The Math Of Surrender: How Conservatives Negotiate Themselves Into Oblivion

We have an issue here in my adopted state of Utah, the same one that turned our bordering states from red to purple to blue over the years – and in my opinion, if something doesn’t change, Utah, once a reliable bastion of conservativism will be the same as Colorado within the next two or three election cycles.

The problem is not so much our standards for a conservative candidate, it is that our standards change and the baseline resets with every election cycle.

The current process in a “conservative” state where most are considered to be conservative is that when we vet candidates, we compare them to other candidates in the field, we don’t compare them to fixed standards of ideology, so selection becomes an exercise in relatives and it results in something I call “compounded concession” or “progressive surrender” (pun intended).

There are unquestionably some absolute rules of politics and governance: 1) you can’t govern if you can’t get elected, 2) you can’t change government from the outside, therefore, 3) electability is important, 4) true political change is a long term proposition and 5) we need the presidency AND control of Congress to make any structural changes.

It is the same within the several states; you need solid control of government to change (or defend) things.

This may appear to create a “Sophie’s choice” sort of thing for conservative Republicans who will have to choose a candidate by electability over being a perfect conservative but only if we singularly focus only on the next election. I know many people who voted for Bob Barr in 2008 because they couldn’t stomach voting for McCain but voting for an unelectable candidate may be ideologically satisfying, but in a two party race, it is the same as not voting—a guarantee to get a Democrat elected.

In such a scenario, a 60% conservative Republican is better than any Democrat—but only for that single cycle.

It is a reasonable rationalization that even a 60% conservative is better than a 0% conservative, and that is true, but what tends to happen is that 60% conservative becomes the baseline and the next election cycle, the vote goes to 60% of 60%, or 36% of the original number. At 36%, we are getting into “moderate” Democrat territory and if the baseline is reestablished again over time, you get 60% of 36%, a 21.6% conservative – now getting into progressive Democrat territory.

Of course, that is an extreme example, but I see it happening in real time here in Utah. For goodness’s sake, Mitt Romney was replaced by John Curtis, a guy who was once the Chairman of the Utah County Democrat Party, governed as a Democrat when he was mayor of Provo, but changed parties to run for US representative because he couldn’t win as a Democrat.

Did we get better conservative Republican representation?

If Curtis’ support of Rep. María Elvira Salazar’s Dignity Act (which is amnesty in practice, if not in language), I would have to say that is a no.

What do we do about it?

The answer is that we must stop putting ourselves in a position where the lesser of two evils is a legitimate choice, because when you vote for the lesser of the two, you are still voting for evil.

We must choose candidates based on absolute standards, not relative ones.