One Voter’s Checklist for Candidates for the New CD 36

This column originally appeared over at Big Jolly Politics.

Well, it’s that time of year again—the start of campaign season!

This time around it looks like we are going to have a lot excitement in Texas and local politics: Governor Perry may run for President and Lt. Governor Dewhurst may run for the U.S. Senate (or decide to wait and see about his chances to become Governor), which will start an avalanche of moves across the state by other elected officials to run for statewide offices; there is a wide-open U.S. Senate race for the first time in at least a decade, which is attracting a varied and interesting field of candidates; and we now have finalized redistricting plans, which have created four new congressional districts and many re-drawn boundaries. Adding to the sense of frenzy that is building is the new filing deadlines for the March, 2012 Primary, which now runs from mid-November to mid-December, 2011. That means everyone from prospective precinct chairs to U.S. Senate candidates will have to make their moves soon to start raising money, get petitions signed, and qualify for office.

My home has been drawn into the new Congressional District 36. Although I was not a fan of the boundaries of this new district because it split the Clear Lake region of the Houston Metropolitan Area into three districts and combined East Harris County with many rural communities whose ties are closer to Beaumont and Lufkin than to Houston, it is now a reality. This new district, which has a recent Republican voting strength of over 65%, should elect a Republican Congressman, which means that it presents our local GOP with a tremendous and rare opportunity to send our unique voice to Washington while shaping the future of the communities of this district for the next generation. We need to use this opportunity wisely.

Since the proposed map was unveiled, I’ve been involved in several conversations about the new district, including an informative presentation this past week by Eric Opiela to the Clear Lake Area Republicans during our June meeting. Because East Harris County comprises the largest population center within the new district, it is presumed that there will be a lot of interest from our area politicians in running for the new district, as well as in running for other offices that may open-up because their incumbents will run for the new district. Based on what I am hearing, I suspect that we will see at least 5 to 10 candidates on the Republican primary ballot, and there probably will be a run-off.

Before anyone approaches me for support or an endorsement, let me make this clear: for now, I am staying neutral. However, I have thought about this race a lot, and have developed my own checklist that I will expect any serious candidate to address during the campaign, and I am going to share my list with you.

First and foremost, don’t get into this race unless you are qualified to run. By this, I don’t mean that you have to have run for office or held public office in the past (though I am sure that would help). Here is what I mean:

* The Republicans in this district are culturally conservative. If you are not pro-life, if you do not support gun rights and personal property rights, and if you don’t believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman—regardless of your position on any other “social” issue—please don’t enter this race. You won’t win, and you’ll end up diverting debate time and campaign “talking points” to issues that are not really open to debate among these voters.

* Regardless of how many grassroots volunteers you think you can muster, it probably will cost between $500,000 and $1,000,000 to win this primary (and more to run the general election). If you don’t have this amount of money personally available to spend on your campaign without depleting your life savings, or if you can’t raise this amount of money within the federal campaign limits by mid-December, 2011, don’t run. First, you never get as much volunteer work as is promised; and second, the size of this district, and the fact that there are at least 3 major media markets (Houston, Beaumont, and Lufkin) and many other small markets, makes this race structurally expensive for any candidate to wage seriously.

* Unless you have the support of your family to run (and then to work in, or commute to and from, Washington every week if you win), and unless you have the support of your employer or partners (or have the means not to need employment) to spend the time to campaign, don’t run. A race like this, with the distances you will have to cover to mount a serious campaign, is a full-time job for several months—and if you win, for over a year through the general election.

* Unless you believe you can do this job as well or better than the other candidates, and unless you really want to work in Washington and commit the time and effort it will take to do the job correctly, don’t run. If you want to run or debate to promote an issue, or if you want to get active in politics, there are plenty of campaigns to work for, and local offices to run for, don’t start by running for this type of office—999 times out of 1,000 you will lose and you will probably burn yourself out in the process.

Now, if any candidate still wants to run after thinking about these basic qualifications, here are the substantive points I will ask them to address:

Do you know and understand the district and its voters?

A map of the district can be found here, and by then going to “Basic Plan” and clicking on “PlanC 185”. The district is comprised of East Harris County, and 8 other counties between here and the Louisiana border. Although Lufkin and Beaumont are physically outside the district, their media markets impact the towns in the district, which include Orange, Winnie, Vidor, Jasper, Kountze, Newton, Woodville, and Livingston, as well as closer towns in Chambers and Liberty counties that are part of the Houston metropolitan area.

The major employers and industries include two ports in Houston and Orange; the energy industry from the wellhead, to the pipeline, to the refinery, to electricity production; timber, farming and ranching; small manufacturing and businesses; and recreation and parks in the Big Thicket.

There are many small towns and school districts with local governments and diverse local needs, as well as larger cities and towns like Pasadena, Baytown, Cleveland and Orange. You will need to educate yourself on the diverse issues these communities face, and their diverse interests in and interactions with the federal government.

Do you understand the different responsibilities between the federal government and the state and local governments, generally, and as they affect this district and its voters?

We conservatives all say we want a strict construction of the Constitution and want respect for the 10th Amendment, but you will need to understand what that really means and how that affects the new district.

Remember that the Constitution has been amended at least 9 times to expand the scope of responsibility of the federal government to include, among other things, authority over civil rights issues and the power to impose an income tax. So, even a strict construction of federal authority must recognize broader limits than existed in 1789. Moreover, the people in this district live with the federal government in their lives on a daily basis, from environmental, agricultural, energy, and transportation regulations, to small business loans and taxes. When something goes wrong, or when a constituent wants action related to a regulated activity, they will look to you for action—theory about the 10th Amendment won’t matter to them at those times.

You will need to be able to articulate your plan for addressing the real issues that these constituents face, and how you will address them as their Congressman.

If you believe in reducing the size and cost of the federal government, what is your vision as to how the activities currently addressed by federal programs will be addressed in the future?

Now if the GOP is successful in finally reducing the size and cost of government through the Ryan Plan, or any similar approach, the next question your constituents will have is “now what?” How will returning power to states, local governments, the private sector and individuals affect them, their families, their schools, their towns and their businesses?

You need to have an understanding of this district as to what changes will impact the lives of your constituents, and you need to articulate a vision as to how these changes will improve their lives and their communities. Then you need to work with local leaders to help them create transition plans to maximize the use of the new responsibilities they will have in a way that improves their communities.

What are the most pressing issues facing our nation, which are within the scope of responsibility of the federal government to address?

These voters will want to know how you will use your vote in Congress to address the great issues of the day, including whether to raise the debt ceiling and how to control the national debt; what to do with Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; how to wind-down the foreign wars and return civil liberties that have been limited since 9/11 without jeopardizing our national defense and homeland security; how to address border security and illegal immigration while maintaining our historic openness to newcomers who want to become Americans, and many other issues.

You need to develop a list of the issues about which you feel strongly, and then be able to articulate in 30 seconds why those issues are important and how you will address them if elected. In a field of 10 candidates, you’ll be lucky to ever get 30 seconds to talk on any given issue, so you must be prepared to effectively communicate your views quickly.

How will you carry-out your work in Washington?

Finally, you need to soberly reflect on the fact that, if you win, you will have to actually work as a Congressman. What will you do, and how will you do it? How will you divide your time and structure the management of your office to simultaneously participate in legislative committees, educate yourself on pending legislation and vote, communicate with your constituents, and provide constituent service—all with the goal of accomplishing what you ran to accomplish? Where will you live, where will your family live, and how will you accommodate both?

Frankly, I don’t want to vote for someone who has not thought about this last issue, because if you have no experience or plan for running your office and managing your time effectively, you will not be an effective legislator for this district.

Well there you have it, my checklist for considering the candidates for the new congressional district. I am sure that each of you can think of other points to add to your own checklists as you evaluate the candidates over the next few months, and my list probably will grow and change during that time, but it reflects my starting point—that is, I don’t want to waste time educating someone, simply fulfilling someone’s life-long ambition to hold public office, or feed someone’s need for power and prestige. Instead, I want to use this opportunity to elect someone who will effectively represent us and actually promote the Republican agenda of returning responsibility back to individuals, communities and states. The time for talk and posturing is long over.

Renew the PATRIOT Act—all of it, now

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

Although many Americans are understandably weary of war after over 9 years of armed conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and against terrorist cells here at home and throughout the world, we need to remember that those of us, who have not served in combat (or who have not had loved ones serving in combat) during these years since we were attacked on 9/11, have had to sacrifice relatively little—other than inconveniences when we travel by air.

We haven’t been subject to a draft. We haven’t had to buy war bonds or pay a surtax to fund the war. We haven’t had to serve on local draft boards or civil defense teams. We haven’t been asked to turn our homes into boarding houses for soldiers and sailors awaiting deployment. We haven’t had tires, gasoline or groceries rationed, or had to turn in metal for industrial use. We haven’t been subject to movies and radio programs that were required to carry pro-war content in every film or broadcast. We haven’t been subject to blackouts, curfews, or air-raid drills. We haven’t been threatened with arrest for speaking against the war, or against either the Bush or Obama Administrations. We haven’t had our civil liberties suspended. We haven’t been gathered and placed in detention camps because our last names sounded Arabic.

In short, we’ve had it pretty easy while our country has been defended these last 9 years, compared to the sacrifices imposed on earlier generations of Americans during wartime. In the meantime, the defense and intelligence apparatus that we built with our tax dollars after World War II has worked night and day to keep us safe against an army that wore no uniform and knew no boundary. Added to that defense after 9/11 were additional authorizations to conduct wartime surveillance and searches, which were contained in a statute known as the PATRIOT Act.

Thankfully, a solid majority of the U.S. House of Representatives understood that we are still at war, and that there is still a need to conduct the wartime surveillance and searches authorized by that act. Those representatives voted yesterday to fully reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately, a surprising number of Republicans voted against reauthorization, so now the bill will have to come before the House under rules that will allow for amendments, and many Republicans intend to offer or support amendments that will dilute or remove key provisions of the Act.

Although the implementation of such authority to wiretap or search personal conversations and conduct carries the risk of making mistakes that could embarrass or harass innocent individuals—and I am sure mistakes have been made—it is a testament to the professional work of the men and women in our defense, intelligence and homeland security establishment, that few if any of us have been, or know anyone who has been, subject to surveillance or search under this Act. In fact, the lawsuits that have been brought against the Act have been brought by people who thought they could have been, or could be searched or wiretapped, but who had no proof that they had been. This is a far different experience from those who, during past conflicts, really had their liberties trampled through arrests, mass suspension of civil liberties, or mass detentions.

However, there are those who say that it doesn’t matter how professionally the authority has been exercised, because any compromise of liberty—no matter how theoretical or attenuated, and regardless of the existence of a war—is indefensible. These people then love to spout the following quote in support of their position that the Founders would never agree to such limits on their liberties:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Those who use this quote in this way are just plain wrong. In fact, the circumstances that led to the making of that statement show it was never intended to address this type of issue.

This quote appeared in the preface to a work published in London by Benjamin Franklin in 1759, for the purpose of educating members of Parliament and other political leaders about the need to support the defense of the colonies against the French and their Native American allies during the Seven Years’ War (what we often refer to as “the French and Indian War”). Although the quote is often attributed to Franklin, its actual authorship is unclear, because it comes from a letter prepared in 1755 by the colonial Assembly of Pennsylvania and addressed to the colonial Governor.

In 1755, the colonists that had settled western Pennsylvania had come under constant attack from French forces, and the local tribes aligned with the French. The colonists' situation had become dire, so they asked for money from the colonial government to fund the purchase of arms for themselves, or to pay for arming local tribes that were loyal to the British, in order to defend their homes and settlements against further attack. The Assembly did not have the resources for such an expenditure, so it prepared the letter to the Governor, in which the Assembly asked the Governor to obtain funding from the Penn family for the defensive arms.

Remember that Pennsylvania contained a large number of Quakers and others who opposed armed conflict. Among these groups, opposition to such funding quickly arose. They advocated that peace could be achieved through negotiation and trade with the Native American tribes loyal to the French, rather than through armed aggression.

The sentence contained in the Assembly’s letter was meant as a derisive response to the pacifist. It was intended to challenge the notion that the survival of the liberty of the colonists could be allowed to hinge on the success of appeasing the enemy tribes. In fact, the proper way to read the quote would be to reconstruct it as follows:

Those who would buy temporary safety, and avoid defending their liberty, by appeasing the enemy, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Understood in this way, the statement by the Assembly is a declaration for the essential right or “liberty” of self-defense—individually and collectively—in a time of war. It is consistent with the position taken by Lincoln, FDR, and George W. Bush when our country has come under attack. Moreover, it is consistent with the swift, if not more extreme measures the Washington and Adams Administrations took in the face of potential civil war and war with France—and they were Founding Fathers. The statement does not defend neutering the ability of the country to defend itself, so some of us can rest at night believing that our phone calls to Europe, or our public library accounts, are secure from government surveillance to stop a wartime attack.

Just as I’ve said in prior posts that we need to grow-up and take responsibility for our selves and our communities if we are ever to dig ourselves out of the domestic whole we are in, we need to grow-up and realize that we are still at war. War requires sacrifice and a commitment to defend yourself, your neighbor and your country. That sacrifice and commitment means that sometimes you will need to take actions that would not be necessary or tolerated in peace time. If you are not willing to defend yourself, your neighbor or your nation in this way, then you deserve neither the liberty nor the safety you crave.

To those Representatives who voted to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, and to those who support them, I say “thank you, and keep up the fight.” To those who oppose reauthorization to protect an international phone call or library check-out you might make someday, I say “grow-up, and thank your lucky stars that our parents and grandparents weren’t this selfish.”