When, through the passage of time and circumstance, it
becomes necessary for a person or group to remove the bindings of a political
organization—and in doing so re-assert their God given right to Liberty and
their Constitutionally protected right of freedom of assembly—a decent respect
for the opinions of their fellow citizens requires that they explain the
reasons for their separation.
Those words, a paraphrasing of the Declaration of
Independence, have weighed heavily on my mind this past week. Also swirling in that cauldron of roiling
thoughts are the words of Thomas Paine’s “Crisis”, the Holy Bible, and our
beloved Constitution. The oath I took to defend that Constitution, and the
promises I made to God to follow his Word, are always present, sitting as angels
above a battlefield. The verdict on whether they be guardian or avenging angels
remains unclear.
I am an elected delegate to the Republican National
Convention of 2016. What has, in the past, been viewed as reward to loyal
campaign foot-soldiers has been transformed into a charge to save the
Republic—or at least the party. As the political rhetoric increases in
histrionics, I urge perspective. While the threats from keyboard warriors
should not be ignored, we need not fear an occupying army depriving us, or our
families, of life and property. We do not face death on the battlefield or
execution by the British government as our independence declaring forefathers
did. Perspective is the handmaiden of reasoned argument. We cannot allow ourselves to be overwhelmed
by emotion driven battle cries to the extent that we ignore the facts.
I, as with the majority of my fellow delegates, was elected
to represent the Republican voters of my state. They voted for me in precinct
caucuses, legislative district caucuses, and at the state convention. I stood
before them on all those occasions declaring that I supported a particular
candidate for the Presidency of the United states and thereby implied my
support for that candidate’s plans and principles. There was no trickery or deceit in any of
those elections. Furthermore, because my state’s convention was held after all
other candidates dropped out of the race, those that voted for me that day were
also informed that I was asking for their vote not as a representative of a
candidate but as a protector of a conservative platform and as a champion of
rules that empowered grass-roots activists.
The rules currently in effect in my state declare that each
delegate shall be bound on the first ballot at the National Convention to vote
in accordance with the results of our Presidential primary. Everyone who voted
for me, and the rest of my delegation, understood this stricture. As I said
before, I told the state convention delegates who voted for me that I went not
as a representative of a candidate, but as a representative of conservatism and
local party activists. I had, you see, resigned myself to casting a vote for
the presumptive nominee.
I have read the rules of our state party and the standing
rules of our Party. As a student of
history, I have re-visited the founding documents of our country and the
precedents set at previous conventions. The experienced counsel of retired
military men, delegates to previous conventions, and respected colleagues has
been sought and freely given. These are
men and women with whom I have gladly served and would do so again without a
moment’s hesitation. We spoke of duty,
honor, keeping your word, the bindings of party and the bindings of conscience.
Still, the angels circle. What is best for my party? What is
best for my country? Will I be able to look in the mirror the day after that
portentous nominating vote? Will I be able to explain my decision to my
children? To God? Am I engaging in the very over-inflation of self and circumstance
that I just warned against?
My conclusion—after these deliberations and subject to
further influence and debate as reason dictates—is that I was elected to do a
duty to the best of my abilities but as a free thinking person of good morals
and education. That, having been entrusted not just with ferrying the results
of the state primary to the floor of the convention, I was elected to cast
votes according to the dictates of my conscience on matters of platform, rules,
and the vice presidential nominee. Being entrusted to vote—without direct input
from my constituency—on these matters is an implicit statement of trust in my
ability to do so with the best interests of the members of this party in mind.
If -- having arrived at the conclusion that I have been
directed to vote according to my conscience on these matters -- I am faced with
a direct conflict when casting my vote for the presidential nominee, I then
have to re-frame the debate. Is our
presumptive nominee the best reflection of our parties’ goals and dictates? Do
I believe that this man has the best interests of our constituency at heart?
Was the process that assigned delegates to vote for him evenly and justly
applied? Is he the majority choice of our party? What are the arguments for affirming
him as our nominee? What are the
arguments against that course of action?
By casting a vote on the rules of the convention—which will
govern our party for the next four years as well—I am deciding how a future
nominee should be chosen. Again, I was
given this task without specific instruction by the citizens of my district. I
must vote my conscience and eliminate processes and rules that award candidates
who subvert our ideals while penalizing those who represent the true beating
heart of our organization: the grass-roots. If, having cast a vote to do so, I
remove Rule 16 as an impediment to liberty and free association, I have
effectively affirmed the right of delegates to vote as their conscience
dictates.
Some of my fellow delegates may well decide that their
conscience, and their honor, demands that they vote in accordance with the
results of their state primary. That is their right. I cannot, having argued
for their right to vote their conscience then deny them that right because I do
not agree with the result. I only ask that they extend me the same courtesy.
The rules of the Republican Party nominating process are not
infallible. They were meant to be debated and modified by party-member
representatives. If a flawed process has selected a flawed candidate, I cannot
in good conscience re-affirm those rules.
I cannot affirm that nominee. As I said before, I am open to further
debate regarding whether or not I should vote for our presumptive nominee. I am
resolved however in this matter: The delegates to the Republican National
Convention are free men and women of conscience. We are the products of liberty
and cannot be denied the right to vote accordingly.
The delegates ARE free, and I hereby declare my God-given
right to that freedom.
“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm
reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each
other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
