was the next step."  It wasn't the first step, it wasn't the most important step.  It wasn't the last step.  Everyone in his squad was simply doing what they were supposed to do.

Dig up the interview with his squad leader...SSgt. Erick Gallardo.  He tells the interviewer that it was "Army Doctrine" that saved the lives of his squad.  They responded to the ambush in accordance with the training he and his squad had received over and over and over again.  Sticking to the "doctrine" or process they knew instinctively.

Those guys didn't stop the minute the bullets started flying and pull out the manual and try to discover what they should do.  Nobody suggested they form a committee to gather facts and propose a plan and nobody suggested rewriting the manual.  They recognized an L-shaped ambush because they'd seen it a hundred times in training.  They all began taking the "steps" they'd practiced, and then the next and then the next.  And that is why all but two of them walked out of a valley that could have cost all of them their lives.

If you’re a Conservative, the “Bad Guys” are the people and politicians who think government, whether its local, state or federal, is supposed to solve problems.  Our “Doctrine” is the Constitution.  It proposes “That government is best which governs least.”  Jefferson said it “chains” the government to a minimal role. But, he goes on to say, it is up to US to maintain those chains.

I don't believe for a second that salvation lies in Sacramento or DC.  Government can't 'solve' the problem because it IS the problem. (Seems I've heard that somewhere before)

Do we need bailouts, “Super-Committees” national healthcare, immigration reform, carbon-offsets, wealth redistribution or even a jobs bill? We’re human, we like short stories and happy endings.  We like solutions and magic bullets.  We’re the generation of diet pills and lipo-suction. I hate to say it, but we got ourselves into this mess.  It may be the calling of our generation to 'suffer' the slow and agonizing crawl out of the swamp in order to learn to avoid it in the future.

I'm a BIG fan of innovation and new ideas, but I think the Founders’ idea of government turned on a much smaller scale.  We have the tools to save our cities, our states and even our nation, but it doesn't lie in more legislation, it lies in exercising the Constitution...it is not our governments’ role to solve problems.

Why not be the New Guard that Jefferson called forth?  Why not simply monitor and hold federal, state and local lawmakers accountable?  Why not rebuke government attempts to overreach in the name of “help” or ‘solutions”??

 We’re locked in mortal opposition with one-hundred-million “bad guys”.  They’re well trained, well funded and committed.  I believe the "Doctrine" favors us.  But we have to train, train, train, and then execute. That will get We the People out of this valley.

Jobs Bill?  No thanks, I’ve got the Constitution.

I'm not sure if I was supposed to just say..."Brilliant"  Fortunately, Senator McCain didn't ask me because my political instincts seem poor.  And I know I'm goring the ox of the guys who make a living collecting and spending money on political campaigns, but I still think elections can be won without a lot of money, the best solutions are local and the best way to govern is from the bottom up, not the top down.  How we do that is, of course, the subject of my books   http://www.onemancan.org (a shameless little plug there).

Thanks for asking!

What do YOU think? 

The RIGHT Way To Win Elections

Home of the New Guard

How Conservatives Can Win In California

Both Liberals and Conservatives alike agree there are serious flaws in the election process which lead to corruption, influence peddling and expanding government.

The Problem: Supporters

Running for office costs a lot of money. What's even worse is that high cost actually hurts the quality of candidates that make it to general elections and provides for their corruption once in office.

Campaign fundraising obligates candidates to too many SUPPORTERS (contributors) too quickly in the process.

The high price discourages all but the naive or selfishly ambitious from entering the fray.

The naive lose and the ambitious become corrupted.

As an example:

In a sparsely populated corner of San Diego county a pastor, Brian Hendry, ran as a republican against the democratic nominee, Juan Vargas, for a state senate seat. The seat had been vacated by a democrat who termed out. Vargas spent $750,000 just to win the democratic nomination. Money from every liberal union PAC in and outside of California, Indian tribes and even major corporations usually associated with 'conservatives' poured into his campaign. Did Hendry stand a chance with a $20,000 war chest?

To win the Republican nomination Hendry did not have to demonstrate his commitment to conservative principles. He had to demonstrate his ability to raise money and build his own organization. The Senate district is heavily democratic, so the "Supporters" wouldn't touch him.

The current GOP "Establishment" will either toss Hendry aside for someone who can raise more money or give up ever winning the seat and simply roll out a sacrificial lamb every election cycle.

Unless Atlas shrugs, all hope for California is lost, because money follows power and vice-versa. Elected officials use public money and regulations to enrich their Supporters and remain in power. Conservatives must expand their power (grow government) in order to get re-elected. A lawmaker won't last by cutting someone's entitlement, job or pension. Incumbents are so deeply entrenched here, as in many states and districts, that even term limits cannot rebalance the game.

The Solution: Voters

Liberals want the goverment to control or dilute "Supporter" Influence by throwing regulation (contribution limits) at the problem, or worse, tax dollars (pubically funded campaigns). Government solutions should be anathema to Conservatives.

So what's a Conservative to do?

The New Guard

One person in your precinct volunteers to co-ordinate.*

That person recruits 10 friends and neighbors who like to spend time together.

Those friends commit to staying informed. Some go to school board meetings, some go to water district meetings, some go to city council and county board meetings. All of them continue to hang out together, barbecue, watch football and have dinner. Part of their conversations include whose doing what in these meetings. The team starts saying hello again to other neighbors as opportunity allows. They make new friends in the neighborhood as time goes on. And they discover who is a conservative and who is a liberal. They'll discover a whole bunch of 'democrats' who agree with them on a large number of issues and independents by the swarm.

In short order, and by design, this precinct team has becomes a significant center of influence within their precinct.

Now, roll the clock forward to election time:

For the last 12 months you've been the "go-to guy" on nearly every topic on the ballot. Over coffee you've told all your neighbors who you're backing. Better yet, you've had a candidate over for a meet-n-greet and your neighbors were there. Meanwhile your neighborhood is being buried in an avalanche of campaign mailers taking every position on every issue and candidate. What has more influence with your neighbor--- a flyer, a billboard, a tv commercial, or a face-to-face referral?

This is "the New Guard"

Candidate A gets introduced to hundreds of VOTERS in a precinct. Candidate B sends 100 flyers. Who wins the precinct? Candidate A didn't have to raise a dime or build an organization. He or she only has to demonstrate and then serve according to their conservative principles. Candidate A AND the Precinct win.

The meet-n-greet was easy because the candidate didn't have to ask anyone for money so you invited everyone. Everyone came because they weren't going to get squeezed. They asked good questions and the candidate got to answer them. It's even easier with propositions and non-candidate ballot measures.

The New Guard is the People taking government back from the politicians. Now the People control the Precinct and the Precinct controls the election. Money doesn't control the candidate, the precincts control the candidate. The Candidate doesn't own the organization. He or she didn't build it, but emerged from it. It doesn't matter who the media endorses, no one trusts the media. It doesn't matter what the ads say, no one reads them. Everyone tunes them out.

The New Guard provides trusted information to their neighbors/voters. If the candidate fails his precinct, the New Guard sounds the alarm and the precinct replaces its candidate.

This system bypasses the biggest hurdle in attracting candidates...fundraising. This system bypasses the biggest corruption in politics...fundraising. Supporters no longer have the upper hand and conservatives don't have to grow government to win elections. More good people can step up and remain good people once they get elected. Now we've got good people in government who respond to the VOTERS in their precincts.

What they do when they're there is the subject of future installments...or go to http://www.onemancan.org/ , join the New Guard and start today.

*By joining the New Guard, team leaders have access to proven training, tools and resources for organizing and expanding their network.

Tweet

Why Do We Shoot Our Wounded?

I have a great friend who served...and I mean served, he didnt just occupy the seat...for a southern California assembly district for two terms. An On-fire conservative who after term-limiting out of Sacramento, took a stab at a vacated Congressional seat. He lost in the primary, but continued to pour himself into conservative causes. He led the charge to recall Gray Davis. He helped give the tea party movement national gravitas, changing the course of several national elections and who can even begin to estimate the ripple effect on local elections around the country.

I mention him because at dinner a few weeks ago he confessed to me that..." After losing the congressional bid I accepted that I was politically dead."

Nick Popaditch, a conservative candidate for the 51st Congressional district in San Diego, California this past November fought as fierce a firefight as a Marine could hope for against a deeply entrenched and long-term liberal incumbent. This incumbent is returning to Washington. And again, at dinner, Popaditch revealed to me that losing is like dying. Everyone offers their condolences, then starts the search for another candidate.

A very well acknowledged tea party "organization"...national scale, million-dollar budget...proposes as part of their strategy for 2011-12 to connect with, celebrate and "model" the tea party candidates who won, not a word about the Joe Millers and Christine O' Donnells.

Don't get me wrong. Of course you need to model winning strategy. But Conservatives prefer to shoot their wounded.

I've got a better idea. Lets embrace the battle-scarred and beaten. Lets hear their wisdom, study the intel they've brought back from the field, encourage them and put them back in the fight. These are the people who have demonstarted a willingness to pledge their lives, their fortunes and sacred honor in defense of the Constitution. How many of us will step forward if we demonstrate the cost of failure is banishment. We lose this seasoned candidate's organization, goodwill and experience.

How many elections did Abraham Lincoln lose before he was elected president? We celebrate wins, but we study losses.

We shoot the wounded because we're looking for heroes-David, stepping into the valley to slay Goliath. We don't want to think of David as being no better than us. Either we're so arrogant that we refuse to support anyone less "perfect" than ourselves or so insecure that imperfections strike to close to home, and remind us of our own shortcomings. We rally behind our champion and, failing, quickly toss them aside in disappointment, even embarassment.

The "Opposition" counts on this conflict. Saul Alinsky, the chief tactician for liberal "organizers," writes in his handbook the fourth rule of power: Makethe enemy live up to their own rules. He writes this because he knows that we HAVE rules. We won't always live up to our "rules" (we're human) so we're hypocrites. We don't like facing that truth so we typically sit silent on the sidelines or, if a candidate loses, we toss them aside and look for a more perfect representative.

Since we're all wounded, why not build on the experience of battle-scars. If we aren't going to be combatants, let's be good corner-men. Having trotted out a champion-asking him or her to take a few shots for the team-let's leave them in the fight for the second or third round, even if they stumbled in the first.

America loves a winner, but we also love a comeback.

Tweet