Turning the Herd: Someone Has to Get in Front and Lead

We’ve all seen the movie scene when the herd of cattle is stampeding toward the edge of the cliff. Someone must race to the front of the herd and turn it before the he

rd topples over to disaster. Most constitutional conservatives think that America is the cattle herd, and that disaster is imminent. To mix metaphors, it is as if Barack Obama and his heir apparent Hillary are pressing the pedal to the metal, and are driving the herd over the cliff side. Conservatives are desperately looking for someone to turn the herd.

I have no doubt that establishment Republicans can put forward a candidate who will competently manage the herd over the cliff’s edge. A McCain, a Romney, or a Bush would make sure that every bovine would keep in step as it races toward death. The establishment Republican might even slow down the pace, but the herd would meet its destined disaster, nonetheless.

Based upon their ineffectiveness in the Senate to stop the Obama agenda, we should envision Republican leaders such as Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio as those cowboys who race to the front

of the herd and promptly get run over and stomped into the ground. Republicans elected constitutional conservatives and gave them majorities in both House and Senate, but none of them have mounted effective opposition against the Obama agenda. They followed the establishment leadership of Boehner, McConnell, and Ryan, and they gave Obama everything he asked. They will not be able to turn the herd. They are unable to forge alliances necessary for effective leadership, and they will be trampled into the dirt.

We’re looking for the kind of leader who not only holds the right positions, but also knows how to lead—someone who is courageous enough to take a stand in front of all opposition, and who knows how to work the system to tur

n the herd.

In his time in public office, Santorum stormed Congress, exposed the bank scandal and changed congressional practice. Against a presidential veto, he pressed through Welfare Reform. With cultural winds against him and the Supreme Court as well, he effectively won the ban against Partial Birth Abortion. When Senate Republican Mark Hatfield decisively voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment, Santorum had his head; despite Jesse Helms’ surprising attempt to protect Hatfield, Santorum’s opposition to Hatfield culminated in Hatfield’s retirement from the Senate. These were all herd-turning moments for American life.

The only objection that constitutional conservatives have to Santorum is the assertion that he has no chance of winning. Yet, the Santorum campaign is well ahead of its 2012 game when he won the Iowa Caucuses after being down at 2% in the polls two weeks prior. The fact that the number two candidate in the 2012 election gets so little recognition from the Republican establishment is noteworthy. The Republican establishment seems to have little fear of Cruz or Rubio or Paul, but is deathly afraid of a Santorum presidency. They have seen him turn the herd before, and they know that his election would mean that their party is over.

Why the Nationally Renowned Evangelical Leaders Endorsed Santorum by a Supermajority

Evangelicals representing a large number of local and national organizations voted decisively today to endorse Rick Santorum. Here is the story and an explanation why they so overwhelmingly picked Santorum.

We evangelicals had been divided. In Iowa, we were split between Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry. Santorum left Iowa with a win (or a 2nd place win by a handful of votes). Bachmann quit the race, Perry should have, with Gingrich just ahead of Perry at the bottom of the pack.

In liberal New Hampshire, with the help of independents and cross over Obama supporters in the open primary, the moderates and the Libertarian won, but Santorum still came ahead of Gingrich, while Perry picked up but 1% of the vote.

Now Santorum heads into South Carolina with a win and a fourth place finish, and with an estimated 12 delegates, second only to Romney’s 20. None of the other conservatives have any delegates. Although Santorum has a clear advantage over the other conservatives on the early score, many evangelicals still felt divided among themselves. Their desperate desire to unite behind one conservative prompted them to seek guidance from their leaders.

In the effort to unite, about 150 nationally renowned evangelical leaders went to Texas, sequestered themselves for a two day retreat, and forged a consensus. Perry didn’t survive the first round of voting. In the third round, Santorum overwhelmingly beat Gingrich by a supermajority of 85-29.

Why did these evangelical leaders so decisively settle to endorse Santorum? I wasn’t invited, but as an evangelical scholar, here is my educated guess.

Preliminarily, evangelicals certainly were not going to support Romney simply because of his recent conversion to conservative social views; he is suspected to be a conservative of convenience, rather than a conservative of conscience. Similarly, they realize that Ron Paul is far removed from views favorable to the pro-life movement; like Pres. Obama, Paul does not think that the federal government has the responsibility to protect the rights of the unborn to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Of the other candidates, based on news reports, the question of electability was what bumped Perry out, leaving Santorum and Gingrich. This is a telling story, for it suggests that they also considered electability in the final choice between Gingrich and Santorum. To some extent, these leaders perceived Santorum as more electable than Gingrich. This makes sense for two reasons. First, Gingrich is perceived to have so much baggage that it could pay off the national debt in excess baggage fees. Secondly, Gingrich brings no electoral advantage to the election, while Santorum, with his Made-in-America plan, appeals strongly to the Reagan Democrats and the manufacturing sector of the Midwestern swing states http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/santorums-made-in-america-economic-plan.html. A win of Ohio and Pennsylvania converts into a Republican victory http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/beating-obama-which-republican-can.html.

In addition to evangelical leaders perceiving that Santorum is more electable than Gingrich, Santorum probably increased his lead over Gingrich through the perception that Santorum has more evangelical bona fides than Gingrich. In particular, Santorum is well known for living a life above reproach. I think evangelicals are quick enough to forgive Gingrich for his moral failings. However, evangelicals appreciate the value of a life-long commitment to morals, and are wary about entrusting leadership to recent converts http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/marital-fidelity-as-criterion-for.html.

The evangelical leaders probably also gave points to Santorum for his level of commitment to evangelical urgencies. To be sure, Gingrich holds to many of these same urgencies, but not as passionately as Santorum. Throughout Santorum’s career, he has shown that these evangelical priorities are written in his DNA and reach down to his very bones.

Ultimately, I suspect that these many evangelical leaders endorsed Santorum over Gingrich simply because they trust his leadership and because they find comfort in endorsing the most principled candidate.

In Defense of Iowa Being First

Out here beyond Iowa's borders, some Americans betray an impatience with Iowa being first in the nation. They ask, Why can't we have our primaries all on the same day? and, Why should the candidates spend so much time vying for the votes of a state with such a small population?

The quick and honest answer is that a same day primary for all 50 states would ensure that the candidate with the most money and best campaign ads would win. It would also prevent very capable candidates from running against the richer candidates. Establishment candidates would forever be granted an insuperable advantage over reformers and outsiders.

What Iowa affords to the rest of the country is the challenge to each candidate to spend time meeting extensively with the people--not in 10 minute bus tour stops, but in extensive townhall meetings, in personal discussions in intimate diners, and at potluck dinners after church services. The old story is true: one Iowan asks another, "Are you going to vote for Candidate Bob?" to which the reply is given, "I don't know yet. I've only met him twice." This kind of vetting goes so much further than the Madison Avenue imaging that the dollar can buy.

Stumping in Iowa town by town and county by county, candidates cannot hide behind slick marketing. They appear face to face with the voters, warts and all, as friends and neighbors come together to meet them, toting their children along in this great American process. There are no teleprompters to stand between candidates and the people, no handlers, no makeup artists, no canned mood-setting music; there are no re-takes of the camera. Here is the best way to find out who the candidates really are.

One of the great advantages of this kind of old fashioned campaigning is that there is genuine dialog between the candidates and the people. To be sure, candidates give their stump speeches, but there is always the inevitable question and answer period afterward. Politicians who rely on slick television advertizing never hear a word that the voters say. They come across as arrogant--as if they have all the answers, as if they don't need to hear anything else except their own voices, as if they don't care about the concern of Iowans. In contrast, candidates who wear out their shoes in Iowa are so much better informed about the real needs of real people. They know the name of the manufacturing plant that closed last month in the next county over, and how many laborers lost their jobs, and why.

Another significant good that comes out of traditional campaigning in person is that presidential candidates get to know elected officials at every level of government. In this particular election year, down-ticket Republican candidates benefit from appearing with national candidates; Republicans will capitalize on these promotional events at the general election. Madison Avenue campaigning not only denies down-ticket candidates this benefit, but also short-circuits the relationships that are forged between national candidates and local candidates.

Perhaps the biggest problem with politicians who rely on mass market advertizing is that they resort to such negative campaigning. In ad after ad, we hear menacing music as it introduces the hit piece, and see the scene merge from a delapidated school yard, into an unseemly picture of the opposing candidate who is portrayed as eating baby kittens, or some such. Real candidates talking face to face with the voters can't get away with such bafoonery. There's something de-humanizing about attack ads that does not translate when the candidate comes face to face with the community. Consequently, candidates who do the hard work of holding town meetings and shaking hands are able to carry on a civil discourse about their respective differences, knowing that decent citizens depict their opponents fairly.

Let us be thankful that Iowa is first. It brings out American idealism of community, honesty, and hard work. Candidates who do the hard work in Iowa are the type of people who keep elections from being bought by the almighty dollar.

Why "We Pick Rick" Speech Suggestions for Iowa Caucuses

Why "We Pick Rick" Speech Suggestions for Iowa Caucuses

Here are my talking points for those who will be speaking in favor of Sen. Santorum during the caucuses. It is important to note that these have not been approved by the campaign, and that they reflect only my own personal suggestions. Any suggestions from the campaign should take priority over mine. I should also note that I have never been to an Iowa caucus, and that I've only been to Iowa twice; thus, your own gut instinct should take precedent over any of my ideas.

PUBLIC SPEAKING BASICS

Consider a personal narrative: "this is my story of how I came to support Sen. Santorum" might work better than "these are the reasons why you should vote for Sen. Santorum." For an example, see my narrative on my blog theo-politico.blogspot.com (although it is too long for the caucus speeches): http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-justification-for-endorsing-rick.html.

Speeches usually have an introduction, an attention-getter. Some Santorum supporters have already made the good suggestion of starting with the Rush Limbaugh quote where he says he'd never have to wonder if Santorum would do the right thing as president (or some such). (You don't need to waste words by indicating that Rush is a talk show host, since every one knows this already.)

Reduce your speech down to the time limit not by eliminating content, but by saying things more concisely. Ultimately, you may have to cut out content, but look for ways of restructuring syntax to eliminate unecessary words, etc.

Don't rush your speech. Vary your tempo with fast and slow moments. Vary your dynamics: saying something almost in a whisper can be as effective as shouting it. Practice your speech, timing it, over and over again. If you must read it, do so while maintaining eye contact with your audience. Be passionate.

Consider producing a handout. Make sure it is pleasant to the eyes. Proof it carefully and have someone else proof it too: typos and bad English can produce a negative reaction in some people. Pass them out quickly and efficiently so that you don't waste speech time.

Conclude with an appeal. "Because of all of these urgencies (etc.), I'm asking you, would you please vote for Sen. Santorum" (or some other similarly worded appeal).


TALKING POINTS

Spell out Reagan's three legged stool of conservatism: free markets (less intrusive government), national security, and social issues. Invoking Reagan's name is always good, especially if you show how Santorum leads on these three issues and scores the highest points on all three:

free markets (less intrusive government): Rick has led on balanced budget amendment and line item veto, fought against TARP and the second stimulus, etc. He authored and managed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, which was the first time ever a federal entitlement has been eliminated. Etc.

national security: Rick is the acknowledged expert on the MIddle East; he served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and is the author of 217 articles dealing with Islamic extremism in the series The Gathering Storm.

social issues: Sen. Santorum has authored every pro-life legislation that has passed the Senate in the last 20 years (you could list all his pro-life legislation specifically).


Explain why Santorum can win:

Primary strategy: 1) score big in Iowa and establish himself as a top tier candidate; 2) do respectably well in New Hampshire (where he has a strong organization and key endorsements); and 3) win in South Carolina (where he has a strong organization, key endorsements, and won the most important SC caucus of the year).

General Election strategy: any Republican who can keep the red states (including Florida) and swing both Ohio and Pennsylvania will win the election. Santorum's Made in America plan to revitalize manufacturing will appeal to the rustbelt states of the Midwest better than any of the other candidates' economic plan. Santorum is more likely to pick up Ohio and Pennsylvania moreso than any other candidate, and will be viable in the blue states of Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Since she has never ran in a state-wide election, Bachmann may not win her own state, let alone Ohio and Pennsylvania. Romney won't deliver Massachusetts. And although Perry and Gingrich could carry Texas and Georgia, any Republican could do so.


ONE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE:
Emphasize that conservatives must get behind one single conservative candidate, otherwise the conservative of convenience, Mitt Romney, will be the de facto winner. You might want to cite Bob Vander Plaats as having made this argument.

Before criticizing any of the other candidates, emphasize that the goal is to defeat Obama and that you will support the nominee whoever it is. Also, emphasize that each of the candidates has his or her own strengths, and that they would all make reasonably good presidents (I have my own reservations about Paul). For an analysis of each candidate's weaknesses, see my forthcoming blog artice (it will probably be posted tomorrow, Tuesday). It might be a good strategy to mention a candidate's weakness in passing while discussing Rick's strengths, rather than giving a list of negatives for each candidate.

MADE IN AMERICA
Be sure to point out Rick's unique emphasis on the revitalization of manufacturing in the US. Repeatedly use the phrase "Made in America plan." Talk about how this will impact specific towns near your precinct--towns which have closed down due to the loss of manufacturing. Be passionate about bringing back manufacturing jobs for the sake of small Iowa towns such as (???).

Please leave any further suggestions in the comment section.