Losing On Principle

by Christopher G. Adamo

The conservative movement in America presently finds itself in a most contemptible position. Republican losses in November could put the U.S. House of Representatives under the domination of Democrats, while enhancing the standing of the iron-fisted Democrats who already enjoy a slight Senate majority. On the other hand, Republican gains in November, though much hoped for, may convince the GOP that "moderation" is a winning strategy, thereby encouraging greater pandering to liberal constituency groups. Either way, it is altogether likely that the end result will be a further abandonment of any conservative agenda.

So, just what has happened to conservatism? And why has it become such a "given" that the conservative ideology somehow never seems to translate into decisive action, but instead always ends up taking a "back seat" to the pressing need for compromise in each ensuing situation? The answer lies in the frequently convoluted definitions of "winning and losing."

Corporations flounder, and ultimately fail, when they regard next quarter’s bottom line as the sole issue of importance, rather than considering their business prospects from a long term perspective. Likewise, political movements suffer defeat when they strategize and assess their success or failure completely in terms of wins and losses by particular party members in the next election cycle.

Though Jim McGreevy, the Democratic candidate, won the 2001 New Jersey Governor’s race, the event nonetheless constituted a major victory for Republicans ... liberal Republicans that is. By subverting the candidacy of conservative Bret Schundler, they not only thwarted the implementation of a conservative agenda, they also sent a clear message to any other aspiring conservatives (along with potential supporters) that such efforts will be rendered futile by liberals within the party.

Unfortunately, when the situation was reversed and Christine Whitman, an ultra-liberal Republican, was herself in a tight race for that same office, conservatives rallied to her side under the mistaken notion that a liberal Republican was somehow preferable as Governor to a liberal Democrat. Though it was assumed that such an individual might possibly be more likely to support a portion of the Republican agenda at some crucial moment, bitter experience has consistently proven otherwise. Liberal Republicans are notorious for derailing worthwhile conservative efforts at critical junctures - a fact inarguably evidenced by last year’s treachery on the part of Jim Jeffords. Former Governor Whitman also stands as corroborating testimony to this very phenomenon, having undercut Bret Schundler’s efforts at the very moment when her endorsement could have done him the most good.

So, just what can possibly be done to fix this problem? The most common answer is to resort to the perennially fruitless efforts of forming a "third party." While several factors render this option a near impossibility, they also give evidence of just what must take place if the situation is ever to be improved. In reality, the American political system is highly conducive to a two-party structure, and despite occasional upheavals, it invariably reverts back to this form. On those rare occasions when a third party has ever enjoyed success, one of the previous parties would quickly dissipate, thus leaving its displaced members still with only two choices. In the long term, the only real change is to the leadership of the defunct party.

This being the case, a much more strategically feasible approach to the problem should be to alter the makeup of the present party from within while retaining its structure. However, this can only occur when party members determine that its guiding principles are more important than the number of elected individuals who associate themselves with its name. In other words, at whatever level the membership acknowledges that it simply cannot accept candidates or office holders who violate certain tenets, the actual philosophical platform of the party will have been established.

Tying these concepts back to the modern Republican Party, consider the following scenario. In the same manner that liberal “Republicans” in New Jersey achieved their twofold success, committed conservatives could target liberal Republicans, such as John McCain or Susan Collins, for ouster in subsequent elections. In a mirror image of the New Jersey Governor’s race, the benefits would also be twofold. First of all, there would be one less “maverick” in the ranks to betray the rest of the party. More significantly, those remaining Republican “moderates” would be on notice that certain "lines in the sand" exist which are not to be crossed. Candidates and office-holders who violate such limits can be assured that they will quickly be shown the exit door. Moderates are inherently guided by fear. Therefore it is incumbent upon conservative activists to make them more afraid of angering the base than of any criticism from the left.

“Winning” can no longer be defined simply by increased numbers of office holders who bear the Republican “label” while advancing every facet of the liberal agenda. Likewise, a reduced number of Republicans does not necessarily constitute “losing,” if such individuals are steadfast in their commitment to the conservative cause. Forty-four, or even forty-one, resolute Republican conservatives in the United States Senate would do far more to advance conservatism, or at least to stall the advance of liberalism, than solid Republican “majorities,” many of whom are far too comfortable speaking and voting like Democrats.

While such an approach is yet too bitter of a pill for many conservatives to swallow, the grim reality is that liberal infiltration and subversion of the Republican Party will continue until such time as the true Republican base says “Enough!” to the constant compromise of foundational principle, and takes the necessary action to remove those who violate such principles. Then, and only then, will Republican politicians know that they must take the convictions of their base into serious consideration. In the meantime, it is guaranteed that the lowering of “the bar” will continue unabated.

Growing up during the turbulent decades of the ‘60's and ‘70's, Christopher  Adamo saw, to his dismay, the nation's moral foundations being destroyed  before his very eyes. But even then he was a staunch Conservative at heart,  and rejected outright the tenets of America's counterculture revolution.

 After a hitch in the Air Force, where he specialized in airborne  electro- optical systems, he pursued a career in the field of aerospace,  working for major defense contractors in California, Florida, and Colorado. But his career plans abruptly changed during the industry-wide downsizing that followed the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Presently he is working in the field of industrial instrumentation in the state of Wyoming. Concurrently, he has become involved in that state's political process, attending state GOP conventions as a delegate, and serving as a member of the Wyoming Republican Central Committee. He has also aided in the candidacies of local legislators and state senators, as well as a U.S. Senator and Congresswoman.

From 1993 to 1996, he edited and wrote for “The Wyoming Christian”, the state newsletter for Christian Coalition of Wyoming. During that period, he developed an acute awareness of the harm being done to Conservatism by liberal activists within the Republican Party as well as the Democrats. This remains a favorite theme of his articles, which now appear as a regular feature on GOPUSA.