Tom Kawczynski - Off the Record

"He who does not remember his past is doomed to repeat it" said Santayana, and I find myself thinking that is happening again.

In 2007, we collected thousands of people across the nation in support of a candidate whose sole driving focus was the Constitution.  Although it was a campaign that was unprofessional in many ways, and fraught with what others would consider devastating political errors, the Ron Paul Campaign for President attracted more money and more new supporters into the political process than anyone, including those involved with it, ever dreamed possible.  It also failed to achieve its goals in the end, and now we can look at why this was.

I wrote a 180 page book about the campaign that I had once posted elsewhere, but it has taken me a few years of reflection to realize the problem.  If you're going to challenge the system, you need to understand all the obstacles to entry that serve to make it impossible for truly limited government views to succeed.  Government is just one part of this, even if it is the central location.  The parties themselves, through the funding process, serve the same purpose.

Operatives I respect tell me that you need to raise several million dollars just to compete for any Federal office.  Assuming the people who want to run for these positions are not selfless millionaires already (a rare breed), what trades do you think must be made to get this money?  Do you think that millions are given just to reduce government?  Or, alternatively, do you think those giving such large amounts expect some sort of return in Federal funding?  A project for the district?  Pork and influence?

Maybe it is the way it must be.  But, I choose not to believe that.  The grassroots is coming to a moment of reckoning where it must either pick the path that it has tread before, trying to work within a party for change, or find some new outlet for expression.

In 2007, I remember advocating that we work within the party.  We had hundreds of members, a shown willingness to donate both time and money, and a desire to effectuate change more conservative than any Republican could dream.  We were laughed at, dismissed, and those who got involved either ended up leaving in disgust or simply gave in with the hope of accomplishing anything.

People don't understand that joining a party is like joining the military.  If you become a committeeperson, your responsibility and your commitment is to helping whomever the party decides is the person, putting your interests behind theirs for the perceived greater good.  Candidates and officeholders ignore this freely, but party people cannot and find themselves in an increasingly awkward position.  What do you do when your party calls on you to support someone who isn't bad, but who stands for something you would simply not consider supporting?  Do you give that up?

We all make compromises, but how far can you go before you lose what motivated you in the first place?  How many of us know people in either party who simply have winning as their justification, where the initial causes that motivated them have long since vanished in the strict demand of expediency?  Do you think people will continue to follow you, the same people who acted on principle, when you have to make these arguments?

It is not for me to say what any person does for themselves, but I've learned a lesson.  I know what I believe, I know what I have to support, what I cannot compromise, and that the only way I can feel like I am saying what makes all the time and effort worth it to me is to remain true to my beliefs at all times.  I cannot make that compromise anymore, and I won't.  For my friends who find themselves in a similar position, I ask that you think what you would do for yourselves.

I don't have a perfect answer or alternative.  There isn't one.  But I know that you can't get to the right place if you're heading in the wrong direction.