Posted under Alan Keyes & Chuck Baldwin & Constitution Party & Republican Party
Editor’s Note: Kevin Thompson is a friend of this website, so I thought I would pass on his thoughts. While I am sad to hear he has made this decision, in some ways I don’t blame him. I agree with part of what he writes, and I disagree with part of it. I will post this now and let it simmer and then I plan to post a rebutal tomorrow. Thoughts? ~ RP
Here is a link to the original.
Dear Constitution Party Members,
This letter comes after much prayer, thought and discussion. I have decided that it would be best to conduct my political activity within the Republican Party. This was not an easy decision, but it is one on which I am confident. Let me reasons for leaving the party.
(1) For quite some time, I have been growing disenchanted with the Constitution Party. The fact of the matter is, I no longer see the rationale of placing much time, effort and money into a party that will constantly and consistently lose in the end. In the summer of 2008, I can’t think how much time I spent traveling all over Massachusetts dropping off and collecting signatures for Chuck Baldwin. While it was nice seeing the sights, was all that effort worth the less than one percent that Pastor Baldwin was able achieve. I also think of my own campaign for Congress three years ago. Several months of my life were spent in an effort that gave me less than half of one percent of the over all vote. While this race taught me a lot about the political system and gave me an experience I am now able to pass on to my students, but overall it really did little to help the party or the state of Massachusetts. The party has been in existence since 1992. What signs of growth or accomplishment can we really show to justify the party’s existence? What is the point in exerting all this effort to accomplish nothing? What really bothers me is that some in the party actually take pride in losing. They proclaim their moral and ideological superiority as the reason for their defeat. At least I didn’t compromise… But, the problem is, you didn’t do anything else either.
(2) Somebody has to say it, so here it goes – you cannot expect people to vote for unqualified candidates. What is it about a pastor in Florida that qualifies him to be the President of the United States? What is it about an assistant pastor of a small church in Massachusetts that qualifies him to be a US Congressman? Looking back on it, I’m really surprised that anyone voted for me. Why should they have? I had no real ideas, plans, legislation, or substance to offer. All I had where conservative and constitutional views that I could spout off about. To be taken seriously, there needs to be more than that. Give me a reason to vote for you. Although I greatly love, appreciate and admire Pastor Chuck Baldwin, The CP passed up a great opportunity to have Alan Keyes as their nominee for President. Here is a man with legitimate political experience and Constitutional values, but in the name ideological purity, he was cast aside. Now, I do understand there are candidates within the party that I would consider to be qualified to run for lower offices, and even a few for federal offices. I don’t want to suggest that all CP candidates should not run, but there are enough to make me wonder.
(3) Although I know every party has their fringe and extremists, it seems as though this is the base of the Constitution Party. I know this will sound unpopular, but am still not completely convinced that there is a grand conspiracy between the US, Mexico and Canada to form a North American Union. Yet, while I am open to the possibility of such evidence arising maybe, the general public views this as wild and insane. Alex Jones has very little creditability in my mind and I am borderline offended at the whole “truther” movement that suggests the US knew and assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I am so tired of an overemphasis and great exaggeration of the power of both the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Affairs. I do not believe in a shadow government. None of this strikes me as serious debate that the American people even take seriously.
(4) The Ron Paul insurgency within the Republican Party has been a sight to see. Here is a US Congressman who stands exactly where we stand. Having been a third party candidate, Congressman Paul realized he would never get anywhere by continuing along that route. The GOP has given him (and our views) more of a vocal and public platform that no other party can offer. As his candidacy began to pick up steam, the more his following grew. This influence within the GOP is greater than the influence of all third parties put together. It makes more sense to me to join this movement than to continue to work in obscurity.
(5) The idea of 100% ideological purity no longer makes much sense to me. In other words, I want to be able to support a law that prohibits or limits abortion to some extent, without abolishing it all together. I think it is abhorrent to allow some innocent children to be viciously murdered because we could not save all children from being viciously murdered. What is the result – no children are saved when some of them could be. You can blame 100% ideological purity for that. I don’t like the idea of not working with a person who agrees with me on 80% of the issues just because he doesn’t agree with me 100% of the time. Our political system is built on the idea of compromise and coalition. If I can only work with or respect people who agree with me completely, I will get very little accomplished, and that is the legacy of the Constitution Party thus far.
(6) I am tired of hearing that there is no difference between the two mainstream parties. Anyone can see there are great and obvious differences between Republicans and Democrats. Yes, there are similarities in that both parties have failed to live up to their convictions. Yes, both parties have driven up the debt, increased a bloated budget and trample on the Constitution. However, there is only one of the two parties that has an anti-abortion plank in their platform. Republicans at least have shining lights under their tent that are completely absent from the Democratic Party. Even with some similarities, after having had exposure to both parties, I can still see a wide and vast chasm between the two philosophically.
(7) I left the Republican Party in November of 2006. It was never my intention to join a third party, but I could no longer stomach a party that in that year offered me no reasonable choice in Massachusetts. That election year, Massachusetts would be electing a new governor. There was no one on the ballot who was pro-life or pro-traditional marriage. I was forced to write in Michael Carl of the Constitution Party, and was quite happy to do so. Since then, I have got to know Michael pretty well and think he would have made a great Governor. Unfortunately, his write-in campaign was just that, a write campaign with very little organization. But, my main point was that the GOP in Massachusetts consisted of what can charitably be labeled as moderates and rino’s (Yes, I include Mitt Romney in that category by the way). Before Scott Brown won his US Senate seat, there wasn’t much a Republican Party there in the Bay State. However, things are much different here in Wisconsin and especially in Rock County. It has been my great joy to meet and interact with candidates such as Congressman Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, David King, Rick Richard and Evan Wynn. These are all committed conservatives, pro-life, and pro-marriage. I have even been privileged enough to speak to several of these men concerning their own, personal, faith. Praise the Lord, not only are some of these men conservative, but they are truly Christian as well. I have no problem associating myself with them. The Chairman of the Rock County GOP, Jim Olsen, is also a true conservative who is dedicated to building a party of true conservatives. Again, I have no problem associating myself with such a man. I feel as though I can be a part of the Wisconsin Republican Party, and the Rock County Republican Party in particular, and not compromise my principles at all.
I know this is shocking to some of you, disappointing to others of you and angering to many of you. I still cannot believe the effort, sacrifice, money and time that the Constitution Party and its members put into my campaign for Congress. It is humbling to even think about. Yet, as we say in the CP, I must place principle above politics. I don’t believe the views and values I hold dear are better advanced in the CP than in the GOP. Therefore, I must change parties.
Now, before some of you jump to conclusions, let me state some things that I am NOT trying to say in this statement.
(1) I do not believe the GOP is a perfect party or even completely heading in the right direction. I am deeply disturbed by neo-cons who dream of world domination and moderates who advocate abortion, homosexual marriage and an abandonment of a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. I still maintain my opposition to the war in Iraq and the Bush Doctrine of preventative first strikes against nations we think may have the capability of striking us.
(2) I still intend to vote for the best candidate on the ballot, the candidate who best represents me – no matter what party they may be. For example, I have made known my doubts about Ron Johnson for US Senate. Should he win the GOP nomination, I fully intend to continue my support for Constitution Party of Wisconsin Candidate Rob Taylor. After having met Rob, I feel confident he is qualified for the job and will represent my views and values. Ron Johnson has a lot to convince me of thus far. Just because he has money doesn’t mean I will vote for him. However, as stated before, I do like Dave Westlake. I will support him in the primary. Should he win the primary, I will have a difficult decision to make come November. But, it will be my decision, not the decision of a particular party.
(3) I do not believe this move to be a compromise of any of my views, beliefs or stances. As I leave the CP, I take with me everything I believed while in the CP. Please do not view this move as an abandonment of my principals. I believe and will continue to fight for fidelity to the Constitution as well as the God-given rights of freedom and liberty from oppressive government.
(4) I also still believe America deserves more than just two parties. It sickens me that only two parties receive press and attention. It is high time to end the two-party monopoly that strangles our political system. Voters deserve to have more than just two options from which to choose. Candidates also deserve to run with the party whose views they best represent and not have to think about compromising their views just to satisfy party leadership.
(5) This decision is not the result of anything personal. No one in the party has ever personally offended me. Actually, this is what has made this move so difficult. Members of this party have bent over backwards to help me. Folks like Nicholas Sumbles, Rich Selfridge and Michael Carl have been a tremendous encouragement to me. Without Nicholas, I would not have had even the mere appearance of a political campaign. I owe these men a great debt I could never repay. This is not personal at all.
(6) I am not trying to lead a mass exodus out of the party. This is a decision I have made and it is only for me. I leave others to the dictates of their own consciences. I have no desire to take people out of the party. I am not leaving in a huff, or with a temper tantrum.
While this is goodbye for now, I still wish to be considered a friend of the party. I believe that I still stand with the party. I am open to the idea of one day returning to the party if situations change in the future. I wished to be kept on the mailing list and kept informed about candidates, campaigns and events. Anyone in the Constitution Party is still welcome as guests on my internet radio program any time they wish to appear.
Because of Grace,
Kevin Thompson,
Rom 1:15
Radio Program – http://www.understandingourtimes.com
HarrisonBergeron2 on 09 Jul 2010 at 1:54 am #
Massachusetts? Not the right soil to sow the seeds of Constitutional limited government.
James on 09 Jul 2010 at 6:12 am #
Yeah, but the results wouldn’t be much different in South Carolina or Utah. The fact is that the two party system owns this country. Only when it is broken can we hope for real change. This guy’s story is sad but illustrates the real power of the Demopublican duopoly. It controls the political dialogue and the power structure. I am sure his argument would be that he can effect more change within the Republican Party than without it. Maybe, but the Republican Party will never be as radical as it needs to be to meet the crisis this country faces. It will always be the one step back to the Left’s two steps forward.
Matt Weber on 09 Jul 2010 at 12:40 pm #
On the other hand, there’s a legitimate argument to be made that paleos/old-right/marginal-right types need to stop abandoning established institutions to try to form new ones. The neocons have taken over the Republican party, but there’s no reason it can’t be taken from them.
Believer on 09 Jul 2010 at 1:26 pm #
Kevin Thomson learned the hard way that people are too stupid to vote. If by luck he gets elected as a Republican the party will keep him in line or make sure he isnt re-elected.
S.L. Toddard on 09 Jul 2010 at 6:08 pm #
I am tired of hearing that there is no difference between the two mainstream parties. Anyone can see there are great and obvious differences between Republicans and Democrats. Yes, there are similarities in that both parties have failed to live up to their convictions. Yes, both parties have driven up the debt, increased a bloated budget and trample on the Constitution. However, there is only one of the two parties that has an anti-abortion plank in their platform. Republicans at least have shining lights under their tent that are completely absent from the Democratic Party. Even with some similarities, after having had exposure to both parties, I can still see a wide and vast chasm between the two philosophically.
I can’t.
S.L. Toddard on 09 Jul 2010 at 6:13 pm #
I believe and will continue to fight for fidelity to the Constitution as well as the God-given rights of freedom and liberty from oppressive government.
I believe in those rights because they were established at America’s secession from Britain and at the ratification of the Constitution. I would not characterize them as “God-given” though.
RedPhillips on 09 Jul 2010 at 7:18 pm #
KT: “I can still see a wide and vast chasm between the two philosophically.”
SLT: “I can’t.”
The parties differ in their rhetoric but much less in their actions. Both are centrist Social Democrat parties. One slightly left of center. One slightly right if center. (The modern center which is yesterdays’ far left.)
“I would not characterize them as “God-given” though.”
I am currently writing an article on the idea of “God-given” rights. Actually, I think it is bad theology. At the least it is theological speculation that is totally without support in the Biblical text.
Believer on 09 Jul 2010 at 9:20 pm #
S.L. Toddard- If by chance there’s no God then why would you waste your time in defending ideas that men of faith fought so hard to establish, seems to me you would have a lot more fun just enjoying what is left of America and not risk your neck defending anything.
RedPhillips on 09 Jul 2010 at 10:19 pm #
Believer, SLT can speak for himself, but I believe you misunderstand him. I don’t think he is saying he doesn’t believe in God-given rights because he doesn’t believe in God. He is saying that God-given rights is a flawed concept. I tend to agree with him.
S.L. Toddard on 09 Jul 2010 at 10:20 pm #
Actually, I think it is bad theology. At the least it is theological speculation that is totally without support in the Biblical text.
That was my point (though you made it better than I did). Talking about liberty from oppression being a “God-given right” is conflating Christianity with Enlightenment innovations. I do not deny those rights, but we possess them as Americans, not as Christians per se, and they were handed down to us from our forefathers, not Christian teaching (though that is not to say that there are no Biblical arguments to be made in favor of Liberty and against Tyranny). I have been tooling around with an idea recently and am curious what the other posters here think: the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and the right to protect it through secession, are cited in the Declaration as the prime motivator for American independence. Though the Declaration implies that they pre-exist the revolution I do not believe this is the case, though I believe it can (and perhaps should) be argued that they were established
through the American revolution. The Declaration itself has no legal power, but can it not be argued that America, in waging war for those rights, not only established said rights but established them as inalienable - i.e. as literally incapable of being surrendered or repudiated? At no point did the states relinquish that right that they fought for and won – the right to “alter or abolish” government that is hostile to its people’s interests – as it is categorically and by definition incapable of being surrendered. As such, the southern states were exercising this inalienable right established at the moment of American independence when they seceded. The most significant and fundamental difference between North and South (with regards to the causes of secession) is that the Southern states never discarded that right that they fought for in the revolution while we, in the North, renounced that right and abdicated the duty it compelled.
Is that argument sound? I sense that it’s problematic and perhaps illegitimate. How so, though?
S.L. Toddard- If by chance there’s no God then why would you waste your time in defending ideas that men of faith fought so hard to establish, seems to me you would have a lot more fun just enjoying what is left of America and not risk your neck defending anything.
What? When did I imply there was “no God”?
S.L. Toddard on 09 Jul 2010 at 10:22 pm #
Dr. Phillips is (as usual) correct. I am not arguing that there is no God, but that a right to liberty from tyranny is not a tenet of Christianity.
S.L. Toddard on 09 Jul 2010 at 10:31 pm #
Also, after reading Red’s excellent reply to the CP candidate I hope I made clear that I am not advocating any sort of Declarationism here.
Kirt Higdon on 10 Jul 2010 at 12:01 am #
The duopoly was firmly established at the same time that Lincoln, by crushing the attempted secession of the Southern states, fundamentally changed the US from a federation of states to a unitary “democratic” (actually oligarchic) republic with the states as administrative districts. Prior to the Lincoln regime, the political party scene was more fluid. This suggests that the duopoly will continue as long as the US continues in its present form and will only end with the break-up of the US. Meanwhile, though 3rd parties will never be permitted to win, they serve the pupose of providing a possible protest vote and educating whoever wishes to be educated.
Mitch Turner on 10 Jul 2010 at 3:30 am #
The points about growth and views that don’t connect with people are right on. Look at what the TEA parties have done in one year. There are some who have pushed the leadership and Presidential candidates of CP to talk about those issues. It hasn’t happened, and instead the TP has sucked all the oxygen out of the room while the CP preaches to a very small choir. But the TP will never amount to anything since they just end up supporting GOPers who either will be moderates like most of them or smothered by the GOP leadership like the rest of the true conservatives. It’s hard to see how the CP turns this around on their current trajectory.
RedPhillips on 10 Jul 2010 at 5:21 am #
“though 3rd parties will never be permitted to win, they serve the purpose of providing a possible protest vote and educating whoever wishes to be educated.”
Yes Kirt. This is the point I was making in my reply above. So some people have to be willing to do the thankless job of carrying the ideological torch and giving other people a person to protest vote for.
RedPhillips on 10 Jul 2010 at 5:22 am #
Welcome Mitch. Thanks for commenting.
Bede on 10 Jul 2010 at 4:59 pm #
At least the CP has a coherent platform and, unlike tea parties, hopefully wouldn’t support a treasonous fool like Raul Labrador:
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=5465
Believer on 11 Jul 2010 at 3:09 pm #
S.L. Toddard- I stand corrected, forgive me for jumping to conclusions. I read through the articles far too fast and so I sometimes missinterpret the comments, sorry about that.