By an anonymous Maricopa County Republican Precinct Committeeman

Looking at the numbers of precinct committeemen coming from each legislative distract at the recent Maricopa County Republican Party Mandatory Meeting on Saturday, January 8th, one can see that the greatest number of PC’s came from districts where the fight between conservatives and moderates is most pronounced. If one were to consider maximizing the number of Republican PC’s a good thing, then we can see that conflict between conservatives and moderates is a good thing because both moderates and conservatives vigorously recruit PC’s to ensure that their respective side wins. Without the factional fight, it is likely that neither side would bother to recruit PC’s because the status quo would likely suit them. In other words, the infighting motivates each side to recruit PC’s to defeat the other side. One is lead to conclude, despite all the whining to the contrary, that the infighting is actually a good thing.

If it’s true at the federal or national level that the most conservative or liberal candidates are the ones to inflame the passions of the masses, then why, in the microcosm of the Republican party, shouldn’t a similar paradigm hold true: that the extremes of the Republican party are the ones to incite the greatest number Republicans to get passionately involved? Like it or not, conflict sells. It’s what sells newspapers. It’s the reason we watch television shows or movies or read novels or play games like chess or Monopoly. Without conflict, there’s no excitement, no resolution, no as-you-like-it ending. A lack of conflict is boring. So, we should actually welcome the intra-party conflict because it keeps us engaged, keeps us recruiting PC’s, and ultimately keeps the party alive and moving forward. Anyone who decries Republicans “eating their own,” is, in effect, calling for a party so boring that no one would be interested in participating because there’s no real conflict. One may argue that the real conflict lies with the Democrats. The response is, “not if there’s no stark contrast between the parties, not if we constantly compromise our principles and platform.” Sure, Republicans need to fight the Democrats, but there’s plenty of time for that AFTER party leadership races and other party issues are resolved.

Here’s an admitted flaw in the argument: many PC’s recruited by conservatives or moderates are “straw” PC’s. The straw PC’s don’t show up to meetings, they’re not involved and they’re pretty much just farmed for their proxies by the true believer activists. Fair criticism, but would one rather have a ton of open PC seats because of public disinterest and sleepy PC’s or does one prefer many PC seats filled due to brisk recruiting from passionate moderate and conservative activists? Also, one could make the argument that perhaps the side that most actively recruits PC’s should win party elections simply because they are the most active and clearly desire leadership the most.

Recently, myopic moderates have been repeatedly reciting the mantra that mean-spirited conservatives force moderates out of the “Big Tent.” The high number of PC’s coming from contentious LDs like 11 puts the lie to that argument. The opposite is true. Additionally, for moderates to claim that it is only conservatives that try to force out moderates is just about as far from the truth as can be. Moderates have tried to force Rob Haney, Tom Husband and a host of other conservatives out of the Republican Party. Not only have moderates tried to keep conservatives out of the party, moderates have tried to prevent conservatives from even earning a living and supporting themselves. For example, Senator McCain did his dead-level best to keep a conservative political consultant from earning a living in the 2010 general election by threatening to not help two Republican congressional candidates if that consultant continued to work with each one of those candidates. Tell me again exactly who is mean spirited? Ultimately, if the establishment, top-down moderates had their way, it would be a, “small tent” party because not only would some conservatives just not participate in the party or at the polls, but many would register as Independents. We’ve seen the phenomena already: party elected officials betray conservative principles and disaffected conservatives leave the party by registering as Independents. The result of moderate control would be shrinkage of the party. This would lead to electoral losses like we saw in 2006 and 2008.

Reagan was wrong on the 11th commandment. He knew it and abandoned it to his benefit. When he embraced it, he suffered defeats. As a party, Republicans need to vociferously reject the 11th Commandment, an invention of moderates, and not only welcome, but encourage intra-party fights because it makes us strong. Each individual PC must choose not to be scared off by the intra-party conflict, but to recruit more like-minded PC’s to jump into the trenches at his side. The solution to a loss, even a bruising one like the moderates suffered at the Maricopa County meeting, is not to fade away whining and crying about defeat, but to pick yourself up and to immediately begin planning the downfall of your opposition at the next fight. Has McCain ever given up after a defeat? Has Shiree Verdone? Has Rob Haney? Has Tom Husband? Or do all those individuals stay engaged even after crushing defeats? We need to look to these diametrically opposed warriors for our cues. The answer is to stay in the fight because if one works hard, his opponents will suffer a reversal of fortunes. Ultimately, we get out of our parties what we put into them. Intra-party conflict motivates us to put more into our party.

In the end, I want to see conservatives victorious, but there’s benefit in keeping a minority of moderates in the party if for no other reason than to give us a fight, to keep us sharp and to encourage us to keep recruiting more PC’s.