Commentary
We Republicans shouldn't punish members for following their conscience
by Bill PaulsenLonsdale, Minn. — Last Saturday, the Minnesota Republican State Central Committee voted 59-55 to expel 18 well-known, self-identified Republicans from the party for supporting Tom Horner for governor in last month's election. Those expelled include two former governors, a former U.S. senator and more than a dozen former legislators. I am a delegate to this committee who strongly opposed this resolution and voted against it.
This vote reminds me of the 2008 Minnesota Republican State Convention in Rochester. Delegates who supported Ron Paul were prevented from voting for delegates of their choice to the Republican National Convention because the party believed that a show of unity was more important than letting people vote their consciences. The result was that strong supporters of Republican principles in Minnesota sat on the sidelines in the subsequent election.
Later that year, U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman lost his reelection bid by 300 votes, fewer than the number of Paul supporters at the state convention. I am convinced a bitterly split state convention, where activists were excluded from the process, weakened the party and contributed to the subsequent election loss.
As one who disagreed with the party's actions in 2008, I must disagree with the party's action last Saturday even though I oppose on principle many of the policies put forward by the expelled individuals and the candidate they supported. I am prolife and believe the Republican Party must be a strong advocate for fiscal restraint.
I rejected Tom Horner's candidacy because he wanted to expand government, even arguing for using federal dollars to expand government medical programs. This makes Minnesota's most needy, and the state's taxpayers, more dependent on the federal government, an unwise proposition with the federal government's finances in bad shape.
While I criticize the individuals named in the resolution for backing a candidate who opposed limited government, the process used by the State Central Committee is not the way to handle the issue. As a delegate to the committee, I had no notice before the meeting that this vote was to take place. Worse, there was no opportunity for the accused Republicans to defend themselves before their expulsion.
As a private organization, the Republican Party has the right to set rules for its members. But I am disappointed that Republicans did not uphold the basic rights of due process in the party's own proceedings against its own members.
By its action, the State Central Committee set the precedent for a centralized body to decide who is and who is not a Republican. Rather than centralized control and exclusion, local Republicans must understand where these individuals stand on issues and why limited-government conservatives disagree with their positions. Convincing the voters of the wisdom of limited government on issues including helping the unfortunate and resolving our budget woes is the way to build a strong party.
Some defend the committee's action by arguing the party must enforce discipline against those who supported the candidate of a different party. The argument assumes that without such discipline, voters will not trust the Republican Party to stand for freedom and conservative values. However, a party supporting individual rights must be driven by individuals in the grassroots. Thus, when dealing with particular individuals and whether they should serve in the party, delegates and activists in the party at the local level must have the wisdom to decide if these individuals listed in the resolution represent their values.
I know fiscal conservatives, who do not affiliate with the Minnesota GOP, who are turned off by the tactics used last Saturday. The crisis in Greece and the fiscal problems in states from California to Minnesota demonstrate that big-government solutions to social and economic problems have failed. But to govern and solve these problems, conservatives must engage everyone who is sympathetic to their policy goals, holding to their principles yet avoiding the mistake of building artificial walls.
----
Bill Paulsen, Lonsdale, is an engineer in the electronics industry. In 2008 he was the Rice County coordinator for the Ron Paul for President campaign and in 2010 sought the Republican endorsement for Minnesota Senate District 25. He is a delegate to the Minnesota Republican Party State Central Committee, representing Rice and southern Scott Counties. He is a source in MPR's Public Insight Network.
Comments (7)
Excellent write-up, Bill. And while I can't say I agree with all that you said, I can agree that the Minnesota Republican Party continues to be less and less relevant, something which an increasing number of its former members/delegates know all to well.
It's all good, though.
The MN GOP's continued betrayal of it's own platform and principles, and, therefore, it's own members, will only serve to shine a light on the oft-vilified yet much-needed third parties.
You go, GOP!
I commend Bill for his courage to state the obvious concerning the motion. I would add the following facts as well. First, this motion would never have passed had not 30-40% of the delegates left early. Second, the supporters of the motion ignored the KSTP election poll which indicated Horner actually too more votes away from Dayton.
Lastly, the motion appears to from a group of sore loser adapted children who simply cannot move forward.
Nobody has accused me of being PC! :-)
Actually Don, the MN GOP is becoming more relevant, not less, but you keep chanting your chant if it makes you feel better. The results this year were due to the MN GOP using a flyswatter, while the leftards used a sledgehammer. They smashed Emmer relentlessly and the MN GOP only fought back on fiscal issues, not personal ones or social issues.
As for sore loser children as you call them. We are simply tired of the msm (marxist socialist media) fawning over these tired old RINOs who occasionally drag themselves to a press conference, yearning for attention, and proclaiming that THEY are the real Republicans and we should follow their lead. They are neither socially nor fiscally conservative and are no longer relevant to anyone besides themselves. Good riddance to them. By the way, none of you pointed out the truth that these old losers were not expelled permanently, but for 2 years. This gives them plenty of time to decide which party they want to be part of and if they want to again be accepted as Republicans, atone for their backstabbing actions.
They could've easily "followed their conscience" by voting any way they wanted to, in the voting booth. They had no excuse for standing up at press conferences, pretending to be the voice of "moderate" Republicans, totally repudiating the candidate of the party they claim to be a member of and represent and then endorse a third party candidate. That's like Martin Luther saying he's the real Catholic. Up to the point they endorsed Horner, they were in bounds. They left the party, the party did not leave them. I'm all for changing the State Constitution.
Bill is correct. The outcome of this election represents exactly the tenuous nature of the coalitions that the Republicans forged. They knew that the third party was heavily invested in solving fiscal problems and less so in social issues. The Democrats knew this, and in the Governor's race they were successful in deflecting the voters attention, in spite of the efforts of the Republicans to stay on topic (fiscal, fiscal, fiscal). The presence of a third party candidate was sufficient to throw that election to the Democrats.
Meanwhile, at the district level (House and Senate) the discussions were much more controllable, and it is this that led to the sweeping Republican victory.
The Republicans need to do something quickly (I have been saying within the next two months). They need to use their fiscal message and alliances to make hard choices to deal with the $6B deficit. This is horribly complicated by the presence of an alliance that bridges from the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) who are all about the undiscussed social issues, including supporting some sorts of economic safety nets (well, some do) to the extreme Liberty components of the Libertarian wing, who probably much more about fiscal restraint first.
The Republicans must come to terms with the idea of being less monolithic, though, it is my opinion that if they do not remain fiscally conservative they will lose much of the support they borrowed to win in 2010.
I just thought it was tilting at windmills. The resolution very clearly spelled out that these people were calling themselves "former Republicans," so a motion to declare them former Republicans hardly seems in order. If the intent was to "protect the brand" then all we had to do was to point out that these folks were /former/ Republicans, and that they left the Party; we didn't need to demonstrate that the Party left them. You protect the brand by having your elected officials govern according to Republican principles. But of course that requires you to be elected, meaning you have to make people believe that you believe in conservative principles and conservative solutions. Fairly simple, but not common.
We should be trying to get people INTO the Party, not pushing them out. As I said at the meeting, anybody willing to call themselves a Republican should be welcome to the party. Those who stray should be asked to come before us and explain (as Al Quie did in a forum I attended a few weeks ago; he didn't convince anybody). We can have the debate without excommunicating people.
Our BPOU constitution spells out clearly that if you are an officer and actively oppose the endorsed GOP candidate, you MAY be asked to give up your position. NONE of these people hold any elected position within the Party, so what was the point?
If someone were to rape your sister would you invite him to church with you next Sunday? Not likely until he at minimum spent some time doing restitution. Call them RINOs (Republican in name only) neocons (Neoconservatives),or worse; all of these folks are big government tax and spenders. They're media darlings because they are Democrats in Republican clothing. Quie is still talking about raising taxes like he did every year in office. Ozment helped write and pass the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment which has been hijacked by "Arts" spending (e.g. European trips for aspiring artists). Two years in the penalty box is not hardly enough.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Latest News & Features
News Cut
with Bob CollinsIn The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock