On Coalition-Building: An Open Tent, Not Open Border
On Coalition-Building: An Open Tent, Not Open Border
Building coalitions doesn’t mean changing your party by adopting non-constitutional principles from outliers.
On yesterday’s show I remarked on the Republican habit of rushing to coronate the newest quasi-converted celebrity with Reagan-Jesus status.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was right on COVID vaccines. He’s been wrong on guns, climate change, due process, and many other issues. I’ve covered it here. He likes Trump and endorsed Trump’s campaign, which doesn’t make Kennedy more amenable on climate change or more likely to support you owning however many guns you want to own. It just means of Harris and Trump, he supports Trump. On this we agree.
Why can people like Kennedy compartmentalize these issues but some on the right cannot?
Some on the right are so excited about someone with the name Kennedy backing the GOP that they’re already drawing up Kennedy’s potential appointments to a Trump cabinet. Trump may well listen and seems inclined to appoint him to a position of power within his potential second administration. Both Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard have joined Trump’s transition team:
Donald Trump has named his former rival, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democrat who has also now endorsed him, to his transition team that would help the former president select personnel and develop policy for a possible second term in the White House.
“As President Trump’s broad coalition of supporters and endorsers expands across partisan lines, we are proud that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard have been added to the Trump/Vance Transition team,” Trump campaign senior adviser Brian Hughes said in a statement. “We look forward to having their powerful voices on the team [as] we work to restore America’s greatness.”
“I’ve been asked to go onto the transition team and to help pick the people who will be running the government,” Kennedy said in an interview with Tucker Carlson that was posted on X on Tuesday.
Determining what policy, exactly?
For example: Tulsi Gabbard has never really fully explained how she went from this to vaguely supporting the Second Amendment (or if she outright repudiates her previous positions; her video addressing it didn’t really answer these questions). I’ve invited her onto my program to discuss but she’s so far declined. Will she help determine policy relating to our natural rights? Would Kennedy advise on energy issues considering his hardcore climate change position?
There is a difference between a coalition and a party. Multiple parties can work together towards similar goals. They don’t agree on everything, but they agree on some things, and such a partnership is necessary to overcoming Marxism. However, as much as the parties may agree, there are still some things on which they disagree and they certainly don’t exchange members to help each other determine core principles and negotiate themselves into homogeneity.
Building coalitions doesn’t mean handing the car keys to people who don’t share your views on liberty. Building coalitions doesn’t mean changing your party by adopting non-constitutional principles from outliers. Outliers are free to adopt the party’s positions but coalition building shouldn’t require changing the political DNA of the party or parties involved. If it does, it’s not coalition building, it’s policide.
If outliers exist just to establish a more immediate goal, be forthright about it. The base deserves it. It’s not “establishment” to want to preserve fiscal responsibility and natural rights — things the establishment has arguably worked to undermine — why do you think we created the modern day tea party?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking these questions and beware anyone who tells you otherwise. You’re conditioned by two centuries of liberty to question everything. It’s fair to ask whether or not the incorporation of moderate outliers impacts strongly held positions on economic and other issues. Coalition-building can be messy, made messier by a failure to articulate clear goals and purpose.
Remember, successful parties become government. It’s your responsibility to ensure yours is the best vehicle possible to advance your interests.
Democrats, socialists and Communists understand the value of United Front operations and have used them since time immemorial to bring in gullibles for one or two specific ideas. The Communists get power and then enact all sorts of things the gullibles never foresaw.
Republicans are like Trump in one way at least: they just want to be liked. That quality, coupled with their inherent stupidity, usually proves lethal.
Doubt that this time will be the exception that tests the rule.
Dog and pony show....